This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/nyregion/michael-cohen-stormy-daniels.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Michael Cohen Will Plead Fifth in Stormy Daniels Lawsuit Michael Cohen to Take Fifth Amendment in Stormy Daniels Lawsuit
(about 1 hour later)
Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, will invoke his Fifth Amendment right in a lawsuit filed against the president by Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film star known as Stormy Daniels. Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, will invoke his Fifth Amendment right in a lawsuit filed against the president by Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film star better known as Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Cohen’s decision, disclosed Wednesday in a court filing in California, where the suit was filed, came a day before a federal judge in Manhattan was set to hold a hearing regarding materials seized from Mr. Cohen during an F.B.I. investigation earlier this month. Mr. Cohen’s decision, disclosed Wednesday in a court filing in California, where the suit was filed, came a day before a federal judge in Manhattan was set to hold a hearing regarding materials seized from Mr. Cohen during an F.B.I. raid earlier this month.
Mr. Cohen cited the Manhattan investigation in his filing on Wednesday, saying that, if called as a witness in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit, “I will assert my 5th Amendment rights in connection with all proceedings in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.”Mr. Cohen cited the Manhattan investigation in his filing on Wednesday, saying that, if called as a witness in Ms. Clifford’s lawsuit, “I will assert my 5th Amendment rights in connection with all proceedings in this case due to the ongoing criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.”
Ms. Clifford was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about her claims of an affair with Mr. Trump. She sued last month to get out of the nondisclosure agreement she signed in October 2016, alleging that it was void because Mr. Trump had never signed it. Ms. Clifford was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about claims that she had an affair with Mr. Trump. She sued last month to get out of the nondisclosure agreement she signed in October 2016, alleging that it was void because Mr. Trump had never signed it.
Citing the Fifth Amendment in the Clifford case allows Mr. Cohen to avoid being deposed and revealing sensitive information in the more important criminal investigation. That investigation — which prosecutors say has been going on for months — became public in dramatic fashion on April 9, when agents from the New York office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided Mr. Cohen’s office, apartment and a room at the Loews Regency Hotel he had been using. The inquiry is said to be focusing on hush-money payments that Mr. Cohen made to — or helped arrange for — Ms. Clifford and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who has also said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.
For days now, prosecutors from the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan have been sparring with Mr. Cohen’s lawyers — and with lawyers for Mr. Trump — for the right to review the records first, a step that will shape the contours of how the government presses its investigation into whether Mr. Cohen tried to suppress negative news coverage of the president in the run-up to the 2016 election.
Lawyers for Mr. Cohen suggested on Wednesday that they were already taking steps to gird themselves for battle. In new court papers, they said that they were setting up “war rooms” to review the seized materials, testing and vetting “systems” to process them, and marshaling what seems to be a small legal army of “operations and technology personnel, paralegals, discovery experts, associates and senior reviewing partners.”
The martial tone of Mr. Cohen’s filing was in contrast to a similar letter submitted to the court by lawyers for the Trump Organization, who merely noted that they were “fully capable of processing and reviewing the materials.” In a third submission, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said that they would “consult closely with Mr. Cohen’s counsel to assist in identifying the seized materials that relate to the president.”
All of the papers were requested in advance by Judge Wood, who, in a hearing on April 16, put off a decision on how to resolve the conflict over the attorney-client privilege review, saying that she might appoint a special master to oversee the process. Two days later, the prosecutors and Mr. Cohen’s lawyers submitted to Judge Wood lists of potential candidates.