Throughout her testimony, even when detailing behind-the-scenes responses to damaging news, Ms Hicks often spoke positively about her former boss. She reserved her harshest assessments for Cohen.
Asked if she would agree that Cohen would protect Mr Trump out of the “kindness of his heart”, as the former president had claimed, Ms Hicks replied: “That would be out of character for Michael.”
Ms Hicks said that while Cohen was not involved in the campaign directly, he frequently tried to inject himself into it.
“He liked to call himself ‘Fixer’ or ‘Mr Fix-it’,” Hicks said. “And it was only because he first broke it.”
BBC
In the complex world of law and legal proceedings, lawyers often play a dual role. On one hand, they are problem solvers, stepping in to help navigate legal challenges, disputes, and complexities. They provide counsel, negotiate on behalf of their clients, and work towards resolutions. This is the side of the profession that is most visible and widely understood.
However, there’s another side to this coin. Sometimes, lawyers can also be problem creators. This is not to suggest any unethical behavior, but rather to highlight the strategic aspect of legal practice. Lawyers might intentionally amplify certain issues, complicate matters, or employ delaying tactics to gain a strategic advantage. This side of the profession is less visible but equally significant.
Michael Cohen’s self-proclaimed ‘Fixer’ or ‘Mr. Fix-it’ persona.
Michael Cohen, a lawyer who once served as Donald Trump’s personal attorney, provides a case in point. Known as Trump’s ‘fixer’, Cohen was often seen as the man who would step in to solve problems. However, as Hope Hicks’ testimony suggests, Cohen was also adept at creating problems, only to step in later and ‘fix’ them. This paradoxical role, being both a problem creator and solver, is not unique to Cohen but is indicative of a broader pattern within the legal profession. Understanding this dual role is crucial for a nuanced understanding of legal practice and its implications.
A ‘fixer’ is someone who solves problems or makes arrangements for someone else, often in a context where the legality or ethics of the situation are questionable.
In Cohen’s case, his role as a ‘fixer’ involved managing and mitigating potentially damaging situations for Trump. This included making arrangements for non-disclosure agreements, dealing with negative press, and navigating legal challenges. His methods were often aggressive, leveraging his legal expertise and connections to protect Trump’s interests.
However, as Hope Hicks’ testimony suggests, Cohen’s ‘fixer’ persona was not just about solving problems – it was also about creating them. Hicks indicated that Cohen would often create a problem, only to later step in and ‘fix’ it. This pattern of behavior, while seemingly paradoxical, is not uncommon in the world of high-stakes legal and business dealings. It allows the ‘fixer’ to maintain control over the situation, manage the narrative, and present themselves as indispensable.
Yet, this persona came at a cost. Cohen’s actions eventually led to legal repercussions for himself and significantly impacted public perceptions of him and Trump whom he represented.
After all, this approach has its drawbacks. While it may provide short-term gains, it can lead to long-term damage. The problems Cohen created often had far-reaching implications, leading to legal and reputational risks for those involved. Moreover, the very act of creating problems to fix them can be seen as manipulative and unethical, further eroding trust and credibility.
In essence, Hicks’ statement paints a picture of Cohen as a complex figure, adept at navigating the murky waters of legal and business challenges, but whose methods were ultimately self-serving and damaging. This insight into Cohen’s role and actions serves as a cautionary tale about the potential pitfalls of the ‘fixer’ persona in the legal profession.
The Daniels Affair and the Unnecessary NDA
The Daniels affair refers to the alleged sexual encounter between Donald Trump and Stephanie Clifford, better known by her stage name Stormy Daniels. The encounter allegedly took place in 2006. Daniels, an adult film actress, first spoke about the alleged affair in 2011.
The controversy escalated in 2016, just before the presidential election, when it was revealed that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, had paid Daniels $130,000 as part of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to prevent her from discussing the alleged affair. The payment was made through a shell company set up by Cohen.
The NDA became a subject of intense debate and legal scrutiny. Critics argued that the payment constituted an illegal campaign contribution, as it was intended to influence the outcome of the election. Cohen initially denied that Trump had any knowledge of the payment, but later admitted in court that he made the payment “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.
An NDA is a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship between parties. The party or parties signing the agreement agree that sensitive information they may obtain will not be made available to others. NDAs are commonly used in business settings where proprietary information is shared.
However, the use of an NDA for a one-time personal encounter, such as the alleged sexual encounter between Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, raises questions. In such a context, an NDA can seem excessive or unnecessary. After all, one might argue, what is the need for such a formal, legal agreement for a single, personal interaction?
If there was no NDA with Daniels, Cohen would have missed his $420,000 pay off as part of the fee he received for exaggerating this so-called potential election threat that only he as the fixer saw and could solve? So he would appear indispensable to Trump for ‘his part’ in winning the election?
“Another devastating blow came at the very end of Hicks’ direct testimony when she revealed a stunning trifecta: that, while president, Trump had admitted to her that he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels, that Trump attempted to blame Cohen and that Hicks did not believe him. She also stated that Trump felt it was better to be dealing with it after the election than beforehand. She appeared so distraught — presumably about throwing her former boss under the bus — that she then began crying.”
BBC
The dramatic statement is when Hope Hicks revealed that Donald Trump had admitted to her that he knew about the payment his then-fixer Michael Cohen had made to Stormy Daniels. This was significant because it suggested that Trump had knowledge of the payment, which was a central issue in the trial. You might wonder why Trump would be upset with Cohen for making the payment and arranging the NDA. Here’s one way to look at it: If Daniels had come forward about her alleged encounter with Trump, it might have been seen as just another scandal in the sea of controversies surrounding him. However, the NDA and the payment added a new layer of complexity to the situation, potentially giving Daniels leverage and putting Trump in a difficult position.
“Trump attempted to blame Cohen” suggests that Trump, learning after the fact, might have been angry at Cohen for making the payment and creating a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Daniels without considering the potential implications. Trump must have been aware you don’t need NDA for one time alleged sex encounter, which he has denied. And giving Daniels this leverage.. If Trump wanted an NDA, he would have signed it himself and paid Daniels himself and not expect his lawyer to pay and sign it. No lawyer pays on their clients’ behalf, not to the extent he borrows the amount from the bank in order to pay?
Trump felt it was better to be dealing with it after the election than beforehand. Here it is a question of prioritization? It’s possible that Trump, given his responsibilities, had to prioritize his tasks and chose to deal with this issue at a later date. This could explain why he felt it was better to deal with the situation after the election rather than before.
Trump’s Motivations: Personal NOT POLITICAL
Asked by Trump’s defense attorney Emile Bove about the impact on his family and whether he expressed concern over it, Hicks responded, “Absolutely … I don’t think he wanted anyone in his family to be hurt or embarrassed about anything on the campaign. He wanted them to be proud of him.”
Hicks noted earlier in her testimony that Trump wanted her to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence, as per Fox News.
Trump’s Motivations: Hicks testified that Trump’s interest in suppressing the allegations from the women stemmed from his desire to shield his wife, Melania. This could potentially support the defense’s argument that Trump’s motivations were personal rather than political.
Hope Hicks’ testimony, suggests Trump’s motivations were indeed to protect his family from public scrutiny and from harassment. It indicates his actions were driven by personal concerns rather than political ones.
MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHY? WHY? WHY?
Trump has never signed this NDA. This indicates that Cohen may have acted out of self-interest, potentially trapping Trump in a difficult situation. Cohen borrows $130,000, creates an NDA pays Daniels through a shell company, in order to hide it from his wife that he has personal dealings with Daniels? Source: Cohen’s testimony before the House Committee.
He then gives his bill totaling $420,000 to Trump who has no choice but to pay him. Bottom line: you always have to pay your bills, especially to your lawyers?
If Trump was in agreement, he would have paid Daniels himself. Trump has forgone 4 years of presidential salary plus benefits of about $3 million? $130,000 would have been pocket change if he wanted to pay her.
The million dollar question is why create an NDA for a one time supposed sexual encounter? Why create a shell company? Why would Cohen hide it from his so called loving wife? Is there a personal connection between Cohen and Daniels that his wife suspected? And Cohen did not want his wife to know about his continuous dealings with Daniels? Is there a personal connection between Daniels and Cohen which is not yet exposed to the public? Did Avenatti figure it out?
The Lawyer-Client Relationship: A Double-Edged Sword
The lawyer-client relationship is a fundamental aspect of the legal profession. It’s based on trust, confidentiality, and a mutual understanding that the lawyer will act in the client’s best interests. This relationship is crucial for the effective functioning of the legal system, ensuring that individuals have access to legal advice and representation.
However, this relationship can also be a double-edged sword. On one hand, a strong lawyer-client relationship can lead to effective legal representation, with the lawyer providing sound advice and advocating for the client’s interests. On the other hand, this relationship can be exploited, with some lawyers potentially using their position of trust and authority to manipulate clients for their own gain.
This dynamic is exemplified in the case of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. As Trump’s personal attorney, Cohen was in a position of trust and had a duty to act in Trump’s best interests. However, as Hope Hicks’ testimony suggests, Cohen may have used this relationship to create problems that he could then ‘fix’, thereby making himself indispensable.
The Role of Association Power:
Cohen leveraged his association with Trump to gain influence and financial benefits. This is a classic example of the power of association, but it also highlights the potential for misuse of this power. He was not just a legal advisor but a ‘ self proclaimed’ crisis manager, tasked with handling and neutralizing potentially damaging situations and safe guarding of Trump’s interests.
Did Trump see through Cohen’s ploy? Nobody creates an NDA or pays $130,000 for a one time so called sexualencounter with no other proof than Daniels’ account. It would have been a he said /she said situation.
‘Trump attempted to blame Cohen’.
Hicks
He must have been blazingly angry at Cohen.
Trump realized Cohen was using his association with him to gain influence and financial benefits and misusing his influence? This is a classic example of the ‘power of association’, but it also clarifies the potential for misuse of this power.
Trump ultimately lost trust in Cohen? Yes, the creation of a non essential NDA, probably for self-serving or manipulative reasons, may have opened Trump’s eyes. This could be why Cohen was not invited to join the White House Team. This is a plausible interpretation, as trust is a crucial factor in such relationships and Cohen misused it for personal gain by using the power of association!
Trump is in problems due to this self serving and manipulative lawyer?
