that abrupt ending and that other call that comes in. that s a high degree of probability that that s the case. and i think that matches common sense as well. it seems like they re having a conversation and then something happened to the recording. what it is, we don t know and we can t tell from this. it seems to end on the word check. giuliani is arguing that it was doctored, meaning somehow it was edited, somehow he would be alleging that trump s voice, you know, was cleverly tucked in. how would investigators know about the content, the originality of this material? so let s put this into layman s terms. we just watched the expert chris cuomo had on. here s a recording device. let s say we re in a one-party consent state like new york. i would like to tape you. once i start it, if i am working for the fbi while this conversation is going on, this conversation we re looking at to prove criminal activity, i
all right. now that we ve had a chance to have an audio expert enhance the sound, now you have a better sense i think it s fair to say about who said what. now we get into the why and what it could mean. let s start with michael cohen. he could be in trouble. why? because the taping is illegal? no. not in new york. you ve got to check the state where you are. this is a one party consent state, which means the other person doesn t have to know. is it because it s illegal to tape a client? no. unethical, grounds for disbarment? possible but unclear. why? the rules changed in 2001 about what is allowed ethically by the bar. you re going to have to do a case-by-case analysis. the biggest blow is not legality. it s credibility. this looks bad. and cohen s sell is that he was doing things for trump that he
it s totally legal? because it s new york and one party consent state. new york is a one party consent. the thing that s interesting is that if cohen did have other clients during the past decade, connecticut is a two party state, pennsylvania is a two party state. anyone that s in one of those two party states, this would be illegal. by the way, the only reason this is out is because the president s legal team, they waved their attorney/client privilege on this, which is confounding to a lot of people. to be honest, there are hundreds of other tapes, some of those may be privileged. it s possible there are other trump conversations. remember that for you to have a legal privilege, it has to be that you areing legal advice and counsel. not just because he is a lawyer. they may have wave e waived because they don t think it exists. any claim by the president
shock our viewers but that s what we learned. what we make of the tape itself, the leaking of it, is this within the law, are there ethical and legal implications of this? it is likely within the law and that new york is a one party consent state. as long as cohen is a consenting party on the in conversation, he makes it under the wire. the ethics issue is much more serious. i consider this to be flagrantly dishonest dishonest and disloyal act by a lawyer, it s not the first time i have been shocked by michael cohen style of practice. most lawyers would find this deeply unethical. at one time, this would be a clear unethical act under the aba rules under state rules.s. the aba created unambiguous standard, but new york was one of those jurisdictions that have
shock our viewers but that s what we learned. what we make of the tape itself, the leaking of it, is this within the law, are there ethical and legal implications of this? it is likely within the law and that new york is a one party consent state. as long as cohen is a consenting party on the in conversation, he makes it under the wire. the ethics issue is much more serious. i consider this to be flagrantly dishonest dishonest and disloyal act by a lawyer, it s not the first time i have been shocked by michael cowans style of practice. most lawyers would find this deeply unethical. at one time, this would be a clear unethical act under the ada rules under state rules. the ada created unambiguous standard, but new york was one of those jurisdictions that have