Is Avenatti causing more damage than good?

[OliverQ]

Lots of talk now about where Avenatti got this bombshell info and whether it was illegally leaked to him. Does possibly tipping off people in Mueller's investigation make Avenatti's decisions dangerous in the long term?

[hlthe2b]

1. Considering Mueller talked to these folks apparently many weeks (months?) ago, I doubt it.

[SHRED]

2. this

[brush]

27. The real question is if the OP is causing more damage than good?

I sense an agenda, and not a good one.

[Pholus]

58. This.

Once you get aware about the tactics employed it kind of stands out, doesn't it?

[brush]

97. Yep. They're even ditching the subtlety...aka, the trump effect.

[renegade000]

3. No...

How about we stop worrying about their propaganda, and start talking about how utterly corrupt the GOP and Trump are. Need to start solidifying those ideas in people's heads before November. It also has the benefit of being true.

[shanny]

4. No.

[samnsara]

5. i think hes getting muellers leftover used crumbs....

...hes just faster at picking them up than others.

[dalton99a]

36. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Hell no. He's batting 1000. If he strikes out... lay low for a month

[Gothmog]

7. I appreciate the good work that Avenatti is doing

I think that he is helping

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Great point just now ...why is seeing the bank SARs

So important?

[jberryhill]

19. Because there is no legitimate way he'd have them

This wasn’t information that was developed based on discovery in the Daniels suit, for example. The payment in that contract suit is not disputed. Additionally, the Treasury Dept. would not release them in response to a civil subpoena, and neither would a bank.

His report included a couple of smaller transactions that had nothing to do with this Michael Cohen and his company, but which did involve other Michael Cohens, for example: (from NBC)

——-
I am an Avionic technician in El Al airlines. So, no, not a lawyer," said Michael Cohen, 26, from Ashdod, Israel. "No, I never talk with or meet Trump."

He said that his brother Netanel wired him the money when he was living in Kenya. "He owed me some money," he said.

The 26-year-old Michael Cohen said he had no idea how the mixup could have occurred, but said he's been getting lots of attention.
——

Now, yes, on many of the transactions, like ATT, Novartis, and the Russian company - they’ve confirmed the story as to them. In fact, Novartis had paid more than was in Avenatti’s report.

The problem is that because the errors involve other Michael Cohens, then the information didn’t come from, say, EC’s bank, because they would have known which ones specifically involved EC’s account. This indicates the information was retrieved from a database to which a PI or an attorney should not have accesss, and suggests either unauthorized access or hacking or some kind. This would not be information that, say, Davidson would have had and turened over (again, which would not have had “wrong” Michael Cohens in it).

If it was, for example, discovery material from the litigation, there would be no problem saying so.

We also learned from Novartis that Mueller had interviewed them last November, so this was not unknown to Mueller or to the USAO-SDNY. If material from those investigations was leaked to Avenatti, that would be a disturbing development.

[pnwmom]

21. Someone could have anonymously mailed him documentation, like someone else did

when part of one of DT's tax returns was published during the election.

[jberryhill]

23. Searches of Treasury databases are logged

Aside from which, relying on anonymously mailed information would be a foolish thing to do.

[pnwmom]

25. I'm not saying someone stole it from the Treasury.

[jberryhill]

30. Yes, however

In order to get incorrect Michael Cohens and transactions involving different banks, it (a) would have been based on a database search, (b) would not have come from any single financial institution and (c) would not have come from an insider to the Cohen organization (if there’s anyone other than him).

[wonkwest]

49. Can you explain what you're saying a bit more?

Do you think Avenetti got this information in a wrong or unethical way? I'm just trying to understand what's happening here and don't feel I do.

[Calista241]

75. He's saying someone at treasury leaked that document to him

And that treasury will have records of who did that search. Arrests to follow.

By publishing the complete, un-redacted, fully traceable document, Avenatti basically didn’t protect his source to insure their confidentiality.

[jberryhill]

84. No, I have no idea where the information came from

There are some obvious places it did NOT come from, however.

[Rene]

105. IF anyone 'leaked' info.....they are a HERO

[Calista241]

106. I disagree. Bank records are private documents deserving of that respect.

Leaking of financial, medical, or privileged documents like this is bad for everyone. If this happened in Europe, the GDPR regulations would heavily fining the organization responsible.

And remember, just because it hadn't leaked to us, that doesn't mean people that didn't need those documents were prevented from having them. Mueller clearly had them and interviewed all the involved parties last year.

[Rene]

107. Anyone, like me, who's in banking..knows business ethics/conduct;

know terms like KYC, AML, and SAR's know your customer, anti-money laundering and suspicious activity reports
BUT I think the information is just stunning....too important for us to not know.
This MUST be followed up on. our Democracy is at stake.

[jberryhill]

119. Just an FYI on this for your reference

The IRS investigator who leaked the SARS to Avenatti is going to jail:

https://www.apnews.com/adb4b5b0794aad7e3ab790ab82b4c18c

Prosecutors have charged an IRS employee with leaking secret taxpayer information about President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen and apparently using anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti as a conduit to make the information public.

John Fry, an investigative analyst for the IRS’s law enforcement division, stands accused of finding and disseminating IRS suspicious activity reports (SAR).

[NCTraveler]

50. Anonymously mailed information is a great source.

Some who leak don’t want their names attached to it, for good reason. Information like this then becomes easily verifiable. Not sure why you think using verified information is foolish.

[jberryhill]

61. Easily verified how?

If the information came in anonymously, how would you verify that, for example, a Korean aerospace company had sent a payment to someone? Neither of the parties nor the bank would confirm that for you.

[NCTraveler]

62. You do not know that to be the case.

There are many ways to verify information no matter how it is gotten. When you read “anonymous source” in a news paper that information has almost always been followed up on and verified. It’s the job of the person receiving it to do so. Greenwald and others have openly talked about this. Greenwald has often used the place the documents originated to verify. The DOJ, sources in industry, DOD.

Entities can often confirm it is their document. They then often request parts, if not the whole thing, not be released. It’s verification and a cornerstone to journalism. They could have also come directly from a source that would understandably have access to them. Hence the term leak. This is a regular occurrence and you read it every single day but don’t think through the verification aspect.

[jberryhill]

69. In general yes

As applied to this situation, there isn't a party to the transactions who would have verified it prior to the release. If a bank employee or Treasury employee were to verify information that some attorney came in with from the outside, that would be a problem for them. I've been involved in situations involving investigation of bank fraud and wire fraud, and banks don't simply verify information for third parties, even if you have a copy of a statement issued by that bank.

The information seems to have come from a trusted source, since it included the erroneous Michael Cohens among the smaller transactions, and was obviously not verified as to those transactions. That would indicate that there was a reason to believe that it was correct without verification. Secondly, since the information involves multiple banks, and apparent database query errors (i.e. the transactions involving other Michael Cohens), that would suggest it came from a database of transactions among multiple banks, and there aren't too many of those.

[NCTraveler]

74. Again, you do not know that to be the case.

A point from these exact documents that could lend a hand in understanding how they might have been verified. AT&’s response was very quick. There is a chance that they directly verified a part of it.

You are talking about unknowns as if certainty. I’m talking about them in terms of historical standards in conjunction with assumptions. Your certainty about these documents isn’t grounded. Because you don’t know doesn’t mean they weren’t. The ability is clearly there, as I have outlined.

[NCTraveler]

77. I want to add.

I think Avenatti is a snake oil salesman. He might have looked at the documents and taken them at face value. I don’t think that is something he wouldn’t do. I’m not saying they were verified. But there are a whole lot of ways to verify things like this.

[rzemanfl]

81. Is there verification of this/these "other Michael Cohens?" Could they be the same other

Michael Cohen who was in Prague?

[jberryhill]

82. Is NBC news a reliable source?

I don't want to be accused of posting from right wing extremist sources, so I'm not sure whether NBC news is considered one of those now, but they claim to have tracked some down:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-says-stormy-daniels-lawyer-mixed-him-namesakes-n872871

Among them was a $980 payment from two individuals in Kenya, Netanal Cohen and Stav Hayun, to a Michael Cohen. NBC News spoke to the man who received those funds, and he said Avenatti has the wrong guy.

"I am an Avionic technician in El Al airlines. So, no, not a lawyer," said Michael Cohen, 26, from Ashdod, Israel. "No, I never talk with or meet Trump."

He said that his brother Netanel wired him the money when he was living in Kenya. "He owed me some money," he said.

The 26-year-old Michael Cohen said he had no idea how the mixup could have occurred, but said he's been getting lots of attention.

"My whole family was surprised. Friends called me, It was a crazy day," he said.

[rzemanfl]

87. "Yes" would have been a sufficient response. I just woke up and this was news to me.

Thank you for the information.

[rzemanfl]

91. I should add my level of trust regarding these folks led me to believe that

the small checks were evidence of Cohen skimming small amounts for walking around money.

[riversedge]

92. I am sure Mueller has the soc security numbers of these m. cohen's--or maybe not since

I some are foreign citizens.

[jberryhill]

94. Mueller would have direct access to the transactional information in question

This discussion is not about what Mueller has. Since he is a DoJ prosecutor, he can obtain investigational warrants to vet his information directly with the banks in question.

The problem here is that the errors in what Avenatti published, although minor, are signs that it was not obtained through the same sorts of channels by which a federal prosecutor and the FBI obtain it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Thanks makes sense..but have seen many SARs

and am wondering what that would tell him.

[ryan_cats]

57. You know

You know, that's just your opinion man.

What does an attorney think, oh yeah, you are an attorney.

I don't trust Stormy's attorney to do anything other than help her case and if it damages the real crimes, then he probably doesn't care; she is his client.

I want my pound of flesh like everyone else but I can wait for it to happen so they role up the whole cabal and we can put this long nightmare behind us.

[jberryhill]

71. Well, this is an opinion forum

[brush]

98. Newsflash: Leaking info is an artform in DC.

Why knock it if for once if it could benefit us and hurt trump?

[jberryhill]

99. I'm not knocking anything

Hey, I wasn't fond Julian Assange when that was an unpopular point of view here.

See, e.g., Nietzsche - Monsters: Fighting them.

[brush]

101. Sure seems like you were knocking him. Excuse me if you weren't.

[jberryhill]

103. The question was why would looking at the SARS be a big deal

The answer to that question is that there is no legitimate way he would have them. If perhaps, you know this came from someone leaking the SARS, then I suppose the observation that he would not have a legitimate way of having them is a problem. But those are merely factual observations, and the source of the information is not known.

[brush]

104. Again, leaking is an artform in DC.

An attorney being resourceful and obtaining info to help his client, and hurt the orange pustule in the WH is a good thing IMO.

[jberryhill]

118. Your artwork arrived

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-fy-irs-analyst-pleads-not-guilty-charged-with-leaking-michael-cohens-bank-account-information-to-michael-avenatti-san-francisco/

San Francisco -- An Internal Revenue Service analyst charged with leaking bank account information of President Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded not guilty Wednesday in federal court in the Northern District of California.


John Fry, a 54-year-old IRS analyst, allegedly accessed a Treasury Department database last May and then disclosed information about Cohen's transactions to Michael Avenatti, a California-based attorney, and later to a New Yorker magazine reporter.

[manor321]

9. No n/t

[OliverQ]

11. Why would you say something so ridiculous?

I like Avenatti. I'm just curious of how this might impact Mueller's investigation despite him being way ahead.

[malchickiwick]

13. Yeah, like there aren't a bunch of Russians who would appreciate your "analysis".

It was my gut reaction to your post, and I stand by it. If you're not a Pooty-bot, then kudos, but you don't have to do their work for them. Jus' my two cents. Cheers Oliver!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. You r funny

[Duppers]

38. Hell, this question was brought up on MSNBC tonight

Last edited Thu May 10, 2018, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Some retired DOJ jerk with a Southern drawl said that Avenatti was harming the investigation. Bullshit. I thought the guy was a republican after hearing that.

Even Rachel treated Avenatti a little coldly tonight. Did anyone else pick up on that? Even my often insensitive hubby did. However, she did warm up after he explained the SAR discrepancy.

So don't pick on the OP, please.

[Habibi]

53. I noticed that, too.

She seemed skeptical, imo.

[meadowlark5]

12. Are we sure he even knows who gave him the info?

Couldn't this information have been funneled to him anonymously? No one knew who Deep Throat was at the time.

Maybe he's being coy saying he won't reveal his source but when/if the time comes that he might be forced to say, he may say he doesn't know and it was all anonymous.

[H2O Man]

14. No

[MaryMagdaline]

15. No

[Lil Missy]

16. No.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Wait and see-- we don't really know enough to tell.

[njhoneybadger]

18. Those people being tipped off are being watched,it is by design

[Grassy Knoll]

20. LOL, Sez Who????

[jberryhill]

22. We don't know

[spanone]

26. NOPE.

[EricMaundry]

29. Absolutely not

He is using the media to make his client a household name. Smart move.

[Polly Hennessey]

32. Wondered how long it would take for someone

to begin the Avenatti negativity post. Not long.

[VOX]

39. Agree, completely. However you just know that the RW is digging furiously...

for something— anything, really, on Avenatti. I hope he’s squeaky clean (for an attorney), because right now, he is the ONLY person in the United States who is publically taking a media-battle to Trump, putting 45 and his team off-message and on the defensive (where they make enemies more mistakes). Avenatti is a loud, brash and powerful voice in this mess.

Some say he’s a grandstander, or a glory hound. I say, FINE! When’s the last time we had a bold street-fighter like him on the left?

[brush]

100. Yes sir, we need battlers like him on our side. I don't get at all the negativity...

suddenly coming towards him from the left—bot maybe it's not really from the left?

[Duppers]

40. The question was brought up on MSNBC tonight

[Freethinker65]

33. Nope.

[MontanaMama]

34. Oh jeezus.

Here we go.....NO he isn’t doing more damage than good. He is kicking ass and taking names. Get behind him.

[Cracklin Charlie]

35. The only danger is Trumps.

Stormy will get her prize. She wants him to resign.

[dalton99a]

37. I'm glad Stormy Daniels and her lawyer showed up.

[Duppers]

41. No. I love the guy too.

Some retired doj guy tonight on MSNBC said Avenatti was hurting the investigation. His explanation of why was so weak that I don't even remember it.

[VOX]

42. At the moment, he may be the ONLY American who's publicly dogging 45 on the media every weekday.

As I said in a post above, I hope his past is clean, and there are no skeletons in any closets. His is the street-fighting voice the left has been missing, and it would hurt to lose it now.

Avenatti’s landed some solid punches so far. May he continue to do so, freely.

[lunasun]

43. Nyet!

[dalton99a]

63. +1

[ochem]

45. Nope

Avenatti is doing things 100% correctly. Politicians should learn from his use of language and demeanor.

[OnDoutside]

46. No, this is straw grasping by Cohen. They're drowning and just

trying to grab on to anything. This is 6 months old news to Mueller. It was unlikely to have been leaked from him.

It will be interesting to see if someone like Devin Nunes jumps on this one.

[wishstar]

47. No since revelations should help justify and explain the Cohen warrants and investigation

Seems to me that since Mueller team already interviewed the relevant parties long ago, there is no damage but instead this should help pubic perception of necessity and justification for seizure of Cohen evidence by revealing some of the suspicious activities besides just possible campaign violation from the Stormy hush money.

Since Giuliani called for Sessions to step in/shut down the Cohen NY investigation claiming that government review of seized evidence violates attorney client privilege, Avenatti's information destroys that kind of argument especially now that Giuliani has denied that Trump had any knowledge of the slush fund payments to Cohen.

[Mike Nelson]

48. I would say...

...no, but the question is worth asking. They will go after Avenatti with the "illegal leaker" tag, but I think he's being careful... I do like the revisiting of something Mueller investigated some time ago - it being made public now means the Mueller team may revisit this area and make sure they have all criminal activity identified. It's possible to find some different dots to connect.

[MFM008]

51. Avenatti

Is the only person in the scope of the media
With the stones to aggressively call out
The maggots.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

52. If his sources were so secret, how did the NYT and NBC verify the info so quickly?

This war is going to be won in the political theater as well as the legal one. Avenatti is keeping the Trumpians off-balance with his constant reveals. It's hard for Trump to honestly say "witch hunt" when there is evidence of Russian money being paid to a shell company in which his personal attorney is the only participant.

The next big question is, where did the money go once it was in Cohen's account? My feeling is it was pay-to-play, with Trump benefiting directly or indirectly from the transactions.

Trump's supporters, and the corporations that sent money to Cohen's LLC, are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain each of these transactions.

[CelticWinter]

54. Heck no

he is doing a great job at driving Cohen's lawyers crazy, and you know he is driving Cheeto right up the fricin wall LMAO. I just love it.

[JustAnotherGen]

55. Nope

He will prevail.

[Heartstrings]

56. Nope....

[beachbum bob]

59. Avenatti has no reason to careabout Mueller or their investigation, he represents a client who soon

will be suing the president. He is working for her and not any one else. Just saying

[OneGrassRoot]

60. No, but many in media seem to be focused on the same...

rather than the content of what is being revealed.

Shame.

[no_hypocrisy]

64. I'm not going to confuse success with "damage".

[Abu Pepe]

65. Yes

to Trump.

[Vinca]

66. No. If not for Avenatti, Don would be much more successful scripting his

prisoner return shows. If not for Avenatti, the media would be entirely focused on the early morning spectacle. Instead, they're talking about buying access to Dear Leader. And it goes without saying his client would be consigned to the "old scandals" bin.

[Kingofalldems]

76. Great point.

[DeminPennswoods]

67. Keith Davidson

Remember Davidson was Clifford/Daniels' lawyer before Avenatti was retained. As such, he had to turn over all of the info in her case file to her new lawyer, Avenatti. We also know Davidson represented both McDougal and Broidy in their hush money deals with Cohen and it's very likely Davidson and Cohen were in cahoots. Because of his ties to Cohen, imho, it's within the realm of possibility that Davidson had this financial transaction info in Clifford/Daniels' file and it was turned over to Avenatti.

Recall that early on, Avenatti tweeted a picture of a CD-ROM disc implying it contained incriminating info. Most of the media immediately jumped to pictures, but maybe it really contained all the information about the money trail.

[jberryhill]

72. Why would Davidson have information about where Cohen's money came from?

I've done a lot of settlement agreements for a lot of people, and not once would have had any reason to know where the other side was getting its money from.

[DeminPennswoods]

80. If they were, as seems likely, working together

who knows what they might have shared. I seriously doubt any civil servant in the Treasury Dept, the bank, US Attys or Mueller's team leaked the SARs. That pretty much leaves Davidson. I don't think it's a reach to think Davidson might have put bank info on a CD, the turned it over to Avenatti without even checking to see what was on it first. Do you?

[jberryhill]

86. Then why would Davidson's information include errors?

If, on the odd proposition that the Davidson/Cohen hush money business would have included Cohen saying "Hey, I get all these payments in these amounts and dates from all of these people" and continuing into 2017, then why would either of them have information about transactions involving totally unrelated people named Michael Cohen?

The Avenatti report includes some smaller transactions involving people named Michael Cohen, who have nothing to do with this Michael Cohen. NBC News tracked some of them down.

If I gave you a record of my bank transactions, for some bizarre reason, then why would it include information about transactions among people I don't even know, but who simply share the same name as me?

[DeminPennswoods]

111. Just think Cohen and company are stupid enough

to have put info on a CD or in a file, not checked it, then given it to Avenatti.

[jberryhill]

112. That doesn't make any sense

Cohen and company would not have had bank transaction information about unrelated Michael Cohens.

[DeminPennswoods]

113. I never underestimate stupid, but ymmv

nt

[jberryhill]

114. It's not a matter of stupid

If you put together a collection of your bank records and statements, how would being “stupid” result in that collection having bank transaction records of people you’ve never met or known, but who have the same name as you?

[EffieBlack]

68. No.

Avenatti isn't stupid.

Neither is Mueller.

[Rustynaerduwell]

70. The clip of Cohen entering a cab, surrounded by reporters tells me

No

[tazkcmo]

73. Damage to what?

His client seems pleased.

[Generic Other]

78. I think he is working for the FBI undercover

I have no proof, but that's what I think.

[american_ideals]

79. Ha ha ha. Avenatti is a serious threat to GOP and DJT

The GOP knows Avenatti is an existential threat to DJT and thus to the Republican Party.


Avenatti is so effective because he is willing to use Republican media strategy: go on TV frequently, drip out new bits of info, speak directly (difference is that Republicans lie obviously and frequently on TV). And the porn star and bribery allegations have the potential to push DJT out of office - if they can break into the Fox propaganda bubble, abortions and bribery can peel off the GOP base.

Democratic politicians have been mostly unwilling to use this media strategy for reasons I am unclear on. (Lieu and Schiff have used it, but they don’t have a scandal they can use to drive eyeballs.)

And the leaking attacks are BS. Remember GOP Rep Chaffetz leaked the Comey letter, putting DJT into office. The GOP has been leaking intel docs from HPSCI like a sieve. They are hypocrites to talk about leaks.

So Avenatti is an existential threat to the president and republicans. So I would not be surprised if GOP and Russian trolls are trying to spread dissent about Avenatti.
Those who care about America and want DJT out of office should back him.

[blondebanshee]

93. Exactly!

[oberliner]

83. Yes, definitely

People need to stop putting him on every damn tv show every single day.

[MineralMan]

85. Well, that's the line the Republicans are taking on it.

But, no. The only damage is to the Trump administration, which badly needs to be damaged beyond repair.

And thanks for asking.

[Kirk Lover]

88. No...but there is the threat of overexposure. I believe he should pull back a bit - he's got

this all mapped out already but obviously he can roll with any punches. He should keep a low profile for a bit before he drops the next bomb.

[Kingofalldems]

89. Hmmm. Not really a good try there.

[jmg257]

90. I think in public opinion he is - he is obviously not so worried about his client, and more

concerned abort hurting trumpo.

Bad optics to see him on EVERY talk show over and over again bashind trumo while his gold-digging client appears in Penthouse and on TV.

[kacekwl]

95. NO. It's nice to hear

some of the crimes these traitors have committed. Makes me feel good knowing MUELLER has so much more.

[Dem2]

102. We may never have known this

They can never get out from under this cloud now no matter what Mueller concludes...

[NCTraveler]

108. For Trump, yes. nt.

[Kingofalldems]

109. So I guess this is bad too?:

Link to tweet

[Lee-Lee]

110. I'm gonna say that remains to be seen

If he has all his ducks in a row and isn’t making stupid mistakes, then long run he will be good.

If he doesn’t and is doing things that will backfire, then he may be more harmful than good.

Time will tell.

[displacedtexan]

115. No.

[krawhitham]

116. YES, Mueller knew of this slush fund for at least 7 months. But Trump did not know he knew.

Trump & Co. might have broken many laws while trying to keep the slush fund a secret, now they won't.

Avenatti seems to know is shit and makes for great TV, he has informed the public of a great many things but if also allows Trump to better prepare his defense

[D_Master81]

117. "Lots of talk"

Donald is that you?