352

While he, Trump, Stormy Daniels, and her attorney haggle over the facts and their implications, what’s clear is that wether or not you take Cohen at his word, he’s in some trouble.

And it’s more or less impossible to maintain an internally consistent and logical story of what happened if you accept that both Trump and his legal team and Cohen and his own lawyer are saying.

1. Cohen insists that he made that $130 grand payment to Stormy Daniels from his own volition-and in no way at the request of Donald Trump.

2. Trump for his part insists he knew nothing about any of this.

3. But Trump is also denying that there was any sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels.

But 3 really problematizes 1: why did Cohen pay her $130 grand supposedly out of his own money if there was no affair?

Then there’s:

4. Trump’s Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said they’ve already won an arbitration case against Stormy Daniels.

But this totally contradicts 2 which is no doubt why Trump then got pissed off at Sanders. She let a major cat out of the bag.

As for Cohen, even if you choose to be most charitable to him-take him at his own word-based on his own history that may be too charitable-it’s highly problematic for him. 

Experts say the payment to Clifford could be a violation of election law. If Cohen paid out of his own money as stated, and intended to help the campaign, that would be an excessive contribution and illegal.

It’s an in kind contribution as well as excessive and illegal. Again that’s the most charitable view-taking him at his word. On the other hand, if Trump did make the payment himself:

If Trump paid the $130,000 out of his own funds, he would have had to disclose the payment, otherwise it could be construed as a knowing and willful violation of federal election law, which is a federal crime.”

Logically it defies belief that Cohen made this payment out of his own funds-much less without Trump’s knowledge, much less without there even having had been an affair. Now we have some possible empirical proof that it wasn’t out his own funds: Cohen was griping after the election that Trump hadn’t paid him back. 

Geez how many years has he known Trump and this is a surprise?

But Cohen-allegedly a licensed attorney since 1982-has painted himself into a corner that no matter what the facts, it looks bad for him. 

“A licensed attorney in New York since 1992, Cohen has painted himself into an ethical corner. When Trump was accused of a campaign-finance violation over the Daniels payment, Cohen insisted that “neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”

He later added that the money was his own, and that it came from his home equity account.

As a result of his effort to insulate Trump, Cohen is utterly exposed. First, if he is speaking truthfully that Trump had no knowledge of the payment, he signed a document on behalf of a client (and ostensibly binding the client) without either consulting with his client or securing his consent. That would be a clear ethical breach.

As noted above, it would also implicate him in an excessive and illegal in kind donation. Somehow this alleged attorney, who was been licensed since 1982 came up with an agreement that adds up to little more than ‘if you close your eyes, no one will see you.’

If the recent reports-noted above-that Cohen complained about not being paid by Trump are true it’s highly problematic for both of them. But if Cohen did this without Trump’s knowledge it could be fraud.

Cohen reportedly complained that the delay in paying off Daniels was due to the fact that he could not reach Trump and later complained that Trump never reimbursed him. Those statements, if true, are hopelessly confused. If he needed to speak with Trump (and did not) his own admission could be used against him. Rule 1.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct require conferral and communication with a client on such agreements.

Moreover, if he did not have Trump’s consent, his representations to Daniels would appear false and potentially fraudulent. If he expected reimbursement, his statements to the Federal Election Commission and others are factually and legally questionable. Rule 4.1 states, “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person.” Likewise, Rule 8.4(c) states that an attorney shall not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

Then there is the problem with an attorney raiding his home equity account to cover costs for a client. Attorneys are not supposed to intermingle personal and client funds. Cohen used a “Trump.org” email account to arrange this transaction, but said he used his own money to try to silence a potential embarrassment for a client.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-used-trump-org-email-stormy-daniels-arrangements-n855021

 

On Friday, NBC News reported Cohen used his Trump Organization email while negotiating with Clifford and arranging to wire funds for her silence, indicating Cohen may have been acting in an official capacity

 

“Rule 1.8(e) states clearly that “a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client” except contingency cases (not applicable here) or indigent client cases (certainly not applicable here).”

“There are also allegations that Cohen coerced or badgered Daniels into signing this agreement. That raises a host of other ethical and legal concerns, including Rule 3.4 on fairness to other parties (which includes the withholding of material information and using threats against an opposing party).”

“Finally, Cohen is reportedly shopping a book about his representation of Trump. That could run afoul of Rule 1.8 on conflicts of interest in negotiating literary or media rights on subject matters of representation.”

Cohen appears to have drifted well outside the navigational beacons for most lawyers in securing the Stormy Daniels deal. In the end, the real identity of Dennison and Peterson might not matter as much as who Cohen was, and what he was doing in the middle of this muddle of his own creation.

UPDATE: Not to too my own horn but my analysis here-that I wrote on March 9, 2018 has aged a lot better than the hot MSM take of the time-‘Big deal, the public knew ‘the President’ fooled around and they elected him-this is a one to two day story.’

In retrospect this media narrative has the convenience of not only being 180 degrees off but the opposite of what they said when they learned about Monica Lewinsky.

UPDATE 2.0: October 6, 2019.

Cohen would flip soon after and is now serving three years for crimes he committed at Trump’s direction and to Trump’s benefit-Chapter A for more.

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book