Norm Eisen: Don't be distracted by Avenatti sideshow

[oberliner]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Don't be distracted by Avenatti sideshow. The news was judge rejecting Cohen demand 4more time & setting 6/15 deadline for Cohen to complete privilege review, after which USAO taint team will review the files that remain. An indictment is coming fast, & can a flip be far behind?

the law train is speeding down on Cohen -- and so on Trump. this is the most important law story of the day, and yet the Avanetti skirmishing will get the brunt of the relatively little attention paid to the hearing.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. 6 months here

3 weeks there. Maybe. We'll see. Another couple months. Maybe in a few days, it will never end.

[manor321]

2. I consider Avenatti to be important

Kimba Wood unfairly attacked Avenatti for exersising his first amendment rights.

She also needlessly delayed these matters by agreeing to a special master and now says the taint team will take over in two weeks if necessary. Is she dumb? Just should have gone with the taint team first!

Norm is wrong. Avenatti's claim that there is a Cohen/Trump audio tape is huge news.

[oberliner]

3. Does Avenatti going on TV increase or decrease the likelihood of the tapes being released?

[Demsrule86]

7. We wouldn't know about them except for Avenatti and he damages Trump with

important revelations...so I don't know or care about the likelihood of tapes being released... I love Avenatti, but two post today about this subject!

[oberliner]

8. This is the quote that Avenatti asserts was a concession about the existence of the tapes

Link to tweet

Cohen's atty Ryan: "The audiotapes that we have, if any, that pertain to him, under lock and key, they are controlled by my law firm, TO, and POTUS, to the extent that there may be a claim of privilege related to them. I am unaware of any release of an audio file of this kind."

[jberryhill]

5. His First Amendment rights?

Are you serious?

There are a host of laws about what an attorney may or may not legally say, and there are also laws regulating what attorneys may or may not legally say when they are representing a client in a particular proceeding.

This, for attorneys representing clients in proceedings in New York, has the force of law:


RULE 3.6:
TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a)
A lawyer who is participating in or has participated in a criminal or civil
matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

(b)
A statement ordinarily is likely to prejudice materially an adjudicative
proceeding when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter or any other
proceeding that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to:

(1)
the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,
suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness or the
expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2)
in a criminal matter that could result in incarceration, the possibility
of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession,
admission or statement given by a defendant or suspect, or that person’s refusal or
failure to make a statement;

(3)
the performance or results of any examination or test, or the refusal
or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature
of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4)
any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a
criminal matter that could result in incarceration;

(5)
information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to
be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would, if disclosed, create a substantial
risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6)
the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there
is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation
and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

-------------------

First Amendment rights? Are you freaking serious?

Judge Wood told Avenatti that if he is going to represent a client in his courtroom, then he is going to have to obey the rules of conduct for attorneys in New York.

First Amendment rights? My goodness... yeah... sure... lawyers can just shoot their mouth off about proceedings in which they are involved in any manner, time or place they feel like it. Good golly.

[Mr. Ected]

4. Eisen's correct; the 6/15 deadline IS the news of the day

As usual, though, the media concentrates on showboating instead of nuance.

[CakeGrrl]

6. I'm fine with the Avenatti sideshow if it helps

distract Trump from messing with Mueller and the SDNY efforts.

[Tarc]

9. You've been on an anti-Avanetti bender here at the DU for days now

Curious...

[oberliner]

10. He's on my television right now talking to Lawrence O'Donnell

It is very annoying to have him on every show every day all the time non stop.

He is a self-promoting lawyer and his schtick is getting old.

There are much much more significant things to be talking about with respect to what is going on with Trump, and Cohen, and the Mueller probe.