https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4487868-CohenAvenatti.html

I posted the above for the legal beagles to interpret. I don't understand if it is significant or not.

Both Carter Page & Sam Clovis are going to be on Hannity tonight. Hopefully Hannity will explore the interactions between Halper & Page/Clovis and not waste time with his usual pontifications.

Quote:

---

Hopefully Hannity will explore the interactions between Halper & Page/Clovis and not waste time with his usual pontifications.

---

Quote:

---

I posted the above for the legal beagles to interpret. I don't understand if it is significant or not.

---

Avenatti is a scummy lawyer. Not exactly news but his ass is in a crack.

SIAP

Is anyone else laughing that 2016 can be summed up w a comic?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I posted the above for the legal beagles to interpret. I don't understand if it is significant or not.

---

Avenatti is a scummy lawyer. Not exactly news but his ass is in a crack.

---

Pretty comical. This is all the stuff Avenatti has been denying on twitter and TV and every interview, threatening anyone who tries to out this with a lawsuit. My guess this pretty much ****s him up about how great an attorney he is. He thought it was cute with the bank records, well two can play that game.

Hawg, bindey, do the canons of legal ethics, or now, apparently Professional Responsibility, state that "just the appearance of impropriety from an officer of the court" deems that person unfit for duty?

There's a guy on Dobbs, Chris Farrel,from Judicial Watch, who was paraphrasing that rule/guideline. If so, holy cow, most of the guys on the SC are waaaaay unqualified, especially Mueller.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, bindey, do the canons of legal ethics, or now, apparently Professional Responsibility, state that "just the appearance of impropriety from an officer of the court" deems that person unfit for duty?

There's a guy on Dobbs from judicial ethics who was paraphrasing that rule/guideline. If so, holy cow, most of the guys on the SC are waaaaay unqualified, especially Mueller.

---

If I remember correctly Weissmann has been sanctioned in the past.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, bindey, do the canons of legal ethics, or now, apparently Professional Responsibility, state that "just the appearance of impropriety from an officer of the court" deems that person unfit for duty?

There's a guy on Dobbs from judicial ethics who was paraphrasing that rule/guideline. If so, holy cow, most of the guys on the SC are waaaaay unqualified, especially Mueller.

---

Judicial ethics is different from lawyer ethics. But your point is taken. FWIW, ethical guidelines and rules are a bit different than actual disciplinary proceedings. (We are lawyers, if so inclined we know how to skirt rules to get past actual discipline being imposed.)

That having been said, Avenatti has gotten himself into quite a mess, here. I don't currently see how he skates and emerges completely unscathed. Could be a fine, reprimand or could be a suspension. Don't know enough yet.

I'll add an additional thought: When you completely piss off a fellow lawyer to this point, plus give a personal guaranty you are already underwater and the flood usually doesn't recede for awhile.

GreyhoundDad said:

---

Trey Gowdy on Fox right now. He's part of the deep state and is full of shlt.

---

Yep, he needs to remember what team he's on!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trey-gowdy-fbis-use-of-informant-for-trump-campaign-was-appropriate

I think Weismann was sanctioned in the Enron, and the Arthur Anderson cases.

I don't know many of the details, but I do remember thinking that Weismann should have been hit harder on the discipline.

Mueller now investiating Trump for wanting Sessions to unrecuse himself. Guess this is the new angle for "obstruction,"

Quote:

---

President Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year that he should reverse his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian election interference.

Trump made the usual ask of Sessions during a dinner at the president's Mar-a-Lago estate in March 2017, the New York Times reported Tuesday. The meeting reportedly came shortly after Sessions announced his recusal.

The Times reported that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the incident as part of his sprawling investigation.

---

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/389806-trump-told-sessions-to-reverse-decision-to-recuse-himself-in-russia

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee) sided with Mueller (no surprise) and ruled that Manafort does not have the right to see some of the evidence against him.

Kevin Malone said:

---

GreyhoundDad said:

---

Trey Gowdy on Fox right now. He's part of the deep state and is full of shlt.

---

Yep, he needs to remember what team he's on!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trey-gowdy-fbis-use-of-informant-for-trump-campaign-was-appropriate

---

All my love and admiration...gone.

marble rye said:

---

Kevin Malone said:

---

GreyhoundDad said:

---

Trey Gowdy on Fox right now. He's part of the deep state and is full of shlt.

---

Yep, he needs to remember what team he's on!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trey-gowdy-fbis-use-of-informant-for-trump-campaign-was-appropriate

---

All my love and admiration...gone.

---

He's compromised, likely has been for years. Look at how he covered up Benghazi.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Desperation

---

I once semi-joked that Sessions was the plant in the Trump campaign.

Maybe it wasn't so far fetched after all.

Rapier108 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Desperation

---

I once semi-joked that Sessions was the plant in the Trump campaign.

Maybe it wasn't so far fetched after all.

---

I made the same supposition many pages ago on this thread as well... that as Trumps campaign took off, it wouldn't surprise me that he was assigned a "handler" by the GOPe.

Things are eerily quiet on the IG report front. Anybody else getting a little nervous about what might or what might not happen?

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee) sided with Mueller (no surprise) and ruled that Manafort does not have the right to see some of the evidence against him.

---

And how do they get to use that evidence against him if he is not allowed to see it? WTF?

---

You can make that happen with a proper CIPA order in place. But the D.C. Judge wouldn't bother. She's an Obama nut sack gargler.

Reservoir Dog said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Desperation

---

I once semi-joked that Sessions was the plant in the Trump campaign.

Maybe it wasn't so far fetched after all.

---

I made the same supposition many pages ago on this thread as well... that as Trumps campaign took off, it wouldn't surprise me that he was assigned a "handler" by the GOPe.

---

The theory I'm seeing a lot of people say is that this is a Mueller leak, either of grand jury testimony from Sessions, or that Sessions is about to testify and Mueller is trying to influence him into giving them enough ammo to indict Trump for obstruction.

I didn't think a sitting president could be indicted.

Rockdoc said:

---

I didn't think a sitting president could be indicted.

---

The DOJ's opinion is that he cannot be, but we're to the point where Mueller is openly ignoring the law, so a DOJ opinion won't matter.

An indictment is a gift to the Democrats for 2018, and even if the Supreme Court kicked Mueller in the ass eventually, the damage will be done.

Looks like this is where they're going now with Sessions. I've been seeing it make the rounds from liberal seminar posters.

It is word for word of Article II the House voted on against Nixon.

"repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies".

Rapier108 said:

---

Reservoir Dog said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Desperation

---

I once semi-joked that Sessions was the plant in the Trump campaign.

Maybe it wasn't so far fetched after all.

---

I made the same supposition many pages ago on this thread as well... that as Trumps campaign took off, it wouldn't surprise me that he was assigned a "handler" by the GOPe.

---

The theory I'm seeing a lot of people say is that this is a Mueller leak, either of grand jury testimony from Sessions, or that Sessions is about to testify and Mueller is trying to influence him into giving them enough ammo to indict Trump for obstruction.

---

Or it's just wallpapering BS from the NYT, which IMHO is exactly what it is. When a NYT writer starts a tweet with SCOOP, 80% of the time it's 100% BS. It's not even clear whether Mueller can even question the AG without an indictment in the works or in front of a GJ. This is just wallpapering BS on the part of the NYT. Anyone thinking Jeff Sessions is a plant needs to seek help. Jeff Sessions is a lot of things, but that is not one of them. Sessions is an old south softy but he's as loyal as a bloodhound. I think a lot of people are going to owe him an apology when it's over, because he's doing a lot of things in the shadows.

As far as these claims of obstruction for the POTUS asking him to reverse his recusal, is BS. This was a voluntary recusal not an ordered recusal. Jeff Sessions could withdraw his recusal tomorrow and it still wouldn't be obstruction. The withdrawal could be challenged legally in court, but that's about the extent of it. This is NYT angle is BS for their base to keep them engaged, because this first phase IG report is going to do some damage, so they are going to do everything they can to minimize the fallout with crap like this. Just not buying this obvious pile of crap.

Rapier108 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

I didn't think a sitting president could be indicted.

---

The DOJ's opinion is that he cannot be, but we're to the point where Mueller is openly ignoring the law, so a DOJ opinion won't matter.

An indictment is a gift to the Democrats for 2018, and even if the Supreme Court kicked Mueller in the ass eventually, the damage will be done.

---

It isn't about indictment but impeachment.

Not extremely Germaine, but. Dry interesting re: Trump and the left:

Jordan Peterson on Bil Maher with Stormy Daniels lawyer Avenatti: How'd I miss this?

blindey said:

---

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama appointee) sided with Mueller (no surprise) and ruled that Manafort does not have the right to see some of the evidence against him.

---

And how do they get to use that evidence against him if he is not allowed to see it? WTF?

---

You can make that happen with a proper CIPA order in place. But the D.C. Judge wouldn't bother. She's an Obama nut sack gargler.

---

have you seen the Order? I can't find free online. but from reading news articles (which are usually wrong or misleading about what a judge does), does not look like she has ruled Manafort can't see evidence against him.

I do know generally that confidential informants don't have to be disclosed absent certain elements being shown by a defendant.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Hawg, bindey, do the canons of legal ethics, or now, apparently Professional Responsibility, state that "just the appearance of impropriety from an officer of the court" deems that person unfit for duty?

There's a guy on Dobbs, Chris Farrel,from Judicial Watch, who was paraphrasing that rule/guideline. If so, holy cow, most of the guys on the SC are waaaaay unqualified, especially Mueller.

---

it probably won't matter on this pro hac admission to SDNY as long as he is in good standing with all his bar admissions, but does show the Judge what a d-bag he is.

I think Cohen's lawyers just took advantage of the golden opportunity presented by Avenatti filing the pro hac motion to insert himself into this proceeding, to drag all his garbage into the public venue by putting it on the docket, instead of leaking it out to the press, which is Avenatti's favorite tool of choice. It's made him suddenly disappear on twitter and on CNN/MSNBC denying all of the allegations people were making on his tax issues and shady business practices, because now all the court rulings are out front and on court record, hard to deny it all any more.

As far as his standing with the California Bar, that might be in question

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4433390/Avenatti-Bar-Complaint.pdf