That is wild.

Gleason hears from Cohen - what am I missing? - extortion? - women advised not to go to Manhattan DA office..then what were they advised to do? - OMG....

made a post of my own about it.

So now trump is leaking? This lawyer held onto his info so he could trade it in for political coin.

to use if he ever needed it, and it appears after cohen got into the quicksand with trump's info, trump put it to use.

I had understood it as he recently went to trump with this info. Thanks for clarifying that for me. It fits in better with everything else is mentioning in this thread.

He offered it up as info to trump. trump then used this to blackmail Schneinderman. throughout the years. then once Scheinderman decided not to play any more, trump&co leaked it to the press.

Yup,trump knew way back then


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump


Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone - next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner
7:10 AM - Sep 11, 2013

15.7K

9,949 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

courthouse on the day that the hearing about Cohen's case took place.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/governor-spitzer-at-court-before-michael-cohen-hearing-news-footage/947549778

He said he "was just having lunch." Quite a coincidence that he was just having lunch right near the courthouse on the day of the Cohen hearing in my view. But maybe I am completely wrong about this.

Trump blackmail.aided by Cohen!

Why would this lawyer, Peter Gleason, tell a retired journalist about these allegations, who in turn said he would, and apparently did, go to Trump with this information? He now seems to be trying to protect the identities of his clients (I assume the two that are remaining anonymous), but what reason would he have had in the first place to go to the journalist and Trump (via Cohen)? He claims the Manhattan DA's office was corrupt and wouldn't have protected the women, but what did he think Trump would have done about it?

This is very odd and very fishy.

No doubt Trump intended to use this information against Schneiderman at some point, but what was going on in 2013?

Hey NY bar association!!!

to the journalist/Trump/Cohen, or else he wouldn't be so concerned about what's in Cohen's files. I think he must be trying to protect his own ass for violating attorney-client confidentiality, and not so much his clients' identities. This has a very bad odor.

He wrote a series of articles for the New York Post about Wayne Dumond. Dumond, as you may remember raped B. Clinton's cousin and was serving life +20 years. Huckabee was instrumental in getting him released from prison. Within a year Dumond raped and murdered 2 women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_DuMond

Those poor victims, they never had a chance.

Which prompted a tweet from the orange whispy-haired poo flinger

I suspect he started looking and paying for oppo on Schneiderman then.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/05/08/schneiderman-trump-loses-major-foe-and-2013-tweet-resurfaces/590522002/

for this dirt on Schneiderman? Wouldn't surprise me. Maybe there's info in Cohen's financial records showing such a payment.

I think Peter Gleason has opened a yuuge can of worms and that he could be in a bit of trouble with the NY Bar, at least.

The time line also runs with trump in russia for the pageant, him copyrighting MAGA and the beginning of trump considering running for resident.

If he was there must be a lot of fingers in the cookie jar.

I am wondering:

1. Where did these two unnamed clients get Gleason's name? He represented a NY madam; is that how they heard of him?

2. Why did Gleason contact the retired journalist? Was it so he wouldn't leave tracks to Cohen/Trump?

3. Why did he tell his clients not to contact law enforcement? Was it because they were prostitutes and he wanted to protect their "employer"? If so, was that employer the Trump Modeling Agency?

4. Did Trump, through Cohen, pay off these women to keep them quiet about their association with that agency? Did Gleason also get paid by Trump/Cohen?

5. Trump now has kompromat on Schneiderman, so why didn't he use it when Schneiderman sued Trump University? Was it to keep the activities of the modeling agency from becoming public? Was he saving it for a better blackmail opportunity?

So many questions...

I learned that in 2013 Trump was thinking of running for NY governor. So he said (or maybe Cohen said on his behalf) that if he were elected he'd be able to take care of Schneiderman. Way too much info for me to keep straight in this one, but that was the essence of it.

office. BTW, those worried about how Eric will live with no job opportunities, the guy's net worth is around $70 million.

In light of this, this is my theory:

Trump thought he had Schneiderman in his pocket. Maybe he did all these years and up until his ouster. Sure he went after trump for some stuff, but the mobster/russian money laundering...nope.

NY officials knew Schneiderman was compromised/blackmailable or found out. Perhaps they found out from the cohen raid?

The powers that be encouraged the four woman to come forward due to the fact that NYAG would be at bat to prosecute trump et al.

The Gleason letter is just an anomaly and these two women are separate.

and won. Also, Gleason's clients are not the same as any of the four women in the New Yorker article, who hadn't gone to authorities at all.

He paid less as a result of the suit than he earned from the university.

Im saying the two women who went to Gleason - its just an incidental finding in all this. But the four women who came forward may have done so after being encouraged to judt come out with it so Schneiderman could be released (without it all being questioned as weird or a coverup).

Saying re the 2 women: cohen would have info on them. And not the 4 women.
Still, the fact remains that trump had leverage over schneiderman for the two womens stories.

Who specifically did not want to be identified.

Please enlighten me ...

Straight up criminals are running the country.

I won't equate lawyers to criminals, but there seem to be a lot of them congregating in the same places. Not just in arguments before courts, but in bars, and around open wounds.

Lawyers may not reveal oral or written communications with clients that clients reasonably expect to remain private. A lawyer who has received a client’s confidences cannot repeat them to anyone outside the legal team without the client’s consent. In that sense, the privilege is the client’s, not the lawyer’s—the client can decide to forfeit (or waive) the privilege, but the lawyer cannot.

The privilege generally stays in effect even after the attorney-client relationship ends, and even after the client dies. In other words, the lawyer can never divulge the client’s secrets without the client’s permission, unless some kind of exception (see below) applies. (United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1992); Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).)
Comparison: The Duty of Confidentiality

The attorney-client privilege is, strictly speaking, a rule of evidence. It prevents lawyers from testifying about, and from being forced to testify about, their clients’ statements. Independent of that privilege, lawyers also owe their clients a duty of confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality prevents lawyers from even informally discussing information related to their clients’ cases with others. They must keep private almost all information related to representation of the client, even if that information didn’t come from the client.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html

Was Cohen part of the legal team?

Was the journalist?

The attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, by the way.

have been found to be illegal through some other investigation?

I think I know that communications to perform illegal acts are not covered under this privilege.

But given the well-cloaked communications through many layers of LLCs/LLPs/etc. and the difficulty of actually capturing illegal intent, would a conviction showing criminality between the parties void this privilege? Could all intermediaries be forced to review their pertinent information?

But that still does not explain why someone would share the clients' secrets with Trump or the journalist.

And now he admits having told Cohen so the news would get to Trump.

There is a lot more to this story than we are reading (in my opinion).

Really confusing.
Just read NY Times article on this. Gleason is a Democrat. What was he doing finding a way to Trump, unless DT was not yet a Republican. (Back when he said they were stupid.) Must research.

Link to tweet

this was pointed out in a parallel thread...

The lawyer represented call girls and organizations that employed them

Trump owned a modeling agency reportedly fronting as an excort agency

So the girls were escorts, went to their agency lawyer, who went to a "journalist" who went to trump.

Seems like it's at least possible these were trumps girls.

2012 -- Sneiderman was going after Trump University

2013 - Gleason, a lawyer, was contacted by two women, who he told NOT to call a prosecutor. Gleason passed the information to a "journalist" from Page 6 of the New York Post (essentially a gossip columnist). The NYP page 6 guy told all this to Cohen, who told Trump

Note that Schneiderman did NOT back down and actually got a judgment against Trump University shortly after the election.

So, why is this coming out now?

Fear that the NY AG might be compromised and would have reasons not to be the back up if Mueller's effort were stopped? (NY magazine and the author have solid liberal credentials.)
Fear on the part of the women that their stories could come out through others and they would have no control due to the raid on Cohen's office.

by the madam he was representing. The question now is whether those women were prostitutes working for the Trump Modeling Agency, which has been under scrutiny for prostitution before. I think what Gleason is trying to cover up is that association, and the likelihood that the women were paid by Trump/Cohen in exchange for their agreement not to contact law enforcement. Trump also gets some kompromat material to use against Schneiderman. Maybe he didn't see the need to use it in the Trump University case but was saving it for better use later on, at a point where he could brush the modeling agency/brothel issues under the rug. If the New Yorker story hadn't come out when it did, would he have used the information when/if Schneiderman sought indictments under NY law against him or his minions?

But its kind of a double bind, because exposing Sneiderman is likely to expose Trump.

However, for reasons I completely don't understand, the Trump base - including the evangelicals had no problem even with the dozen or so allegations against him abusing women, his words bragging about his actions, and even his words that he could walk in on teenage pageant condenders when they were undressed. If this were all verified and came out in a believable way, would that be the final straw ... or just another Trump transgression they look past because "they are winning".