Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw bidder to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned at an Art Hamptons Event. The objective was to ensure that his portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. Please see Exhibit 3B to my testimony.
Not only did Trump tweet about this as if he just randomly heard about it, someone in the replies called exactly what really happened:
In 2001, the American Bar Association’s Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued a formal opinion on “Electronic Recording by Lawyers Without the Knowledge of All Participants.” The opinion indicates that a lawyer will not be in violation of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct if they record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other party. The opinion stated, “We think the proper approach to the question of legal but nonconsensual recordings by lawyers is not a general prohibition with certain exceptions, but a prohibition of the conduct only where it is accompanied by other circumstance that make it unethical.”
A particular state bar might have more stringent rules /shrug
YEah, seeing other info now.
Quote:
In addition to court rulings, bar association ethics opinions have
followed Formal Opinion 337 in finding secret tape recordings by attorneys to be ethical misconduct in the following states: Alabama, 33
Alaska, 34 Arizona,35 Colorado, 36 Hawaii, 37 Indiana,38 Kentucky, Louisiana,'40 Minnesota,41 Missouri,4 2 New York,43 North Dakota, 4 4
Tennessee, 45 Texas,46 and Wisconsin.4 7 The only bar association to
have issued an ethics opinion that generally authorizes attorneys to record conversations secretly is the Utah State Bar. 48
Grunching... so let me get this straight, the current deplorable argument is that Cohen was lying previously when he said Big Daddy didn't do crimes, therefore... something something?
Grunching... so let me get this straight, the current deplorable argument is that Cohen was lying previously when he said Big Daddy didn't do crimes, therefore... something something?
Hot take: is Cohen testifying now, in the most public forum possible, so he doesn't get shanked by Daddy's goons inside for what he might possibly say, because there will be nothing more to say?