“This wasn’t a suicide, it was a murder!”
but he has client attorney privilege when he’s on fox and friends!
Fuck yea, picnic-blanket plaid.
All I know is that Mr. Duggan – that crooked sonofabitch – got what was coming to him.
(Also, the guy playing Mr Duggan is none other than Uncle Fester from The Addams Family.)
Really…Marcia?
Jerry Marcia
Timex wins today’s ‘best joke post of the day’ award.
Isn’t that an ice cream?
Avanetti hints that Broidy wasn’t really Cohen’s client, just Trump’s beard.
“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”
Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.
“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”
Holy crap, that would be amazing. Then the millions of people that voted for Trump solely because he was allegedly against abortion would…probably forgive him.
I have the same talent, but with Weird Al lyrics
@HumanTon how is that possible and no one picked up on it, since it was in open court?
It’s gonna be awesome to see evangelicals say that God wants them to support a guy who paid a woman to have an abortion, so that he can do God’s work against abortions.
For a real answer you’d have to ask Avanetti, since he’s the guys making the claim. But here’s some speculation … Based on a quick Googling, this seems to be the timeline:
April 13: Judge Wood orders that the names of all Cohen clients protected by attorney-client privilege be made public in court on April 16.
Later on April 13: WSJ names Broidy as making the Playboy model payout negotiated by Cohen. Broidy resigns from the RNC, saying “It is unfortunate that this personal matter between two consenting adults is the subject of national discussion just because of Michael Cohen’s involvement,” (Which note isn’t quite the same as, “because I hired Michael Cohen.”)
April 16: Wood asks the Cohen team to ID an unidentified client; the Cohen team IDs Hannity. A whole bunch of the news articles about the Hannity reveal mention Broidy is “the third client” … but none I can find specifically say Broidy was ID’d as a Cohen client in court the way Hannity was.
The reports just seem to assume that everyone knows he is one, based on the WSJ article and Broidy’s statement.
The conflict between what Avanatti’s saying and what everyone else believes might have an explanation as simple as, say, the Trump Organization paying for Cohen to negotiate Broidy’s settlement as a favor to Broidy. (… Though the notion of Trump paying that much to help another human being doesn’t quite ring true, and anyway I think Broidy would still count as a Cohen client in that case.)
God works in mysterious ways. Who are you to question the divine? Now do your duty and click the check box next to everyone who has ® next to their name.
Ah, so only one was named in court, and everyone just assumed the third was Broidy… but I thought that in the initial court session…the one on Friday, when Cohen was with his besties smoking cigars and his counsel said the third client (Hannity) wished to not be named, that Broidy was indicated then.
Scratch that, I’m thinking of Monday, when they initially declined to say who the third client was
From CNN:
In a letter submitted before Monday’s hearing, Cohen’s attorneys said he had 10 clients in 2017 to 2018 but that only three of them were regarding legal matters. The other seven were of a business consulting nature.
The letter identified two of the clients, Trump and former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy, who has acknowledged paying $1.6 million to a Playboy model with whom he had an affair. After a lengthy back-and-forth, the judge ordered Cohen’s lawyers to identify the third client, who Ryan said had asked to remain confidential, and was told it was Fox News host Sean Hannity.
What does this mean in English?
Cohen and his lawyers were up against it, with Cohen being the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI’s SDNY office and part of a civil suit in California. If the suit had moved forward on its current schedule, it’s possible that testimony and evidence given in the suit could be used against him in the criminal investigation underway. But…if he takes the fifth in his suit, that hurts him a ton, because in civil proceedings that essentially prevents you from presenting your side of things.
So now he doesn’t have to do that for a little while, and the investigators in the FBI’s New York office won’t have that evidence and testimony to work with.