Trump's lawyer to take the fifth.

[Subduction Zone]

"President Trump's longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a civil lawsuit brought by adult entertainer Stormy Daniels — a move that would prevent him revealing anything that could be used later by federal prosecutor."

That will also greatly reduce his ability to rebut the claims of Stormy. Talk about running a race with one foot in a bucket.

Gotta love how the article ends:

' At a campaign rally he said: "The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" '



Michael Cohen Says He Will Take The Fifth In Stormy Daniels Suit

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No one should assume guilt just because someone uses their constitutional right to not be a witness against themselves. At the same time, the hypocrisy of Trump's statements are always too delicious to stay away from.

 

[Revoltingest]

' At a campaign rally he said: "The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" '

Oh, the voice of the inexperienced & careless.
When dealing with government, one learns to give as little info as possible.
In matters legal, it can be quite surprising how being open, candid & honest
could arm the opposition to turn something perfectly legal & ethical into claims
of wrongdoing. Even if they know they won't succeed, they can use this to
to cause one to burn thru one's finances in defense. Tis a common tactic.
I'll wager your left one that Martha Stewart now fully understands this.

 

[icehorse]

Oh, the voice of the inexperienced & careless.
When dealing with government, one learns to give as little info as possible.

They really mean it when they say: "Everything you say CAN and WILL be used against you."

That said, in this case they're sure looking guiltier and guiltier.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one should assume guilt just because someone uses their constitutional right to not be a witness against themselves.

I realize that that is what jurors are told, but does that really make sense?Is there anything that you could say that would incriminate you (rhetorical question, not asking for an answer)? Why shouldn't I consider a person who is afraid of incriminating himself as probably having something illegal to hide?

Oh, the voice of the inexperienced & careless.

Generally undesirable characteristics in a president, wouldn't you agree?

they're sure looking guiltier and guiltier.

Agreed. This isn't rocket science. Mueller's investigation unearthed a swamp of corruption. It's just a matter of sorting out what can be proven against whom in a court of law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally undesirable characteristics in a president, wouldn't you agree?

Aye dat.

 

[Phantasman]

Oh, the voice of the inexperienced & careless.
When dealing with government, one learns to give as little info as possible.
In matters legal, it can be quite surprising how being open, candid & honest
could arm the opposition to turn something perfectly legal & ethical into claims
of wrongdoing. Even if they know they won't succeed, they can use this to
to cause one to burn thru one's finances in defense. Tis a common tactic.
I'll wager your left one that Martha Stewart now fully understands this.

That's the way I see it, as well. Congress is full of attorneys with two sided agendas. Lois Lerner did the same thing. Unless someone can prove your guilt, why open your mouth at all? Just a sweat bead is enough for the mob to say "See. He must be guilty.". The judicial system has become a joke, in many respects.

When one "unelected" judge can overpower an "elected President of the people", you know that something needs a makeover badly.

 

[Stanyon]

 

[metis]

Did anyone see Trump's half-hour rant on Fox two mornings ago? He really did himself in on that one, and one director at Fox supposedly said that Murdock called to have them pull the plug on Trump as he was making such a completely lying fool of himself.

I hate to say this but it appears he's losing it.

 

[metis]

When one "unelected" judge can overpower an "elected President of the people", you know that something needs a makeover badly.

Which would then end the "rule of law". Judges have to work within the law as much as presidents do or they're out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one should assume guilt just because someone uses their constitutional right to not be a witness against themselves. At the same time, the hypocrisy of Trump's statements are always too delicious to stay away from.

He is of course not accused of breaking the law in the Stormy Daniels lawsuit, but the problem is that any testimony that he makes could be conceivably used against him in the latest government action against him. My main point was that by taking the Fifth he makes it almost impossible to win a lawsuit that may come down to a "He said/she said". In this case "he" will say nothing so the judge will have to judge it largely on Stormy's testimony alone.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

He is of course not accused of breaking the law in the Stormy Daniels lawsuit, but the problem is that any testimony that he makes could be conceivably used against him in the latest government action against him. My main point was that by taking the Fifth he makes it almost impossible to win a lawsuit that may come down to a "He said/she said". In this case "he" will say nothing so the judge will have to judge it largely on Stormy's testimony alone.

I don't think the case will come down to whether Cohen paid Ms. Daniels. I think he has already admitted as much on the public record. At least from what I have heard, the real question is how he got the home equity loan from the bank. Did he state on the loan that he was using the money to pay off Stormy Daniels? If he gave a false statement on the loan application then that is bank fraud. If he transferred that money then it becomes wire fraud. If Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels to help the Trump campaign, then that is a violation of campaign finance law. If there was collusion between Cohen and anyone in the Trump campaign (including the Boss) then it could pull them into the charges. I'm not sure what's in the defamation case, but they would have to be suing about public statements that Cohen has already said.

Out of all of that, it is entirely legal to pay someone and have them sign an NDA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think the case will come down to whether Cohen paid Ms. Daniels. I think he has already admitted as much on the public record. At least from what I have heard, the real question is how he got the home equity loan from the bank. Did he state on the loan that he was using the money to pay off Stormy Daniels? If he gave a false statement on the loan application then that is bank fraud. If he transferred that money then it becomes wire fraud. If Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels to help the Trump campaign, then that is a violation of campaign finance law. If there was collusion between Cohen and anyone in the Trump campaign (including the Boss) then it could pull them into the charges. I'm not sure what's in the defamation case, but they would have to be suing about public statements that Cohen has already said.

Out of all of that, it is entirely legal to pay someone and have them sign an NDA.

Right, two different cases here.

Stormy Daniels is trying to get out of her nondisclosure agreement. That is her lawsuit. It is not his admitting paying the money, that is already known. And I don't even know why it has to go on since the cat is out of the bag in that case. But that is the case where Cohen will be pleading the Fifth. He hampers his ability to win that case by doing so, but he is worried for what is yet to come.

Cohen may bet charged with making an illegal campaign contribution as you pointed out. That is a very possible suit and that is why Cohen is pleading the Fifth. And also as you pointed out collusion, if it exists, could be the end of Trump.

Meanwhile rumors are rampant that if it came to Cohen or Trump it is thought that Cohen will flip. He does not have the look of a G. Gordon Liddy.

A former assistant US attorney explains why Michael Cohen is likely to flip — something Trump's allies seem to have conceded

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right, two different cases here.

Stormy Daniels is trying to get out of her nondisclosure agreement. That is her lawsuit. It is not his admitting paying the money, that is already known. And I don't even know why it has to go on since the cat is out of the bag in that case.

It seems that Daniels is claiming that the NDA is invalid because Trump never signed it. In fact, the NDA doesn't even have Trump's name on it, and both parties are referred to using pseudonyms. Daniels has also cited public statements made by Cohen as violations of that NDA which may make it invalid.

It would seem to this non-laywer that the important bits of testimony would be Cohen stating that his client, Trump, intended to honor the contract and this intent was known to Daniels. Of course, this would require Trump to wave attorney-client privilege and admit that he knew about the NDA, so this probably won't happen. I'm not sure if any testimony by Cohen would help him win this suit on behalf of his client, which we all know is Trump.

 

[Phantasman]

Which would then end the "rule of law". Judges have to work within the law as much as presidents do or they're out.

The "rule of law" is only as good as the judge who interprets it. Which is why we have "courts" and "appeals".

 

[Shaul]

Which would then end the "rule of law". Judges have to work within the law as much as presidents do or they're out.

Can you recall a single rogue judge that has been sanctioned or fired?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you recall a single rogue judge that has been sanctioned or fired?

Yes I can. The most recent one that I can think of ran for what was supposedly a safe senate seat and lost.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which would then end the "rule of law". Judges have to work within the law as much as presidents do or they're out.

Prosecutors have a great deal of leeway, even more than judges.
The word, "imperious" perfectly describes prosecutors & judges
I've known.
Add to this, lawyers....the assault weapons of the 'justice' system.
They make things more rancorous & interminable because that's
where the money is.

 

[YmirGF]

Prosecutors have a great deal of leeway, even more than judges.
The word, "imperious" perfectly describes prosecutors & judges
I've known.
Add to this, lawyers....the assault weapons of the 'justice' system.
They make things more rancorous & interminable because that's
where the money is.

Which is why I think Cohen pleading the 5th is probably a wise course of action. If he gives them nothing, he gives them nothing to hang him with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is why I think Cohen pleading the 5th is probably a wise course of action. If he gives them nothing, he gives them nothing to hang him with.

Aye dat.

Caution:
I've no desire to see the guilty who deserve a spanking get away scot free.
I'm just discussing how the system works.
We can recall how Bill Clinton's big mouth got him impeached.