- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 47,603
- Thread Author
- #1
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
- Messages
- 56,176
Companies Paid Millions To Michael Cohen | Morning Joe | MSNBC
In this illuminating segment from MSNBC's "Morning Joe," the discussion revolves around the controversial payments made to Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to President Trump, by various corporate entities, including Novartis, AT&T, and others. The video highlights the implications of these transactions, framing them within the broader context of access and influence in the Trump administration.
### Summary of Key Points
Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, reveals insights into Cohen's dealings from as early as 2017, suggesting a pattern of "access peddling" where companies allegedly paid Cohen for insights into the Trump administration. Notable disclosures included:
- Payments Overview: Cohen reportedly received around $3 million from major companies, with significant amounts coming from Novartis ($1.2 million) and AT&T ($600,000). Other contributions came from firms like Squire Patton Boggs and Korea Aerospace.
- Question of Access: The segment raises critical questions about the nature of these payments and whether companies obtained the access they were promised. The discussion notes that some companies seemed to be disillusioned by Cohen's actual influence.
- Response from the White House: The White House, when pressed on these matters, often deferred questions to outside counsel, indicating a reluctance to clarify Cohen's role and the implications of the payments.
- Public Perception and Political Ramifications: The conversation also touches upon the idea of “swampy behavior,” which President Trump claimed he would eradicate. Analysts ponder how such transactions impact the integrity of the administration and public trust.
- Corporate Decision-Making: There is a critical examination of the corporate rationale behind hiring Cohen. Some commentators question the intelligence of corporations like Novartis and AT&T for engaging with Cohen, suggesting they failed to recognize the dubious nature of his dealings.
### Analysis
This segment effectively encapsulates ongoing concerns regarding ethics, transparency, and governance in the Trump administration. The juxtaposition of corporate interests and political leverage underscores a crucial narrative about the intertwining of business and politics, raising significant ethical questions about access to power in the American political landscape.
As we move into 2024, the implications of these revelations continue to resonate, especially with ongoing investigations and the evolving dynamics of U.S. politics. The footage serves as a reminder of how corporate strategies and political maneuvering can sometimes blur the lines of legality and morality.
### Community Engagement
What are your thoughts on the implications of Michael Cohen's business dealings? Do you think this scenario reflects broader issues within Washington? Share your opinions below and let’s discuss! Additionally, if you're interested in the interaction between politics and big business, consider checking out our previous threads on corporate influence in politics.
Let's hear your thoughts!
In this illuminating segment from MSNBC's "Morning Joe," the discussion revolves around the controversial payments made to Michael Cohen, former personal attorney to President Trump, by various corporate entities, including Novartis, AT&T, and others. The video highlights the implications of these transactions, framing them within the broader context of access and influence in the Trump administration.
### Summary of Key Points
Michael Avenatti, attorney for Stormy Daniels, reveals insights into Cohen's dealings from as early as 2017, suggesting a pattern of "access peddling" where companies allegedly paid Cohen for insights into the Trump administration. Notable disclosures included:
- Payments Overview: Cohen reportedly received around $3 million from major companies, with significant amounts coming from Novartis ($1.2 million) and AT&T ($600,000). Other contributions came from firms like Squire Patton Boggs and Korea Aerospace.
- Question of Access: The segment raises critical questions about the nature of these payments and whether companies obtained the access they were promised. The discussion notes that some companies seemed to be disillusioned by Cohen's actual influence.
- Response from the White House: The White House, when pressed on these matters, often deferred questions to outside counsel, indicating a reluctance to clarify Cohen's role and the implications of the payments.
- Public Perception and Political Ramifications: The conversation also touches upon the idea of “swampy behavior,” which President Trump claimed he would eradicate. Analysts ponder how such transactions impact the integrity of the administration and public trust.
- Corporate Decision-Making: There is a critical examination of the corporate rationale behind hiring Cohen. Some commentators question the intelligence of corporations like Novartis and AT&T for engaging with Cohen, suggesting they failed to recognize the dubious nature of his dealings.
### Analysis
This segment effectively encapsulates ongoing concerns regarding ethics, transparency, and governance in the Trump administration. The juxtaposition of corporate interests and political leverage underscores a crucial narrative about the intertwining of business and politics, raising significant ethical questions about access to power in the American political landscape.
As we move into 2024, the implications of these revelations continue to resonate, especially with ongoing investigations and the evolving dynamics of U.S. politics. The footage serves as a reminder of how corporate strategies and political maneuvering can sometimes blur the lines of legality and morality.
### Community Engagement
What are your thoughts on the implications of Michael Cohen's business dealings? Do you think this scenario reflects broader issues within Washington? Share your opinions below and let’s discuss! Additionally, if you're interested in the interaction between politics and big business, consider checking out our previous threads on corporate influence in politics.
Let's hear your thoughts!
Similar threads
