Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ChrLzs

Stormy's Lawyer - Russia paid Cohen $500K+

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs
9 hours ago, Lilly said:

Uh Oh, I can't find anything in print but TV news did have a small blurb that Attorney Avenatti might have gotten his Michael Cohens mixed up. It appears there is more than one gentleman involved in international real estate with the name 'Michael Cohen'. Also, some of the documents Mr Avenatti claims to have in his possession are classified FBI material. Not sure what's what with all this stuff. 

Can you cite this please?  Even if it's just the channel that you saw the news item on?  Given that such transactions are generally not personal but are to/from companies, trusts and the like, I find it a little weird/unlikely that they could get a name confused..  Plus, the historical and current links between all these agencies and their directors / shareholders / beneficiaries is well-documented via many sources and dates back to way before these new revelations - that was the first aspect I dug into, to verify this.

I can post specific links if necessary, but just googling the major terms, namely:

Vekselberg
Intrater
Columbus Nova
Renova

Michael Cohen

in various combinations, and then looking at the many stories that date back well before this new kerfuffle, will quickly show the pre-existing 'relationships' quite clearly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Lilly

I’ve seen questions regarding the recent claims by Mr Avenatti on ABC or NBC (not sure which station I had on) and Fox. I’m not finding much of anything in print though.

I didn’t say Cohen didn’t have relationships with various companies, only that what Mr Avenatti has recently been claiming has not been proven.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
10 hours ago, Lilly said:

I’ve seen questions regarding the recent claims by Mr Avenatti on ABC or NBC (not sure which station I had on) and Fox. I’m not finding much of anything in print though.

I didn’t say Cohen didn’t have relationships with various companies, only that what Mr Avenatti has recently been claiming has not been proven.

It's the financial records for the same shell company that the Stormy Daniel's payment was made through. There is no doubting it is the correct Michael Cohen. The question is, was Donald Trump a benefactor of these payments or was it something Michael Cohen was running on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Cohen certainly had business relationships with various companies and they do look suspect (as in some potentially shady stuff going down). It's Mr Avenatti's claims that all this is going to result in the demise of Trump that's unproven. Also, it appears that Mr Avenatti may have some documents that only the FBI and State of NY are supposed to have access to. Personally, I have little doubt that Mr Cohen is a shady individual. I think the question is how shady is Cohen and did he only have an attorney relationship with Trump, or was Trump involved in Cohen's other shady business dealings. There's a lot of talk about doing business with Russian Oligarchs, we have to keep in mind that anyone who does business with Russia is doing so with Russian Oligarchs. Russia is not really a free market system, only their ruling class have much of anything to do business with. 

Finally found an interesting article:http://www.mysuncoast.com/news/national/michael-cohen-s-connections-to-russia-ukraine-raise-questions/article_8d3b7785-f6b8-5188-8b33-9ac29a11e62c.html

So, what was Cohen up to? Was he lobbying in secret? Did Trump know about his business dealings (which apparently existed before Trump was even President)? Lot's of questions surrounding Mr Cohen. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 hours ago, Kismit said:

It's the financial records for the same shell company that the Stormy Daniel's payment was made through. There is no doubting it is the correct Michael Cohen. The question is, was Donald Trump a benefactor of these payments or was it something Michael Cohen was running on his own.

The optics of Russians and major corporations putting money into a secret shell corporation used to pay for mistress/abortion cover-ups for politicians isn't a good one.  A lawyer exploiting loopholes may make all this legal, but it would have to take a morally bankrupt society to think it was acceptable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The optics of Russians and major corporations putting money into a secret shell corporation used to pay for mistress/abortion cover-ups for politicians isn't a good one.  A lawyer exploiting loopholes may make all this legal, but it would have to take a morally bankrupt society to think it was acceptable.

The part you're missing is, are these accounts Mr Cohen's own personal business accounts, or are others (like Trump) directly involved with Mr Cohen's unsavory business dealings?

Also, I hadn't heard the part about Ms Daniels claiming she received an abortion paid for by Mr Cohen? I must have missed that part. And to mention, considering what Ms Daniels does for a living, would the need for an abortion necessarily be a result of an affair or simply work related? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
12 hours ago, Lilly said:

The part you're missing is, are these accounts Mr Cohen's own personal business accounts, or are others (like Trump) directly involved with Mr Cohen's unsavory business dealings?

Also, I hadn't heard the part about Ms Daniels claiming she received an abortion paid for by Mr Cohen? I must have missed that part. And to mention, considering what Ms Daniels does for a living, would the need for an abortion necessarily be a result of an affair or simply work related? 

The abortion was for another of Cohen's clients. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/michael-cohen-arranged-usd1-6-million-nda-for-rnc-official-playboy-model.html

The money in question went into and out of the Essential Consultants LLC, shell company.  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/9/17335518/michael-cohen-llc-shell-company-donald-trump

Basically Cohen has a company that collects money from "donors" and then apparently uses the money to pay off mistresses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 5/9/2018 at 4:35 AM, acute said:

I hope you Americans are pleased with yourself, for voting in the most corrupt regime in US history. :lol:

That orange mess and his swampiest swamp in the world did not get my vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
On 5/8/2018 at 10:33 PM, and then said:

Who was paid to play?  

AT&T, Novartis, Korea Aerospace, and a Russian oligarch paid Cohen for access and insight on Trump.

In fact, Novartis claims it was afraid to quit paying Cohen for fear of retribution from Trump. 

It sounds like they were running some kind of protection racket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
28 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

AT&T, Novartis, Korea Aerospace, and a Russian oligarch paid Cohen for access and insight on Trump.

In fact, Novartis claims it was afraid to quit paying Cohen for fear of retribution from Trump. 

It sounds like they were running some kind of protection racket. 

What did Trump get out of the deal?  I mean, for example, pay for play in the case of HRC and the Clinton Foundation was a no-brainer.  There was a fairly obvious quid pro quo.  Money flowed into the Foundation and Bill did speeches for higher than usual fees and the State Department caused profitable things to flow from the U.S. gov to the entities that gave those benefits to the Clintons. 

What you're describing here is a lawyer with proximity to a powerful politician who is using that proximity to Lobby.  It's completely legal and what Cohen promises to his clients is immaterial to any pay for play with the president.  Unless, of course, some evidence is presented that shows the president knew of the promises and acted to fulfill them for personal gain of some kind.  Frankly, I think Lobbying is one of the main sicknesses of our system of governance today and if it could be seriously reformed so that money did not equal power, I'd be all for that change.  So long as it is legal, though, those laws have to be equally applied.  As usual with all things Trump, the rules of evidence before a conviction can be a pesky nuisance but it's best for us all if we stick with those rules.  The idea being that one day, we might need them to protect US.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2018 at 5:49 AM, preacherman76 said:

Why are we hearing about this from a porn stars lawyer, instead of the FBI?

Indeed, and how, exactly, does some low-profile solicitor suddenly find himself in possession of financial records that he should never have had legal access to?  It sounds like he has some 'splainin to do.

ETA:  Such access has always been strictly protected for everyone and some lawyer suddenly exposing the records publicly is probably a crime.  If he is forced to disclose the source, we might be in for some entertaining revelations.  I suspect that if there is ANY integrity or honest politicians left in our government, this witch hunt is going to take down some of the shady businessmen that Trump - and all billionaires have in their circles, but also some of those who are breaking rules to take Trump down.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426
On 09/05/2018 at 12:35 PM, acute said:

I hope you Americans are pleased with yourself, for voting in the most corrupt regime in US history. :lol:

I'll take your Trump and raise you a Nixon...

:unsure:

*adopts an inscrutable poker face*

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
3 hours ago, and then said:

What did Trump get out of the deal?  I mean, for example, pay for play in the case of HRC and the Clinton Foundation was a no-brainer.  There was a fairly obvious quid pro quo.  Money flowed into the Foundation and Bill did speeches for higher than usual fees and the State Department caused profitable things to flow from the U.S. gov to the entities that gave those benefits to the Clintons. 

What you're describing here is a lawyer with proximity to a powerful politician who is using that proximity to Lobby.  It's completely legal and what Cohen promises to his clients is immaterial to any pay for play with the president.  Unless, of course, some evidence is presented that shows the president knew of the promises and acted to fulfill them for personal gain of some kind.  Frankly, I think Lobbying is one of the main sicknesses of our system of governance today and if it could be seriously reformed so that money did not equal power, I'd be all for that change.  So long as it is legal, though, those laws have to be equally applied.  As usual with all things Trump, the rules of evidence before a conviction can be a pesky nuisance but it's best for us all if we stick with those rules.  The idea being that one day, we might need them to protect US.

Trump gets to pay off former mistresses without having the money traced to his direct finances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Trump gets to pay off former mistresses without having the money traced to his direct finances. 

He paid Cohen a retainer each year.  Do you really think Trump is the only billionaire with a "fixer" or two?  If Cohen took money from clients and promised access then that's between Cohen and his clients.  Unless you've seen evidence that Trump made them promises too?  Funny, Gromdor, I don't recall seeing you upset when all the revelations of pay to play through the Clinton Foundation appeared.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 5/10/2018 at 7:26 PM, bison said:

In point of fact, the majority of American voters voted against Mr. Trump. 

The majority of VOTES where against Mr Trump.... how many of them where entirely AMERICAN votes is another matter :D:P 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 hours ago, and then said:

He paid Cohen a retainer each year.  Do you really think Trump is the only billionaire with a "fixer" or two?  If Cohen took money from clients and promised access then that's between Cohen and his clients.  Unless you've seen evidence that Trump made them promises too? 

Exactly, it's like I said earlier, there has to be evidence that Trump was directly involved...and that it was 'pay to play'. And we all know that proving 'pay to play' is a real stickler.

Sure, Cohen's a sleazy lawyer, no argument about that. Trump comes from the world of NYC construction/real estate, some sleazy stuff to the max there. But, I'm not sure any of this is going to have the Earth shattering implications Avenatti is claiming. Time will tell. 

Meanwhile, Trump is meeting with Little Rocket Man...and the mainstream news thinks Trump's a naive chump who's going to be played by him. Something tells me Trump's been playing with the 'big boys' for a long, long time. Frankly, our current reality has come down to which dog do you want to take into a fight. Do you take a nice well bred Golden Retriever who's eager to please? Or, do you take a street wise 150 lb Rotty/Pitt cross with an attitude of really protecting his turff? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On 5/9/2018 at 5:57 PM, ChrLzs said:

I find it fascinating that this story seems to be flying under the radar for the moment.... I've dug quite a bit deeper, and let's just say ..

 

woah...

 

.... I shall be back later.

That actually speaks loudly. The media would be running wild with this story if it could be verified. 

Heck im surprised they haven’t anyway. Sounds like it may lack so much credibility even the fake news outlets won’t run with it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

But, I'm not sure any of this is going to have the Earth shattering implications Avenatti is claiming. Time will tell. 

The fact that all of Avenatti's information has been reviewed by Mueller and handed off to the southern district tells me he's just mugging for the camera.  Considering his client's former career, he's really full of himself, isn't he :w00t:  People from my neck of the woods would call him a pimp.

The most significant new revelation seems to be the news from Kimberly Strassel's reporting of the FBI informant that was working within the Trump campaign staff.  It's a really good thing that I already take medicine for high blood pressure!  The Obama crowd brought Chicago-style corruption to DC in a big way.  I think the aspect of all of this that disappoints me most is that my former senator, Sessions, has shown himself to be a card-carrying swamp-dweller :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, and then said:

 

The most significant new revelation seems to be the news from Kimberly Strassel's reporting of the FBI informant that was working within the Trump campaign staff....

Yeah, the possible FBI spy/mole in the Trump campaign does appear to be gaining steam. That would really serve to explain why the DOJ has been slow walking document release...they certainly wouldn't want that kind of thing to come out. I'm not sure what the legal implications would be, but I'm betting it would not be good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 hours ago, and then said:

He paid Cohen a retainer each year.  Do you really think Trump is the only billionaire with a "fixer" or two?  If Cohen took money from clients and promised access then that's between Cohen and his clients.  Unless you've seen evidence that Trump made them promises too?  Funny, Gromdor, I don't recall seeing you upset when all the revelations of pay to play through the Clinton Foundation appeared.

Oh, I'm not particularly upset about it.  What Trump (and Clinton) did are perfectly legal.  It's pretty much a demonstration of how lobbying works in fact.  It show's how politicians and those around them can leverage political influence for money and favors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 hours ago, Lilly said:

Yeah, the possible FBI spy/mole in the Trump campaign does appear to be gaining steam. That would really serve to explain why the DOJ has been slow walking document release...they certainly wouldn't want that kind of thing to come out. I'm not sure what the legal implications would be, but I'm betting it would not be good. 

It would be funny if Trump himself was the mole, setting up his whole campaign to catch the likes of Manaford, Papadopolous, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The majority of VOTES where against Mr Trump.... how many of them where entirely AMERICAN votes is another matter :D:P 

Do you mean to suggest that there was serious voter fraud in the 2016 election, such as to invalidate the fact that most Americans voted against Mr. Trump? If so I would ask you to please present links to evidence of this claim. Thank you.

In the meantime, here is a link to evidence that there were insufficient voter irregularities in 2016 to have altered the fact that a clear majority voted against Mr. Trump.:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/26/fact-check-trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-revisited/97080242/ 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
14 hours ago, and then said:

What did Trump get out of the deal?  I mean, for example, pay for play in the case of HRC and the Clinton Foundation was a no-brainer.  There was a fairly obvious quid pro quo.  Money flowed into the Foundation and Bill did speeches for higher than usual fees and the State Department caused profitable things to flow from the U.S. gov to the entities that gave those benefits to the Clintons. 

What you're describing here is a lawyer with proximity to a powerful politician who is using that proximity to Lobby.  It's completely legal and what Cohen promises to his clients is immaterial to any pay for play with the president.  Unless, of course, some evidence is presented that shows the president knew of the promises and acted to fulfill them for personal gain of some kind.  Frankly, I think Lobbying is one of the main sicknesses of our system of governance today and if it could be seriously reformed so that money did not equal power, I'd be all for that change.  So long as it is legal, though, those laws have to be equally applied.  As usual with all things Trump, the rules of evidence before a conviction can be a pesky nuisance but it's best for us all if we stick with those rules.  The idea being that one day, we might need them to protect US.

Well...money, obviously. 

Well clearly, if clients were afraid to quit paying Cohen because the POTUS might retaliate in some way, that would be illegal. 

Trump has a history of scamming, and surrounding himself with corrupt thugs.

You want to keep imagining a nothingburger and a witch hunt. That's fine, but it certainly seems like every tree you shake Russian witches fall out that are eating Big Macs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
Posted (edited)

Stormy's attorney's firm has been hit with a $10 million judgement filed by a former employee.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/avenatti-s-law-firm-hit-10-million-judgment-n876576

They've also been charged with defaulting on back taxes from a previous bankruptcy case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/firm-of-lawyer-avenatti-hit-with-10-mln-judgment-in-bankruptcy-court.html?__source=Facebook|main

Edited by susieice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.