Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

CNN Airs Secret Trump/Cohen Convo – Embarrassingly Backfires As Soon As It Starts Playing

Somebody’s in trouble!

Published

on

In what many consider flagrant dishonesty and misrepresentation, not to mention a significant breach of the ethics that govern the attorney-client relationship, President Donald Trump’s longtime former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, provided CNN with a copy of a secretly recorded conversation between then-candidate Trump and himself from September 2016.

In the recorded conversation, Trump and Cohen discuss the purchasing of the rights to a Playboy model’s claim that she and Trump had an affair. The conversation took place just prior to the highly contentious 2016 presidential election.

The Playboy model, Karen McDougal, claims to have had a nearly year-long affair with Trump in 2006 while current wife, Melania Trump was pregnant with their son, Barron. McDougal claims the affair continued up until Melania gave birth. McDougal profited from her story, selling it to the National Enquirer for $150,000 during the final months of the presidential campaign. The tabloid chose not to publish the story, however, choosing instead to sit on the story preventing it from becoming public knowledge in a practice known as “catch and k**l.”

Cohen secretly recorded the conversation with Trump without his knowledge or consent. In the recording, Cohen can be heard stating to Trump that he needs “to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David.” The David referenced in the conversation likely refers to American Media Inc. head and owner of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, a longtime, personal friend of Trump.

For context purposes, Cohen’s exact words to Trump are – “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David.”

Trump then is heard interrupting to ask Cohen – “What financing?”

Cohen replies to Trump, stating – “We’ll have to pay.”

Trump replies –  “Pay with cash.”

*** With regards to Trump’s response “pay with cash” the audio is significantly muddled and it is not clear whether he is directing Cohen to pay with cash or directing to not pay at all.

Cohen responds with “no, no, no” but it is unclear what was said next.

Cohen is currently represented by attorney Lanny Davis, a Washington lawyer who is close to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Davis insists that “the truth is on our side” after Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s current attorney, attempted to clear up any confusion regarding the muddled nature of the secretly taped conversation.

Giuliani confirmed with the New York Times last week that Trump and Cohen had discussed payments – and “there was no indication on the tape that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal.”

“Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” said Giuliani, adding that Trump had previously told Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, to write a check instead of sending cash so that the transaction could be properly documented. “In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” Giuliani added.

The Hill reports –

“Though Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani previously insisted Cohen suggested using cash to buy the story, Davis pointed to the audio as proof that it was Trump’s suggestion all along. (Davis is a columnist for The Hill.)

Giuliani contested Davis’s interpretation and released the Trump team’s version of the transcript, which contradicts Davis. While Davis said Trump was suggesting the two pay cash, Giuliani’s version of the transcript says Trump is saying, “Don’t pay with cash … check.”

Davis smiled when CNN anchor Chris Cuomo read him Giuliani’s version of the transcript.

“Everybody heard just now Donald Trump say the word ‘cash,'” Davis said. “After Michael Cohen mentioned financing. When Mr. Giuliani … accused my client, Mr. Cohen, of saying the word ‘cash,’ I said, ‘Wait for the tapes.'”

“The tape contradicts Giuliani,” Davis continued.

“The only people who use cash are drug dealers and mobsters,” he added.

Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, denied that the audio proved that Trump was offering to pay in cash.
“Whoever is telling Davis that cash in that conversation refers to green currency is lying to him,” Futerfas told CNN. “There’s no transaction done in green currency. It doesn’t happen. The whole deal never happened. If it was going to happen, it would be a payment to a large company that would obviously be accompanied by an agreement of sale. Those documents would be prepared by lawyers on both sides.”

Throughout the interview, Davis painted Cohen as a victim of attacks by Trump, Giuliani and their allies.

He said Cohen is ready to “turn a new corner” and tell the truth about what transpired between himself and the president.”

McDougal has levied accusations of her own against Cohen, stating he took part in the deal. Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney and fixer of all things for a long time. In a significant breach of standard protocol, the FBI raided Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room in the early morning hours of April 9 searching for records regarding payments made to two women who had claimed they had affairs with Trump.

Cohen made a similar payment of $130,000 to porn star and stripper Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. Cohen said at the time “In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.”

Clifford – whose husband just recently filed for divorce, has an active lawsuit against Trump over a nondisclosure agreement so that she can “tell her story” though Daniels lost an arbitration hearing forcing her to adhere to the agreement after Cohen filed a restraining order against her. She is also suing both Trump and Cohen for libel after Trump called her statements “fraud” over Twitter while claiming that Clifford fabricated a story that she was threatened by a man after she went to journalists with the story of her affair.

Court records show electronic devices and paper records containing more than 800,000 individual files were seized in the raid. There were also a total of 12 audio recordings, now in the hands of federal prosecutors from the files seized from Cohen. The recordings were recently turned over to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York after attorneys for both Cohen and Trump withdrew their claim that the recordings should be protected from prosecutors’ eyes due to attorney-client privilege, according to recent documents filed by a court-appointed watchdog, Barbara Jones.

According to the New York Times – “By burying Ms. McDougal’s story during the campaign in a practice known in the tabloid industry as ‘catch and k**l,’ A.M.I. protected Mr. Trump from negative publicity that could have harmed his election chances, spending money to do so.

The authorities believe that the company was not always operating in what campaign finance law calls a ‘legitimate press function,’ according to the people briefed on the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That may explain why prosecutors did not follow typical Justice Department protocol to avoid subpoenaing news organizations when possible and to give journalists advance warning when demanding documents or other information.”

Davis argues that while Trump never paid for the rights, the 2016 recording shows Trump was aware of the payment. Trump himself weighed in regarding the FBI raid on Cohen’s office, home, and hotel room, tweeting – “Inconceivable that the government would break into a lawyer’s office (early in the morning) – almost unheard of. Even more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client – totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!”

However, Cohen has yet to be charged with any crime and many speculate that this is simply more of the Mueller-led witch hunt against Trump. There is also some issue with regards to the ethical considerations of an attorney secretly recording his conversations with a client and then releasing it to the media. Many mainstream media sources have also noted that New York is what is known as a “one party state”  meaning only one person need consent to the recording of a conversation.

However, it is important to note that Cohen is a legal professional, an attorney admitted to the American Bar Association (ABA), and as such certain ethics and guidelines govern his conduct along with his future ability to practice law if he chooses to ignore.

According to the ABA “Ethics codes, such as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, do not specifically address covert recording by lawyers. The secret recording of conversations potentially implicates a number of general ethical standards, however. Model Rule 8.4 states that it is ‘professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.’

In 1974 the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Formal Opinion 337 prohibited secret recordings, reasoning that secret recordings would be tantamount to dishonesty or misrepresentation. The ABA affirmed this position a year later and stated that a lawyer was also ethically prohibited from directing an investigator to tape- record a conversation without the knowledge of the other party.”

It appears Cohen has some explaining to do…

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’

There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this

Right Wing News

Published

on

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend

Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:

Calling 911 On Black People May Be Hate Crime Under Proposed Law

And the article backs that headline up:

New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.

State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.

“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.

Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.

The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.

The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.

I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?

There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:

Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More

Continue Reading

News

Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance

Obama-appointed officials cleaned house

Published

on

A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.

Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.

The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.

Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!

Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:

“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”

Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.

“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”

The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.

“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”

Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.

In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.

A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.

The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.

It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”

Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.

“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.

To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.

Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”

After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.

Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.

The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.

Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend