Attorney?

So what we have learned today is that Donald Trump has made a series of payments to Michael Cohen over the last year or so, in the amount of apparently about $460,000.00 to cover his payoff to Stormy Daniels, taxes owed on that payment and whatever the hell else Cohen has done for Trump.  These payments are being referred to as "retainers."

Well, these payments are not retainers.  Yes, Cohen is an attorney, but passing hush money to a prostitute does not constitute legal work.  If I paid Cohen a couple hundred dollars to lube my car, that wouldn't make him my attorney, and neither does this make him Trump's attorney.  To be blunt, this does not constitute an attorney-client relationship, merely because Cohen happens to have (for the moment) a law license.

So, here is my question:  I am not an attorney, so I guess that I am just speculating here, but what I wonder is, does that mean that there is no attorney-client privilege in this matter?  Will Mueller, who certainly does know what the law says, be moving tomorrow to remove the special master, and treat every scrap of information seized from Cohen as fair game?  As I said, I don't really know, but it seems to me that there is a pretty damned good case to be made for this action. We'll see, I am sure.

Comments

Jerry Critter said…
I think it is more likely that Mueller will use the possible lack of attorney-client privledge to challenge information that special master deems privledged.
May 4, 2018 at 8:03 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more