This bullshit speaks for itself. Itâs clear that Cohen has only one real client, and thatâs Donald J. Trump.
It would be interesting to see the search warrant affidavit. If the Government provided evidence that Cohenâs entire âpracticeâ was essentially a criminal enterprise, then there would be no attorney-client privilege protection at all. Thereâs a price to be paid for bragging about being a âbulldogâ, representing shady characters (like Trump) and going around making threats. Cohen seems to be paying it.
So the top âlegalâ group in the US canât use the law against criminals because they might be BIASED? JHC.
I am perplexed. Another letter instead of a proper motion, brief or pleading. And WTF does the âMJâ in the case number stand for?
disclosing the identity of this third unnamed client or of other previous clients Cohen has engaged would âmost certainly be embarrassing and âdetrimentalâ to those clients
âI am such a noxious person that my clients are afraid to be tied to me publiclyâ
this is an interesting business strategy
They are just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
They are now claiming that the Prosecutors cannot be âImpartialâ because they have seen evidence?!?!?!?!
Where in our adversarial criminal justice system does it say PROSECUTORS must remain âimpartialâ!?!?!?!
ITâS THEIR FUCKING JOB to be the Stateâs ADVOCATE for PROSECUTION, not to help the Defendant get out of it.
Christ on a crutchâŚ
WTF? Did ANY of these Trumpster clowns actually go to law school?
I hope the judge just follows the law and tells Cohenâs attorneys to come back when they have something legal to talk about. And again, why use the letter format. Wasnât there a warrant and isnât there an actual case number. A pleading would seem to be in order.
I think they are using the letter format for full Fox News effect.
Regarding the third, unnamed client, there is this interesting sentence in the letter:
Upon information and belief, the unnamed legal clientâs matters are responsive to any matter
covered by Attachment A of the search warrants. (emphasis added)
I confess that the first time I read that sentence, I read it as âare not responsiveâ because thatâs what I expected to see. But itâs much more interesting as written.
âThe Department of Justice canât fairly sort through Cohenâs documents because theyâre biased against criminals.â
Trump tweets: âPlaying tapes of my voice itself is DEEPLY PREJUDICIAL since Comeyâs baritone makes me sound like a high-pitched child! Hilary and Obama directed the entire DOJ to find recordings of me in order to humiliate me! CRIMINAL!â
McDermott, Will & Emery: âIn the current climate, the controversy over the timbre and pitch of the Presidentâs voice dictate that all recordings of him be erased in order to avoid the toxic partisan politics of the day and attacks on the impartiality of the Justice Department.â
Well, that was a complete load of shit.
I went and looked at the docket report I am at a complete loss to understand what in the fuck these people think theyâre doing. It looks like Trumpâs lawyers must have made an oral motion to intervene at the hearing, which Wood granted. Which in itself is through the looking glass stuff to me.
Iâm guessing âMJâ means âMagistrate Judgeâ and that this somehow relates to a motion filed in the original probable cause proceeding, but itâs all just incomprehensible to me. Maybe someone from NYC can make sense of it or someone who practices federal white collar criminal law. Or both. But I know enough to know when a document submitted to a court is a load of shit when I see it.
Between 2017 and 2018, they note, Cohen had seven business clients and three legal clients
WTF is that even supposed to mean? If someone wasnât a âlegal clientâ, then there would be no attorney-client privilege under any circumstance, anyway.
But for someone practicing law, there is no such distinction, nor has anyone ever heard of such a distinction in the context of attorney-client relationship, between âbusinessâ clients and âlegalâ clients. For an attorney, ALL clients are âlegalâ clients.
Again, WTF are these clowns even talking about? âOh, no, your honor â this is not a legal client, this is a business client.â
This is so bad. The names of clients arenât privileged. You have to be able to identify the person to determine whether the privilege attaches.
Instead of making a legal argument, Cohenâs lawyers claim that
âUnder Second Circuit law, the identity of a client may be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege in âspecial circumstances.â Vingelli v. Drug Enfât Agency, 992 F.2d 449, 450 (2d Cir. 1993) (âRecognizing that client identity . . . [is] not presently sheltered under the privilege, defense counsel urges that the information sought falls into one of the special exceptions to that rule. What those âspecial circumstancesâ are that would protect this information has not been precisely defined. What they are remains as enigmatic as the smile that Leonardo Da Vinci left us on the face of the Mona Lisa. In light of defense counselâs argument, our task is to examine the special circumstances rules to see if they apply in the present case.â).â
Oh please. Is there any case in which a lawyer was required to disclose the name of a client because of âspecial circumstancesâ? If so, cite them. What did those cases recognize as âspecial circumstancesâ? Comparisons to Mona Lisaâs smile are about as unhelpful as could be.
Instead, Cohenâs lawyers offer this lame argument: âAlthough there is a paucity of case law explaining factual situations that constitute âspecial circumstances,â we respectfully submit that the circumstances do not get more special than the unique circumstances presented by this case.â
But the whole letter is lame.
As I said in another thread, theyâre trying to work the ref. Posted this earlier.
Yeah, that was the key bullshit signal.
Cohenâs lawyers stated in their letter that it was responsive to Judge Woodâs request for letter briefs at the hearing on Friday. If thatâs correct, that would solve the puzzleâŚ
Maybe the Judge could sign a NDA�
I wondered whether they had left out ânot.â The letter is sloppy enough to make me believe they might have. I hope against hope that Judge Woods forces Cohen to disclose the name. Itâs probably a doozy.