Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Well done.
That is absolutely not how even the loosest of retainers work.
I know it's not, in the real world. But - under an imaginative agreement by Cohen to hide the fact that he's paying off a porn star while giving Trump a veneer of deniability and also avoiding campaign finance law violation - could it be made to work that way?
Well of course you can make anything work for you, the question is are the resulting actions/legal agreements flowing from such an arrangement legal and/or binding.
They may have an issue with structuring violations (there are rules for when financial institutions have to report deposits in excess of $X and structuring means that you avoid that by making consecutive payments within allowable periods of time that are just less than that amount to avoid triggering the reporting obligation but that's illegal) based on what Giuliani was saying about how the $ was paid. $35K per month could be broken down into less than $10K deposits weekly to avoid triggering but again, illegal. We don't really know, as we have just vague statements of the ghoulish Rudy to go on at this point.
With respect to retainers I am not aware of any legal retainer that gives the retained lawyer or firm carte blanche to act on behalf of a client without informing them of what is being done, why it's being done, getting the go-ahead to at least some degree, etc. Even the most passive retainers I have as corporate counsel with external firms (for routine things such as annual corporate maintenance filings for dozens of subsidiaries, routine securities laws filings, etc) work such that the firm does all the work and draws up the paperwork, and I get final once-over (whether I choose to take a look or not) and most importantly, I obtain corporate signatures and ok the filing. And that is for routine matters that come up every month/quarter/year and are the same each time and predictable. Trump was paying Cohen a retainer for ad hoc work which he was allegedly unaware of. It would be very bizarre for retained lawyers to be negotiating and drafting agreements, especially of a personal nature such as in this case, and signing them without the knowledge or permission of the client. It's arguably not legally binding anyway.
Obviously none of this is true in any way and it's a total con just like Trump himself. Only an idiot would believe otherwise.
I'd like to know what the other $330-340K paid to Cohen was spent on. Mistresses, abortions, etc?
Trump and Giuliani saying that there was absolutely no campaign money in the Stormy Daniels payment means there was absolutely campaign money in the Stormy Daniels payment, right?
I don't think the president realized he paid him (Cohen) back for that specific thing until we (his legal team) made him aware of the paperwork,” he said.
Giuliani said the president responded, "‘Oh my goodness, I guess that's what it was for.’”
Golly gee I guess I did put my willy in that pornographic paramore. Vile temptress! My stars, what will the evangelicals think!?This was the best laugh I had all week.
For real.
Goodness!
You clearly don't want America to be great againisn't there anyone who realizes that nobody is going to sign trade deals and treaties with the united states if they think the next president is just going to unilaterally rip them up if he doesn't like the guy who signed them? this is not complicated.
jesus fucking christ, these people are so recklessly stupid and incompetent it baffles me how this is even possible.