Talk:Marc Kasowitz

Kasowitz's response to Comey testimony

User:DrFleischman, I question your deletion of the entire section about Kasowitz's response to the Comey testimony.[1] As far as public reporting on him goes, it by far the most notable thing he has ever done; I think at least a brief summary belongs in his biography. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see it as recentism. As I understand it the most notable thing is his representation of Trump in connection with the investigation. The recent response was just Kasowitz's coming-out party. It will almost surely fade as the scandal continues and Kasowitz makes more public statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

May resign

Do we really want to include the detail that Kasowitz "may resign" from representing Trump in the Russia investigation? Although verifiable, until something actually happens this does not seem like encyclopedic content to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If we include that Kasowitz "may resign", then we might as well add that Trump "may resign". Either he resigns or he doesn't, but it's pure speculation to say that he "may resign". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Threats against emailer

User:Muboshgu, the email threat controversy has been reported by over 100 credible outlets. The section contains only sourced facts and no POV. - 66.131.241.45 (talk)

I agree; this material could use some cleanup, but why are we deleting it outright? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I shouldn't have. My mistake. It needs to be cleaned up and moved somewhere, possibly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit [2] deletes the actual text of the email and replaces it with the editor's own euphemistic paraphrase.

I disagree. I think the original text should be replaced. This text itself was repeated by over 100 WP:RS, and therefore according to WP:WEIGHT we should include it.

This edit also seems to violate WP:CENSOR.

I can easily understand why the WP:RSs included it. The actual quote is striking, abusive, reflects on the character of Kasowitz, and may affect his representation of Trump. Therefore it's relevant. The paraphrase doesn't communicate the same idea to the reader.

But that's my opinion and doesn't matter for WP purposes. What does matter is that a large number of WP:RSs decided that the exact quote was significant, and according to WP:WEIGHT that's what determines whether it goes into the article. --Nbauman (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Zachary Mazin

Why are we including information about a co-partner's resignation from Kasowitz's firm? Perhaps it belongs at Kasowitz Benson Torres, but how is it biographically relevant to Kasowitz? Law firm partners come and go all the time. Fine, so this time it was because the guy didn't like being associated with Kasowitz. Big deal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Freshfields

This content was re-added citing this source published by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. This is not a reliable source, as it was self published by a law firm. Can others please weigh in so we can get a consensus on this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't actually self-published. If you look at the bottom, the cite states: "This article is reprinted from the June 2016 issue of WorldECR, the journal of export controls and sanctions." I would consider WorldECR: The Journal of Export Controls & Sanctions (formerly known as the World Export Controls Review, it seems?) a reliable source. It appears to be a specialist publication that publishes once every two months. Neutrality^talk 14:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. But that doesn't end our inquiry. What's the basis for WorldECR being a reliable source? Its website has no About Us page and no masthead, and the publication has been cited a grand total of zero times in Google News and barely at all in Google Scholar or Google Books. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Contributions to Cy Vance, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. charges dropped

Here's a story from ProPublica which was covered by many WP:RS and therefore meets WP:WEIGHT. It should go into the Wikipedia entry. There was a gopd summary on Morning Joe at at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8gO5L1hB20.

https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud
Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. Were Close to Being Charged With Felony Fraud
New York prosecutors were preparing a case. Then the D.A. overruled his staff after a visit from a top donor: Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz.
by Jesse Eisinger and Justin Elliott, ProPublica, and Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz, WNYC
Oct. 4, 2017
--Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think this content belongs here. No question this is a noteworthy story that was covered by many reliable sources, but this isn't a weight issue, it's a relevance issue. This content belongs in some Trump-related article(s), and possibly at Chris Vance, but not here. The sources aren't about Kasowitz, they're about Trump and Vance. If there's an aspect to the story that's specifically about Kasowitz then that's what we should write about; otherwise this is coatrack material and a BLP vio (guilt by association). I'm reverting, happy to keep discussing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a huge amount of coverage by WP:RS mentioning Kasowitz specifically. Kasowitz contributed the money to Vance, and Kasowitz asked Vance to drop the charges. That's specifically about Kasowitz. How would you propose rewriting it? --Nbauman (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't propose rewriting it, because as I said, I don't think it belongs. Just because the sources mention Kasowitz doesn't mean they were about Kasowitz. As far we know he was just the messenger. Have any of the headlines mentioned him? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I used to write headlines for wire services and newspapers. I learned that we usually didn't use names in the headline unless they were well known to our readers. So I don't think it has any relevance to WP:WEIGHT. The headlines here usually refer to something like "Trump's attorney." That's pretty specific. These stories are about a meeting between Vance and Kasowitz. There are a lot of them from WP:RS. That's WP:WEIGHT. You're not convinced that meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies? --Nbauman (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we're communicating very well. This is the second time I've said something that you've ignored or missed. I said this isn't a weight issue, it's a relevance issue. Your comment about names in headlines is a straw man. I didn't say anything about headlines using the name "Kasowitz." If you can find a headline that refers to the guy as "Trump's lawyer" or something similar then I'll be impressed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Vance Returned Trump Lawyer’s Donation After Reporters’ Questions --Nbauman (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can see some content being built around that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like my version, what's your version? --Nbauman (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed the story closely, but it would be something like this: "From 2012 to 2013 Kasowitz donated $57,000 to Vance's reelection campaign. Vance returned the funds in 2017 after reporters raised questions about whether they were connected to Vance's decision in August 2012 to drop a fraud investigation of Trump's family in connection with the sale of condominiums at Trump SoHo. Kasowitz denied that he made the donations as part of a quid pro quo." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, first, I think it should mention Donald Trump's children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., as all the coverage does, for example the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/nyregion/cyrus-vance-manhattan-da-trump-lawyer.html . Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. The question isn't whether it appears in the source. The question is whether it's relevant to Kasowitz's biography. I believe the point is that Kasowitz may have used the donations to get his client's children off the hook. I'm not getting why it matters which of his children it was. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification, please. Do you believe that the point that Kasowitz may have used the donations to get his client's children off the hook is relevant to Kasowitz' biography? --Nbauman (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Modestly relevant, I'd say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Every WP:RS I've seen that covered this story has mentioned that "Trump's family" was Donald Trump's children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Should we follow the WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought I already answered that question? But it's not a big deal to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

So do you object to the following text so far?

In 2010, Kasowitz convinced Manhattan prosecutors to drop a case against the Trumps. Prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had been building a criminal case against Donald Trump's children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's verifiable, is it? The source doesn't say Kasowitz convinced anyone to do anything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, how about this (correcting a date):

In 2010, Prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had been building a criminal case against Donald Trump's children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. In 2012, Kasowitz asked Vance to drop the investigation, which Vance did three months later.

--Nbauman (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Where in the source does it say Kasowitz asked Vance to drop the investigation? And what about the donations? Why not use my proposal, which both reflects the source and focuses on Kasowitz's rather than on the Trump family? Frankly this discussion is starting to annoy me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Kasowitz decided to bypass the lower level prosecutors and went directly to Vance to ask that the investigation be dropped." https://www.propublica.org/article/ivanka-donald-trump-jr-close-to-being-charged-felony-fraud

Yes, it's annoying me too, but I think, for reasons I explained above, you're not following Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you say we should leave Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. out. --Nbauman (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I don't like including the Trump kids' names but it's not that big a deal to me. How about: "From 2012 to 2013 Kasowitz donated $57,000 to Vance's reelection campaign. Vance returned the funds in 2017 after reporters raised questions about whether they were connected to Vance's decision in August 2012 to discontinue a fraud investigation of Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. in connection with the sale of condominiums at Trump SoHo. Kasowitz had asked Vance to drop the investigation but he denied that he had made the donations as part of a quid pro quo." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I read the ProPublica article, and I have trouble figuring out this paragraph. I think that the clearest way to explain it is in chronological order. First, the Soho development, then the criminal case, then Kasowitz' visit to Vance, then Vance dropping the case, then reporters finding out about it. --Nbauman (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't. As far as we know Kasowitz had nothing to do with the case until 2012, after the settlement was struck with the plaintiffs. We should focus on Kasotwitz's role, not on telling the complete story as the newspapers do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. I think we should follow the newspapers' editorial judgment, in a summarized form. In the ProPublica story, the criminal case against Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. is a major fact. It wouldn't have drawn so much attention from WP:RS if the defendants weren't Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. Do you disagree with that? --Nbauman (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No that wouldn't be OR. It's in the New York Times source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that picking and choosing individual facts from the New York Times story, rather than summarizing all the significant facts, is WP:OR. And I think that when a fact has been repeated again in WP:RS after WP:RS, that fact is significant. --Nbauman (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for opinions

This discussion seems to have reached a stalemate. Let's ask the 9 most frequent contributors to this article what they think: user:Muboshgu, user:Wikimandia, user:Oceanflynn, user:Henriettazz, user:Tataral, user:66.131.241.45, user:BURSTHON3, user:MelanieN, user:Quisqualis.

The question is this: Should this deletion be restored? [3] That is, should this paragraph be restored?

In [2012], Kasowitz convinced Manhattan prosecutors to drop a case against the Trumps. Prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had been building a criminal case against Donald Trump's children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., for misleading prospective buyers of units in the Trump SoHo hotel and condo. Prosecutors told reporters that the Trumps had discussed, in emails, making false statements to prospective buyers. Ivanka said that 60% of the units had sold, when actually only 15.8% had been sold. The prosecutors said that the false statements were criminal misconduct, but Trump Organization lawyers said they were mere "puffery." In 2012, Kasowitz, who had donated $25,000 to Vance's relection campaign, asked Vance to drop the investigation. Three months later, Vance overruled his prosecutors and dropped the case. Kasowitz and Vance said there was no quid pro quo. Other lawyers said that it was "curious."

My main reason for including it is WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

This article has been published as a collaboration between ProPublica, The New Yorker, and WNYC. It has also been picked up by many other reliable sources, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, Politico, and MSNBC. All of these are reliable sources, which demonstrates that this story has WP:WEIGHT. Every point that I made in my summary has been repeated in most of those sources, so each point in my summary is also in proportion to its prominence in WP:RS.

WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, which is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

You said that you didn't think the story belonged in Marc Kasowitz at all, because it's not relevant to his biography. I don't understand that. I think that when a lawyer's handling of a case is reported by literally hundreds of WP:RS, that is relevant to his biography.

When I asked you how you thought it should be written, you wrote,

From 2012 to 2013 Kasowitz donated $57,000 to Vance's reelection campaign. Vance returned the funds in 2017 after reporters raised questions about whether they were connected to Vance's decision in August 2012 to drop a fraud investigation of Trump's family in connection with the sale of condominiums at Trump SoHo. Kasowitz denied that he made the donations as part of a quid pro quo.

I disagreed. First, this deletes the mention of Donald Trump's children (which every other WP:RS mentioned). Second, I think this is not clearly written. For example, it doesn't explain what the "fraud" was. It gets the sequence of returning the money wrong.

You objected that the ProPublica article didn't say that Kasowitz "convinced" Vance to drop the case. I agreed and proposed that we start with text like the following:

In 2010, Prosecutors in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had been building a criminal case against Donald Trump's children [...]. In 2012, Kasowitz asked Vance to drop the investigation, which Vance did three months later....

I think we should restore the original paragraph, deleting "convinced" from the introduction and simply saying that Kasowitz asked Vance to drop the investigation, which Vance did three months later.

I would be happy to consider any objections or changes that people have to that restoration, based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That means, you can't just say, "Oh, it's not nice to bring Donald Trump's children into this." You have to explain why it would violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines to bring Donald Trump's children into this. --Nbauman (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible content with added sources. I am in the process of compiling details that can be spread across related Wikipedia articles. Only part of this can be used in the Mark Kasowitz article.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

According to an October 5, 2017 article in the New York Times, based on a joint investigation by ProPublica, WNYC and The New Yorker, until the intervention of Kasowitz—who had been President Trump's personal lawyer for a decade—the Manhattan District Attorney's Major Economic Crimes Bureau had been building a legal case against Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. from 2010 to 2012 for possibly "misleading prospective buyers" of units in the Trump SoHo development, 46-story luxury condominium-hotel. On May 16, 2012 Kasowitz attended a meeting at Manhattan DA's Cyrus Vance Jr.'s at One Hogan Place along with Dan Alonso, and Adam Kaufmann but no one from the Major Economic Crimes Bureau. Kasowitz had contributed $57,000 to Vance's political campaigns in the past, including a $25,000 donation in 2012 but Vance returned the $25,000 to Kasowitz before May 2012. In August 2012, Vance overruled his district attorney prosecutors and directed them to drop the case. Vance "acknowledged that he dropped the case against Trump's children" following Kasowitz's visit explaining, "I did not at the time believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed. I had to make a call and I made the call, and I think I made the right call." In November 2011, Donald Trump, Donald Jr and Ivanka settled the case brought against them by buyers of Trump SoHo units who had argued that they had been "defrauded by inflated claims." The defendants agreed to "refund 90 percent of $3.16 million in deposits, while admitting no wrongdoing." Initially the buyers of the Trump SoHo units had been helping with the Manhattan DA's Major Economic Crimes Bureau investigation. However, as part of their November 2011 lawsuit settlement, they notify prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office that they no longer wished to do so. In November 2012, Kasowitz donated another $50,000 to Vance's campaign which Vance said he would also return following the ProPublica, WNYC and The New Yorker 2017 report.

References

Besides having some fixable technical issues, I think this proposal is coatracky and non-neutral as it places too much emphasis on the non-Kasowitz aspects of the story and thereby violates BLP. It would read as if it's being forced into an article in which it doesn't belong. It's obvious to me that the primary implications of the story, and the proposal above, is of possible wrongdoing and/or illegality by Ivanka, Don Jr., and Vance. These aspects are not biographically relevant to Kasowitz except to the extent that they explain the circumstances surrounding his donations to Vance and why Vance returned them. If Kasowitz were disciplined by the New York Bar Association over this, then that would change things dramatically, but that hasn't happened. No one has explained why my proposed version in insufficient beyond Nbauman saying that we need to explain the fraud in greater detail. But the finer details of the alleged fraud by the Trumps is immaterial to Kazowitz's biography. As I mentioned, and as the New York Times source indicates, the alleged fraud occurred a few years before Kasowitz's first known involvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, but trim it a bit. I don't think it violates BLP. If he was been Trump's lawyer for 25+ years or however long, during which time he represented Trump on probably dozens or hundreds of lawsuits/criminal charges, then the article must include details of the more notable ones. Four sentences is ridiculous. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Wikimandia, I don't understand your reference to 4 sentences. My proposal has 3 sentences. Nbauman's and Oceanflynn's have 8. And I might add, these might be technicalities, but in this instance Donald Trump Sr. wasn't facing any fraud charges himself, and I'm not aware of any reliable sources saying Kasowitz has ever represented Don Jr. or Ivanka, whether in connection with this case or otherwise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw the reports, and I saw this discussion, but I haven't formalized a solid opinion yet. I will think about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

NYT Editorial

Here's a New York Times editorial which articulates some of the arguments being raised over this story.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/opinion/cyrus-vance-campaign-donations.html
The Rich, the Powerful and the Manhattan D.A.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
The New York Times
OCT. 14, 2017

In 2015, Mr. Vance chose not to pursue sexual abuse charges against Harvey Weinstein. In 2012, he dropped a case against Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr., who were investigated for possible fraud in the way they pitched a SoHo hotel and condo project to prospective buyers. Continue reading the main story

In both situations Mr. Vance had at one point or another accepted campaign contributions from those people’s lawyers. In the Trump case he returned the money when questions about it arose, but the issue of whether there had been a quid pro quo lingered. Some critics accused the district attorney of taking a dive for the rich and powerful in matters that would have had people of lesser influence slapped in handcuffs.

--Nbauman (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The editorial is about Vance and doesn't even name Kasowitz. To me at least this reinforces my argument that we should limit our coverage of this story in this article. The story deserves more coverage at Cyrus Vance Jr.. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marc Kasowitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805084656/http://www.kasowitz.com/files/Publication/08421d62-3414-4ec2-ab07-2f2477d85b57/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5d127577-5fb1-4fd3-8bab-0ab665ab7669/Cornell%20Law%20Forum.pdf to http://www.kasowitz.com/files/Publication/08421d62-3414-4ec2-ab07-2f2477d85b57/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5d127577-5fb1-4fd3-8bab-0ab665ab7669/Cornell%20Law%20Forum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713135644/http://www.kasowitz.com/files/FastRise-NoWhitePage.pdf to http://www.kasowitz.com/files/FastRise-NoWhitePage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)