Posted on 05/13/2024 11:17:24 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Michael Cohen testified Monday he secretly recorded Donald Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election, discussing plans to buy a Playboy model’s story about having an affair with the then-candidate.
Cohen — who worked for Trump for more than a decade — told jurors in Manhattan Supreme Court that the Sept. 6, 2016, conversation, taped on the Voice Memos app on his iPhone, was the only time he surreptitiously recorded his former boss.
“So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?” Trump could allegedly be heard saying on the nearly three-minute recording played in court by Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger.
The conversation centered around plans to buy the rights to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal’s story about having an affair with the married Trump from the National Enquirer, according to testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Isn’t it a violation of law to record someone in a phone conversation without their knowledge? If so, it cannot be used and must be thrown out
Depends on the state. Some states require all parties on the call to consent. Other states - including NY - allow any individual party to a conversation to record it without all parties consent.
Someone who is a non-party to a phone call can never record it (without a warrant anyway).
bttt
Excuse me?
The reason why is I can’t find anything other than Tucker Carlson making that claim, for which she sued.
They haven’t said anything about extortion in the trial either.
Do you want to apologize for jumping to conclusions?
The recording isn't really unimpeachable evidence. It can't be proven the voices are actually Cohen and Trump, nor can it be assured that the audio isn't edited or the date/time changed. There are DOJ approved apps for such purpose. I have a friend going through divorce who has a court approved app on his phone that saves all texts and phone calls with his soon to be EX. These are usable as evidence, and sometimes used for restraining orders, divorce, civil cases, etc.
Considering this, as well as attorney-client privilege (Cohen was Trump's lawyer when he recorded him), this evidence never should have been allowed.
I thought it was illegal for someone to secretly record conversations with out consent of the person recorded. I also thought that what was said between an attorney and his client was not to be disclosed. Isn’t there some kind of privileged information between a client and their attorney?
So how in the world was this disclosed during trial testimony?
I know anything is legal in an attempt to smear Trump.
You followed the part of the trial where Pecker paid for McDougal’s story despite knowing it was false? That is the in-trial part of her trying to get paid for story and trying to get Cohen and Pecker to bid against one another.
Pecker also related (under a non-prosecution agreement) that AMI used these collected stories to get paid by celebrities or induce them to participate in their magazine in exchange for killing the stories.
Let me get this Stright. Cohen, Trump’s attorney, made a secret recording of a phone call with Trump? How is this ethical? How is this allowed in evidence?
Let me get this Stright. Cohen, Trump’s attorney, made a secret recording of a phone call with Trump? How is this ethical? How is this allowed in evidence?
It depends on the local laws. New York allows conversations to be recorded by one of the participating parties without the consent of the other(s).
And if a conversation between a lawyer and client is considered to be for the purpose of engaging in or furthering illegal activity, then the privilege doesn’t apply. That’s what the state alleges has occurred.
If I surreptitiously record you I only have to say I authorized it? Of course I authorized it - I'm the one recording it.
Ridiculous on it's face.
NY is one party state but can be allowed if they say it was fraud and tape allowed
“Court filings said federal prosecutors have obtained 12 audio recordings from the FBI raids on Cohen earlier this year. CNN previously reported that Trump’s lawyers waived attorney-client privilege on the President’s behalf regarding the recording involving him personally.” Why did Trumps attorneys waived attorney-client privilege? Stupid. How do we know the tape wasn’t messed with- is that really Trumps voice or AI.
Crazy.
No it didn’t as Trumps attorney waived attorney-client privilege.
“Court filings said federal prosecutors have obtained 12 audio recordings from the FBI raids on Cohen earlier this year. CNN previously reported that Trump’s lawyers waived attorney-client privilege on the President’s behalf regarding the recording involving him personally.”
I sure hope they can prove the tape was tampered with.
Trumps attorney waived attorney-client privilege for the tape. Why I have no clue. Sounds insane to me.
Trumps attorney waived attorney-client privilege for the tape. Why I have no clue. Sounds insane to me.
At a minimum, it seems unethical. But then Cohen is a disbarred lawyer and convicted felon, and serial liar, so ethics aren’t really his thing.
We have a convicted felon who admitted to committing perjury testifying about a secret recording that violated his attorney-client privilege.
And this evidence is presented by an attorney who just got caught withholding exculpatory evidence and committing the felony crime of evidence tampering.
Zero credibility.
Correct regarding you, the one recording, implicitly authorizes the recording.
The raid to which you refer is early 2018.
So they’re going to wait over six years to go after Donald Trump?
John Edward’s spent Millions relocating his mistress and his baby (to beachfront) in the middle of an Election. The Federal Courts said he did nothing wrong.
Not sure the unimpeachable evidence mattered to the ambulance chasers they’ve done everything to sway the jury no trick is to low.
Your point is taken
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.