But Hillary made a speech for wall street

[Griever]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniels-lawyer-cohen-got-500k-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-n872481

and AT&T paid him 200k and Novartis paid him 400k

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 12:38 PM)Griever Wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniels-lawyer-cohen-got-500k-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-n872481

That is so weird.

Especially the coincidental Russian. Russian money to the firm that pays off Trump's affairs? I know one shouldn't connect dots hastily, but oh that's hard if they almost touch.

[Griever]

(05-09-2018, 12:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is so weird.

Especially the coincidental Russian. Russian money to the firm that pays off Trump's affairs? I know one shouldn't connect dots hastily, but oh that's hard if they almost touch.

not to mention it was a shell company, so we got russian money, along with AT&T and pharmaceutical money

paying for access to trump???

#paytoplay

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 01:02 PM)Griever Wrote: not to mention it was a shell company, so we got russian money, along with AT&T and pharmaceutical money

paying for access to trump???

#paytoplay

Sure, those companies are weird as well. Now I'm most certainly not an expert in american law, but from what I see I doubt pay for play is actually illegal in the USA. Is it?

The Russian is even weirder still. I do not get that, and the only explanation for even doing something like that is that Trump is not a billionaire, but more or less broke. Else he could just pay off porn stars with his own funds, right? Also, no tax returns.

[Griever]

(05-09-2018, 01:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure, those companies are weird as well. Now I'm most certainly not an expert in american law, but from what I see I doubt pay for play is actually illegal in the USA. Is it?

The Russian is even weirder still. I do not get that, and the only explanation for even doing something like that is that Trump is not a billionaire, but more or less broke. Else he could just pay off porn stars with his own funds, right? Also, no tax returns.

pay to play is only hilarious because he campaigned on Hillary doing that etd

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 02:03 PM)Griever Wrote: pay to play is only hilarious because he campaigned on Hillary doing that etd

Oh, pay "to" play. Not "for". Got it.

And sure, hypocricy, but that's nothing new, right. He also campaigned on Hillary being a Russian puppet, a war hawk, having a shady foundation and taking money from foreign entities, adding to the deficit, enabling adultery and whatnot.

Regarding that pay to play, he might have had a point. In principle.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I just want to point out that a porn star, who took a payoff to not go public about an affair in the past, got greedy and broke the agreement, and now has her lawyer inserting himself into the Russia/Trump conversation.

This is apparently our reality. Lol

[*michaelsean*]

So for us who don't follow the money well, what is this implying?

[GMDino]

(05-09-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just want to point out that a porn star, who took a payoff to not go public about an affair in the past, got greedy and broke the agreement, and now has her lawyer inserting himself into the Russia/Trump conversation.

This is apparently our reality. Lol

And because the POTUs denied any knowledge of the deal or payoff and now we know he lied (again) and his attorney lied (again) the POTUS might get taken down over a payoff for having an affair.

That's what happens when a reality tv star gets elected to office.

[Goalpost]

Mueller knew about this as far back as November. And yet Cohen has been referred to the NY courts. Mueller would have kept it within his own realm if the Russian aspect was pertinent.

[Griever]

(05-10-2018, 10:28 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Mueller knew about this as far back as November.  And yet Cohen has been referred to the NY courts.  Mueller would have kept it within his own realm if the Russian aspect was pertinent.

or he got all the pertinent information if Cohen flipped

[hollodero]

(05-10-2018, 09:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So for us who don't follow the money well, what is this implying?

I don't know... probably that Michael Cohen is a legal genius on all fronts. Hired by one big company for updating accounting procedures, by the other firm for expertise on health care, and real estate and whatnot.

Oh yeah, Novartis claimed they hired Cohen for one year, paying 100.000 Dollars per month - only to discover after the first meeting that Cohen couldn't provide the services they asked him to provide. But oh, the contract was already done and they couldn't get out, damn. I mean, cool, that's how million dollar contracts are made in the business world, obviously. Hire someone for millions first, check his credentials later. The recipe for success. 

What do you imply based on that? Probably that you should reach out to Novartis to offer your services too. If you can't offer anything, you still get the contract, the money, and you actually don't have to do anything. Sweet.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2018, 02:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know... probably that Michael Cohen is a legal genius on all fronts. Hired by one big company for updating accounting procedures, by the other firm for expertise on health care, and real estate and whatnot.

Oh yeah, Novartis claimed they hired Cohen for one year, paying 100.000 Dollars per month - only to discover after the first meeting that Cohen couldn't provide the services they asked him to provide. But oh, the contract was already done and they couldn't get out, damn. I mean, cool, that's how million dollar contracts are made in the business world, obviously. Hire someone for millions first, check his credentials later. The recipe for success. 

What do you imply based on that? Probably that you should reach out to Novartis to offer your services too. If you can't offer anything, you still get the contract, the money, and you actually don't have to do anything. Sweet.

It's "infer' you fuzzy little foreigner. (Caddyshack reference).

What i'm asking is does this just show he's a dirtball or is there a larger implication?  

[hollodero]

(05-10-2018, 03:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's "infer' you fuzzy little foreigner. (Caddyshack reference).

Fuzzy? What are you implying? What are you infering? That I don't care? Hope so!

(05-10-2018, 03:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What i'm asking is does this just show he's a dirtball or is there a larger implication?  

Well, I guess the first one is a given, under the most innocent of explanations Cohen scammed some large companies by lieing about his abilities. I personally don't quite get how one wouldn't see a larger implication. Trump becomes president, and all of a sudden his personal lawyer recieves substantial payments from a lot of companies that sure hope to be on good terms with the government. One of those companies said as much as that they paid for insight into Trump's inner workings. I feel it's safe to say that this is the larger implication - meaning at best for Cohen it's just that. Large companies aren't that stupid to throw out millions for some completely unvetted lawyer who brings nothing to the table regarding the desired legal advice, or else they wouldn't be large companies.

Me personally, from the Russian I also conclude that Trump is pretty much broke, so he needs Russian money to pay off his porn star affairs. But I do get that this stance can be challenged and called premature and prejudiced. It's certainly all of those things :)

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 03:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I guess the first one is a given, under the most innocent of explanations Cohen scammed some large companies by lieing about his abilities. I personally don't quite get how one wouldn't see a larger implication. Trump becomes president, and all of a sudden his personal lawyer recieves substantial payments from a lot of companies that sure hope to be on good terms with the government. One of those companies said as much as that they paid for insight into Trump's inner workings. I feel it's safe to say that this is the larger implication - meaning at best for Cohen it's just that. Large companies aren't that stupid to throw out millions for some completely unvetted lawyer who brings nothing to the table regarding the desired legal advice, or else they wouldn't be large companies.

Wanna bet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/atandt-ceo-hiring-cohen-as-a-consultant-was-a-big-mistake/2018/05/11/243f57f2-554a-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.e4d77cf146ed

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 10:28 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Mueller knew about this as far back as November.  And yet Cohen has been referred to the NY courts.  Mueller would have kept it within his own realm if the Russian aspect was pertinent.

I think it likely that Mueller knows about the Russian connection from the materials seized by warrant last month, and they were what enable him to connect oligarch payments to the slush fund that paid off Stormy and who knows who else (we may know who else soon!).

There are a number of advantages to turning over that operation to the Southern District, not the least of which is that Trump cannot fire the agents and prosecutors working on that case.

[Dill]

(05-09-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I just want to point out that a porn star, who took a payoff to not go public about an affair in the past, got greedy and broke the agreement, and now has her lawyer inserting himself into the Russia/Trump conversation.

This is apparently our reality. Lol

Is she getting more money from Trump now? Or do you mean she'll sell more movies with the notoriety?

[hollodero]

(05-11-2018, 09:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Wanna bet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/atandt-ceo-hiring-cohen-as-a-consultant-was-a-big-mistake/2018/05/11/243f57f2-554a-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.e4d77cf146ed

Yeah sure it was a mistake, but there certainly was never any speculation on AT&T's part that the purpose of Cohen's hiring could be anything else than access to Trump.
Guess Cohen just oversold that too. Also, I figure the biggest "mistake" was not the hiring, but that it came out.

That being said, sadly I can't read the article without suscribing, and that I won't do.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2018, 09:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah sure it was a mistake, but there certainly was never any speculation on AT&T's part that the purpose of Cohen's hiring could be anything else than access to Trump.
Guess Cohen just oversold that too. Also, I figure the biggest "mistake" was not the hiring, but that it came out.

That being said, sadly I can't read the article without suscribing, and that I won't do.

The beauty of this is AT&T paid Cohen for access to Trump....and Trump stiffed them on the deal anyway.

Just like the snake oil salesman has always done.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2018, 09:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: The beauty of this is AT&T paid Cohen for access to Trump....and Trump stiffed them on the deal anyway.

Just like the snake oil salesman has always done.

So they paid Cohen for access, Trump wasn’t influenced, and you think that’s a bad thing?