Cohen Business Associate Flips and Agrees To Cooperate With Prosecutors [Updated]

EDCSBXWDGIE7FC7LWYPWRIRFXYMultiple defendant cases often resemble a lethal form of musical chairs as targets grab deals — leaving the loser still standing to face a full array of charges and cooperating witnesses.  Trump former counsel Michael D. Cohen must be feeling like the music is about to stop after his close business associate Evgeny A. Freidman decided to take a deal from prosecutors.  Freidman may be the only figure who could compete with Cohen on the higher Richter scale of sleaze. Update: Cohen denies that Freidman was ever this “partner” but does not address prior associations.

Called the the Taxi King, Freidman is a remarkably disreputable individual. It is always interesting how such characters tend to find each other.  Friedman was disbarred earlier this month and spent time in prison after an earlier arrest in Illinois (shown in the mugshot above).

Freidman came from a Jewish family in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States as political refugees in 1976.  He graduated from  Skidmore College in 1992 and received his J.D. degree from Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Freidman was an incredible success given his origins and eventually acquired 900 cabs by 2015.  His company is worth $120 million in 2009.

Cohen’s taxi medallion business is one of the areas of greatest scrutiny for federal prosecutors. The medallion business is known as one of the most corrupt in New York and has been the subject of repeated crackdowns.  Not surprisingly, Cohen was drawn to it.  Given their histories, I would be astonished if business deals involving both of these men did not ultimately involve a myriad of criminal allegations.  Some of these charges can be brought in the state system, as was Freidman’s plea. This means that Trump cannot entirely protect Cohen from jail time — a consideration that could push him to consider a deal himself with federal prosecutors.

Friedman was accused of failing to pay $5 million in taxes and was facing up to 25 years for criminal tax fraud and grand larceny. His deal allowed him to plead guilty to a single count of evading only $50,000 worth of taxes in exchange for his cooperation.  He will also face five years of probation.

Cohen got into the taxi business through marriage.  His father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, is a Ukrainian former taxi driver who acquired medallions.  When Cohen married his daughter Laura, he helped Cohen buy medallions.  Notably, Cohen’s father-in-law reportedly loaned $20 million to the wife of a Chicago cab mogul who was also named in the warrant the FBI used to raid Cohen’s office.  Shusterman gave the money to Yasya Shtayner, whose family owns Chicago Medallion Management Corp.

None of this is good for Cohen and it could prove equally bad for Trump.  As Cohen’s business dealings are scrutinized, there is a rising chance of both state and federal charges.  With his former business partner dodging 25 years, he had to promise something valuable. If not, there will be significant questions raised by prosecutors would give a sweetheart deal to a truly sleazy convicted felon.

With Cohen’s shady efforts to sell access to Trump, his seedy business associations speaks loudly about his character and ethics.  In the same vein, Trump’s association with Cohen will long taint his own legacy.

298 thoughts on “Cohen Business Associate Flips and Agrees To Cooperate With Prosecutors [Updated]”

  1. My point here is not to catalogue every piece of circumstantial evidence demonstrating impropriety. I’m surely missing some substantial threads. Rather, my goal is to illustrate why Crossfire Hurricane can no longer be assumed an apolitical and legitimate investigation. Those pointing out this reality are not Trump apologists: we are patriots.

  2. It almost looks like the FBI is targeting everyone around Trump for whatever crimes they can find that have nothing to do with alleged collusion with Russia. This almost looks like the Soviet Union. 😉

  3. For truly sleazy lawyers, stick with the tried and true: the Presstitute Spokesperson for the Anal Receptacle and the Presstitute Operator of Res ipsa loquitur.

  4. “Freidman may be the only figure who could compete with Cohen on the higher Richter scale of sleaze.”

    Trumps and Kushners are far more competitive than Freidman.

    1. Trumps and Kushners are far more competitive than Freidman.

      LOL! Perhaps, but it takes a whole other level of sleaze for Clinton to have been soundly rejected by 30 states and 58% of the electoral college. Damn, that doesn’t reflect well on the 20 states and about 3 million more voters that actually opted for her sleaziness.

      Anyway, your welcome! 🙂

      1. She won the popular vote by 3 million. And many of the states she was rejected by are mostly empty space.

          1. How sad that you are so lost in the fiction of Trump world. Hope you’ll be able to recover someday.

            1. Allen and others here do not like it, when facts get in the way of their opinion.

              1. I know when I’m expressing an opinion, which is mostly what I do here. But many of them clearly do not. Trump has exploited that to terrible effect.

                1. Why don’t you try adding a bit of fact to your opinion? Then it would have some meaning. Right now your opinion is worthless.

                2. Allen, I suspect, is a crusty senior in his 80’s. No one’s going to change his, hard-set opinions.

                  1. Peter, you guess about everything else and don’t bother to think. What would make anyone think that this conclusion of yours is any better than any of the past cr-p you have written? By the way, I have seen 80-year-olds, 90-year-olds and above and 10-year-olds make better arguments than you do.

                    You sound and act like a pansy in tights.

                    1. Allan – even a pansy in tights can make a decent argument. 😉

                    2. Yes, but in Peter’s case a decent argument is far too high a bar for him.

              2. Allen and others here do not like it, when facts get in the way of their opinion.

                I don’t believe anyone likes it when facts contradict their opinion. I certainly don’t. That however is not the problem. The problem is many people here lack the humility to accept facts and then change their opinion. GroupThink is a dangerous way for citizens to self-govern. Allen and many of those “others” you have allowed to take up space in your head are hardly in lockstep with each other.

                1. The word Groupthink itself describes how people are on this site when it comes to HRC and Trump.

                  1. Sure, but not everyone. This blog however would not survive if JT suddenly went full legal mode and stopped pandering to those in lockstep with one side or the other. The is a gladiator blog masquerading as a legal blog. I personally don’t find it entertaining.

                    1. Again, we CAN agree on some things. As for entertaining, this is why I joke sometimes. I have too otherwise I would be putting my liquor store owner grandkids thru college, as I did with his kids.

            2. No one won the popular vote. You and fishwings seem to be an equal bet on who didn’t pass 3rd grade.

                1. FishWings. I sometimes come on here, in part, to provoke people [not proud of it]. But it’s just becoming too much to subject myself to. So I’m going to work on weaning myself off this Cuckoo’s Nest. Good luck to you!

                  1. ” In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolution act” G. Orwell.

                    1. And Orwell is the guy to read at this particular juncture in history. Good bye and good luck 🙂

                2. Stupidity seems to be your ultimate goal in life. No one won the popular vote. Everyone was below 50%.

                  1. Hillary still received 3 million more votes than your President. That is a fact. Not able to cope with truth and reality when it conflicts with his view of being all-powerful and successful, your President insisted that there widespread voter fraud, with millions of illegal votes cast for Hillary and he’d do something about it. We’re still waiting. Crickets.

                    1. “Hillary still received 3 million more votes than your President.”

                      That may be true, but that was not the question at hand. Furthermore, the important thing is who wins the electoral vote. That was won by Trump. You can accept Trump won and work towards the world you wish to see or you join HRC and cry in the bathtub that life isn’t fair.

                      The President has done plenty and maybe in the next year when the actions of the Obama administration are completely exposed he will be able to do something that ensures one vote for one legal voting citizen.

                    2. and maybe in the next year when the actions of the Obama administration are completely exposed he will be able to do something that ensures one vote for one legal voting citizen.

                      Oh no! I believe that is precisely the sort of action anon feared would upset their democratic norms

                1. So far Midsummer you haven’t provided data to go along with your opinion or criticism. That is OK but by the third grade, I started teaching my kids things it seems you don’t yet know.

              1. Allan, that’s a remarkably asinine assertion on it’s face.

                Care to explain?

          2. Please post more materials like this.

            referring to allan’s alternative “vote” thingy

            1. Mark, Just a point of fact, something you know little about. The voting thingy is the electoral college. Look it up and learn what counts. Electoral is filed under the letter E.

              What a dufus.

        1. She won the popular vote by 3 million. And many of the states she was rejected by are mostly empty space.

          How inept then must the Clinton campaign and the entire DNC be to have lost an election to mostly empty space. Must be that the mostly empty space on the Democrat side of the ledger was between their ears.

      2. Irrelevant. Kellyanne pivot is now considered comically juvenile and woefully inadequate. It looks good on you though.

        this is to “even I know this is a ridiculous response” olly

        1. Irrelevant, as in, my brain lacks the capacity to counter the point, so I’ll just resort to some flip response that seems amusing.

          There, fixed it for you. And again, your welcome.

      3. Is, “What about Hillary?” supposed to be some magic bullet that strikes deadly every time? It amazes me that people use that comment here, on a daily basis, as though it’s a fresh thought.



    Trump supporters are outraged that the FBI felt concerned enough to have an informant look at the Trump campaign. Yet revelations continue streaming forth regarding people in Trump’s circle. These revelations are not likely to stop. Michael Cohen, in particular, is likely to generate negative headlines for some time.

    When one considers that Trump was Cohen’s primary client, everything about Michael Cohen reflects on Donald Trump. Investigating the Mueller Probe will not change the fact that Trump’s main lawyer was a hustler on the make.

    1. Gee, do you think that the sleazebag lawyer who used to be Trump’s fixer has any interesting nuggets to share about his master? Pass the popcorn…

    2. Trump supporters are outraged that the FBI felt concerned enough to have an informant look at the Trump campaign.

      Informant? That’s what you’re going with? While I have no problem with the FBI investigating crimes, I do have a huge problem with them planting spies looking for any crime inside the campaign of the leading candidate for President from one party and completely whiffing on an investigation of known crimes (with evidence) of the leading candidate in the opposition party. If that’s your definition of justice, then you’ll have absolutely no problem using that lawfare against any political opponent.

      Damn, welcome to 3rd world politics. Make sure you lobby for gun confiscation and free speech bans in order to package this up nice and tidy for whatever tyrant takes the reins.

      1. “While I have no problem with the FBI investigating crimes”

        It looks like you do have a problem with this or you wouldn’t be signing on to the Witch Hunt conspiracy theories put out by an increasingly desperate Trump.

        1. Midsummer, You must not have read any of the memo’s, emails. and other papers that have been released. Where have you been?

          1. In the three dimensional world of reality. Devin Nunes, Alex Jones, Jim Jordan, Sean Hannity, etc don’t live there so I don’t intersect with them.

            I’m waiting for the Senate Intel report and the Mueller report. That’s it.

            1. In other words, you are waiting for reports that agree with what you have been told. You are unable to use your own intellect and think for yourself.

            2. I’m waiting for the Senate Intel report and the Mueller report. That’s it.

              Really!? You may want to inform the other personalities in your head that aren’t so inclined to wait.

              1. The preliminary Senate Intel Report was released last week. And it contradicted the House report.

                1. The reports weren’t identical, nor should they be, but on what substantial point do you think it contradicted the House report? Be careful. The Washington Post selectively cuts their quotes and lets you the reader fall into the holes.

        2. It looks like you do have a problem with this or you wouldn’t be signing on to the Witch Hunt conspiracy theories put out by an increasingly desperate Trump.

          What is your evidence I’ve signed on to anything other than the rule of law? Is it not rational to desire our DOJ prosecute all among the political class who have violated the law, and not just those who align with one political party or another? If your knee-jerk response to that question is not yes, then you’re just the useful idiot the administrative state needs.

    3. It is rapidly becoming clear that Trump is totally innocent of all charges but the Obama administration was guilty of weaponizing the DOJ, FBI, IRS, possibly the CIA and other departments of government.

      Trump has virtually reversed almost all of Obama’s legacy. A legacy is important to ex-presidents. Reagan had his ‘Tear down that wall’. What will Obama have?

      1. “It is rapidly becoming clear that Trump is totally innocent of all charges but the Obama administration was guilty of weaponizing the DOJ, FBI, IRS, possibly the CIA and other departments of government.”

        It’s both hilarious and sad to see what Trump has done to people’s brains, and deeply tragic watching what he is doing to the country. Everything Trump touches does indeed die.

        1. “It’s both hilarious and sad to see what Trump has done to people’s brains”

          Listen to yourself! Your responses are so vacuous that you can’t even put a sentence together that addresses a range of facts involving Trump. Pure TDS on your part.

          1. I’m gonna guess that you get your “facts” from Sean Hannity. So, sit down.

            1. What a stupid reply. I read. That is something you should learn to do. Try reading some of the primary sources. Go to the dictionary to find out what a primary source is. Didn’t you have any education?

            2. Midsummer night – I get all my news from CNN and MSNBC. That is why my arguments are so coherent.

              1. Paul, I’m sure you’re being sarcastic here. But for the record, cable is a poor source of news. Too many commercials. It’s hard to really explore issues with breaks every 5 minutes.

  6. It appears Cohen is possibly playing Avenatti in sleazier ways than his anal queen client can possibly muster

    “In a letter to U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood on Tuesday, Avenatti states that he has “reason to believe” that Cohen or members of his team are leaking the recordings and that the recordings may be related to Daniels.

    “We think that these select leaks are meant to paint a false narrative relating to Mr. Cohen and his business dealings at the same time he is not disclosing numerous other recordings of him speaking with individuals such as Mr. Trump,” the letter states.”

    Clearly Cohen is pushing back on the mocked legal system that few seem to respect anymore. ergo, Judge Kimba Wood is worse than Stormy Daniels

    1. Let’s see if the legal establishment rushes to Cohen’s defense. But don’t get your hopes too high.

        1. The lame accusation!

          I disagree with you so it logically follows that I must be on the payroll of the Bogeyman…..

          1. Would anyone be attacking Trump if Hillary didn’t pay them? Of course not! Every real American naturally supports Trump. But the mainstream media tries to cover that up.

  7. Professor, your flippant comment that, “Cohen’s taxi medallion business is one of the areas of greatest scrutiny for federal prosecutors. The business is known as one of the most corrupt in New York,” is off base and unfair to the over 6,000 immigrant medallion owners who have used the taxi business to bootstrap to middle class status-only to watch as the city regulators allowed Uber to come in with no barrier to entry and undermine the value of the taxi medallion. ( ; and, )

    Whatever Cohen has done-and Gene Friedman is certainly no knight in shining armor-should not be a reflection on those who drove 18 hours a day in order to save up to purchase a medallion. Don’t let this reflect on your otherwise trenchant legal analysis.

    1. “trenchant legal analysis”? — This is a gossip column masquerading as a legal blog — just the latest hit-piece on Cohen, disguised as a piece about Friedman.

      It’s not like any of Friedman’s exploits would be of interest to Turley if he couldn’t connect it to Cohen. And it’s not as if Cohen’s exploits would be of interest to Turley if he couldn’t connect it to Trump.

      Bottom line, this is a ricochet trick-shot, with the bullet intended to glance off Friedman, then wing Cohen before striking Trump — and the taxi stuff you’re rightfully complaining about is just collateral damage about which Turley cares not one bit.

      1. Should Professor Turley pander to Trumpers and only feature stories about ‘Clinton corruption’?

        1. Well, since that’s not even remotely what I said, or even implied — and since no reasonable person would suggest that that’s what I said or implied, I’d recommend that you go back to watching cartoons.

          1. William, your comments here as over-the-top as cartoons. So don’t pretend you were coming from a ‘reasonable’ perspective’.

            Obviously it upsets you that the professor is reporting on corruption indirectly linked to Donald Trump. So here you are attacking this blog as a “gossip column” and “hit piece”. One could discern, at a glance, that you expect the professor to withhold any negative coverage regarding Donald Trump.

            1. Again, you’re pretending to read my mind while putting things in it that aren’t there. You aren’t NEARLY sophisticated enough, or intellectually honest enough, to figure out my thinking or what I’m saying.
              And it IS a gossip column and a hit piece. If you can’t recognize that, that’s your problem, not mine.
              See, this is typical of you democrat trolls. You can’t address the subject matter so you attack the commenter.
              Keep up the good work. Why change an effective political strategy? “Hillary in a landslide.”

              1. William, your thinking is pretty clear. You believe the professor should take a loyalty oath to Donald Trump.

        2. There is another option. He could pander to the rule of law crowd. That way he’d not be pressing on the scales supporting either those Trumpers as you call them, or the Clintonistas,as they’ve been called. Instead he would be supporting folks like myself that just want no one held above the law. That’s called Justice. I realize that won’t suit your Lawfare model, but seriously, do you really want a government that is weaponized against it’s citizens and political opponents?

          1. OLLY, please read your last sentence again to yourself. And then read what Trump is doing right now.

            1. Okay, I’ve reread my last sentence. Now what evidence do you have that President Trump has weaponized our government agencies against our citizens and his political opponents?

              I’ll wait.

                1. Absolutely Prairie Rose. Those that don’t see it are either ignorant to it, apathetic towards it, or dependent on it. My guess is all 3. No one in their right mind would support it, unless they aspired to be a part of the political class.

              1. OLLY, calling for new investigations into HRC would make the cut, then again you also have Trump demanding from the postmaster general new rates for Amazon. His I do hereby demand. Tapping Trump tower? His attack on his own appointees? Everyone he appointed on his cabinet has worked against the very agencies they are to represent. Interior, Health and human resources, FCC, the first amendment etc etc. His oath to protect the constitution. OLLY I know your’e smarter then to ask that question, and has he already weaponized the Presidency itself to anything at all that proves or will prove that he is unfit and corrupt? FAKE NEWS? If the man is innocent of these charges then he has nothing to worry about does he? And please don’t pick out a word or two and say I didn’t prove anything. I know you and others on this site say see, see he can’t do it. You know what I mean by these statements, don’t try to pick nat shit out of pepper.

                1. You know what I mean by these statements, don’t try to pick nat shit out of pepper.

                  Words matter and when I don’t understand, I’ll ask for clarity. I understand it can be difficult to put in writing the thoughts and emotions that I have rummaging around in my head. That difficulty however is my problem. All of us have the same challenge.

                  I know you and others…

                  That’s an absolutely weak preface to what inevitably becomes a generalized attack. I’ve done it when I’m too lazy to be precise in my comments. If you lack something specifically that I’ve said that you want to challenge, then stop filling space with comments so general as to become meaningless.

                  This government was weaponized long before President Trump took office. As far as going against his own agencies; what has he done; be specific, that violates his oath, the law, and separation of powers?

                  1. Emoluments Clause. Number 1 and that’s a big one right there.

                    1. Emoluments Clause.

                      That would be great if they wanted to impeach him on that clause. I can only imagine the number of House and Senate members that would have to recuse themselves. I know, that’s crazy talk. No one in congress is for sale. They’ve all gotten rich by simply making wise investment decisions; and by wise, I mean they would never use insider information to advance their portfolios.

                      Oh, sarc off/

                    2. Emoluments Clause. Number 1 and that’s a big one right there.

                      That’s a nothing, which is why the academic lawfare artists have laid that aside.

                2. “OLLY, calling for new investigations into HRC would make the cut,”

                  How is that weaponizing the government? It is transparent and it is dealing openly with a legitimate complaint that has not yet been adequately resolved. We have people in jail today for the same category of things Hillary is accused of doing. Calling for an investigation is quite different than what we have been seeing. In fact, some of the people involved in the investigation of Clinton have been fired and might even end up being prosecuted for their actions that became political.

                  1. How is that weaponizing the government?

                    Because Democratic pols get one free round with the Bleachbit. It’s just courtesy.

                  2. Haha; nice. I hope you’re not waiting for that to happen. I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but, grand juries make decision based on “evidence” which is often referred to as “facts.” Although probably not too clear from your seat, the shrill screechings of Pravda Faux News babblers aren’t even remotely related to “facts” or “evidence.” So sorry for your loss.

                    this is to “but hannity pinky-swore that hillary was a baddy-bad” allan

                    1. Marky Mark Mark – you are telling only less than half the story. The grand jury votes on a true bill based on the evidence presented by the prosecution only. There are no exculpatory facts allowed and only enough evidence is used to get the indictment. There is no cross-examination of the witnesses and the grand jury is at the mercy of the prosecutor who is delivering the evidence and witnesses. Now, once in a while you will get a grand jury who asks for more information or evidence, but most would indict a ham sandwich. And once in a while, you will get a panel that refuses to vote a true bill.

                      Marky Mark Mark, you really need to get on a petit or grand jury someday, it will do your clients a world of good.

                  3. Allan,
                    Of course it’s a weaponization of our justice system. It’s political profiling, and Bastiat points out quite well the consequences of this injustice:

                    No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

                    The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it.

                    The evidence of that bolded text is found among those in this blog that openly defend Clinton and others because they have not been indicted. In their mind, no indictment = justice served. Move along, nothing to see here. They’ve lost their moral sense, while the rest of us have lost our respect for the law.

          2. Your entire premise is “insincere” to say the least. The pivot to whatever you and Hannity believe that Hillary did fails to address the reality that the day glo bozo is the current President, one whose utter unsuitability for the position and inability to competently perform the job duties of the position under any rational moral, ethical or cognitive analysis is revealed hourly on a continuing basis. That you, and your ilk would sell out our country for some short-term political “gain” (as if Gorsuch would ever overrule Roe, lol) by failing to publicly acknowledge that the buffoon-in-chief is a mortal peril to the health, safety and viability of our republic is sickening, and the sole generator of the utter contempt that all patriots rightfully feel for you enablers of the cabal of bumbling, malevolent idiots now infesting the White House.

            this is to “call a spade a spade” olly

            1. is a mortal peril to the health, safety and viability of our republic

              How do you measure that? And btw, Justice Gorsuch is a long-term gain for our republic.

              Your welcome.

              1. The second time on one page, I’ll edit gratis.

                Replace “Your” with “You’re” hereafter please.

                1. Thanks. I wish I could say that will be my last typo, but it won’t be. In the future, if I’ve made some form of grammatical error, just point it out if you need clarity on my intent.

        3. Turley doesn’t have to pander to anyone unless his TV appearances and op-ed pieces payments are based on his tending toward the anti-Trump side while acting as a recognized civil libertarian.

        1. Stormy Daniels can shoot a dozen with her pink puzzy so there you go

        2. Three cushion billiards is probably a better analogy than my ricochet trick-shot with a bullet, but billiards is considered a gentleman’s game (or so I’ve been told), whereas my analogy as the flavor of a cheap carnival act, and that’s really how I see this disgusting piece. Seems like every time I come back to this blog, it’s gotten stupider than the last time I was here — less a legal blog than a seedy carnival act.

              1. William Bayer – now William, that is not fair, you used more words than David. He will not be able to finish the sentence. 😉

                1. And that’s the sort of fluff that Turley should stick to instead of pretending to provide legal analysis or insight.

                  Turley should just stick with going through the local police blotter and writing about funny crimes.
                  The rest of what he’s been writing is worse than trash.

                  Of course there’s another article coming — his articles in The Hill are on delayed publication for this own website. It’s titled “FBI source in Russia probe raises alarms over political surveillance” and there’s virtually ZERO law mentioned in it — just a shallow recitation of presumed facts that are covered elsewhere with more facts and better analysis. But Turley does his impression of a “civil libertarian” pretending to be concerned about serious stuff. But it’s just an impression, as he proves time and time again when he returns to his own gossip-column blog.

                  You want to read a very good article, Paul? — an article that covers some legal issues the way Turley used to before he became a gossip columnist?

                  Check out the article at The Federalist by Margot Cleveland titled “The Public Evidence About Crossfire Hurricane Demands A Full Investigation, Stat”


                  1. “Turley should just stick with going through the local police blotter and writing about funny crimes.
                    The rest of what he’s been writing is worse than trash.”

                    Agreed. JT is no different than Fox News and CNN…

                  2. William Bayer – thanks for the article. 🙂 It is all bubbling to the surface.

                    1. Sadly, that’s the sort of stuff that Turley used to write, before he became Turley, Inc., cranking out what The Hill wants for The Hill (lame and shallow), cranking out what USA Turday wants for USA Turday (lamer and shallower), an what the WaPo wants for the WaPo (blithering nonsense). There’s one other decent writer at The Federalist who does good legal analysis, well written. Can’t think of his name. Dark hair, maybe 45, on the heavy side.

              2. Why are you here, William, if Professor Turley offends you so much?

                Are you a self flagellant?

            1. David Benson – owes me a citation from the OED. Are you capable of writing a response of more than 50 words? Your usual comment is less than 7 and even at your longest, I do not think I have seen you hit fifty, much less one hundred. Longer posts will keep your brain active. 😉

          1. William Bayer – come on, you didn’t like the article about the guys dragging the shed away. That is a classic. 😉

      2. Hit piece on Cohen?

        That fine exemplar of the legal profession?

        Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

        Good one, William.

  8. Muler should investigate if Trump got kick-backs from Cohen’s taxi medallion dealings. Has Muler investigation and its tenacles jumped the shark yet? Looks like barnstorming shark-jumping circus act.

    1. But Republicans will probably demand an investigation as to whether **Hillary** got kickbacks from Cohen’s taxi medallion dealings . Or whether she had secret emails about taxi medallions. Or whether she sold taxi medallions to the Russians. Or whether she arranged for people to donate taxi medallions to the Clinton Foundation. Or whether she and Bill had taxi medallion owners bumped off…… Or, etc. etc. etc.

        1. Gee, if I were a “covert operative,” shouldn’t I at least get paid?

  9. Fortunately seismologists no longer use the Richter scale.

    1. The Rorschach scale? The Fujita scale? The well-tempered scale? The thumb-on-the scale? What do seismologists use these days? The “did the earth move for you?” scale?

  10. The available precis on this Friedman fellow is that he’s a chronic deadbeat. Also that he was disbarred for failure to respond to a suspension order and suspended from the bar for failure to produce documentation as ordered in the course of a disciplinary matter. IOW, he’s a man who ignores obligations when it suits him. Supposedly, Cohen subcontracted the management of cab fleets for which he (Cohen) owned the medallions. That seems like an imprudent thing to do given that Friedman runs such a sloppy operation, but I’m not seeing the ethical violation incorporated into that except if Cohen was well aware that Friedman might stiff employees, suppliers or the tax collector.

    1. “… except if Cohen was well aware that Friedman might stiff employees, suppliers or the tax collector.”

      Oddly, if I’m not mistaken, stiffing employees, suppliers, AND the tax collector are all allegations that have been leveled against Turley’s friend and former pupil, Avenatti.

      Still curious about why Turley left that information out of his previously-published Avenatti resume and hasn’t found any of that conduct grist for his daily blog mill.

        1. Ya know, I was following you right up to the bit where you took a shot at an entire generation of people — Baby Boomers — as if they’re all alike, the same way that democrats think all black people are alike, or all Hispanics are alike, etc., simply because it’s politically convenient to think that way and treat others that way.

          1. Generalizing based on one descriptive modifier? You mean like “ conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, attorney, politician”? Perish the thought

            You are suggesting the ruination of a lucrative industry that villifies and demonizes others based on that one salient modifier.

            Take it Bill Kristol

            Three Boomer Presidents are Enough

            Baby Boomers are the greediest most self absorbed generation ever.

            1. LOL — Bill Kristol — You must be the only person that pays attention to that clown. The guy who’s always wrong about everything, any he’s the one you take tips from concerning how to think? LOL LOL LOL

              Here’s a tip. I don’t expect you to understand it, much less agree with it, but people are individuals. All black people are not alike. All women are not alike. All gay people are not alike. All Hispanics are not alike.

              And any of the herd-labels you have been mind-conditioned to subscribe to, and someday — if you ever decide to start living in the real world — you might find that all of the members of the herds that you’ve grouped people into are actually individuals, notwithstanding the extent to which you’ve allowed the media and politicians to brainwash you into thinking otherwise.

              1. Thinking in a reasonable manner, William, will hurt your standing with fellow trumpets.

  11. With Cohen’s shady efforts to sell access to Trump, his seedy business associations speaks loudly about his character and ethics.

    The substance of your remarks above is that he had some sort of contractual relationship with a man who owes back taxes and apparently committed a criminal violation in the course of stiffing the Treasury. Unless the tax liens applied to both men or to a corporation they jointly owned, I’m not seeing how this is Cohen’s problem (or constitutes an ethical violation on his part). Cohen’s alleged influence-peddling is certainly an ethical issue (and may incorporate criminal violations as well), but that’s not this other man’s issue.

    1. The prosecutors in the Mueller investigation would seem to disagree with you. He’s flipped, and they must be getting some seriously useful information from him to further their investigation to cut him a deal.

      1. You say Friedman has “flipped” — how so? Because Turley said that? But where does Turley present even a single statement of fact to support that assertion? Nowhere that I read.

        The only statement of FACT I read about that issue here is that “Freidman decided to take a deal from prosecutors.”

        The body of this hit-piece says nothing about “flipping” or assisting Mueller or offering any form of cooperation. The disreputable media said the same thing about every person that has accepted a plea deal from Mueller, but I’ve yet to hear or read anything about anyone providing Mueller with ANY information helpful in Mueller’s investigation or prosecution of anyone else.

        This piece is a bottom-of-the-barrel hit-piece which actually resembles a HATE piece, with statements such as “Freidman may be the only figure who could compete with Cohen on the higher Richter scale of sleaze.”

        That’s a ridiculous, non-objective bit of trash-talking on it’s own, and especially so in comparison with a few pieces of scum that Turley hasn’t called scum, such as Turley’s buddy, Avenatti, who apparently traffics in stolen Treasury Department documents and ruthlessly exposes the private financial dealings of innocent people — keyword “innocent” — who just happen to be named Cohen.

        And then there’s the former NYAG — a prominent figure in the #MeToo Movement, who apparently is a violent sex criminal who assaults women and calls it “role playing” and forced one of them to say that she is his “brown slave” — all the while threatening to kill them, and using his police powers to threaten them with being followed or having their phones tapped, etc.

        I’d say there’s plenty of competition “on the higher Richter scale of sleaze” than those whom Turley is sleazily referring to in this HATE piece.

        1. The Taxi King agreed to cooperate with state and federal prosecutors as part of the plea deal. Google is your friend.

          this is to “Special Prosecutor Mueller won’t take my calls” willie

        2. William,
          I get the distinct impression that the FBI, and more specifically Robert Mueller, has some unfinished business he couldn’t secure indictments for back in the day, and this SC appointment is just the vehicle he needed to tidy up his record. I’m not saying those he’s going after have not committed crimes. I’m saying as the SC, he has been provide far greater power than he had in his prior positions and with far more resources at his disposal.

          1. “unfinished business”= vendetta

            “far greater power than he had in his prior positions” — I think maybe back when Mueller was FBI Director he might have thought he had a good case against Manafort, and the DOJ refused to prosecute. Now he gets to do the investigation AND make the prosecutorial decision.

            I also think, however, that he’s a scum-sucking swamp critter, so he just plain wants to take down Trump. Also, it’s like big-game hunting, and Trump would be the ultimate trophy for him, so he’s going after him, innocent or guilty. There are lots of prosecutors like that. They’re supposed to be interested in justice, not notching convictions on their belts, but most of them don’t see it that way.

            Anyway, I think Mueller is a criminal — and worse than normal criminals, because normal criminals don’t harm the justice system when they commit their crimes. That’s what the justice system is designed to deal with. But the crimes Mueller is involved in committing greatly harm the justice system, and that makes him worse that anyone he’s “investigating,” assuming any of them are guilty. The government has enough power as it is without unlawfully grabbing more.

            That’s why I was gratified when someone finally woke Senator Grassely up from his coma last week, when he sent is May 18, 2018 letter to Rosenstein, referencing lack of jurisdiction under 28 CFR 600.1 and 600.4:

            “… More specifically, section 600.1 states the Attorney General ‘will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.’ The omitted regulations do not authorize counterintelligence investigations. However, the Appointment Order does not otherwise specify whether, to what extent, or on what basis Mr. Mueller has been granted counterintelligence authority. …”


            I’ve been griping about that since the first week Mueller was appointed (I believe I even griped about it here once or twice) — that 28 CFR 600.1 specifically limits the appointment of a special counsel ONLY to conduct “criminal” investigations, and Comey testified on March 20, 2017 that the Trump-Russia investigation is a “counterintelligence” investigation — which is a totally different procedure with different rules and laws that don’t apply to criminal investigations. And there are other irregularities concerning 28 CFR 600.4 regarding a special counsel being provided “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated” in order to establish “original jurisdiction.” Grassely also mentions that in his letter.

            Rosenstein and Mueller need to follow the law. The federal government already has almost unlimited power without grabbing more by violating the law.

            So I think Mueller and Rosenstein’s conduct is worse than whatever Manafort or anyone else is accused of, and I’m rooting for the rule of law and against Mueller and Rosenstein.

            1. William, You might find this video interesting as it demonstrates prosecutorial misconduct that occurs on a regular basis. Google Howard Root video. There are shorter video’s but the one just under an hour is incredibly good and very informative.

              1. Thanks. I’ll check it out later this evening. I should mention that I have first hand experience with prosecutorial misconduct, have once been victimized by it. But I was lucky — very lucky — and with the help of the court of appeals (which took more offense to what the guy pulled than I did) I managed to turn the tables on the guy, and the state supreme court gave him the option of either retiring from the legal profession or being brought up on severe disciplinary charges — which would have resulted in him being kicked out of the legal profession and perhaps worse — so he chose to exit voluntarily. The judge, however, wasn’t given the option of exiting voluntarily, and he probably still has the supreme court’s boot print on his butt.
                I mention that just to let you know that I’ll probably really enjoy the video you recommend.

                1. Let me know what you think. I knew things were bad in that sector of the economy but I didn’t know how bad it was. I know what you are talking about since I have had my own encounters that fortunately all turned out in my favor.

                  1. Allan: So far, I reviewed the video up to around the 23:00 point of the video. The reason I stopped there is that this is where it got really interesting, and I’m going to be looking at it more closely from this point forward. What makes it interesting is the following except beginning at 22:35 of the video, related to the Star Tribune headline, “Med-tech CEO accused of conspiracy”:

                    “Why are they writing all of these bad things about me? I haven’t done anything wrong. The reason is – all the information comes from one side. The Department of Justice has this habit of bloodying up the defendant with pretrial publicity that they’re not supposed to do.”

                    What makes this particularly interesting (apart from the fact that this conduct also happened in relation to my own experiences with prosecutorial misconduct) is the similarity to what Manafort is alleging in his Motion for Hearing on Government Leaks, and his Memorandum in support (filed April 30, 2016, and still pending before the court). Mueller has responded to the initial Motion, and Manafort has replied to that response, but here’s an article about some of the leaking by Mueller’s team that’s transpired —


                    — and here’s the actual Memorandum in support of Manafort’s Motion for Hearing Regarding Government Leaks, which contains some of the particulars about what Manafort is accusing Mueller of having done related to leaks, and includes references to leaks occuring BEFORE the special counsel was appointed, allegedly intended to unlawfully build support for appointing a special counsel.


                    Manafort’s response to Mueller’s reply is also interesting, but I can only include two links in a posting (according to Darren). Anyway, in it, Manafort specifically zero’s in on Mueller’s “pit bull,” Andrew Weissmann, related to alleged/apparent leaks to AP before Mueller was appointed special counsel.

                    I’ll be digging back into the Howard Root video later today, after I take care of some stuff I have to do.

                    Thanks for the tip. I’ll probably be getting back to you after I watch the entire video.

                    I hate this WordPress setup, where replies get narrower and narrower to the point of almost having to be read like hieroglyphics.

                    1. I’m glad you like it. It works itself up so that the interest increases until the end which should scare every American. It parallels what we are seeing in real life including what is happening to Manafort, something you note above.

                      What the Obama administration did to the nation is horrifying. We may have reached the tipping point where rule by law ends.

                    2. “It works itself up so that the interest increases until the end …”

                      Yes, I sensed that when I got to where I paused it — so that I could begin from that point fresh and alert having already absorbed the background information. Later today I’ll hit the play button again.

                  2. Just finished watching the Howard Root video. That’s a very good presentation describing the way prosecutors-gone-wild do their jobs. Very important information with lots of parallels to two of my own cases — in my case when the first fake prosecution failed, some of the same people conspired to come after be a second time with a second fake criminal charge, and that’s the one that got the Judge, prosecutor, and clerk of court sent into retirement.
                    Anyway, I’m gonna post a link to that Howard Root video here, in hopes that others might watch it and learn a few things about the “justice” system. Thanks again.

                    1. The credit for this video goes to someone else. I think I saw it on this blog though it could have been elsewhere. Howard Root sounds incredibly bright. Listening to his problem and story makes all the other problems I am familiar with seem rather small.

                    2. I just finished watching the video and it should be broadcast far and wide. I cannot imagine how anyone concerned with justice would not be appalled at how perverted our system has become. This is evidence that Lawfare is no conspiracy theory.

                      One of the takeaways I got from the video is how the DOJ recognizes performance. It reminded me of this quote by W. Edwards Deming: You can expect what you inspect. If the DOJ rewards based on anything other than justice served, then you will get everything other than justice served. This also explains why wrongful convictions are so difficult to get heard and more importantly, overturned.

                      Thank you for posting that video.

                    3. Olly, I think that video should be intermittently made available to those that might not recognize the dangers of prosecutorial incentives to rack of guilty pleas. The same occurs in other government agencies that have some type of prosecutorial authority. The EPA is a big one.

                    4. …to those that might not recognize the dangers of prosecutorial incentives to rack of guilty pleas.

                      Of course. Our administrative state relies on an ignorant and apathetic culture that is too consumed (read: bedazzled) with the ends that they completely disregard the means to get them.

      2. The prosecutors in the Mueller investigation would seem to disagree with you. He’s flipped,

        If I understand correctly, the man has been facing state charges and a case prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney, not by Mueller’s office

        1. I believe that’s where things get really complicated, due to Rosenstein’s “secret” 28 CFR 600.4 statement associated with “original jurisdiction” or “additional jurisdiction.” Somewhere (I currently overwhelmed with reading material, so I don’t presently remember where), I read that though Mueller sent the Cohen case to the US Attorney, that US Attorney is still reporting back to Mueller and therefore still might be under Mueller’s direction — which doesn’t sound remotely lawful to me, but I did read that somewhere, and it’s one of the issues that needs to be cleared up related to the secret scope of Mueller’s jurisdiction.

          At any rate, that Friedman has “flipped” is either an unsupported assumption or representative of another unlawful leak. I think it’s just an unsupported assumption by Turley and other media clowns.

          Their thinking (if you can call it thinking), I believe, is that the guy wouldn’t have been offered a plea deal if he hadn’t offered the prosecutor something in return. That assumption is nonsense. People get offered plea deals all the time, just to clear up a court’s docket and avoid having to try a case. And in this case, Mueller previously either filed indictments or struck plea deals just before his semi-annual budget report to Congress was due (and his second report is due right now) — apparently just to show Congress that something’s been accomplished along with reporting Mueller’s multimillion dollar expenditures. A plea deal, in short, might have been offered to Friedman in order to justify the continued investigation, even if nothing had been offered to Friedman in exchange for the lesser charge.

          I think Turley’s just being his usual sloppy and gossipy self when he writes (in the headline, not in the article) that Friedman has “flipped.”

          1. Without commenting on the events of the day, when the government decides to go after someone (outside of clear criminal action) there are generally only two common decisions, guilty or a plea deal.

              1. Yes, it is. Conviction rates are high and loads of people settle. This is most common in the medical sector as Howard Root will explain. Ask your doctor if he has ever been audited especially if he is older and could have been audited before a bunch of federal decisions came down rebuking HHS. It costs a fortune to fight the government with little to no chance of being reimbursed for legal expenses. It opens the individual up to continuous harassment. In the end, if the individual has a chance to win the government will settle and still make the individual pay if only $10 to show that they won and the individual lost.

                1. The expense of litigation, combined with the fact that we are living in an increasingly litigious country/world is why I made the decision to learn enough about the workings of the law to be able to represent myself. So far, with no formal training in law, I’ve been to the court of appeals a few times and never lost. That’s something, considering that the licensed attorneys who opposed me DID lose, as well as the judges who had their judgments reversed. I understand that everyone might not have the ability to pick up on how the law works, or have the time to handle legal matters themselves — but it is one option which allows one to fight without going broke or being subjected to the extortionate side of litigation which requires one to settle or plead out against the possibility of going broke.
                  In particular, I don’t understand these guys that complain about the cost of representation when they are merely being called to testify as witnesses.

  12. Mr. Turley is the ultimate sleazebag. That is all too obvious by his close relationship with the Anal Queen and her sleazebag shyster attorney presstitute. Will Mr. Turley be reporting on how is sleazebag buddy was ordered to pay $10 million for his buddy’s ripoffs? Of course not! Sleazebags have to protect one another.

    1. Donald, put the phone down. You have a lot to do tomorrow, like yelling and watching TV and trying to talk to Melanie.

      1. “Trump appointing judges at rapid pace”

        “One year into his presidency, Donald Trump is among the most successful presidents when it comes to appointing federal judges.Trump has spent his first year rapidly filling Article III judgeships at Supreme, appellate and District Court levels. A Times data analysis found Trump is ranked No. 6 of 19 presidents appointing the highest number of federal judges in their first year.

        “It’s one area where the administration has really been successful, so understanding what’s happening is important,” said University of Georgia law professor Susan Brodie Haire.”

        Dear President Trump, keep purging the courts and play all you want on the computer to distract the rabid left

        1. A very dear friend of mine was recently appointed by Trump to be a federal judge. SHE was one of 5 candidates – the other 4 were male. Just shows how misogynist Trump can be, don’t it???

    2. “Will Mr. Turley be reporting on how is sleazebag buddy was ordered to pay $10 million …?”

      Don’t hold your breath. I’m still waiting for Turley to report on former NYAG Schneiderman — the leader of the #MeToo Movement and secret “role playing” violent sex criminal with his own “brown slave” — the kind of story that Turley usually feasts upon these days. But apparently some people are exempted.

      And if Turley ever does report on Avenatte’s recent accomplishments, I’m kinda doubting I’ll be reading any viable legal analysis concerning his apparent trafficking in stolen Treasury Department documents or publishing the private financial information of two people who happened to have the same name as the Cohen Turley loves to hate. And I’m not being sarcastic there. That’s the kind of issue — a lawyer trafficking in stolen records — that once caused me to go looking for Turley’s opinions because I found them informed and trustworthy.

      LOL — seems like a hundred years ago. And it seems like a totally different Turley.

    3. Avennati’s fade will be complete after Memorial Day weekend. Sleazeball tried to leverage civil matter regarding NDA into Watergate. He got his 15 minutes with beloved media who will drop him now that his true character is being revealed, just like 15 minute fame of girly-man Comey.

      1. Far from masochism, I take great pleasure at putting the Presstitute operator of Res ipsa loquitur in his proper place, and giving him a dose of his own medicine.

        1. Haha. As if. Tell us another conspiracy-loon story.

          this is to “now go get your shine-box” ralphie

    4. Based on an exhaustive study of all available videos, I would say that Stormy is much more of a Vaginal Queen than an Anal Queen…..

      1. Jay S – thank you for taking one for the team. 😉 You will be rewarded in heaven for that kind of effort.

  13. Classic Guilt-by-Association, only it’s Guilt-by-Association squared. Turley is finding Cohen guilty by association with Friedman, and finding Trump guilty by association with Cohen. He doesn’t come right out and say that, of course — he just sort of sneaks it in under the radar with innuendo.

    I guess being a “civil libertarian” (LOL) isn’t what it once was. I don’t recall legitimate civil libertarians previously employing the tactics and thought process of Crazy Joe McCarthy.

    Gotta love that democrat due process.

    If one wanted to subject Turley to that sort of democrat-due-process, Turley would be guilty by association with Avenatti, and Avenatti guilty by association with Stormy Daniels — which would make Turley both a sleazy lawyer and a porn queen, and through his connection with Avenatti, the subject of a complaint to the California Bar Association.

    1. Agreed. This is a daisy chain. It’s not at all clear that Cohen was or even could be implicated in Friedman’s various and sundry frauds. Friedman owns a mess of businesses and has had a boatload of trouble in re a number of them, but it’s not clear that these problems extend to his contractual relationship with Cohen.

      1. Nor is it clear that Cohen’s possible legal problems extend to Trump — and the ONLY reason Turley is interested in this story is because of the take-down-Trump aspect.

  14. Only in the perverted Turley mind could someone think that it’s noble to promote a woman who makes her living using her rectum as a semen receptacle and pretending to like it, who is in turn promoted by a lowlife shyster presstitute attorney who peddles leftist BS propaganda lies. But in his perverted mind, Cohen and anyone associated with him is sleaze. I think the evidence demonstrates that if Mr. Turley wants to get a first hand look at sleaze, he ought to look in the mirror and observe it closely.

    1. Yes, Stormy is such a low-life. I can’t believe liberal Obama slept with her and then paid her $130,000. What a traitor.

    2. Ralph, you’re attacking Professor Turley, in the most vile terms, simply because he reports on the obvious legal problems of Trump’s lawyer. The whole idea of this blog is to analyze legal issues.

      If you think Stormy Daniels is so reprehensible, then Trump must be a low-life too for having anything to do with her. ..Or didn’t you think that far..??

      1. Peter Hill – I think Trump having bareback intercourse with Stormy proves how brave he is. 😉

        1. Yeah, like playing russian roulette with a fully loaded gun, now that’s a stable genius.

            1. He claims to have “astonishingly excellent” health in the letter he wrote for his doctor to sign. Don’t forget he’s also a “very stable genius”. Humble, too, I suppose.

              1. I think tRump‘s use of “stable” is a Freudian slip – small hand complex.

        2. But, but, but–Trump denied ever even knowing Stormy, much less any sexual conduct with her. After, all, he claims that he is a religious man who regularly attends church, and he only pays off porn stars and Playboy models to avoid having them say things that would upset his wife, whom he adores. Lawrence O’Donnell played the tape a few days ago wherein Trump claimed, on a campaign stop, to be a Presbyterian who regularly attends church. This was to put into context his statements about Mexicans being “animals” and how this cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus.

          What is shocking is that people look at Trump and don’t see the pathology.

          1. Natacha – I think I corrected you on this before, however Trump said that MS-13 gang members were animals and they are. They are feral.

            1. Only in a Pravda Faux News echo chamber is your statement regarding the day glo bozo’s qualification of the word “animals” even remotely true. Pro tip: hannity doesn’t really care about you or what causes the gullibility fault, but merely that you are.

              this is to “but hannity’s an elderly white guy like me” paulie

              1. Marky Mark Mark – prove it!!! Quote the original statement in full.

      2. I am using no more “vile terms” than the Presstitute operator of Res ipsa loquitur uses on others. I am merely showing that the terms he uses are much more applicable to himself and those he closely associates himself with.

      3. the obvious legal problems of Trump’s lawyer. T

        Except he wasn’t. He was reporting on the legal problems of a disbarred lawyer who’d had some business deals with Trump’s lawyer.

  15. Why and how do you think Trump is vulnerable? Isn’t it true that Cohen can’t legally reveal anything he learned about Trump in the context of their attorney-client relationship? What’s the scenario you envision in which Cohen could harm Trump?

    1. Not true at all if Cohen participated in or facilitated illegal acts. The word you might be looking for is not Trump’s attorney but co-defendant.

      1. Nah…not Co-defendant. What I’m waiting for is James Comey, Clapper and Lowretta Lynch to wear orange.

      2. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney — therefore they would need to have evidence that Trump committed a crime with Cohen, in order to look into records concerning Trump. Evidence that Cohen committed a crime is not sufficient to abrogate attorney-client privilege. Cohen could be the worst criminal since Charles Manson, but that doesn’t dissolve attorney-client confidentiality between Trump and Cohen unless there is first evidence that Trump committed a crime.

        1. There is already evidence they conspired with Stormy Daniels previous lawyer to coerce her into an agreement. I imagine Cohen’s records have provided much more.

              1. I don’t see any description of a crime in that article, but thanks for the link. Actually, I was asking about Trump. My fault for not being clear. There’s no indication Trump committed a crime, right?

                1. Jeff – The pretense that Trump was totally out of the loop on the entire transaction with Daniels was crushed when Trump admitted having repaid Cohen the $130,000. I ask you, how did Trump react when Cohen’s office/hotel/home was raided? If you’re looking for indications of guilt, I would start there.

                  1. Enigma, Where is the crime? There isn’t any unless a crime is created out of thin air. That seems to be the only way you can prevail in your idea that Trump acted against American law. On the other hand, you completely close your eyes to the illegalities that are now unravelling and might be proven to point all the way up the chain of the Obama administration.

                  2. Translation: You, enigma, are just some dude who’s rooting against Trump. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. No more. There’s no evidence Trump committed a crime. It’s of no importance that something or other strikes you as fishy. What matters are evidentiary standards, not your feelings. If you believe otherwise you should be talking to a mental health professional rather than “debating” on social medial

                    1. Fortunately, Mueller will be documenting all that is required to clearly demonstrate crimes. We will see how open Trump’s followers will be to the evidence or if they can somehow maintain the illusion that Trump is an honest, good man, whose only interest is serving the people. That may be the view that requires talking to a mental health professional.

            1. You cannot use facts, logic, or reason when discussing anything with enigma. He suffers from TDS and automatically rejects those things.

              1. Pay attention, chachi, a question was asked and info provided. Learn from it.

  16. Reblogged this on What i found intersting today… and commented:
    Friedman came from a Jewish family in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States as political refugees in 1976. He graduated from Skidmore College in 1992 and received his J.D. degree from Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

  17. Freidman may be the only figure who could compete with Cohen on the higher Richter scale of sleaze.”
    Au Contraire. I’ll see your Cohen and raise you an Eagan Avenatti:

    “The three retired judges who oversaw the proceedings ordered Eagan Avenatti to give Frank the tax returns and financial records that he needed to calculate the exact amount he was owed.
    When the firm failed to give Frank the documents, the former judges concluded that Eagan Avenatti “acted with malice, oppression and fraud” in defying their order.”

Comments are closed.