“What I’m Going To Do To You Is Going To Be F–ing Disgusting”: Michael Cohen In His Own Voice

The_Daily_Beast_logoI have been a long critic of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen for over a year for his thuggish and often incompetent practice of law.  He has matched his lack of legal skills with an abundance of greed, including blatant efforts to sell access to Trump to foreigners and private companies.  Now people can listen to Cohen in his own voice as he performed his signature function for Trump: threatening a reporter for the Daily Beast and his acquaintances with ruin if he ran a negative story about a 1993 Trump biography.

The new tape shows Cohen threatening then-Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak over his reporting of a biography, written by former Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III. The biography titled “The Lost Tycoon,” including details from a sworn deposition from Trump’s first wife, Ivana, that Trump raped her during their divorce proceedings.

Cohen shows his infamous lack of legal knowledge and tells Mak that you cannot rape your wife by definition. That is wrong . . . in all fifty states.  Cohen states in the recording below that “You’re talking about Donald Trump, you’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as private individual, who never raped anybody and of course understand that by the very definition you can’t rape your spouse.”

He continues:

“Mark my words for it, I will make sure that you and I meet one day over in the courthouse and I will take you for every penny you still don’t have, and I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. Do not even think about going where I know you’re planning on going. And that’s my warning for the day.”

Cohen then morphs into a bad rendition of a mobster after being asked for a statement: He warns Mak to “tread very f–king lightly because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f–ing disgusting. . . . Do you understand me? Don’t think you can hide behind your pen because it’s not going to happen. . . . I’m more than happy to discuss it with your attorney and with your legal counsel because motherf—er you’re going to need it.”


Here is the recording: Cohen/Mak conversation

This is the man that President Trump has called a “good man” and his personal lawyer for years.  While some of us have been saying for months that Trump needed to sever all ties to Cohen, Trump recently took Cohen out to dinner and affirmed to the media that he was still his lawyer.

The recording reveals addition unethical and unprofessional conduct by Cohen.  Both threats of criminal and civil actions can violate the New York bar rules. Indeed, a prior opinion stated that following:

Rule 3.4(e) the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”) prohibits lawyers from threatening criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter, but does not apply to threats to instigate ancillary non-criminal proceedings against an adverse party, e.g., where a lawyer, on behalf of a client, threatens to report an adverse party’s misconduct to an administrative or regulatory agency unless the adverse party agrees to the client’s settlement demand. The inapplicability of Rule 3.4(e) to threats to instigate ancillary non-criminal proceedings, however, does not mean that lawyers are free to make such threats with impunity. Such threats may violate criminal laws against extortion, and, if so, they will likely violate Rules 8.4(b) and Rule 3.4(a)(6). Where such threats do not violate criminal law, they may nonetheless violate Rule 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Whether such a threat violates Rule 8.4(d) will generally depend on whether the threat concerns matters extraneous to the parties’ dispute or, conversely, would serve as an alternative means of vindicating the same alleged claim of right or of obtaining redress for the same alleged wrong. Additionally, if such a threat is made without a sufficient basis in fact and law, it may violate, inter alia, Rule 4.1 or Rule 8.4(c).

Lawyers often raise liability issues and talk can be tough. However, there is a considerable difference between putting a party on notice and threatening a clearly baseless actions against a journalist and others.

Here Cohen is muscling a journalist with the threat to go after not just him but “your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know.” Really, everyone Tim Mak knows from his high school friends in Canada to his dog?  What is the legal basis for that threat?  It is like Cohen is reading from a script from Better Call Saul.

I am astonished that the New York bar has not acted previously to formally review Cohen based on a growing list of alleged improprieties and abuses.  His conduct is an embarrassment not only to New York lawyers but the profession generally.  This tape could easily find itself as a critical piece of evidence in any bar proceeding against Cohen.  Cohen is not only misstating the law but he is threatening a journalist without any viable legal claim.  It is absurd to claim that he could sue Mak or his publication for reporting on this obviously newsworthy story. Indeed, Cohen cites the very fact that makes such a defamation claim absurd.  Mak was “talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, presidential candidate,” which makes him not only a public figure but a future public official.  Under New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny, public figures must meet a higher burden in showing a reckless disregard of the truth or knowing falsehoods.  So Cohen misstates the existing law on rape and then cites the most damaging element against Trump in threatening a frivolous lawsuit against Mak and everyone he has ever known.

This also should make the Trump legal team uneasy about the recordings reportedly seized in Cohen’s office.  The only thing worse than retaining a reckless and unprofessional lawyer is your reckless and unprofessional lawyer on tape.  Cohen is the bill come due for Trump and moments like the Daily Beast call could easily be replayed over and over again in painful hearings to come.

147 thoughts on ““What I’m Going To Do To You Is Going To Be F–ing Disgusting”: Michael Cohen In His Own Voice”

  1. I would not worry about Cohen, he has a open dated pardon sitting on Trump’s deck. Besides he always has a job on FOX NEWS or CNN as a expert legal contributor.

    1. Desk, I meant, I guess I was thinking of Trump rearranging the deck chairs on the USS Trump.

    2. Fishwings, you might be right here. But that would be seriously hard for even Trump to justify. Cohen’s issues go way beyond the Russia Probe. Such a pardon could scare off anyone with self-respect still in Trump’s orbit.

      1. Self-respect in the Trump orbit? That train has left the docks a while ago.

  2. Of all the sleazy, unethical lawyers involved in this entire sordid affair from McCabe to Lady Hillary-MacBeth herself, Cohen alone inspires unyielding rebuke form JT.

    I just don’t get it.

    1. Mespo,

      U.S. Federal courts are not like cable news networks. Cohen can’t go before the court and say, “What about Hillary?”

        1. No, you were saying, “What about Hillary?” Like no one ever asks.

    2. Occam’s Razor: Turley’s is fake civil libertarian with ZERO standards pretending to have standards so that he can be in a position to assert that others have lower standards than Turley — but not having any actual standards himself but only pretend standards, Turley can’t really figure out who’s the bigger scum-sucker — and it just might be Turley himself — though, as with Hillary, Turley would be the last person that Turley would put on the scum-sucker list.

      But that’s just a wild guess.

    3. Did you say “…sleazy and Hillary Clinton…” in the same sentence?

      How about Tyson Chicken, “Red Bone,” Refco and Hillary Clinton in the same prison?

      Capital Research Center

      The Clinton Method

      “…One day in February, she made a profit of $25,280 (roughly $93,000 in 2016 dollars), more than her salary the previous year at the Rose Law Firm. There was a day she lost $26,960, which in retrospect appears to be an effort by someone to cover his or her tracks, throwing in some losses to make the gains look honest. In any event, that one-day loss highlights one of the most bizarre aspects of the commodities deal: that Hillary, if she is to be believed, was repeatedly gambling in a single day an entire year’s salary, in a market in which the overwhelming majority of people lose money.

      The trading more than tripled the Clintons’ income from $41,000 in 1977 (inflation-adjusted: about $172,000) to $158,000 in 1979 (adjusted: $580,000). Total profit for the two years was $99,537 in nine months, on an initial investment of $1,000.

      From October 1978 to July 1979, when the trades were made, the price of cattle futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange went from 55 cents a pound to 80 cents a pound. (Again, a contract would obligate the investor to buy or sell 40,000 pounds at a fixed price on a set date.) While a legitimate investor could have made a significant profit during the time Clinton was in the market—as much as 1,700 percent if very, very lucky—Clinton-level profits of 10,000 percent were possible only if, time and time and time again, an investor snapped up the futures at the lowest point in a day, within a fraction of a cent, and dumped them at the high point of the day, within a fraction of a cent.

      Spy magazine reported in 1996:

      [O]n numerous occasions, according to records released by the White House, her trading account was severely under-margined—meaning that there simply wasn’t anywhere near enough collateral to cover the moves she was making.

      How far under-margined? The records indicate that, on June 27, 1979—during Hillary’s single biggest trade with Refco (and one that would turn out to be the most profitable)—she invested in 30 cattle futures contracts. Such a trade would have required a $60,000 margin deposit, yet her available balance was only $25,011. It wasn’t the biggest deficit she was to incur. On July 12, Hillary’s account showed a net loss of $61,270. According to regulations, she should have added $92,364 to avoid being terminated. Still, no more cash was added, and Refco covered the deficit. . . .

      [H]ow likely was it that Refco would take such a risk on behalf of a neophyte customer?

      Not very, according to Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Institute in Rhinebeck, New York, and a former trader with Refco. “I cannot believe that Refco would back her losses and cover her margin call,” Celente says. “When I was dealing with them, they always demanded immediate payment for margins. I have to pay promptly, or else they would have closed my account. . . . Sure, had I been given the same treatment [Hillary] got, I would have cleaned up, too.”

      And just what did happen to other Refco customers who didn’t keep up their margins? Last year, USA Today reported that, on July 12—the same day Hillary avoided a more than $90,000 deficit—Refco customer Stanley Greenwood’s investments “were liquidated when he failed to post $48,000 to cover his losses.” And in a suit filed against none other than Red Bone himself, another customer, Randall Barnes, said he had to give Bone a mortgage on his farm in 1978 to cover his trading losses.

      And there’s another problem with Hillary’s trading pattern. As noted by financial columnist Caroline Baum and speculator Victor Niederhoffer in a 1995 article in National Review, it would have made sense for Hillary to make money in cattle futures during a period when prices were rising, except for this: On the few large trades on which Hillary made almost all of her profits, she was betting that prices would fall. James Glassman of the Washington Post, writing in the New Republic: “She made five consecutive winning trades on the short side [that is, betting the price would drop] in cattle and hogs . . . in April and May—a glorious coup.”

      The degree of Hillary’s supposed luck was, it turns out, measurable. The Journal of Economics and Statistics used a computer model to estimate the odds against Hillary’s trades being legitimate: more than 250 million to 1.

      That may be an understatement. Baum and Niederhoffer calculated the odds of making Clinton-level profits legitimately at 31 trillion to 1. That’s less than 1/100,000th the chance of winning the PowerBall jackpot.

      George Soros, the radical billionaire, is one of the most successful businessmen in the world, with a reputation for manipulating markets. As noted by Baum and Niederhoffer, Hillary made 80 times as big a return on her investment in nine months as Soros had made in his best year ever, in 30 years trading.

      Newsweek, then owned by the Washington Post, reported initially that Hillary had benefitted from a “sweetheart deal.” The magazine later backed off the report. (That was not the last time that Newsweek backed off in its reporting on the Clintons. Famously, the magazine in 1998 suppressed a reporter’s story about President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. The story was leaked to, and broken by, an upstart website, the Drudge Report.)

      Another Newsweek article, co-authored by Eleanor Clift, one of Hillary’s strongest supporters in journalism, noted that Hillary “made big money in a roller-coaster market and got out with her profits—either a very shrewd investor, or a woman with very good friends.”

      “The chances of Hillary having legitimately made that money without some grandfather making sure only the winning trades were going into her account are lower than a meteor hitting you when you leave your office today,” a trader told Newsday.

      Joe Gressel, a 19-year veteran of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange trading pits, was quoted by Claudia Rosett in the Wall Street Journal during Hillary Clinton’s first U.S. Senate campaign: “It’s a mockery of the profession to say you took a thousand dollars and made a hundred thousand. Around here, we’re flabbergasted that she’s bamboozled the people of New York state.” A former Refco clerk said, “When Hillary came forward and said she was doing her own trades, I knew immediately she wasn’t telling the truth.”

      Futures trader F.H. “Chuck” Goslin, in a book about his profession, wrote:

      Based on my experience, what happened here was that someone else trading with Mrs. Clinton’s broker periodically would tell him something like the following: “Take fifty of those cattle we sold near the highs of the day and put them in Hillary’s account instead of mine.” Since the trades the office was doing were not assigned to specific accounts until after the close, this switch would have been easy to do. Then, within a few days, these big profit trades would be closed out. The net result of these trade manipulations: Without any real risk or effort, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton ended up a hundred thousand dollars richer. The records show that as soon as the total profits generated by this simple, but effective, trade manipulation reached just under $100,000, the account was closed. . . .

      This little “trick” of moving trades from one account to another after the results are known is a familiar one to many people in the business.

      James Glassman, then a financial columnist for the Washington Post, wrote that, “After the New York Times broke the story on March 18 [1994] about Rodham Clinton’s success in cattle, I called my commodity trader friends to find out how she did it. They all suspected the same thing—‘allocated trades.’”

      Jim Blair denied that Mrs. Clinton got special treatment. Specifically, he denied that she benefitted from the allocation of profitable trades to her account and losing trades to the accounts of other investors.

      Hillary’s profits had to come from somewhere. Chuck Levitt, a 30-year veteran of the livestock market, told the Boston Globe: “Keep in mind, anybody who buys a futures contract, somebody else has to sell one, which means that, if she made $100,000 during that period, somebody else, or a number of people, lost that amount of money at the very same time. It’s a zero-sum game.”

      That is why commodities futures trading works well as a device for making payoffs. Simplified, it goes like this: Imagine a game in which Person A and Person B, who’ve never met, each bet $100,000 on the flip of a coin. Person A bets heads, Person B bets tails, and the coin comes up heads. $100,000, minus the bookie’s share, is transferred from Person B to Person A, and there is no record that they ever had contact. But wait! What if Person A bets heads, Person B bets tails, and it comes up tails? Doesn’t that spoil the plan? No. The bookie simply switches the bets after the coin is flipped so that Person A appears to have bet tails and Person B appears to have bet heads, and Person B still loses. Remember: Person B wants to lose, to transfer money to Person A without a record of the transaction.”

      “Hillary is Person A.”

      1. George, Michael Cohen is caught on tape shooting his mouth like a mafia thug. And you respond by dredging up an issue from 30 years ago!

        When does old get ‘old’..??

  3. General Dunlap subsequently wrote many more essays about “lawfare,” and in part (I think) to rebut misinterpretations or misappropriations of his work, he expanded the definition of the term to mean “the strategy of using – or misusing – law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”

    I recently watched A Man for All Seasons for the first time and Cohen is certainly no Sir Thomas More. Neither is Avenatti, nor I suspect are many others in the law profession. They are however trained in the law and have met certain standards at some moment in time to be able to practice in that profession. Lawyers are the Special Forces of any civil society. They all have their skills and abilities for which they perform their role. Some are thugs that trained to work their lawfare out of the public eye, some are groomed to be public figures. But they all are still lawfare operators. That means Cohen and Turley are still of the same profession, Turley is also no More. And while I believe Cohen could not be a Turley, I certainly believe Turley could be a Cohen. I also believe we have a lot of polished up Cohens holding political office.

    1. Friends of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort have set up a legal defense fund to meet “the tremendous legal costs” stemming from proceedings in the special counsel’s Russia probe.

      1. L4D is enabling David Benson They have a defense fund for #FreeTommyRobinson, too. However, Tommy is still in prison.

        1. Paul, IMO Tommy will remain in prison – maybe be beaten up or worst case killed. The UK will not face the double standard it applies to Muslims regarding criminal behavior.

          Tommy Robinson Drew Attention to ‘Grooming Gangs.’ Britain Has Persecuted Him.
          By Douglas Murray

          May 31, 2018 2:30 PM

          “Ten years ago, when the EDL was founded, the U.K. was even less willing than it is now to confront the issue of what are euphemistically described as “Asian grooming gangs” (euphemistic because no Chinese or Koreans are involved and what is happening is not grooming but mass rape). At the time, only a couple of such cases had been recognized. Ten years on, every month brings news of another town in which gangs of men (almost always of Pakistani origin) have been found to have raped young, often underage, white girls. The facts of this reality — which, it cannot be denied, sounds like something from the fantasies of the most lurid racist — have now been confirmed multiple times by judges during sentencing and also by the most mainstream investigative journalists in the country.

          But the whole subject is so ugly and uncomfortable that very few people care to linger over it. Robinson is an exception. For him — as he said in a 2011 interview with the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman — the “grooming gangs” issue isn’t something that afflicts some far-off towns but people in the working-class communities that he knows. And while there are journalists (notably the Times’ Andrew Norfolk) who have spent considerable time and energy bringing this appalling phenomenon to light, most of British society has turned away in a combination of embarrassment, disgust, and uncertainty about how to even talk about this. Anyone who thinks Britain is much further along with dealing with the taboo of “grooming gangs” should remember that only last year the Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, had to leave the shadow cabinet because she accurately identified the phenomenon.”


          “The problem — as I said in 2015 — is that any challenge Robinson presents is all a secondary issue. The primary issue is that for years the British state allowed gangs of men to rape thousands of young girls across Britain. For years the police, politicians, Crown Prosecution Service, and every other arm of the state ostensibly dedicated to protecting these girls failed them. As a number of government inquires have concluded, they turned their face away from these girls because they were terrified of the accusations of racism that would come their way if they did address them. They decided it wasn’t worth the aggravation.

          By contrast, Tommy Robinson thought it was worth the aggravation, even if that meant having his whole life turned upside down. Some years ago, after crawling over all of his personal affairs and the affairs of all his immediate family, the police found an irregularity on a mortgage application, prosecuted Robinson, convicted him, and sent him to prison on that charge. In prison he was assaulted and almost killed by Muslim inmates.”

          Entire article:


          1. Autumn – they had Tommy in prison before his attorney of record even knew he had been arrested. Four hours from arrest to prison. Must be a new Guiness World’s Record.

  4. Who cares? You write like an obsessed teen.🙄 I see you didn’t write about Avenetti’s order to stop the TV Publicity Tour.

    1. Shannon!!! Amen. Hallelujah!

      What is with JT that he feels it imperative to give us a blow by blow update on a person we all know to be a charlatan ala Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Roseanne Barr, Harvey Weinstein, etc etc etc et al? The nation is exhausted of “news” detailing the overwhelming number of thugs impersonating entertainers, government officials and elected politicians. How about informing us how the system works!? What a concept!

      We are all convinced America is beyond redemption, and JT would have a herculean job of proving to us otherwise. but hey, have at it. Pique our interest. Stop with a death of a 1000 cuts.

      Oy! 😉


      1. Thanks for the picture, Liz. That could be Trump’s official portrait for public buildings. A great symbolic image of where we’re at right now.

        1. A great symbolic image of where we’re at right now.

          When you are ignorant enough to only expect government to be measured by the bang for your buck (your words), then you deserve not to get the bang you expect.

          1. Olly, you don’t want any bang for your tax buck?? You’d rather give welfare to billionaires..?? How perfectly stupid! If the Koch Bros save $100 million in taxes what good does that do ‘you’..???

            1. Wow! You really don’t get it. We live in a nation with people free to desire our government do anything their hearts desire. We have elections to put in office representatives that will carry out those wishes. Using your words, getting the bang for the buck. Those Ends may even be what the politicians promise to deliver. Those elected however take an oath to honor a particular Means to those Ends. That oath, and our rule of law is the only thing the people have between justice and injustice. When the voters no longer demand our government honor their oath, and don’t care whatever means are used to provide the ends they expect, that is when a free society no longer has any reasonable security of rights. That is when winners have a temporary respect for the law, and the losers have to fear their government. That gives elections have consequences. a completely different meaning.

              You have already indicated you do not measure government by how they do what they do, you only care about getting what you want. You do not seem to understand you and those that think like you have created a system that requires you win elections or else live in fear of the consequences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a bang for the buck, but the means should never be compromised to achieve the ends.

              1. Olly,

                You’re way off base! It’s like you took my statement and filtered it through some right-wing website to twist it completely around.

                I said: “The effectiveness of government should be measured by how much bang we get for our tax dollars”.

                That means an honest, well-managed government that provides for the country’s needs.

                For the most part our government has done a pretty good job of that for the last 80 years (despite the constant griping of conservatives). The dollar has held up well as a currency because the world has always had faith in the U.S. government. Therefore we, as Americans, have generally gotten an honest, well-managed government.

                Yet Trump is determined to alienate Federal employees. Republicans are doing everything possible to discourage bright people from pursuing careers in government. It’s this stupid, Libertarian concept that we have to “starve the beast”. Like sabotaging government actually makes sense!

                Maybe that’s you, Olly. You want to see Trump destroy the machinery of government because.. Because.. Because they get a pension and you don’t.

                1. I said: “The effectiveness of government should be measured by how much bang we get for our tax dollars”.

                  Peter, I went to the wayback machine and pulled your post…no filtering necessary:

                  Peter Hill
                  May 30, 2018 at 11:26 AM
                  Good point, Olly. Everyone has a different idea of what ‘big’ and ‘small’ government means. Ask 20 people and you might get 20 different responses. That’s why conservatives are vague when they say they want ‘small’ government. Because no one knows what small government really looks like.

                  It’s like saying, “The TV networks should have more shows about normal families”. Well, what is a ‘normal’ family..?? ‘A normal family with guns in the house’? ‘A normal family with drugs in the house’? ‘A normal family with pit bulls as pets’? Millions of people might choose one of those three.

                  Government can only be measured by ‘Bang For The Buck’. Or ‘What We Get For Our Tax Dollars’.

                  In the interest of civility, I even responded to that comment for clarity by saying:

                  Peter, before I comment, please let me know if that last statement from you was intended to be taken seriously.

                  You never replied…until now. And now you have the gall to lie about your comment and then attempt to impugn my character in the process? If you can’t own your own thoughts, then what kind of crazy is going on in your head that makes you believe you know the thoughts of others?

                  Damn, you make CNN appear as a trusted news source.

                  1. OLLY:

                    WHERE’S THE CONTRADICTION???!!!

                    “What we get for our tax dollars”, can mean, “Honest, well-managed government”!. ..Why couldn’t it..???

                    I suspect you’re coming from a point of view where ‘big government is evil’. From that perspective, ‘anyone okay with paying taxes is somehow a fool’.

                    Or perhaps you think, “Bang for the buck”, means government benefits. You think liberals want to soak up all the freebies. And you’re shocked that Peter Hill openly admits it!

                    That’s what comes from watching 25 years of Fox News. You keep thinking as Fox News would spin it. Which shows how Fox has dumbed us down.

                    1. OLLY,

                      HERE’S WHAT YOU ARE MISSING

                      30 years ago, in the Reagan era, a statement like the one I made would have appealed to many Republicans. Even Reagan promoted “Honest, well-managed government giving people the biggest bang for their tax dollars”.

                      And that includes, Defense, of course. We must have cutting edge technologies to firmly on top. That’s expensive too. So I factor that when I say ‘Biggest bang for the buck”. We want the best defense. That keeps the dollar strong”.

                      30 years ago I would not have had to clarify. Common sense people of both parties would have scarcely misunderstood.

                      But 25 years of right-wing media made you read that statement like an admission by some liberal who wants to suck gravy. ‘To grab all the freebies that he possibly can’. Because that’s what Sean Hannity would say if he was answering a liberal.

                      And I bet even Nutchacha would back me up on this. Nutchacha professed to care about well-managed government.

                    2. Below are several quotes by Ronald Reagan and one by you. It should not be difficult for anyone to figure out which one was yours. I guarantee had you made that comment in a roomful of Reagan conservatives, you would have had a roomful of laughter looking at the comedian they let in the room. After the laughter died down, they’d have looked at you with the same look I had reading your comment and asked you the same thing I did: was that last statement from you intended to be taken seriously? And hell no, you effed up, you lied and you will not ever succeed in making it my fault. Own it.

                      We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

                      No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

                      Government can only be measured by ‘Bang For The Buck’. Or ‘What We Get For Our Tax Dollars’.

                      Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.

                      Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

                      The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.

                      Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

                      And for your viewing pleasure:


                    3. “What we get for our tax dollars”, can mean, “Honest, well-managed government”!. ..Why couldn’t it..???

                      It can mean nearly anything. That being said, Government can only be measured by, means exactly what it says…ONLY. After I made an effort and gave you the opportunity to clarify your comment before I offered my critique, you finally responded by lying about your statement. And instead of humility, you chose arrogance. You’ve chosen to insult me and make ridiculous assumptions about what I think. Find any post I’ve made to validate your assumptions. Learn to read for comprehension you dolt and look in the mirror if you want to put a face to the dumbed down.

                    4. Oh I get it, ‘government is the problem’. Yes, I’m aware Reagan gave that speech.

                      So because Reagan uttered those words you have to take him literally. Like those words are carved in stone.

                      It so happens Reagan raised taxes on occasion. As both Governor and President. In fact, Capital Gains taxes were 59% under Reagan. That’s about 20 points higher than they are now.

                      Reagan didn’t take himself too literally. I voted for Reagan twice, and never took him literally.

                      I knew that Nancy was fairly moderate. And she didn’t really hang with the Christian Right. The Reagan’s felt perfectly comfortable on L.A.’s West Side; about 10 miles from where I’m posting now. No one in West L.A. is ‘that’ conservative. They are, for the most part, hip millionaires.

                    5. So because Reagan uttered those words you have to take him literally.

                      Dude, if you ever want anyone to take you seriously, you need to stop making $hit up. Did i say anywhere that I took Reagan’s quotes literally? Quit pretending to know what people think because you suck at it. And quit pretending you know where people get their news, you really suck at that as well.

                      Reagan was my President and my CinC for 8 years. I recall very vividly how analysts would study his words trying to determine what he was really saying. Especially regarding his communication about the Soviets.

                      You can do better.

                    6. Correction: The Upper Bracket Income Tax was 59% under Reagan. I mistakenly wrote ‘Capital Gains’.

  5. With all these nasty comments being made, Elizabeth Warren wants your nasty vote.

    1. Women like me are dismayed that womyn like Warren and Hillary get a kick out of declaring us nasty.
      How the mighty have fallen. From invincible “nasty women” to delicate wall flowers “metoo”

      Pass the Zyprexa,

    2. Thanks, T.J.

      Turley’s out of line for questioning the mafia-like tactics of Michael Cohen. And we need to remember that Elizabeth Warren threatened us with nasty women at the polls. That was a threat to ‘me’, a God-fearing Christian who thinks that men should have the last say.

      1. Warren is a joke – political expediency personified. Sat on the fence during the primaires – wouldn’t endorse Bernie or HRC but once the DNC rigged it she came out full force for HRC. Berniebros and Independents have loong memories.

        1. Autumn: Are you a Bernie Bro..???

          If not, why do you keep shrieking about the treatment Bernie got???

            1. One of my all time favs – stupid Establishment Dims – 0 enthusiasm for HRC – bet they will make the same decision again and lose 2020

              1. You are/we’re not a Bernie supporter; you just play one on the intertoobs. Comrade, return home for needed programming.

  6. Don’t particularly care for Mr. Cohen’s style, but I think you’ll have to scrounge to find a member of the media who hasn’t earned that sort of treatment.

    1. AND the publication calls itself the Daily “Beast.” I guess that must be some sort of twisted plea for etiquette.

      1. WB – Chelsea Clinton is on the board of the Daily Beast. Nuff said….

    2. What a fascist statement! Just a broad, blanket dismissal of the media in general. “Oh well– They all deserve to be threatened Mafia style”.

  7. I would guess that some of what Turley finds offensive about Cohen isn’t really related to lawyering, per se, but might have to do with a culture clash and objection to Cohen’s New-York-City way of expressing himself — similar to Anthony “the mooch” Scaramucci’s New-York style of telling someone to “take your d*ck out of your mouth while I”m talkin’ to ya, you f*cking c*cksucker.”

    Tolerance for other people’s style usually comes from real world experience, and Professor Turley comes off like a guy that’s spent most of his life cloistered in a classroom talking at people with zero real world experience.

    1. Best I can determine, the Professor has never practiced law.

      1. I would have guessed that, also — however I either read or heard him once state that he did represent someone at one time. So there’s at least one actual client. I don’t recall him mentioning whether he won or lost the case. Could be he did it just so people couldn’t accuse him of having never practiced law. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess that I’ve spent much more time in court than Turley, and probably won more cases at more levels of the justice system.

        1. Have you extracted your JACKASS foot from your mouth yet, William?

          Since you’re so fond of the word ‘jackass’, as evinced by many of your posts, like this one:


          I figured I’d respond in kind.

          William sez: “…however I either read or heard him once state that he did represent someone at one time. So there’s at least one actual client.”


          “…I’d guess that I’ve spent much more time in court than Turley, and probably won more cases at more levels of the justice system.”

          Here’s some info from JT’s bio, right on this very site:


          Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. (JT lost this one.)

          In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. (JT won this one.)

          Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States who is accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization … [o]n June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian.

          Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee …


          There is more there, and more can be found just casually searching.

          So, how does your JACKASS statement of , “…I’d guess that I’ve spent much more time in court than Turley, and probably won more cases at more levels of the justice system” stack up?

          Also, it would seem that JT has had more than one client.

          As to your new BFF, NII/DSS/SOT, it makes his statement of, “[b]est I can determine, the Professor has never practiced law” look pretty silly, especially when JT has his bio so easily available.

          Actually, JACKASS, your new BFF, NII/DSS/SOT, has been yammering (whoops, hope PCS doesn’t see this) about the Dunning–Kruger effect for some time now as an end all response.

          Well, it certainly applies in this particular instance, for yourself and your new BFF, NII/DSS/SOT.

          Though, in this instance, it should probably be renamed the Dunning–Kruger–JACKASS effect.

      2. For someone who has a lot of “facts and figures at his fingertips”, (according to Allen, anyway), and lives on this blog, it’s surprising you haven’t read Turley’s bio. The link is at the top; William should probably read it also.

      3. Then why does a learned scholar like yourself bother with Turley’s blog?

  8. “What I’m Going To Do To You Is Going To Be F–ing Disgusting”: Michael Cohen In His Own Voice”

    Not nearly as disgusting as Turley in his own voice claiming to be a civil libertarian.

  9. “One of the most interesting aspects of Trump’s controversies over presidential power is the line between the rhetorical and the actual.

    If you take away Trump’s often jarring language, his actions are not that dissimilar from other presidents.”


    Lawyer rhetoric?

  10. Yawn. I recall Bill Clinton called into a live, on-air, media show and threatened them as listeners heard every word. Yeah I know. Double standard so one gets a pass while the other is burned at the proverbial stake these days.

    1. One difference, though, is that Turley is engaged in his Cohen character assignation pieces while Cohen is facing criminal charges, and knows — or should know — about issues of negative pretrial publicity impairing a defendant’s right to due process of law. If he wanted to, he could read all about the legal authorities on that subject in Manafort’s Memorandum in support of Motion for Hearing on Government leaks. There’s a bunch of legal precedent concerning pretrial publicity.

      Turley can’t possibly be unfamiliar with the issue, so I can only reasonably conclude that he isn’t just attacking Cohen’s character (while proving his own lack of character), but is intentionally attempting to mess with Cohen’s right to due process of law.

      To me, that’s what’s really disgusting about Turley’s conduct, which appears to go well beyond the usual tabloid smear jobs.

  11. The rape your spouse thingy really depends on the year of the divorce, not the year of the Cohen phone call. And didn’t she walk that back?

    1. She did walk it back — and Turley KNOWS it. And Turley also knows that people say all sorts of things during divorce proceedings and that she said it during divorce proceedings.

      Turley failed to mention ANY of that, ALL of which he knows or should know, just like he knew or should have known about Avenatti’s history of being a total scumbag lawyer when he wrote the promotional bio of him prior to their public appearance together.

      Bottom line — Turley’s integrity is bottoming out faster than either Cohen’s OR Avenatti’s.

  12. Aparently Prof. Turley does not know many real world lawyers.

    Without defending Cohen, I can provide him a list of less competent and/or more offensive lawyers who badly need disbarred.

    No profession does a good job of policing itself. But the Bar is especially bad.

    I would note that the harm Cohen does to those he “goes after” is small – did Daily Beast capitulate ?
    Did Cohen successfully “ruin them” or whatever ?
    Not justifying Cohen. But the Harm Cohen does is primarily to Trump – his client. That seems appropriate.

    But what of the myriads of other lousy lawyers who represent clients less skilled and less able to judge the competence of their lawyer ?

  13. I wonder if there’s any possibility at all Cohen is a staged distraction? I’m not entirely certain he isn’t.

        1. So what’s the answer? And a distraction planned by whom?

        2. Still waiting for an answer. A distraction from what, and staged by whom. You claim to know the answers, so let’s hear ’em.

          1. Apparently you need a penetrating glimpse into the obvious pointed out…

            1. Oh, wonderful — another JACKASS asserting that something is obvious while not citing what it is. OK, JACKASS — show me — explain it to me so that I can explain to you why it’s not obvious and why you’re an even bigger JACKASS than the first JACKASS, JACKASS.

  14. Hey Professor — you oughta read Moby Dick. It’s a story about some guy that has an obsessive hatred. The obsessive hatred is aimed at a whale, not a human, but that’s just a literary device that highlights the ridiculous nature of obsessive hatred (as well as transforming the story into a tale of adventure).

    Anyway, this guy with the obsessive hatred says such things as this about the subject of his hatred:

    “Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

    And when he finally catches up with the subject of his obsessive hatred, in the process of not only dying but taking down his entire ship and all aboard but I guy who calls himself Ishmael, he speaks his final words directly to the subject of his obsessive hatred:

    “To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”

    Now, I’m not saying that you’re stabbing at Cohen from Hell’s heart (although your frequent appearances on Fox and writing pieces for the WaPo might cause some from both ends of the political spectrum to offer that suggestion), but I do think you might wanna read that story or, if you’ve previously read it, give it another read, this time for comprehension.

    Meanwhile, your affiliation with Avenatti is FAR more disgusting and disreputable that anything you’ve accused Cohen of doing. Aside from other issues such as pending bar complaint, causing hundreds to lose their jobs, tax evasion, etc., Avenatti was just invite to exit the courtroom the other day by a judge that gave him the choice of giving up his TV appearances related to Cohen or giving up his chance for appearances in her courtroom for participation in the Cohen case due to his conduct prejudicial to Cohen’s right to due process of law, and Avenatti — a lawyer (LOL LOL LOL) — decided to give up his chance for appearances in the courtroom instead of his appearances on TV.

    That might seem natural to you — choosing TV appearances to functioning as an actual lawyer in court — but I think most people would expect a lawyer to choose court over TV, otherwise they’d have gone to acting school instead of law school.

    So much for Avenatti’s nterest in “justice.” I guess he’s kinda like you in that way — the way you’re intending to poison the well regarding Cohen’s right to due process of law by assisting Avenatti in generating as much pretrial publicity and prejudice against Cohen as is humanly possible.

    Nice going, counselor.

    1. PS: I’m not singling you out, professor, for having obsessive hatred. There’s a lot of that going around these days — mostly aimed at Trump, I think. But the Daily Caller has the same thing going with Joy Reid AND Joy Behar (I think is how she spells it) — no other explanation I can think of BUT obsessive hatred — although maybe the Caller just doesn’t think two such joyless people should be named Joy.

      Who can explain obsessive hatred? I’m guessing a psychologist would go fishing into a person’s childhood to the answer.

      1. PPS: Still waiting for your piece about Eric Schneiderman, one of the powerful leaders of the #Metoo Movement accused of being a violent sex offender with a “brown slave” — a state attorney general who allegedly threatened his victims with his police powers, including having them tailed and having their phones tapped — a guy whose defense when confronted with the accusations was that he was just “role playing.”

        Why no obsessive hatred for Schneiderman? Doesn’t he rate as a scumbag attorney in your book? Cohen has been all over the news, and twice as much in your legal blog, but Schneiderman seems to have dropped out of the news altogether, and I’ve still not read your opinions about his conduct — and Schneiderman was some guy’s assistant, he was the top guy, the top cop in New York state.

        What gives with your priorities concerning calling out alleged scumbag lawyers?

      2. WB FWIW the two Joys you mentioned are despised by Progressive Indies as well. We wish they would fade away.

        1. LOL — that video was a pretty good take down. Hard to imagine anyone so disconnected as to not know about Wikileak’s record of authentication — better than any other source of information on the planet. But from that video, I’d say that all political persuasions have their Joy Reids whom they wish would melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West. Somehow, though, it appears that democrats are particularly digitally challenged. I remember when the DNC announced that it had been hacked, but before any hacked documents were published, the DNC claimed with absolute certainty that no donor information had been breeched, which caused the hacker going by the name of Guccifer 2.0 to release the next day a handful of documents, including donor financial records — just to prove that the DNC was full of s-h-I-t. Then Donna Brazil warned that any future release of hacked documents would probably be faked. And that’s what caused a number of people to have to explain to her pretty much what Mr. Black pointed out in the video — that there are ways to prove that hacked documents have not been tampered with.
          I think DNC must stand for Digital Nitwit Club.

          1. WB – DNC was NOT hacked – the documents were leaked to Wikileaks. His name was Seth Rich

            1. Yeah, I misspoke (or miswrote). I’m aware of the high statistical probability and related information about the off-loading rate which indicates it was an internal job and not an outside hack. I’m not aware of evidence that it was Seth Rich, but that is a theory.
              Another theory with a bit more evidence behind it is that it was the Awans — the Pakistanis whom Lil’ Debbie What’s-her-face hired as IT for the congressional democrats. That’s one of the few benefits of checking out the Daily Caller (which I have very little respect for, except that it sometimes covers stories to are not covered elsewhere). They’ve done some remarkable investigative reporting on the Awans and what they were up to as unsupervised IT for congressional democrats — proven to have sent huge volumes of congressional digital records to some unknown off-site location, proven to have illegally accessed records using congressional accounts which they weren’t authorized to use, even after they were banned from the Capitol — a very long list of digital misconduct which apparently also includes a connection to Pakistani Intelligence.
              If you’re not familiar with that story, you should check it out. Lil’ Debbie refused to fire them even after they’d been caught in serious misconduct and banned from the Capitol Building. The theory is that being in possession of congressional democrat records, the Awans are blackmailing Lil’ Debbie.

              1. William Bayer – I think the Awans may have also downloaded info, but that is different from the leaked info.

                1. “Downloaded” as meaning what? I think they sent the congressional democrat info to a location currently unknown, and did it over the web. And they directly possessed a ton of digital devices, some of which were abandoned in the garage of a house they were renting to a marine. And some of which they stole via thumb or flash drives. I think that that got and transmitted digital information every way it’s possible to do it, if the reporting of the Daily Caller can be trusted (much of which can’t be trusted, but this info came from the investigative news group, which is a higher quality bunch than the ones that crank out the daily articles).

              2. WB – I am very familiar with the Awan scandal and the cover up. You’d think Congress would be upset wouldn’t you? But no, in fact one of the folks who used their “services” is now the CA AG. The case has been delayed 6 times, Awan’s attorney is a Clintonite, DWS’s brother is the DC federal prosecuter.

                Luke Rosiak is like a pit bull on this subject – a true journalist. This is a serious national security issue which few are aware of.

                According to Rosiak


                Oversight abandoned: Capitol Police said they stopped doing interviews in the Awan case a year ago, yet Republicans have been tricked into thinking they can’t be involved bc it’s ‘ongoing’ http://pllqt.it/aNhiM8

      1. Which makes it all the more curious that Turley is fixated on this one. It’s obviously something besides his allegedly being a bad lawyer that’s caused Turley to fall in love with hating the guy.

        1. The professor seems much impressed ( blinded by his former student?) with Avenatti; judge Kimbra Woods , not so much.

          1. LOL — yeah, and part of that with the judge(I’m pretty sure) is that she suspects that she’s gonna have to convict Cohen, and doesn’t want what happens to be blamed on her allowing that circus clown to turn the proceedings into a joke.
            I honestly don’t know what Turley sees in his former student, unless it’s simple admiration for the fact that the guy’s apparently willing to do anything (sort of the opposite of Turley’s reserved character). Or maybe it has something to do with Turley expecting Avenatti to actually be able to take Trump down. It’s a real enigma to me, being the opposite of what seemed to be Turley’s public persona, pre-Avenatti.

    2. “…and Heaven have mercy on us all – Presbyterians and Pagans alike – for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending.”
      ~ Herman Melville, Moby Dick

      1. Yes — and as I mentioned to Paul a week or so ago, there’s no doubt that Melville was a master at his craft. If only he’d left out all of the whale science (or stuck it in an appendix) it would be an even greater book.

        1. Agreed but he got paid by the page. If you like Melville, you gotta love Hawthorne:
          “She had wandered, without rule or guidance, into a moral wilderness… Her intellect and heart had their home, as it were, in desert places, where she roamed as freely as the wild Indian in his woods… The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers—stern and wild ones—and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss.” That, to any man of letters, is inspiring and inspired writing.

          1. I’m sure The Scarlet Letter is excellent, being a book I was forced to read in school when very young — but it’s not among those I’ve revisited as an adult. Too many reasons to go into. Too many reasons why books I really like are really liked — but a lot of it, I think, has to do with the character of the author coming through in the main character of the story. It’s something beyond the mere quality of the writing, and it’s not an absolute rule, since I don’t apply that standard to Shakespeare. But it does apply to books such as Huck Finn and, obviously all of Twain’s nonfiction (which I prefer), to some extent the books of Steinbeck (especially Cannery Row, but that’s because the main character was based upon Steinbeck’s good friend, who could have almost been his twin, character-wise), and a list of others.
            Maybe I’ll check out The Scarlet Letter. Thanks. Always helps to get a reminder, and maybe check to see if I have a different opinion at this late stage of life.

            1. It’s just a great book unpacking the whole range of human emotion and it’s my favorite American novel. Apologies to Twain.

              1. mespo – and you should apologize to Twain and a lot of other authors. 😉

  15. In the midst of a coup d’etat in America, should we focus on a “…reckless and unprofessional lawyer?”

    “…the White House is running this.”

    “Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote, ‘the White House is running this.’,” Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 5, 2016. “My answer, ‘well, maybe for you they are.’”

    “Page replied: “Yeah, whatever (re WH comment). We’ve got emails that say otherwise.”

    “Two days later, Strzok texted Page: “Hey talked to him, will let him fill you in. internal joint cyber cd intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainor [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

    “In the texts, “D” refers to former FBI Director James Comey, and “McDonough” referred to Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, GOP investigators said. McDonough’s name, though, was redacted and only turned up when viewed by GOP investigators.”


Comments are closed.