HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The (non) client list tha...

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:12 AM

The (non) client list that Cohen's attorneys provided

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4438420-Letter.html

I can't copy/paste. Maybe someone can screen capture? It appears they only named Trump and Elliot Broidy and didn't name the supposed "hundreds" of clients Cohen use to have.

15 replies, 900 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply The (non) client list that Cohen's attorneys provided (Original post)
Clarity2 Apr 2018 OP
democratisphere Apr 2018 #1
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #4
malaise Apr 2018 #2
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #8
NCTraveler Apr 2018 #3
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #6
NCTraveler Apr 2018 #10
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #12
pnwmom Apr 2018 #14
NCTraveler Apr 2018 #15
Renew Deal Apr 2018 #5
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #7
Shrike47 Apr 2018 #9
matt819 Apr 2018 #11
Clarity2 Apr 2018 #13

Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:19 AM

1. The alternative reality clients are on the alternative facts list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:29 AM

4. Ha

In their alternative mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:22 AM

2. Here's the confusion

John Miller, John Barron (John Baron), David Dennison, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:35 AM

8. Of course...Trump, Trump and more Trump n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:24 AM

3. Federal Rules Outlining the Use of Masters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:31 AM

6. No actual provable list

should mean no dice? You can't just provide a letter that Trump & Broidy were clients without documents to back that up (i.e. communications and legal filings, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:37 AM

10. Just putting the rules out there.

This is what they are desperate for. It's a good sign as they clearly know the search won't be thrown out. They are just trying to mitigate the damage. I think this is their best shot to do so.

I also support these counters by Trump and Cohen. They are vital to the system and how it operates. The nature of how all of this is going down is big. It must be dealt with properly and every point of contention, for the most part, must be respectfully heard.

I did read the document at the link. Seems there are some questionable things there. The general argument is sound but they don't provide supporting evidence. Just the opposite, actually. It would be a bit frightening to me if I were one of their clients and was reading that they have zero clue as to what is in their own correspondence, databases, and general documents. What they are doing makes sense. At each turn it just seems as though they don't have a leg to stand on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:50 AM

12. Yes, agree

with following the rule of law & proper procedure/protocol.

Hopefully we don't have to wait long on the judge's ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 12:06 PM

14. What do you think about their repeated claims that they don't know what was taken,

so they don't know if it affects various clients?

Or their argument that the appointment of a Special Master is justified because the situation is exceptional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 12:24 PM

15. A big part of my last paragraph is about your first sentence.

They are so absolute in their claim that it can have no basis in reality. I would think that would not only hurt their case but horrify any past clients. I think there would be an argument there if they hadnít put it forward in such an absolute manner. Ignorance isnít the best argument at this level.

The ďexceptionalĒ argument is real and should be given more merit, IMO. Seems the judge is doing just that. I donít think the judge will be impressed by this damn near non-response on any level. An opportunity was given to Cohens team to make an argument and they did so in a very weak manner. Iím assuming they feel more comfortable putting a stronger case together on appeal or just using that process to drag it out.

I really feel that Iím half as smart as the people involved here but I could have made a stronger argument. Something else is going on. They know they put forward a weak argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:30 AM

5. I think this is the point of the prosecutors

He's not really lawyering...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:33 AM

7. No, I don't think

anyone believed that in the first place. He's just a fixer. And his relationship with his last law firm seems shady too. A 500K yearly payment for what services exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:37 AM

9. It impresses me, as a retired govt lawyer, just how weak Cohens and Trumps filings are.

This is the best they can do? Seems to me they arenít really trying. Maybe their real goal is delay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clarity2 (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:38 AM

11. Basically

Their response is, trust us, he had lots of clients, and we're not going to tell you who they were.

Not a lawyer, but. . .

I wonder how much it would take to research his name in conjunction with legal actions - briefs filed, trials done, motions made, etc. - for the last 20 years (or more). Surely most of the last 20 years is digital.

Okay, don't release that info and risk contempt of court. Then when we find out and make it public - because much of it is likely to be public record anyway - it'll be that much more fun. And for documents that might not be public, there can be references to actions before they became unavailable.

Sure, it would be helpful to have all of the buffoon's aliases - John Miller, John Baron, David Dennison are most likely just a few of many.

I'm hoping the judge says, you violated my order, and you get nothing. Everything goes to the SDNY privilege team. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matt819 (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:57 AM

13. I was thinking that too

How simple it probably would be to search court records for legal proceedings. They've got nothing, and I'd bet my money there are no legal cases. I'm sure what they submitted drew the judge's ire, and as you said, he will probably rule against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread