Cohen Puffs As Judge Fumes

download-1I have been a long critic of Michael Cohen, who has a reputation of a reckless and unprofessional lawyer.  Cohen could not have taken a more disastrous course for his client, Donald Trump, and he has maximized the potential costs for both himself and his client.  Now, as a judge was holding a hearing on his motion to protect his files, Cohen took upon himself to not only skip the hearing but sit outside in New York smoking a cigar. He even joked that he wanted the pictures snapped by the awaiting reporters.  The judge in the meantime was reportedly irritated by his absence at this critical hearing over his allegedly confidential files.

It was a telling moment for a lawyer who has consistently adopted the worst possible approach to legal controversies.  It is absolutely baffling why Cohen would want to telegraph to the court that he did not have anything better to do and simply used the time to smoke a cigar with friends.

So Cohen wants the judge to take extraordinary steps to protect his communications but it is not enough for him to actually take a 10 minute car ride to the courthouse to convey his respect for the court and the case.  As with many of his decisions, there is literally no positive element to this move.  He could have stayed inside his apartment or office during the hearing if he did not want to be in court.  Instead, he picked a public location with the knowledge that reporters were waiting outside.  He has achieved the impossible . . . he makes Stormy Daniels look  professional and deliberative by comparison.

Elizabeth Landers

@ElizLanders

Photo of Michael Cohen taken by my NY colleague Lawrence Crook- who reports that he’s sitting outside the Loews Regency now with a group of friends smoking cigars

It will remain a mystery to history why Trump did not sever Cohen months ago and continues to embrace him as he stumbling around tripping wires and maximizing the risks to Trump.

182 thoughts on “Cohen Puffs As Judge Fumes

  1. “his allegedly confidential files.” Aren’t they confidential till proven otherwise? So far not one example of anything proving otherwise has been made public. And it wasn’t just lawyer/client files that were taken, it was everything he had professional and personal. That’s a bit scary for happening here in America.

  2. “JUDGE: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?

    MAE WEST: I was doin’ my best to hide it.”

    From “My Little Chickadee” (1940)

  3. Bottom Line: The Deep State and its many dupes, dopes, and dummies supporting it throughout the US (with high concentrations in California, New York, and other high-tax, high-corruption environments), have not accepted the Will of the People. The People did NOT vote for the Deep State. They People voted AGAINST the Deep State. (This is where the popular “Drain the Swamp” theme came from.) Yet the Deep State and its sycophants continue to interfere in the government, seeking to destroy our liberties from within and without.

    • Ralph,

      Famous imaginary beasts….

      The Nemean Lion, The Chimera, The Kraken, Harpies and The Deep State.

      Cordially, Bill

      • Only dupes, dopes, or dummies who watch CNN, MSNBC, etc. can’t see the Deep State in operation. This is to be expected. They wouldn’t be duped, dopes, or dummies otherwise.

    • Trump has his own deep dirty swamp, including Wall Streeters. He himself has long been swimming in filth. And – the majority of voters cast their votes AGAINST Trump. Right now his disapproval rating is 53 percent.

      • Trump has his own deep dirty swamp, including Wall Streeters.

        The other day one of your confederates was telling me he had to go to Putin cronies for financing because American banks wouldn’t touch him. When you’ve got your story straight, let us know.

      • I wonder where you get the 53%. I thought Rasmussen was the only one that continued to do this type of polling on a regular basis. I think Trump’s approval rating

        Friday, April 13, 2018

        The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.

        The latest figures include 34% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -6. (See trends).

          • Wildbill, Rasmussen was right last election cycle and your preferred polling operations got it wrong. Why don’t you provide their numbers?

            It’s always wonderful when leftists so blatantly admit to their confirmation bias. When Obama’s numbers were the same as Trump’s at this portion of his term your “team” thought Obama was doing fantastic.

      • Wrong. Trump’s approval rating has risen to where Obama’s was at the end of 2009. That is, Trump’s approval rating today at the beginning of second year of his first term is exactly the same as Obama’s was. But, please go ahead with your lies. That’s all the left has.

  4. It will remain a mystery to history why Trump did not sever Cohen months ago

    Mr. Turley, sometimes you appear to be quite clueless. Not sure if it’s genuine or an act.

    There is no mystery here except to those who wish to remain blind, deaf, and dumb [in every sense of the word] in the service of Mr. Trump.

    Start here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consigliere

    • mo, JT has tried from every angle and crossed every T and dotted every I to throw shade on Trump, Naw, I don’t see it BS. Now I think that JT has seen how incompetent Trump and his cabal really are, and like so many others are jumping ship. He will post stories like this, but in a day or two, he will throw in a HRC post to rally the troops.

  5. Guys like the ones in the photo think they look cool, with their cigars and swag. They think they impress people, but they’re wrong. They’re just a pack of dicks.

    • Twitter folks posted a bunch of photos from Cohen’s outing yesterday that were hilarious. In one, a guy was carrying a NY Post whose headline contained the words, “The Don.” Real life is better than fiction.

      The pix looked like publicity shots from a Scorsese movie.

        • Since you have no information to show how much money he/she/it has, making such a statement shows YOU are not very smart. Nutacha is a “nutjob” who should not be taken seriously.

  6. The NYBAR should be taking the lead on ridding our profession of this awful excuse for an officer of the court. As for Cohen, I have three words for him “crime fraud exception”!

        • He’s an attorney. Anglo-American jurisprudence has this thing called ‘attorney-client privilege’. Trump is, btw, his major client.

            • Now they’re contending in court that they had to have his records because his side businesses are under investigation. Trump’s not a party to his side businesses.

              • It’s Nutchacha. He told Billy Bush you could get away with grabbing a woman’s genitals if you were a celebrity. Oh, and he called Rosie O”Donnell a fat pig. As far as she’s concerned, that’s a capital felony.

          • And ‘attorney-client privilege’ has this thing called ‘the exceptions to attorney-client privilege’.

            But you already know that…

            • …Always looking for ways to invade the attorney-client privilege if you think it might be a good talking point for the left. Civil liberties seem very unimportant to them.

  7. Vince Foster, the Clinton’s personal attorney, had a “meeting” with Hillary then he committed “Arkancide.”

    Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence and obstructed justice by applying BleachBit to 30,000 and other electronic data and equipment.

    These points and strategies are known to everyone including Cohen and Trump.

    Is it conceivable that they took no action to eradicate evidence of crimes and relied totally on attorney/client and executive privileges – that they left it all there for the taking by Mueller/FDNY?

    That would not have been very bright.

    • Vincent Foster committed suicide. The matter was investigated 4x by 4 different sets of investigators.

      • How many times were the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations “investigated?” You an still read accounts that claim that Oswald, Ray and Sirhan were the assassins.

          • “Fake History”

            is real.

            Think about it.

            What is the effect of living a lie? Don’t give it a thought and be at work by 8 am.

            Are Americans supposed to NOT KNOW that the “deep state” exists as dutiful “clockwork oranges?”

            You can take it to the bank that the “deep state” staged each and every one of those hits.

            • Oswald, Ray, and Sirhan were the assassins. Doesn’t matter what incantations you use, they were the assassins.

              • What is obvious is that you judge by rejecting evidence making you a massive contradiction. What is your motivation for perpetuating the “Big Lie?” What aspect of the truth do you fear? You and William Donovan, OSS, are most likely useful “patsies” as simple paid apologists or zealous volunteer “Intel” enthusiasts.

                The ER doctor at Parkland stated that he performed a tracheostomy in a bullet’s “entrance wound” in the front of JFK’s throat. The motorcycle cops behind JFK were splattered with brain matter from the front. Jackie crawled on the limo’s deck lid behind JFK to retrieve parts of his head. Case closed. Ray was “set up” as a useful idiot and malleable “patsy” using the CIA’s MO to the satisfaction of the King family. Case closed. RFK was shot at point blank range behind his right ear by the security guard who held his elbow while Sirhan (a mob race track worker) was moving excitedly in front of RFK’s entourage. Case closed. The Warren Commission, including Allen Dulles whom JFK strongly disliked and had recently and unceremoniously fired after the disastrous Bay of Pigs, engendered the “single-bullet” theory, which, according Dr. Humes who did the autopsy, “…made a u-turn in the President’s head.” . Case closed.

                • I’ve been through much of this before with George and others.
                  There’s no point in wasting time and bandwidth rehashing it all again.
                  There were initial reports that LBJ suffered a heart attack at the hospital after JFK was shot.
                  Either that initial report was incorrect, or you can run with a theory that they covered up LBJ’s heart attack.
                  There were also intial reports that a Secret Service agent was killed in the JFK shooting.
                  Either they covered that up, or the initial reports were wrong.
                  These early inaccuracies are common in breaking news stiries.
                  A few months ago, when there was a terrorist attack in New York involving the guy in a truck mowing people down, a police spokesman prefaced his statements by saying that this happened two hours earlier, and that the information we have at this point is preliminary and sunject to change.
                  That should go without saying, and it did go without saying over 50 years ago when JFK was shot.
                  If the doctor who made that “front entrance bullet wound ( based on a hectic 20 minite resucsitation effort that did not include examining or treating the wounds…..if he knew that some would “lock him into” that statement made in a press conference where reporters were firing several questions a minute…..the doctor ( who later agreed with the cinclusions of the autopsy) would have taken pains in that press conference to explain that JFK waa on his back the entire time, that that in trying to restore breathing, a heartbeat, and curculation, their focus was not standing around trying to figure out ballistic evidence.
                  Different doctors said different things, like “the entire right side of his head is gone…there’s nothing to work with here”.
                  With one exception, all of the 7-8 MDs treating JFK agreed with the autopsy reports.
                  Somehow, the only thing that gets mentioned is the initial statemeng of a doctors in a rushed press conference, right afted a rushed long-shot effort to save a mortally wounded patient.

                  • Thank you, Tom Nash. It’s good to know who the nutjobs are. Was Jackie’s reaction false too? She crawled back to the rear to pick up the remnants of her husband’s head. Did you also interview the motorcycle cops who were splattered with blood and brains from JFK in FRONT of them? Did you interview Dr. Humes about the “singe-bullet” making a “…U-turn in the President’s head?” What is your motivation for perpetuating a fraudulent cover-up?

                    • George, Walk us through again how JFK’s wounds were altered between Dallas and the Bethrsda autopsy, to throw of the autopsy resukts.
                      While you’re at it, look at the momemt of impact when the bullet hits JFK’s head….I think it’s frame #313 of the Zapruder film.
                      That frame, and subsequent frames, show the back of JFK’s head to be intact.

          • Nutjob, you obviously simply believe any crap the Deep State feeds you. You should learn to develop a questioning mind. A mind that does not question things is a programmed one, not a thinking one. RFK was definitely NOT the assassin. The assassin shot RFK within inches at an upward angle at the back of RFK’s head near his ear; while all witnesses placed Sirhan Sirhan at all times several feet in FRONT of RFK, and RFK at no time turned his back toward Sirhan Sirhan. Although there’s no question that Sirhan Sirhan fired shots. In fact, he fired all 8 shots in his gun. But NONE of those shots struck RFK. There was at least one other shooter and the shooter that blasted RFK’s brain from the back was never charged. Here some good videos that include statements from renowned coroner, Thomas Noguchi, and witnesses to the crime. Even if you have believed the official story you’re been told about RFK, a thinking person would watch and listen carefully to these videos and then recognize that there’s actually very little that you know about the crime. But, of course, you won’t watch them because you’re not a thinking person. You’re a programmed person.

          • @George April 14, 2018 at 1:30 PM
            “How many times were the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations ‘investigated?’ You an still read accounts that claim that Oswald, Ray and Sirhan were the assassins.”

            @Nutchacha is insufferable April 14, 2018 at 1:40 PM
            “Because Oswald, Ray, and Sirhan actually were the assassins.”

            @wildbill99 April 14, 2018 at 1:41 PM
            “I’ll take a leap of faith and guess that Nutchacha doesn’t buy into batshite crazy Youtube videos.”

            George,

            May I remind you that multitudes of people (including many commenters here) are either too lazy, lack the intellectual wherewithal, or are cognitive-dissonance-fearing authoritarian followers at risk of panic attacks should they ever look too closely at evidence that might threaten their faith in their authoritarian leaders.

            With regard to the guilt of James Earl Ray in the assassination of MLK, for example, there was a civil trial in Memphis, TN in 1999 whose outcome, although not widely reported on by the government-propaganda-disseminating Corporate Media, nonetheless has been public knowledge for some 18 years:

            “After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

            “In a press statement held the following day in Atlanta, Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict, saying ,Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict, saying , ‘There is abundant evidence of a major high- level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated our belief.

            “I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation.

            “The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.” [Emphasis added]
            http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial

            Anyone is free, of course, to just feeble-mindedly call those jurors “whacked out conspiracy theorists,” but then he’s also free to be recognized as someone too lazy, too dull, or too fearful to look at the evidence those jurors considered.

            • The civil trial was never contested.

              Ray hired a private criminal defense attorney of some reputation who negotiated a plea agreement for him, because the evidence against him was damning. Said attorney, one Percy Foreman, said when asked in later years that the idea his client was innocent was tommyrot.

              • Wait. You’re prevaricating on a thread about a “dirty”, incompetent attorney and you quote the attorney of a decidedly low budget and mischievous ne’er-do-well. Why did Foreman take the case; for Ray’s vast riches? Which is it? Are low-life attorneys low or not – maybe low, maybe high? I don’t trust Ray to trust or even know Ray and I certainly would never trust the attorney of a detestable offender like Ray. The King Family, by contrast, has a high degree of repute and its members believe that Ray did not commit the crime.

              • @Nutchacha is insufferable April 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM
                “Said attorney, one Percy Foreman, said when asked in later years that the idea his client was innocent was tommyrot.”

                Well, I guess your “tommyrot” proof pretty effectively nullifies a jury trial with 70 witnesses.

                I recommend keeping your day job at this point, “Nutchacha,” as your comedy routine definitely still needs a lot of work. 🙂

                • Seventy witnesses to what?

                  Coretta King professes to believe that there was some vast conspiracy between federal officials (which agencies), state officials (which state?) and local officials (where?) to off her husband for no discernible reason by subcontracting the job to some random convict who’d escaped from the Missouri state prison and whose most notable accomplishments in life were a brief stint in the military and learning how to tend bar.

                  • @Nutchacha is insufferable April 15, 2018 at 7:22 AM
                    “Seventy witnesses to what?”

                    Seventy witnesses to one or more aspects of the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King.

                    If you want testimonial details concerning the actions of many of the co-conspirators, including the provision and disposal of the rifle used to shoot King, as well as the identity of the shooter, you can easily find them in the transcript, linked to below.

                    Here’s an excerpt from the trial transcript denoting the jury’s findings:

                    “THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. I understand you reached a
                    verdict. Is that correct?
                    THE JURY: Yes (In unison).
                    THE COURT: May I have that verdict. (Verdict form passed to the Court.)
                    THE COURT: I have authorized this gentleman here to take one picture of
                    you which I’m going to have developed and make copies and send to you as I promised.
                    Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Let me ask you, do all of you agree with this verdict?
                    THE JURY: Yes (In unison).
                    THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. [Emphasis added] And the total amount of damages
                    you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?
                    THE JURY: Yes (In unison).
                    THE COURT: All right. I want to thank you ladies and gentlemen for your participation. It lasted a lot longer than we had originally predicted. In spite of that, you hung in there and you took your notes and you were alert all during the trial. And we appreciate it.”

                    http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/KING%20FAMILY%20TRIAL%20TRANSCRIPT.pdf

            • “Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?”

              “Christopher French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, explains…

              “The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases that characterize the way we process information. “Confirmation bias” is the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims.

              “Proportionality bias,” our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.”

              Scientific American

              IOW, It’s not George’s fault that he believes in whacky conspiracy theories.

              Cheers!

              • Yeah. Those folks are whacky who watch the Zapruder film showing them JFK’s hands first reaching up to his anterior throat then JFK’s head being blown off from the front to the rear and Jackie dutifully and irrationally crawling back to the rear of the limo to retrieve the remnants of her husband’s head, knowing he was going to need them. People can attempt to follow your convoluted nonsense or they can believe their eyes. I go with the latter. Why don’t we debate your motivations for attempting to defraud Americans? That’s the phenomenon in effect here. Here’s your line: Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

                P.S. You know Andy McCabe changed 302’s? That was SOP in the FBI investigation of the JFK assassination. Here’s a tip. Reality is real. Facts are real. Read the testimony of the witnesses. Dr. Humes, after his autopsy, said the Warren Commission’s “single-bullet” must have “…made a U-turn in the President’s head.” The “deep state” assassinated JFK and the “deep state” wrote the Warren Report. Your hyperbolic and convoluted prevarication is not dissimilar to the phantoms and ghosts you must be perceiving. It may benefit you to consult a professional.

              • @wildbill99 April 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM
                “Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?”

                Because people criminally conspire on a regular basis. I truly am embarrassed for you, here.

                Of the innumerable charges involving conspiracies to commit crimes regularly brought by US prosecutors, here’s only one that recently came to my attention via the TV program, “Nightline.”

                “And because of the taped confession, we now know the three co-conspirators divided up $100,000 the day after the murder.

                “Police have long suspected the [murdered] law professor’s former brother-in-law and his parents in the conspiracy, but the addition of the ex-wife in the new testimony has come as a surprise to many close to the case.”
                http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/New-Suspect-arrested-in-Dan-Markel-case-395541631.html

                “Types of conspiracy charges
                “It is a favorite statute for prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, who use the charge of conspiracy for various offenses. This is especially true for the traditional types of federal offenses, which are white collar fraud related cases and large drug trafficking cases.

                https://www.bing.com/search?q=types+of+conspiracy+charges&FORM=QSRE2

                You may also have heard the rumor that federal prosecutors are looking into a possible conspiracy between agents of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and agents of the Russian government, in order to influence the election in Mr. Trump’s favor.

                Have you heard anything like that?

                • Conspiracies happen.

                  Your assumption that because some conspiracies are real your whacky conspiracy theories concerning the JFK and MLK assassinations are grounded in anything other than malarkey is laughable.

                  Pro Tip: The Illuminati don’t exist.

          • “The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.”

            If you want an indicator that Coretta King was getting senile or was a lot dumber than anyone ever thought, this sentence should clinch it for you.

            • The MLK civil suit sought, and won, $100 in damages from the alleged co-conspirator of James Earl Ray.
              The defendant, an elderly man who didn’t bother to show up in court, had changed his story so many times that it was difficult to believe claims he made decades after the assassination.
              In the case of Oswald, there is a mountain of solid evidence that shows that he killed JFK, then officer Tippet about 45 minutes later.
              Then hit and tried to shoot a cop when he was arrested shortly afterward, with the gun that killed Officer Tippett, with fake ID.
              The way that Oswald is “cleared” by conspiracy theorists is to discard every piece of evidence against Oswald as” fake”, or “planted”, or “altered”.
              A willingness to dismiss all evidence
              demonstrating guilt, and going to great lengths to do it, would enable the exoneration of any individual charged with any crime.
              Part of the problem in the JFK case is that people have come out of the woodwork decades later to make this or that claim, often in contradiction to their statements made right after JFK was shot.
              There seems to be an overwhelming “need” to block out, of go to great lengths to discredit, all of the evidence that point to Oswald’s guilt.
              And latch on to every flimsy, complex explanation to clear him.
              The reason that people believe that Oswald is guilty is because he was guilty, and there is massive evidence that demonstrates his guilt.
              Any prosecutor would find it impossible to convict anyone if jury members rejected all evidence against a defendant as faked or planted.
              That’s why it is virtually impossible, and largely a waste of time, to try to convince those who believe that Oswald is innocent that he did in fact shoot JFK and Tippet.

            • I’ll add one suggestion: detective fiction turns on situational irony. The trouble is, that’s seldom present in violent crime in meatworld. True crime stories can be made interesting through the process of puzzle-solving, but there wasn’t much puzzle-solving in the assassination cases. Rather, the fascination can be in what ancillary data tells you about how it went down.

            • @wildbill99 April 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM
              “Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?”

              Are you confessing, then, that you reject out of hand all conspiracy theories, regardless of the quantity and quality of the evidence supporting them?

              • There isn’t any quality evidence supporting a conspiracy in any of these cases. Vulgarians pushing conspiracy theories pretty much traffick in collections of factoids.

                There are serious researchers who engage in inductive reasoning who are inclined to a conspirazoid interpretation (e.g. Josiah Thompson), but they cannot get to first base. Thompson’s thesis formulated nearly 50 years ago has been taken apart in the intervening decades.

                • Nutchacha is insufferable April 15, 2018 at 7:25 AM
                  “There isn’t any quality evidence supporting a conspiracy in any of these cases. Vulgarians pushing conspiracy theories pretty much traffick in collections of factoids.”

                  1) Your pridefully admitted ignorance of the overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of conspiracies in all four cases (JFK, RFK, MLK, and VF) vitiates that evidence as little as your evidently inflated self-regard.

                  2) Regarding vulgarians and factoids, not everyone can hope to be as classy and empirically philosophical as, say, you and President Trump, which is simply a bridge too far. 🙂

                  Speaking of being empirically philosophical, it’s worthy of note that until yesterday when the subject came up in this forum, I had more or less uncritically accepted the conclusion that Vince Foster had committed suicide.

                  As I looked into the question, however, it quickly became apparent that not only is there a lack of evidence to support that conclusion, but that there is, moreover, a plethora of evidence pointing to an official cover-up of his having been murdered.

                  Speaking only for myself, it hardly gives me any pleasure to be confronted with that evidence and forced to change my assessment of Foster’s death. On the contrary, it’s emotionally painful to have to acknowledge yet more compelling evidence of official perfidy and criminality.

                  I realize that many people understandably prefer to avoid such unpleasant knowledge altogether, but it’s obvious to me, at least, that their doing so only enables the perpetration of similar future crimes.

              • Just the whacky ones, especially those concerning the JFK, RFK, or MLK assassinations.

                Plus Birthers, Truthers and folks who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

      • Is it conceivable that they took no action to eradicate evidence of crimes and relied totally on attorney/client and executive privileges – that they left it all there for the taking by Mueller/FDNY?

      • Interesting that Hillary and her cohorts raided Foster’s office soon after he “committed suicide”! What were they looking for and what did they remove?

        • He committed suicide. There’s no question about that. His home doctor had written a scrip for anti-depressants some days earlier. His family back in Arkansas knew he was a mess.

          No clue why he did it. By all accounts, he was an odd man out in the Clinton White House, and it’s not clear why he agreed to work there, as it likely entailed a pay cut. The source of the personal association between the Fosters and the Clintons is murky. He was a partner in the Rose Firm alongside Hillary and Webb Hubbell and he’d grown up in Hope, Ark. (Clinton had lived in Hope as a small child, but for the most part grew up in Hot Springs). His family was part of the local patriciate. His schooling was atypical for a small town uber-provincial: out of state at fancy private institutions (Davidson College and Vanderbilt University). Per published reports, he was a very conscientious and detail-oriented person. Gary Aldrich, the FBI agent who spent two years trying to complete background investigations in that White House, has said that interviewing him was a radically different experience than the norm in the Clinton White House. He was button-down and co-operative. That configuration of characteristics is correlated with melancholy. Other accounts of his tenure say he was being asked to complete tasks outside of his skill set which he found distasteful. “Fix it, Vince!” Hillary would bark at him; she wanted a consigliere and he’s just not that guy. So, here you have this man where meticulous performance and haut bourgeois respectability are the sine qua non in a poisonous atmosphere. What’s peculiar is that he didn’t send out his vita to Little Rock law firms and go home. I’m wagering he figured what the future held for him was what eventually did happen to Webb Hubbell. The man had never failed at anything in his life, so wasn’t used to processing shame.

          We know that Hillary secreted Rose Firm billing records in the White House residence. We don’t know just why. That’s odoriferous. Starr’s team were for several years casting about for ways to break the McDougals and the Hubbells as witnesses. A tentative success with James McDougal came to naught when he died. We know that after he was disbarred, Webster Hubbell cleared $800,000 in ‘consulting fees’ in just eight months. We have reason to believe that the Clintons managed what Nixon and his camarilla couldn’t – to sluice the hush money in a way that the prosecutor couldn’t touch.

          • @Nutchacha is insufferable April 14, 2018 at 4:23 PM
            “He [Vince Foster] committed suicide. There’s no question about that. His home doctor had written a scrip [sic] for anti-depressants some days earlier. His family back in Arkansas knew he was a mess. No clue why he did it.”

            As Johnnie Carson used to say, “Now, that’s funny.

            What were you saying about Coretta King’s being senile? 🙂

            Actually, some clues aren’t that far to seek. If one has the mental energy, one can read Ken Starr’s leading prosecutor Miguel Rodrigues’ resignation letter in which he stated that important evidence against the suicide conclusion was being covered up and that others on Starr’s staff had actually attempted to intimidate him for following the evidence of its not being a suicide:

            “The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

            “ ‘At meetings and via memoranda, I specifically indicated my disagreement that there existed “overwhelming evidence” that Foster committed suicide where he was found at Ft. Marcy Park,’ Rodriguez wrote to Starr in his resignation letter.

            “‘New photographic evidence’ cited

            “Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

            “Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

            “Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

            “Four paramedics recalled seeing Foster’s neck wound when they had their memories ‘refreshed’ by ‘new photographic evidence,’ Rodriguez told Starr.

            “Rodriguez indicates the FBI had originally shown these witnesses ‘blurred and obscured blowups of copies of (Polaroid and 35mm) photographs.’

            “What the FBI had apparently done was to use a Polaroid camera to take pictures of the original Polaroid pictures, essentially producing blurry ‘copies of copies.’

            “The FBI claimed some of the original photos taken by Park Police had been under-exposed and were basically useless. But when Rodriguez found the original images buried in a file, he took them to an independent photo lab used by the Smithsonian Institute and had them enhanced.

            “He was astounded at what they showed. What had once been a blurred spot on the neck, possibly a blood stain as claimed by the FBI, was now clearly something much more.

            “One of the paramedics, Richard Arthur, described it as a bullet hole about the size of a .22-caliber round.

            Railroaded out of job

            “Rodriguez went on to explain in his resignation letter that immediately after he produced the new photographic evidence he came under personal attack by Starr’s staff.

            “ ‘After uncovering this information, among other facts, my own conduct was questioned and I was internally investigated,’ Rodriguez wrote. “I steadfastly maintained, and continue to maintain, that I, at all times, conducted myself as an experienced and trained prosecutor, with years of federal prosecutorial experience and federal grand jury experience.’ ”
            http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/vince-foster-suicide-shocker-2nd-wound-documented/

            Yes, yes, Mr. Rodriguez, and thank you for your service, but we don’t need no stinking evidence of a murder and a cover-up.

            • That’s nice. Did Rodrigques resign from Robert Fiske’s staff, the FBi, and the Park Police too?

              Actually, some clues aren’t that far to seek.

              And you proceed to name none of them.

              No clue why you find this so suspicious. A five digit population commit suicide every year. Foster was a white male around age 50, the most vulnerable demographic segment. And, of course, he’d been prescribed psychotropics.

                • I think he was given the scrip days earlier. Not sure if he’d taken any. It’s just an indicator that he was a mess at the time.

              • @Nutchacha is insufferable April 15, 2018 at 7:32 AM
                “That’s nice. Did Rodrigques resign from Robert Fiske’s staff, the FBi, [sic] and the
                “Park Police too?
                ” ‘Actually, some clues aren’t that far to seek. ‘
                “And you proceed to name none of them.
                “No clue why you find this so suspicious.”[sic]

                The appropriate word in this context is “suspect.”

                I provided a link to an extensive analysis of the preponderance of evidence against the suicide conclusion, including the neck wound which FBI agents attempted to conceal, and in addition to abundant other evidence of obstruction and a cover-up.

                I’m finding it increasingly hard to take you seriously, as you seem to have a pronounced aversion to looking at evidence, factual or testamentary, preferring instead, for example, to proffer ridiculously specious appeals to suicide statistics.

                I think it was you who said she husbands her time with respect to reading other comments.

                Well, I husband my time, too, and I have little to spare for engaging with people who prefer their own evidence-averse cognitive bubbles over seeking the truth, based on the available evidence, wherever that seeking may lead.

                I’m beginning to seriously suspect that you are consistently in that evidence-averse cohort.

                Are you? If so, you won’t bother yourself to look at the following, including the 21-page appendix that Starr didn’t want to include in his report, but which a federal court ordered him to include, anyway, notwithstanding its criticality.

                http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/vince-foster-suicide-shocker-2nd-wound-documented/

                • I provided a link to an extensive analysis of the preponderance of evidence against the suicide conclusion, including the neck wound which FBI agents attempted to conceal, and in addition to abundant other evidence of obstruction and a cover-up.

                  You provided nothing of the kind. And your whole thesis is paranoid tripe.

                  • @Nutchacha is insufferable April 15, 2018 at 3:38 PM
                    ” ‘I provided a link to an extensive analysis of the preponderance of evidence against the suicide conclusion, including the neck wound which FBI agents attempted to conceal, and in addition to abundant other evidence of obstruction and a cover-up.’ ”

                    “You provided nothing of the kind. And your whole thesis is paranoid tripe.”

                    Alright, then, you’ve convinced me that you’re intellectually bankrupt and virtually solipsistic.

  8. In trying to understand Cohen’s behavior, whether cavalier or deeply ill-advised, I suggest that it’s most helpful to remember the Get Out of Jail Card he never leaves home without, also referred to as a presidential pardon.

    • Yes, but we have it on the authority of the bwiliiant bwilliant ‘Justice Holmes’ that the Bar Associations in New York have material which will persuade the Appellate Division to disbar him and that there is evidence of ‘crime-fraud’ in his files. All kinds of frauds are to be found in the New York Penal Law. Federal executive clemency doesn’t save you from the machinations of state courts.

    • Ken, I don’t believe that will help Cohen in the event that he faces state charges.
      And I suspect that NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman can’t wait to bring those charges forward.

      There is also the political and legal ramifications for Trump if he starts pardoning potential witnesses against him.

      Have a great day.

      • Attorney General Eric Schneiderman can’t wait to bring those charges forward.

        When he’s done harassing crisis pregnancy centers. Depends on what gets him more mics.

  9. Cohen is a potential benchmark. If Trump can survive Cohen’s BS then the level of reprehensible behavior bar has just been raised to allow more slime to pass under, or lowered to allow more slime to pass over. Precedent is the issue. The greater the level of chaos created by Trump and his minions the greater the potential for chaos to be created. Chaos is the broadsword of the oligarch, dictator, omnipotent. Chaos in the Republican Party allows Trump to do what he wants. Buffoonery, lies, and slandering is the platform that Americans are accepting. The big difference is that previous Presidents made their gaffs, lies, and missteps as mistakes they tried to hide. Trump makes it all his signature and laughs about it. Pick your potentate.

    • Arguably he’s always been Trump’s indentured Fredo… They are toast. All this frenetic advice from Turley is for nowt. Trump is a grotesque almost cartoon crook and is admirably matched by Cohen. They deserve each other. Those with this kind of pathology eerily find each other across the ages and across the universe. Horrible and ugly atavistic bully- boys.

      • Arguably he’s always been Trump’s indentured Fredo…

        He’s under investigation (so the U.S. Attorney says) consequent to various businesses he owns. Can you all get your story straight?

        While we’re at it, he practiced law for 15 years before Trump hired him. Webster’s pro-tip: “always” does not mean ‘the last 10 years’.

    • From your lips to God’s ear.

      But I see Cohen closer to copping a plea the closer imprisonment looms…

      Just a hunch.

  10. Pretty simple. He had plenty of time to scrub his property of incriminating evidence and he did. The whole point of his motion was to have it make the news cycle. His work was complete. Screw the angry judge. And sitting there smoking his cigar in contempt for the system is just another photo op – which you have done your best to help disseminate.

    • Because search warrants never, ever produce useful evidence of crimes ?

      Really, why do they even bother…

      Cordially, Bill

  11. Cohen has da goods on T rump. T rump would be afraid to sever da ties. Cohen knows about da Russians hookers and all da porn star money.

  12. The judge in the meantime was reportedly irritated by his absence at this critical hearing over his allegedly confidential files.

    Mr. Cohen had counsel representing him. The implication of your remarks is that the judge will disregard the merits of the case and rule against Cohen because Cohen isn’t in the courtroom with his tail between his leg. Somehow, in your mind, that doesn’t count as ‘unprofessional behavior’ on the part of the judge.

    • Cohen’s attorney was making factual representations to Judge Wood. Judge Wood was questioning the source and accuracy of those representations, which were not backed up by any evidence. Cohen’s attorney could not or would not answer the Judge’s questions. Had Cohen been in the Courtroom, Cohen could have answered the Judge’s questions. Cohen was ordered to be in court on Monday so that he can provide the evidence needed by the Judge to rule on the issues that Cohen himself raised. It was pretty stupid for Cohen to be posing for photo ops while his attorney was in court across town

      • You mean people take pictures of him sitting on a bench and he’s ‘posing’?

        The implications of your remarks are the same as for Turley. You’re not rebuking the judge, you’re rebuking the plaintiff for not making gang signs to the judge. Bad culture.

        • Perhaps Cohen’s attorney thought that Cohen would make ” gang signals” to the judge. He’s oafish enough, after all. He’s Trump’s henchman and an exceedingly poor lawyer without any clients – except for Trump- and is arguably no more than Trump’s henchman at this point.

          • He’s made a satisfactory living as a lawyer in New York for 25 years, and practiced in various settings before Trump hired him about 10 years ago. If he actually were an ‘exceedingly poor lawyer’, he’d have quit practicing in 1994 and gone into some other line of work.

    • Thank you for clarifying. I was wondering if his counsel was at the hearing. Doesn’t an attorney for a defendant or even a petitioner, for that matter go to court on behalf of their clients (unless the client is ordered to be there and no waiver filed)? Why the double standard, ALWAYS?!!!

      Enjoy you cigar Mr. Cohen!

      • Cohen wasn’t smoking a cigar. His friends were. He obviously thought the Good fellas reunion was more important than being seen to understand decent behaviour. Ah well, he’ll be schooled in due course.

        • How is cooling his heels in Judge Wood’s courtroom being ‘seen to understand decent behavior’? Why is a group of ordinary men sitting around shooting the breeze to be equated with what gangsters do? Where did you acquire this bad attitude?

          • He should have been in court. In my country he’d have been done for contempt of court. He’s an arrogant ignoramus. Perhaps the pardon he expects is influencing his behaviour, but that won’t cut it in this court. He’s not with an ordinary group of men. Check them out- including the Deutsche bank crook, and the Russian apparatchik.

    • Yeah, Cohen was represented so why is this an issue? JT does not like Cohen and never seems to miss an opportunity to criticize him. If he has representation to argue the merits of his case and he is not required to be in court, so what? The guy went through a no-knock pajama raid to start the week so who can criticize him for chilling with a cigar on a Friday with his friends? Plus Cohen might have felt that his absence might allow the proceedings to be more about the merits than the circus following him.

      • Cohen is not Turley’s preferred image of a legal academic. There is a difference between academics and those that practice their craft in the marketplace.

        • Turley looks the other way when it comes to “slime ball” former student Avennati and never questions his motives (contingency fees? fame? notoriety for trying to take a president down), media blitz and kid gloves treatment by left media, why he is fronting so much investment in time, travel, hotels etc to hang out in MSNBC, CNN studios etc.

          • The MSM seems to financially survive off of “slime ball” tactics. Turley offers MSM a bit of credibility while losing some of his own.

        • I’ve been looking for a lawyer like Cohen.
          Any attorney who would pay hush money, out of his own pocket, to protect a client is my kind of guy.
          Even more altuistic than pro bono work, yet Cohen gets little or no credit. 😕😞

          • Cohen actually holds a salaried position in the Trump Organization. I assume that’s ‘part-time’ if he’s representing clients other than Trump and the Trump Organization.

          • @Tom Nash April 14, 2018 at 12:31 PM
            “I’ve been looking for a lawyer like Cohen. Any attorney who would pay hush money, out of his own pocket, to protect a client is my kind of guy.”

            It seems to me that Cohen could have saved himself and Trump a whole lot of trouble (and himself, money) if he’d just advised Trump to handle the Daniels business the way Bubba did regarding Monica L, , but while driving home the fact that he was at home in his own bed the night of her ridiculous allegation.

            You know, something like, “I did not have sleep with that Stormy woman, Daniels!”

            I think that would have satisfied at least that part of his base that he says would still support him if he gunned down someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight, and Cohen wouldn’t have needed to take out a second mortgage.

            I mean, if even Presidents of the United States aren’t able to learn from one another’s experiences, what hope is there for the rest of the country?

            • Ken Rogers,..
              – I think the concern was that the story about Stormy Daniels was likely to come out before the election.
              The payoff seems to have been made about the same time that the old NBC Trump/ Billy Bush tape ( “grab them by the pussy” tape) surfaced about a month before the election.
              I think that tape was about 10 years old, and “just happened” to be found right before the election.
              I’ll have to recheck the dates, but I think the concern in the Trump camp was that they didn’t want another issue with Stormy Daniels poppingup right before the election.

              • The tape was made in 2005. NBC sat on it and released it about 3 weeks before the election, indubitably timing it for what they thought would be maximum ill effect. The Los Angeles Times has for over a decade been sitting on a tape of Obama’s after dinner remarks honoring Rashid Khalidi. Membership has its privileges.

              • “I’ll have to recheck the dates, but I think the concern in the Trump camp was that they didn’t want another issue with Stormy Daniels poppingup right before the election.”

                I’m sure that’s the case, but according to Daniels herself, they didn’t spend the night together, so if he had carefully phrased his denial, the way Bubba did with Monica “I did cop a joint but I did not inhale” Lewinsky, there would have been no possibility of the denial’s being construed as being either untruthful or an unreported campaign donation.

                “I did not have sleep with that Stormy woman, Daniels” would have been the perfect ticket to ride to plausible deniability.

                Unlike Bubba Bill, Trump isn’t a lawyer trained in chicanery, and that’s where Cohen should have come in with something like my suggestion, instead of being about as useful as tits on a boar.

                • Ken Rogers,
                  .
                  Or Trump just could have said that it happened.
                  With two of the oldest candidates in history, Trump could have played up his encoubter(s) as evidence of his vigor and stamina.
                  JFK, despite some serious underlying illnesses, projected an image of vigor, virility, and stamina.
                  TRump might have gotten away with a 21st Century version of the vigor/stamina issue, which Kennedy could not publically boast of in the early 1960s.☺
                  All joking aside, I think the Access Hollywood tape did hurt him, did cost Trump some votes.
                  If the Stormy Daniels issue, in spite of denials by Trump, were to have surfaced at the same time, I think it may have tipped the scales.
                  The Lisa Bloom press cinference, a few days before the election, was to have been the final nail in Trump’s political coffin.
                  As it turned out, that farce probably helped him.
                  Hard to say what would have happened if Trump had, in Oct.2016, just denied the Stormy Daniels story, then that allrgation was paired with the Access Hollywood tape.

        • You can still practice law and maintain your integrity, despite the innumerable jokes we make about the profession.

          Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2

          • “You can still practice law and maintain your integrity”

            That might be the first accurate statement made by you in a long time. My point was that academics frequently think differently than non-academics in the same profession and despite how hard one tries biases get in the way.

            • I believe I have on several occassions made the indisputable point that Trump is a depraved and despicable lout.

              I guess you missed those.

              Have a great werk.

              • Wildbill writes: “I believe I have on several occassions made the indisputable point that Trump is a depraved and despicable lout.”

                Yes. You have said a lot of stupid things I wouldn’t be so quick to brag about.

    • You’d think that if the matter before the judge was important, Cohen would show up and at least pretend to be sincere and interested. The judge probably thought so, too.

  13. It’s not a mystery. Cohen is Trump’s “fixer”. With Cohen apparently having lied about not being in Prague in 2016, there is now evidence that Cohen may have “fixed” much more than the problems with Trump’s dalliances with the ladies here in the US. Can you say “co-conspirator “? They are joined at the hip forever. Why are you pretending otherwise? (Actually, that question almost answers itself. )

    • It’s also not a mystery that Cohen is not the brightest bulb on the tree. That may become even more apparent in Judge Wood’s courtroom on Monday. Wish I could be there to watch.

    • With Cohen apparently having lied about not being in Prague in 2016

      You take at face value press reports with anonymous sources. They one of your confederates here will turn around and say Mueller ‘doesn’t leak’. Either Mueller didn’t leak and it’s a bogus report or Mueller is leaking.

      Since Cohen has shown his passport to reporters and allowed them to photograph pages of it, any ‘evidence’ Mueller has would have to include that of false documentation.

      • You put great stock in your own version of events without even an anonymous source or three. Why don’t you admit that your prejudice is clouding your judgement too? ‘0)

        We don’t know who provided the information as to Cohen’s lies about not being in Prague, but you are happy to accuse Mueller of leaking. Historical analysis of Mueller’s investigation would suggest you could be wrong. Just saying…

        • Press leaks come all over the place. And they sometimes are done in a way to cause people to focus on things that don’t matter. For example, Cohen has now denied being in Prague. Ever. It’s possible that he is telling the truth on that narrow point. Perhaps there was a meeting elsewhere, not far from Prague. Perhaps Cohen knows that Mueller has evidence of a meeting elsewhere and leaked the story regarding a meeting in Prague so that Cohen could spin things his way by denying that he ever went to Prague. Or perhaps it is an untimely April Fools joke. While federal prosecutors do leak things, I think it unlikely that someone on the Mueller team deliberately leaked this. Especially if it is not true.

          • Again the press report says Mueller has the information. So, either Mueller and his staff are leaking, the newspapers are making declarative statements on the basis of 2d hand information, or the papers are making it up out of whole cloth.

                • Really? You mean the FBI executed a warrant on behalf of Rod Rosenstein in lieu of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and then they turn the information over to Mueller, even though Rosenstein’s vague commission to Mueller does not include investigating Cohen’s businesses (something we’re assured Mueller and Rosenstein agree on)?

        • We don’t know who provided the information as to Cohen’s lies a

          Again, the only contention he was there comes from anonymous sources referred to in the newspaper. You find that quite probative. Because dopey.

      • Nii said, “Either Mueller didn’t leak and it’s a bogus report or Mueller is leaking.”

        Cohen’s lawyer filed a motion to keep the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York from examining the material that the FBI seized from Cohen. Consequently, the US Attorney got Rosenstein to file a motion explaining why the US Attorney could examine the material the FBI seized from Cohen. Because Rosenstein’s motion was a public court filing, therefore the press reported on it.

        It is not a bogus report. Mueller did not leak. And you are officially on notice.

        I just out you on notice.

        • From an NPR article to which Peter Hill linked ua on the second page of the thread entitled “Bang, Bang, Boom . . . ”

          President Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen was the subject of a months-long criminal investigation before the FBI raided his home and office this week, according to court documents.

          Federal prosecutors made that disclosure on Friday in responding to a request by Cohen for a judge to restrict the government’s ability to review the evidence the FBI collected in those raids.

          Judge Kimba Wood shouldn’t agree, contended the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

          • Did anyone in the press write, “Michael Cohen was the subject of a months-long criminal investigation before the FBI raided his home and office this week, according to court documents.” before Mueller was involved? Now Mueller is involved and things are being released. I think Mueller sprung a leak just like Comey.

            I think someone should mail the Mueller team a box of depends.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s