Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

[The Big Dog]

I've highlighted the key part:

The limited circumstances were met. There was also the fact that a lot of Cohen's bagwork for Trump was not covered by attorney-client privilege.

wait, you just said that my assertion about the duty of loyalty was silly, and then you represent to our fair readers that you are highlighting the key part, but then DO NOT highlight this:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."
ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that you are being gaslighted by our correspondent... sad...

 

[smartcooky]

Say, folks, here is a link to Post 972

You know the post that quotes another poster asking:

Where did he breach his fiduciary duty?​

and where the big dog answers that question in that post.

Folks our correspondent is "not in the least bit interested in whatever conversation you were having with someone else" and ONLY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN A POST that was a conversation with someone else.

Fellas, if someone wanted to post 17 laughing dog emojis, do you think that is

Enough____

Not Enough____

for this next level hilarious conversation??

Again, I WAS REPLYING TO (AND ONLY TO) WHAT YOU SAID IN POST #972

YOU did not say anything about fiduciary duty (jimbib did, but I wasn't addressing his post, I WAS ADDRESSING YOUR WORDS AND ONLY YOUR WORDS) which were....

Surreptitiously tape recording his client without their consent or disclosure
Breaching attorney client privilege without the clients' consent

Perhaps this os a concept that escapes you.... direct answers and evidence usually do.

 

[Belz...]

wait, you just said that my assertion about the duty of loyalty was silly, and then you represent to our fair readers that you are highlighting the key part, but then DO NOT highlight this:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."

And once again, you cherry pick the words and meanings you want, while ignoring the ones that are inconvenient to you.

 

[jimbob]

wait, you just said that my assertion about the duty of loyalty was silly, and then you represent to our fair readers that you are highlighting the key part, but then DO NOT highlight this:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."
ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that you are being gaslighted by our correspondent... sad...

During the period of representation.

Not when he's acting as a fixer and not a lawyer, a job we both agree he seems unsuited to.

Not when illegal acts are concerned.

It is a limited requirement like other professional requirements.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, YOU are the only one talking about your catchphrase of the week! Perhaps you need a reminder of what YOU POSTED and what I REPLIED to....

.

Again, I WAS REPLYING TO (AND ONLY TO) WHAT YOU SAID IN POST #972

YOU did not say anything about fiduciary duty (jimbib did, but I wasn't addressing his post, I WAS ADDRESSING YOUR WORDS AND ONLY YOUR WORDS) which were....

Perhaps this os a concept that escapes you.... direct answers and evidence usually do.

This whole discussion? Next stop, the GiggleSnort hotel!

So hilarious.

I give a direct answer to the question about what breaches of fiduciary duty, and our correspondent declares that no one else is talking about it.

Type more caps!

 

[The Big Dog]

During the period of representation.

Not when he's acting as a fixer and not a lawyer, a job we both agree he seems unsuited to.

Not when illegal acts are concerned.

It is a limited requirement like other professional requirements.

Hoo boy, you know that lawyers acting as lawyers representing clients sometimes get referred to as fixers? It is silly, and has no legal meaning, but there you have it

You also appear to be forgetting that the illegal acts you are referring to were COHEN's, and the fact he is trying to slime out from under them by betraying his oath and his clients does not ever change that.

 

[Belz...]

You also appear to be forgetting that the illegal acts you are referring to were COHEN's, and the fact he is trying to slime out from under them by betraying his oath and his clients does not ever change that.

Huh, so when Trump asks Cohen to do something illegal, he can't break confidentiality because the acts would be carried out by Cohen? Is that what you're going for? Think about it a bit longer before responding.

 

[jimbob]

Oh dear, recording client without notice or consent is a violation of the duty of loyalty.

The issue is not whether a court may find that they are not privileged, the issue is that it is not for the lawyer to decide that they were not privileged and offer them up as part of a pleas involving his own personal crimes that had nothing to do with Trump, which is exactly what he did. Resist until ordered to disclose, that is the lawyers' duty. This mutt was dead to rights on tax claims so he offered up his clients to take the heat off of himself.

That is exactly what lawyers should never do.

All that is covered in smartcooky's post below

<snip>

RULE 1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information, as defined in this Rule, or use such information to the disadvantage of a client or for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person, unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j);
(2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client and is either reasonable under the circumstances or customary in the professional community; or
(3) the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

“Confidential information” consists of information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the client has requested be kept confidential. “Confidential information” does not ordinarily include (i) a lawyer’s legal knowledge or legal research or (ii) information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates.
(b) A lawyer may reveal or use confidential information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime;(3) to withdraw a written or oral opinion or representation previously given by the lawyer and reasonably believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a third person, where the lawyer has discovered that the opinion or representation was based on materially inaccurate information or is being used to further a crime or fraud;(4) to secure legal advice about compliance with these Rules or other law by the lawyer, another lawyer associated with the lawyer’s firm or the law firm;
(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or(ii) to establish or collect a fee; or
(6) when permitted or required under these Rules or to comply with other law or court order.​

If y'all would like me to further explain how these apply to Cohen, his time as Trump's "lawyer/fixer" and his Congressional testimony, just say the word. I'm always happy to help.

Protip: before you post documents in support of your claim, it pays to actually read them first so that their content doesn't whip the rug out from under your feet.

or, as was prudent with Trump's track record

"(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or
(ii) to establish or collect a fee;"

Cohen was justified by those counts.

 

[The Big Dog]

All that is covered in smartcooky's post below

Cohen was justified by those counts.

Which I destroyed by pointing out that they are phrased in the present or future tense, read the thread

The fee thing? PROTIP: he betrayed his client before he filed his fee action.

Do our correspondents not understand the concept of TIME???

 

[Belz...]

Do our correspondents not understand the concept of TIME???

Who are you talking to? Jabba's neutral audience?

 

[jimbob]

Which I destroyed by pointing out that they are phrased in the present or future tense, read the thread

The fee thing? PROTIP: he betrayed his client before he filed his fee action.

Do our correspondents not understand the concept of TIME???

No, assuming for the sake of argument, that Cohen actually did some work that was defined as actual legal work and wasn't illegal, he would have had a duty to act in Trump's best interests (insofar as they were legal), but the clear implication of this part

"(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or
(ii) to establish or collect a fee;
"​

is that the lawyer is allowed to defend themselves against accusations of malpractice by their client.

For his non-legal work, Cohen would not be covered.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I get it, you have literally no idea what you were trying to say, it is fine.

I know exactly what I was "trying" to say, and it's still right there up-thread.

to make it absolutely obvious, discussions that do not involve a lawyer at all are not "a limit on attorney client privilege" because attorney client privilege does not apply in any way shape or form, and none of this has anything to do with Cohen at all, which i guess is my fault or something??

If you can't make a coherent argument for how Cohen betrayed his "fiduciary duty," yes, that's your fault or something. But you're just howling at the moon.

 

[Checkmite]

But the kicker, for me? "Finally, it is not up to Cohen to prove a communication was not covered by the privilege, it is up to Trump to prove that it was." Spit take.

"Only the holderof the privilege can waive it.3Thismeans that an attorney cannot waive the privilege on behalf of his or her client unless the clienthas authorized the disclosure.4Additionally, a former employee of a company cannot waive thecompany’s privilege after he has been terminated."

Exactly. Trump has to prove the hilighted actually happened. This includes proving that the disclosed information was ever privileged to begin with.

 

[Steve]

No.

You've been shown exactly why you're wrong. Be a man and admit it.

At Trump U everyone was taught to never admit error, no matter how idiotic it make you look

 

[smartcooky]

This whole discussion? Next stop, the GiggleSnort hotel!

Is that anything like Griftersnort hotel?

So hilarious.

You certainly have been so far

I give a direct answer to the question about what breaches of fiduciary duty....

....and within your answer were two statements you made which I knew were wrong, and that I called you on... and I used a document you linked (without reading) to prove you wrong.

The other parts of your answer I allowed to pass because was not interested in addressing them.

and our correspondent declares that no one else is talking about it.

Pants-on-fire! I made no such claim

I said....

"I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever conversation you were having with someone else"

Type more caps!

If you insist....

more caps!

 

[Craig4]

New: Lanny Davis confirms: Dem staff on House intel met with Michael Cohen in NYC four times before his testimony last week.

Coached the **** out him and then he lied. there is your collusion folks.

I expect all the leftists to accuse the Democrat party of having Cohen lie for them, right? Certainly there would be no double standards, right fellas???

What a rat ******

Really? May I see the copies of the transcripts of their conversations supporting this assertion? Or perhaps one of them wore a wire and you have recordings?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon.

So...what you're saying is that you're a witness who should testify under oath?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
If Schiff wasn't coaching Cohen on how to go after Trump before his testimony and was just going over procedural issues, why didn't he invite GOP staff to sit in on these secret meetings? Schiff must be recused from future hearings while Ethics investigates his witness tampering

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

“There’s not one shred of evidence that President Trump has done anything wrong.” @GrahamLedger One America News. So true, a total Witch Hunt - All started illegally by Crooked Hillary Clinton, the DNC and others!

 

[Norman Alexander]

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
If Schiff wasn't coaching Cohen on how to go after Trump before his testimony and was just going over procedural issues, why didn't he invite GOP staff to sit in on these secret meetings? Schiff must be recused from future hearings while Ethics investigates his witness tampering

I seriously doubt Trump has the time, inclination or frankly the intellect to go searching and reading his own twitter feed for these retweet-worthy missives and then setting them up. So just about EVERY @realDonaldTrump retweet is potentially from his PR/Communications/court-jester team, not Trump personally. Scratch those and his output becomes (a) much less, and (b) very revealing.