Showing posts with label Lawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyer. Show all posts

September 28, 2019

The File on Trumps' Late McCarthy Lawyer ROY COHN Released By FBI

The FBI on Friday released nearly 750 pages of documents from the bureau’s file on controversial lawyer Roy Cohn, whose clients included President Donald Trump when Trump was a fledgling real estate mogul in New York City.

“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump has been quoted lamenting when he was faced with political and legal pressures.

Cohn was at least the first of two personal lawyers for Trump to be disbarred. The second was Trump’s more recent attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, who gave porn star Stormy Daniels hush money to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual tryst with Trump.
GP: Donald Trump Roy Cohn Trump Tower Opening
GP: Donald Trump Roy Cohn Trump Tower Opening
Roy Cohn (L) and Donald Trump attend the Trump Tower opening in October 1983 at The Trump Tower in New York City.

(Sonia Moskowitz | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images)

The FBI on Friday released nearly 750 pages of documents from the bureau’s file on the late Roy Cohn, the controversial, hyper-aggressive lawyer whose high-profile clients included President Donald Trump when Trump was a fledgling real estate mogul in New York City.

“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump has been quoted lamenting when he was faced with political and legal pressures.

Cohn was famous — and infamous — for his work for Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin in the 1950s investigating suspected infiltration by communists in U.S. government agencies, as well as his role prosecuting Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for stealing American atomic secrets.

In the Rosenberg case, Cohn later admitted to conversations with the trial judge outside of the presence of the Rosenberg lawyers — a serious ethical breach by both Cohn and the judge.

The Big Apple bon vivant Cohn also was an associate of the admitted Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone, another Trump ally.

Stone currently is under indictment for lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing justice, charges related to his alleged efforts to get WikiLeaks to release emails stolen from Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign. He has pleaded not guilty in that case.

The release of the FBI’s Cohn files comes on the heels of a new documentary that uses Trump’s quote “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” as its title.

The vast majority of the FBI files include details of an investigation into Cohn for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice in connection with a grand jury probe of an alleged $50,000 bribe Cohn paid the then-chief assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan to keep several stock swindlers from being indicted in 1959.

Cohn was found not guilty after a trial in that case in 1964.

A number of the files were sent directly to J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI’s director at the time, and reflect the bureau’s painstaking efforts to acquire information about trips by Cohn to Las Vegas in 1959, and other evidence, in connection with the bribery case.

One memo that was sent in July 1962 to both Hoover and then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy details the claim by a source of the FBI’s Las Vegas office.

The source said that gamblers in that city, worried about “extreme pressure” being applied by the federal government on the Nevada gambling industry, had approached the Justice Department’s criminal division chief “to determine whether he would ‘trade Las Vegas’ for ‘Roy Cohn.’”

The Justice Department’s division chief “flatly rejected” that approach, the source told the FBI.

A small part of the files released Friday include a letter that Cohn sent Hoover in 1969 when Cohn was being prosecuted on other federal criminal charges, for which he ultimately was acquitted.

Cohn’s clients after his acquittal included Trump, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, and Carmine Galante and “Fat Tony” Salerno, suspected Mafia chieftains. He also numbered among his celebrity friends President Ronald Reagan’s wife, Nancy.

“Trump introduced himself to Cohn, who was sitting at a nearby table, and sought advice: How should he and his father respond to Justice Department allegations that their company had systematically discriminated against black people seeking housing?”″ The Post reported.

“My view tells them to go to hell,” Cohn said, according to the Post. “And fight the thing in court.”

Cohn eventually filed a $100 million countersuit against the Justice Department for its allegations against Trump’s company. After that suit failed, Trump settled the Justice Department’s claims out of court.

Cohn died in 1986 from complications of AIDS, less than two months after being disbarred for professional ethics violations.

Despite years of using rumors about the homosexuality of his foes to smear them, Cohn himself was gay. He claimed until his death that he had liver disease, not AIDS.

Cohn’s closeted sexuality, ruthlessness against alleged communists and role as a bete noire of the left in the United States led to him being featured as a prominent character in Tony Kushner’s landmark play, “Angels in America.” Al Pacino portrayed Cohn in the HBO adaptation of that drama.

NBC archive footage shows Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein in 1992
Cohn was one of two personal lawyers for Trump to be disbarred, in his case for a range of misconduct.

The second was Trump’s more recent attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, who is serving a three-year federal prison term for crimes that include ones related to a hush-money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual tryst with Trump in the mid-2000s.

Trump denies having sex with Daniels or with another woman, Playboy model Karen McDougal, who received another hush money payout before the 2016 election that was facilitated by Cohen.

Earlier this week, a relative of Cohn’s wrote a column for Politico Magazine entitled “I’m Roy Cohn’s Cousin. He Would Have Detested Trump’s Russia Fawning.”

“My cousin Roy Marcus Cohn—counsel to Senator Joe McCarthy, consigliere to Mafia bosses, mentor to Donald Trump—had almost no principles,” the column by David Marcus said.

“He smeared Jews even though he was Jewish. He tarred Democrats even though he was a Democrat. He persecuted gay people even though he was gay. Yet throughout his life, he held fast to one certainty: Russia and America were enemies,” Marcus wrote.

“Roy often told me the Kremlin blamed the U.S. for Russia’s failure to prosper, so Russian leaders were bent on destroying our democracy. If Roy had lived another 30 years, I’m sure he’d be pleased to learn that his protégé was elected president. But I am equally sure Roy would be appalled by Trump’s obsequious devotion to ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.”

— Additional reporting by CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger.

March 26, 2019

Michael Avenatti, Who Became Famous Representing One of The Women DT Paid Hush Money is Headed ToJail

 Image result for avenatti nike

 Federal prosecutors in New York announced Monday that they will charge lawyer Michael Avenatti, who gained notoriety for his representation of Stormy Daniels and a discredited Brett Kavanaugh accuser, with an attempt to extort $20 million from Nike. He is also being charged with wire and bank fraud by prosecutors in California.
The backdrop: Avenatti tweeted just before the charges were announced, saying he would hold a press conference Tuesday "to disclose a major high school/college basketball scandal perpetrated by @Nike that we have uncovered."Stormy Daniels, the ex-Avenatti client who first brought the celebrity attorney into the national spotlight, released a statement Monday responding to the charges:
"Knowing what I know now about Michael Avenatti, I am saddened but not shocked by news reports that he has been criminally charged today. I made the decision more than a month ago to terminate Michael's services after discovering that he had dealt with me extremely dishonestly and there will be more announcements to come. I ask that the media respect my decision to withhold further public comment regarding Mr. Avenatti at this time."
Go deeper: Read both sets of charges against Avenatti
by Axios

January 30, 2019

Trump Names Lawyer For Fed.Judge Who Fought At the Supreme Court Vs.Gay Marriage ⧭⧭ Should He Be Approved?

FILE - In this June 29, 2015 photo, Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case that legalized same sex marriage nationwide, is backed by supporters of the courts ruling on same-sex marriage on the step of the Texas Capitol during a rally in Austin, Texas. The Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. It was 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. Eleven years later, the Supreme Court has now ruled that all those gay marriage bans must fall and same-sex couples have the same right to marry under the Constitution as everyone else. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) In this June 29, 2015 photo, Jim Obergefell, the named plaintiff in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case that legalized same sex marriage nationwide, is backed by supporters of the courts ruling on same-sex marriage on the step of the Texas Capitol during a rally in Austin, Texas. The Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. It was 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. Eleven years later, the Supreme Court has now ruled that all those gay marriage bans must fall and same-sex couples have the same right to marry under the Constitution as everyone else. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) 
In March 2013, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, broke with his Republican colleagues and penned an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch supporting same-sex couples' right to marry, a conclusion he reached shortly after his son came out as gay. In the article, he expressed his desire for each of his three children to have "the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment" in all aspects of their lives. So I was surprised to find out that Portman was supporting the nomination of Eric Murphy to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit even after Murphy argued against same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court.

Barely four years ago, Mr. Murphy made a forceful argument that my marriage was unconstitutional. As the attorney tasked with defending Ohio's discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, he used dog-whistles such as "traditional marriage" in his brief to the Supreme Court and argued that "bigotry" had nothing to do with why the state refused to recognize my lawful marriage to my late husband.

The court rejected Murphy’s arguments and overturned that law. In a landmark opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy — for whom Murphy himself once clerked — the Supreme Court declared that “it demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Gay couples “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Kennedy wrote. “The Constitution grants them that right.”

Still, if Murphy had been successful, John and I, and tens of thousands of couples like us, would have been denied the right to marry and forced to live as second-class citizens.

Now, Murphy seeks to be a judge who will decide cases such as mine; his renomination was sent to the Senate this week. As a federal judge, Murphy would have immense power and influence over the rights of the LGBTQ community. Judges can decide if presidents can ban transgender soldiers from serving in the military. Judges can decide if people can be fired from their job for being gay. Such decisions would affect people such as me, Senator Portman’s son, and thousands of other LGBTQ people living in the 6th Circuit states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
In light of his past arguments, Murphy must show he is capable of being fair and unbiased toward the LGBTQ community.

Now that he is no longer obligated to defend the old Ohio law, he should explicitly affirm that my Supreme Court case was correctly decided and vow that discrimination against the LGBTQ community would have no place in his courtroom. Surely there is no longer anything stopping Murphy from showing the same respect and dignity to the LGBTQ community as Kennedy and Portman have.
Until Murphy makes such a statement, Portman and his fellow senators should oppose his nomination.

I was fortunate enough to meet John in 1992 and knew instantly that he was the love of my life. In Portman’s own words, my late husband and I were two people “prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad.” We need senators — on both sides of the aisle — to ensure our community can live free from discrimination at work, at school and in the military. 

Portman has already stated his desire to make sure all of his children, gay or straight, have the same opportunities. Now is the time for him to commit to making sure all of his constituents, including LGBTQ families, couples and children, can do the same. He can start by challenging Murphy, and all of President Trump's nominees, to publicly denounce LGBTQ discrimination in any form before agreeing to support their confirmations. 

May 10, 2018

Avenatti and Cohen Are Totally Qualified to Control the News Cycle and They Do

Michael Avenatti has a unique ability to control a news cycle. On Tuesday night, he revealed the shell company Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen used to pay off Avenatti's client – the adult film actress and alleged ex-Trump paramour, Stormy Daniels – has been collecting sizable payments from multinational corporations during the first year of the Trump administration. His claims have since largely been confirmed by the New York Times, NBC and others. In but a few tweets and with a Dropbox link, Avenatti pushed one of the biggest stories in the world a few steps forward.

Korea Aerospace Industries, a defense contractor bidding on part of a U.S. Air Force project worth up to $16.3 billion, paid $150,000 to Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, LLC, in November 2017. AT&T, which is currently awaiting government approval on a $185 billion merger with Time Warner, reportedly paid Cohen's company $600,000. As of now, the largest contributor appears to be Swiss pharmaceuticals manufacturer, Novartis, which signed a one-year $1.2 million contract with Essential Consultants in February 2017. 
Perhaps the largest revelation of all: Columbus Nova, a Russian-affiliated investment fund based in New York, made "approximately $500,000 in payments," which were initiated by Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch with an estimated net worth of $13 billion. According to Avenatti's executive summary, "Mr. Vekselberg and his cousin Mr. Andrew Intrater routed eight payments to Mr. Cohen through a company called Columbus Nova LLC ('Columbus') beginning in January 2017 and continuing until at least August 2017." In a separate tweet, he added, "these monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment" Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels.
While the companies scrambled to explain themselves, Rolling Stone called Avenatti to hear what it all means for the L.A. attorney's high-profile case.  
Getting the obvious question out of the way: How did you get this information that you posted on Twitter yesterday?
Like any good journalist, I'm not divulging my sources. That information is also protected by the work-product privilege.
Are you at all concerned that the White House might use banking regulations to force you to disclose your sources?
Not at this time.
How does the information that you revealed about Essential Consultants' transactions impact your case?
Well, it's highly relevant to our case because it's all part of the continued cover up relating to the payment to my client and the reimbursement of that payment.
What's your strategy from here with this information?
Well, no good lawyer would ever divulge his strategy in advance of carrying it out. I mean Michael Cohen might do something like that. 
What, in your view, should Michael Cohen be afraid of?
Michael Cohen should be fearful of a serious criminal indictment charging him with potential money laundering, bank and wire fraud, and other charges, all of which might carry significant potential jail time.
Got it.
He should also be concerned about being sold out by Mr. Trump.
What do you think the relationship was between these companies and Michael Cohen through Essential Consultants?
Well, we don't know the full extent of the relationship, but it appears to have been a pay to play or a pay to access type of arrangement.
But it also appears to have been a slush fund of sorts, so which in your view is it? Is it a slush fund or a pay to play system?
Well, it may ultimately be proven to have been both. 
How do you think these relationships formed? Did Cohen seek out these companies or was it the other way around?
Our understanding is that Michael Cohen actively solicited these clients.
And he solicited them for the purpose of these investments in Essential Consultants, is that correct?
No, I think he solicited them for the purpose of lining his own pocket.
Do you think there will be any more information on outgoing payments from Essential Consultants?
No doubt.
What might they show? What might that information show us?
I'm not going to speculate as to what it shows or might show.
Okay. Do you have that information?
Again, I'm not going to get into details about what I have or don't have.
What's the significance to you that Columbus Nova is an affiliate of a Russian owned company?
I think the significance is pretty obvious. Michael Cohen should not have been taking money from any entity or individual tied to Russia during this time. Period. It was beyond stupid, among other things, and it likely may have been illegal.
All right. Michael, here's the last one. How do you think these bank records change the calculus of the Mueller investigation?
I don't think they really change the calculus of the Mueller investigation. I'm sure that Mr. Mueller is going to do what he's going to do. He's an incredibly able prosecutor.

Rolling Stones

July 18, 2017

Sekulow, Trump's Attorney Blames Secret Service for The Meeting

Running the full Sunday morning media gauntlet, the president’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, presented Team Trump’s latest line of defense in the mounting Donald Trump Jr. scandal: blaming his meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer whom he was told would have damaging information about Hillary Clinton, on the Secret Service. “I wonder why the Secret Service—if this was nefarious—why the Secret Service allowed these people in?” Sekulow mused, pitching his self-consciously rhetorical question on ABC’s This Morning. “The president had Secret Service protection at that point, and that raised a question with me.”

As Sekulow sought to bolster Trump Jr.’s case via the media, the president took his own shotgun approach to Twitter. “HillaryClinton can illegally get the questions to the Debate & delete 33,000 emails but my son Don is being scorned by the Fake News media?” Forty minutes later, he discharged a characteristic follow-up: “With all of its phony unnamed sources & highly slanted & even fraudulent reporting, #Fake News is DISTORTING DEMOCRACY in our country.” In between, he tempered his tone enough to extend a hearty thanks to former campaign adviser Michael Caputo—who worked in Russia during the 1990s and for Gazprom Media in the early 2000s—for testifying “so powerfully” that there was no Russian collusion in his “winning” campaign before the House Intelligence Committee, and also showing his appreciation for those who had cheered him at the United States Women’s Open, played at the Trump National Golf Club, despite calls for it to be moved because of his record of derogatory behavior towards women. “Thank you to all of the supporters, who far out-numbered the protesters, yesterday at the Women's U.S. Open. Very cool!” 

Waving to the crowds from the viewing stand Saturday, Trump must have received some welcome respite at the golf tournament. Despite his attempts to appear unperturbed by his son’s scandal, he is in the midst of the most turbulent patch of his presidency. His case has not been helped by the undulating explanations his cohort have offered for the meeting which, prefaced by a now-public e-mail chain titled “Russia - Clinton - private and confidential,” was also attended by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Initially claiming the meeting was focused on the contentious issue of U.S.-Russian adoption, it has since emerged that its ostensible purpose (from Trump Jr.’s perspective, at least), was to gather information about Clinton as part of the Russian government’s efforts to help elect his father. Another twist emerged Friday, when it was revealed that Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-born lobbyist who served in the Soviet army, attended the meeting, and said Trump Jr. asked Veselnitskaya for information on illicit money flowing into the Democratic National Committee but that Veselnitskaya had nothing substantive to provide—although he noted that she may have left several documents. (Akhmetshin has been alleged by U.S. officials to have ties to Russian intelligence, a claim he has denied.)

It was perhaps predictable, then, that Sekulow’s attempts to shift blame over to the Secret Service were met with a flat incredulity. Mason Brayman, a Secret Service spokesman, told Reuters in a statement that the agency was not protecting Trump Jr. in June 2016 when he attended the meeting. “Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time,” Brayman said. According to Think Progress, Kushner and Manafort were not under Secret Service protection at that point, either. Brayman was echoed by former Secret Service agent Jonathan Wackrow, who told CNN on Sunday that only a physical screening was required to enter Trump Tower at the time, as Trump was just a candidate. Speaking to Yahoo, Akhmetshin said that “no one asked us for IDs” when he and Veselnitskaya entered Trump’s namesake Midtown high-rise. “We literally walked in,” he said.

Fueling speculation that Trump himself was present at the meeting, Sekulow’s reference to the Secret Service is either false, or stupidly clumsy. Both, of course, are possibilities. Trump has repeatedly claimed he knew nothing about the meeting, despite the fact he is reported to have been present in Trump Tower at the time, and, forty minutes after the meeting, began tweeting about Clinton’s e-mails. Just days later, he announced plans to deliver a “major speech” focusing on a discussion of “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.” The speech never happened. Perhaps Trump was stripped of his physic tendencies.

That Trump knew nothing of his son’s eager attempts to procure dirt on Clinton seems even more unlikely in light of a Yahoo News report Thursday, which claims Trump’s lawyers knew about the meeting, and e-mails, in June. This was followed by an ABC report, which alleges that two weeks before Trump Jr. published screenshots of the e-mail exchange arranging the meeting, the president’s re-election campaign paid $50,000 in legal fees to the attorney Trump fils is now represented by. The payment was revealed in a Q2 FEC report filed on Saturday by the Trump campaign. On June 27, criminal defense attorney Alan Futerfas was paid by the campaign for “legal consulting.” On July 10, he was hired to represent the president’s son. The filing doesn’t indicate that the June 27 disbursement of funds to Futerfas was made for the purpose of representing Trump Jr. (Futerfas has since dubbed the unfolding scandal, “much ado about nothing.”)

The president’s claim to ignorance, given the timeline and money trail, strains credulity. If Trump’s lawyers knew about the meeting, the Secret Service allegedly knew about the meeting, his campaign paid Trump Jr.’s lawyer, and Trump himself was in the same building at the time of the meeting, the White House can expect nothing less than the barrage of disbelief countering their surreal set of explanations. Already, the administration has lied repeatedly about who attended the meeting and what was discussed. That neither the president’s son, son-in-law, nor campaign manager ever told him about a high-level meeting as part of an explicit Kremlin plot to help him win election seems uncharacteristic.

Sekulow’s channeling of blame towards the Secret Service has backfired, swiveling attention back to Russia just as the Trump administration was hoping to restore the president’s image with a string of “theme weeks,” the latest of which, starting today, and called “Made in America,” focuses on American workers and goods they produce. But, as suspicion mounts, it’s hard to change the subject. Especially when the White House is offering excuses that require a suspension of disbelief too extreme even for their standards, where drawing Shakespearian parallels has become just a tired cliché. The Trump family want to focus on trade, but they will find it hard to shift attention away from the Russia scandal, made right in the midst of Trump’s America.

    Vanity fair

More from ABC:                       

After one of the president's lawyers cited U.S. Secret Service inaction in his defense of Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian attorney, whom the younger Trump believed to be in possession of incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, attention has turned to the agency's duties in enforcing the law. 
"I wonder why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why the Secret Service allowed these people in," President Trump's personal attorney Jay Sekulow said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week" of the June 2016 meeting. 
The law enforcement agency quickly responded to his question Sunday, saying in a statement, "Donald Trump Jr. was not under Secret Service protection in June 2016." "Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time," the statement continued. 
The agency is authorized to protect "major presidential and vice presidential candidates" plus their spouses, the latter within 120 days of the general election, according to Section 3056 of the U.S. Code of Laws, which outlines the "powers, authorities and duties" of the Secret Service. 
The secretary of homeland security decides who qualifies as major candidates. 6 months in, a record low for Trump, with troubles from Russia to health care
Children are protected if they are the offspring of a sitting president or vice president or of a former president until they reach age 16, though the secretary of homeland security may authorize additional security if he or she determines that "information or conditions warrant such protection." 
No provision is made for candidates' immediate family members other than spouses before the election. 
Even if Donald Trump Jr. had a Secret Service detail in June 2016, it's unclear clear whether its duties would have included discovering the nature of a meeting, other than to ensure his safety. While agents are legally able to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States," they do not traditionally sit in on private meetings and would, therefore, not necessarily be aware of any possible malfeasance. 
While Donald Trump Sr. had Secret Service protection during the presidential campaign, it would not have included vetting people who met with members of his campaign staff. The agency didn't address whether it even knew about the meeting. 
Donald Trump Jr. released emails last week concerning arrangements to meet with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, with the hope of receiving damning information about Clinton. The meeting came under additional scrutiny Friday with the revelation that additional people with connections to the Russian government attended the meeting, including a longtime lobbyist. 
Sekulow's comment about the Secret Service was met with criticism on Twitter on Sunday, including from Frances Townsend, a former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, and Richard W. Painter, Bush's ethics lawyer. 

July 14, 2017

"Watch your back, bitch" The President of The United States Lawyer on the Phone


This story has been updated with a response from a spokesman for Marc Kasowitz.
Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal attorney on the Russia case, threatened a stranger in a string of profanity-laden emails Wednesday night.
The man, a retired public relations professional in the western United States who asked not to be identified, read ProPublica’s story this week on Kasowitz and sent the lawyer an email with the subject line: “Resign Now.’’
Kasowitz replied with series of angry messages sent between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern time. One read: “I’m on you now.  You are fucking with me now Let’s see who you are Watch your back , bitch.”
In another email, Kasowitz wrote: “Call me.  Don’t be afraid, you piece of shit.  Stand up.  If you don’t call, you’re just afraid.” And later: “I already know where you live, I’m on you.  You might as well call me. You will see me. I promise.  Bro.”
Kasowitz’s spokesman, Michael Sitrick, said Thursday he couldn’t immediately reach Kasowitz for comment.
ProPublica confirmed the man’s phone number matched his stated identity. Technical details in the emails, such as IP addresses and names of intermediate mail servers, also show the emails came from Kasowitz’s firm. In one email, Kasowitz gave the man a cell phone number that is not widely available. We confirmed Kasowitz uses that number.
The exchange began after the man saw our story featured last night on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. We reported that Kasowitz is not seeking a security clearance even though the Russia case involves a significant amount of classified material.
Experts said Kasowitz could have trouble getting a security clearance because of what multiple sources described as a recent history of alcohol abuse. Former employees also said Kasowitz had engaged in behavior that made them uncomfortable.
Since the story was published, his spokesman issued a statement disputing several parts of the story: “Marc Kasowitz has not struggled with alcoholism,” Sitrick wrote. “He has not come into the office intoxicated, attorneys have not had to go across the street to the restaurant during the workday to consult Kasowitz on work matters.”
The rigorous background investigation that goes into getting security clearance also considers “any information relevant to strength of character, honesty, discretion, sound judgment, [and] reliability.”
The exchange of emails Wednesday began at 9:28 p.m. Eastern when the man sent the following message to Kasowitz’s firm account.
by Justin Elliott

March 31, 2017

Lawyer Looses License Because of Anti Gay Hostility Towards Client

A former lawyer with the state of Michigan has lost his law license in a misconduct case related to his public hostility for a gay student leader at the University of Michigan.
Andrew Shirvell’s disbarment was ordered Thursday by a panel at the Attorney Discipline Board. He can appeal to the full board.
Shirvell was an assistant attorney general. He was fired in 2010 after criticizing Christopher Armstrong on an anti-gay blog, on Facebook and during visits to the Ann Arbor campus.
 Shirvell said he was exercising free-speech rights. But the panel at the discipline board says his motive was “dishonest or selfish,” not simply careless.
A message seeking comment was left with his attorney. In a separate matter, a jury in 2012 ordered Shirvell to pay $4.5 million to Armstrong

October 12, 2016

(’75)Hillary’Ordered/defend’rape caseTrump’sKathy Sheldon

 Hillary Clinton was the court appointed defender on the case of  The State Vs. Taylor(defendant)

“I am also here to support Trump. At 12 years old, Hillary put me through something that you would never put a 12- year-old through. And she says she is for women and children.”
— Kathy Shelton, at a news conference hosted by Donald Trump, Oct. 9, 2016
“Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”
— Shelton, first-person account on gofundme page
Before the second debate, Donald Trump held a brief news conference with three women who claim they were abused by Bill Clinton – and one woman, Kathy Shelton, who says Hillary Clinton ruined her life when she was hired as a public defender for a man who raped Shelton in 1975.  

While the cases of three women connected to Bill Clinton have been well-litigated in the media, the Kathy Shelton case has attracted much less attention. Until a Newsday reporter informed her in 2008 that Clinton was the lawyer in the case, Shelton had no idea that Hillary Clinton had been involved.
Moreover, a central part of her story — the psychiatric exam — does not appear to have taken place, according to court records.

The Facts

In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment — which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN.
Court records describe a sad tale. Shelton, at the time 12 years old, went out for a late-night drive with Tom Taylor, then 41, a 20-year-old cousin, and a 15-year-old boy with whom she was apparently infatuated. They bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whisky, which was mixed with Coca-Cola for Shelton. After hanging out at a bowling alley for a few hours, they allegedly drove to a ravine where the two older men left Shelton and the 15-year-old together. The two then had sex, the boy told police. After they were finished, Taylor approached the truck and apparently attacked Shelton. The boy reported that Shelton screamed and he saw Taylor hitching up his pants.
As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
 When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”
But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”
But in 2014, Shelton told the Daily Beast that she had been misquoted. “Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” she said.
Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case in the mid-1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.
In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.
For instance, Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
The Daily Beast article said:
The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested.
In an interview with the Daily Mail that appeared Aug. 9, Shelton agreed for the first time to be identified by name. This article strongly suggested that the psychiatric examination took place:
Although Clinton’s legal maneuver would likely be prohibited today under Arkansas rape shield act, the law was not passed until two years after the case.
Shelton said one of her worst memories of the case was being questioned repeatedly by appointed experts.
“It got so bad that I told my mom I wasn’t going back, and whatever happened, happened,” said Shelton. “It’s sad that a 12-year-old had to go through what I had to go through, because for days I cried and cried and cried over it.”
The gofundme site, which was established Aug. 13 and seeks to raise $10,000, quotes Shelton as explicitly saying that the test took place: “Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”
But the court docket, unearthed by Pittsburgh attorney Norma Chaseand for the first time made public, shows that one day after Clinton filed a request for psychiatric exam, it was denied by the judge. The court docket for July 28 says Clinton filed her motion for an exam. On July 29, it states: “Hearing on Motion for Psychiatric Examination — Motion denied. Defendant objects.” (There is also no evidence that Clinton was responsible for arranging Shelton’s polygraph test.)
Here’s the docket sheet:

For a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached. Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain for testing and then losing it. Newsday also quoted a retired detective on the case as saying that Shelton’s “ ‘infatuation’ with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit,” led to “serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.” The detective also said Shelton’s mother “was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police.”
Shelton did not respond to requests for comment left on her phone and the gofundme site. We also sought comment from Candice E. Jackson, an attorney who represents her.

The Bottom Line

Memories are malleable over time. The record shows that Shelton’s memories of the case have changed, specifically concerning being forced to take a psychiatric exam that, it turns out, was not approved by the court. Shelton did not know about Clinton’s affidavit asking for the exam in the 41-year-old case until it was shown to her by a reporter nine years ago. There is little indication that the outcome of the case would have been much different, no matter the defense attorney, given the mishandling of the evidence and Shelton’s difficulties as a witness. Yet now the exam has become a key part of her story in order to raise funds.
Shelton is a rape victim and until recently has not been in the public eye. However, she chose to appear at Trump’s news conference, and Trump has begun to highlight her story in campaign speeches. We’re not going to assign a Pinocchio rating, but readers should be aware of the facts of her case — and how her account has changed over time.

Featured Posts

Ways {{FIVE}} to Prevent and Prepare for The Corona Virus

NPR   As the coronavirus spreads around the globe, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your family.   ...