Talk:Michael Cohen (lawyer)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Noteworthy

Question whether this person warrants an entry. Avocats (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If you feel the subject does not meet the general notability guideline, nominate it for deletion. It's probably a borderline case. Jonathunder (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.212.66 (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This seems borderline because if it wasn't for the CNN interview his past wouldn't have inspired an entry. Might be WP:BLP1E--CharlesDeMint (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Executive VP of Trump Organization and personal lawyer to the president? This is who you think should be nominated for speedy deletion? He has good references and is noteworthy. He should stay.Blacklist21 (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Category Trump controversies

Not sure this has risen to the level worthy of this. What do others think? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cohen personally played a role as part of the controversy surrounding the Trump campaign's connections to Russia. Keep. --Weazie (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I also posted at the category talk page, but that doesn't look to trafficed. Maybe post this question at the BLP board. I looked at the Obama admin controversey category and there are some BLPs.--Malerooster (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Appearance on Networks, CNN April 11 2017 with Chris Cuomo

Defending Trump's military posture is worthy of inclusion into the article. Being Trump's legal representative, Cohen makes statements of significance. The entire transcript of the interview should be in the article, in my opinion, to make Wikipedia a more credible source.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cohen's (non?)-reimbursement

Under Career, in 2018, the Wiki-article currently reads: "Cohen told The New York Times that this money was paid from his own pocket, that it was not a campaign contribution, and that he was not reimbursed for making it."

This is not strictly correct. Cohen is quoted in the NYT article as saying: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly" — meaning only that he was not reimbursed by either of those two organizations — while the statement "Mr. Cohen... said he was not reimbursed for the payment" is not a direct quote, and quite possibly may be meant to summarize Cohen's longer statement. If that is the case, it improperly infers that he was not reimbursed at all, a claim his original statement does not make. There are, after all, many other possible payors besides just those two, and of all those "deponent saith not".

Accordingly, I'm amending the Wiki-article to summarize what Cohen is directly quoted as saying, rather than what the reporter (Maggie Haberman) summarized him as saying. Thus: "... and that he was not reimbursed for making it by either the Trump Organization or the Trump campaign." (added words underlined) This way we are not stating more than he is actually quoted as saying. – •Raven  .talk 11:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Kenneth Edelstein for his very good addition (from the Washington Post) on this topic. – •Raven  .talk 01:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


Michael Dean Cohen → Michael Cohen (lawyer) – The subject of the article is referred to as "Michael Cohen" universally by sources. The article was previously named Michael D. Cohen (lawyer), but somebody changed that name due to there being a page for an academic also named Michael D. Cohen by adding the middle name which, again, goes against every source that can be found which just calls him "Michael Cohen" EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong support: It's only sensible. --Volvlogia (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per ECF's reasoning. Tdslk (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable. Michael Cohen (American lawyer) would also work for me. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the reasoning behind doing this. It seems like the logical thing to do. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support WP:COMMONNAME cf Michael Cohen. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

With raid of office...

Seems discussion of article contribution would benefit. I woul like to contribute to the section where he was instrumental in building support in the African American community and whether any checks were cut. Wikipietime (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have references, dive in.--Nowa (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Michael Cohen facilitated $1.6 million agreement on behalf of GOP fundraiser, Elliott Broidy

New News - CNN [1] "President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, facilitated a payment plan totaling $1.6 million last year to a former Playboy model who says she became pregnant by Elliott Broidy, a leading GOP fundraiser, a source tells CNN. The payment was a personal injury settlement, and included a nondisclosure contract, forbidding the woman from discussing the deal, according to the source, who did not want to be named for fear of retribution. It is not known what type of personal injury claim the woman made."

If this holds up (and we get more sources), it may need a separate section - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged visit to Prague in 2016

User Zefr reverted the following addition with the comment “Wait for confirmation; no other news organization is reporting this”:

However, on April 13th, 2018 the DC Bureau of McLatchy Newspapers reported that two sources have indicated that Special Prosecutor [sic] Robert Mueller has obtained evidence that Mr. Cohen did indeed travel to Prague during the late-summer of 2016, apparently in secret. The alleged evidence shows that he entered Czechoslovakia from Germany. Because both countries are in the Schengen passport area, he would not have to receive a passport stamp to enter Czechoslovakia this way.[1]

McLatchy is confirming that Cohen visited Prague, which was first reported in the Trump-Russia dossier. As such, please consider re-adding it to the article.

This article appears to confirm the story, as it does not refer to the McLatchy story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mueller-proof-michael-cohen-prague-confirming-dossier-article-1.3932945 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross.smith (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Fixed a few errors (Czech Republic) with the post, and reworded it so as not to violate copy edit; and added it C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I added this. As about exact wording (i.e. "confirming"), feel free to fix. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016". McLatchy DC Bureau. Retrieved 2018-04-14.

Trump twitters die-hard-slogans ...

Trump twittert fast täglich Durchhaltebotschaften an seinen Anwalt und ließ ihm am Montag sogar von seiner Sprecherin Sarah Huckabee Sanders im Fernsehen ausrichten, er könne notfalls mit einer präsidialen Begnadigung rechnen. Klartext: bitte den Mund halten.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/24/stupid-question-donald-trump-dismisses-query-about-michael-cohen-pardon

The White House can’t hide Trump’s worry about Michael Cohen

imho, some updates should be added to the article. --Neun-x (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

"He was a registered Democrat until he officially registered as a Republican on March 9, 2017."

Not exactly. He ran as a republican for City Council in 2004, see his page in the voter guide.

Clearly, more work needs to be done to accurately report his political party membership history. --CmdrDan (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

New York Times story on Cohen's businesses

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/michael-cohen-lawyer-trump.html
How Michael Cohen, Trump’s Fixer, Built a Shadowy Business Empire
By William K. Rashbaum, Danny Hakim, Brian M. Rosenthal, Emily Flitter and Jesse Drucker
New York Times
May 5, 2018
--Nbauman (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Family Roots

Related? https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/sites/dailybusinessreview/2017/10/19/101917obitcohen/?slreturn=20180407091546

Perhaps early inspiration and intro to legal profession.

--Wikipietime (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Cohen Trump’s now former attorney?

The following articles describe Cohen as Trump’s “former attorney”:

On the other hand, Cohen’s Twitter bio says he’s still a “[p]ersonal attorney to President Donald J. Trump.” Ross.smith (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention this in the article? Ross.smith (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks

Seems important: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44215656

Yes Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Did Trump approve buying out the McDougal non-disclosure agreement?

We have a disagreement at the article about whether the tape shows Trump actually approving the proposed buyout, or not. The question is how to interpret Giuliani’s comments in this article: [2] The statements in the article attributed to Giuliani are (quoting the article):

  • Giuliani claimed the tape was exculpatory evidence that did no harm to Trump
  • The transaction never happened, Giuliani told CNN.
  • Giuliani put a positive spin on the content of the in-person conversation on Friday, describing it as Trump discussing potential payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleges Trump an affair with her.(sic) Trump denies the allegation. "Cohen is talking about buying the rights from AMI (American Media Inc.)," Giuliani told CNN on Friday. "They're talking about a corporation doing it, one of their corporations doing it. The President says 'make sure it's done correctly, and make sure it's done by check.' " Giuliani's point is that Trump did nothing wrong -- that before the conversation he knew nothing about any payments, noting that no payment was made and that he suggested paying by check so there would be a record of it.

Clearly Trump and Cohen discussed the Enquirer payment to McDougal. But did Trump approve any action, and if so what? Giuliani quotes Trump as saying "make sure it's done correctly, and make sure it's done by check". I interpret that as Trump saying, do it properly IF we do it at all (“They’re talking about one of the corporations doing it”, i.e, they are still discussing, they haven’t decided - and in fact they never did make any payment). User:Enthusiast01 interprets Trump’s comment as a directive - an actual approval, "do it this way". (Even though for some reason it wasn’t actually done.)

I objected to this sentence, In the phone conversation Trump and Cohen reportedly discussed whether to buy the rights to her story from the Enquirer, which Trump approved., so I removed “which Trump approved.” Enthusiast then put in a more nuanced and sourced statement - In the phone conversation Trump and Cohen reportedly discussed whether to buy the rights to her story from the Enquirer. Trump appears to approve the purchase, saying, according to CNN quoting Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, “make sure it's done correctly, and make sure it's done by check”. - and that is what is currently in the article. What do people think Giuliani meant to say? How should we word it? --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In the phone conversation Trump and Cohen reportedly discussed whether to buy the rights to her story from the Enquirer. Trump appeared to approve the idea. I've cut off the last part, used the word "idea" (which doesn't imply whether or not anything ever happened) and italicized Enquirer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
OK for discussion, but it should still attribute the approval information to Giuliani - not Wikipedia's voice. Or to what or who? Giuliani never actually said he approved it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
From a legal point of view one does not need to say “I approve” for a directive to a lawyer. Any instruction or go ahead would do. On that basis “do it [correctly]” is an instruction. I do note however that one must always put caveats on Giuliani’s quotes. He has a habit of attributing quotes to people who later deny making such statements. Enthusiast01 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to hear the actual tape to find out what he really said and (importantly) in what context. In the meantime I could accept your "appears to approve", as long as it is attributed to Giuliani and accompanied by the evidence that makes you think so. I would rather leave it out entirely until we find out what was actually said, but I will bow to consensus if people think this is strong enough sourcing for such a controversial statement. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

And lo and behold, we now have the actual tape! Cohen's lawyer played it on CNN tonight.[3] And although the tape is muddy and hard to understand, it turns out Giuliani's version is completely made up; Trump does not say what Giuliani claimed. We'll have to wait for someone to make a transcript, and it will probably be disputed with various versions, but it appears that Trump says "Cash", then Cohen sais "no, no, no," then Trump says "Check". The quote in our article is erroneous; we shouldn't delete it because it has been reported as fact for several days, but we should debunk it. It does sound as if Trump is agreeing, but we will have to wait for reliable source analysis for that also, and let's work out here how to word things. I have already removed "telephone" conversation from the article because this is clearly an in-person conversation. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added the actual tape to the article; there is a lot of coverage of it already. --MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
But we must listen to our Great Leader: "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." Not even "shades" of 1984, but the same language and thought control. This isn't happening in the shade, but in full daylight. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
BullRangifer: I think that quote - "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening," spoken to the veterans - is worth documenting somewhere. Not at this article, but where? --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Davis walking back comments about previous knowledge of meeting with Russians

This should probably be removed: "Cohen also asserted that then Candidate Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, Donald Jr. and other Trump campaign officials with Russians who claimed to possess information damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign, contradicting the President's repeated denials that he was aware of the meeting until long after it had taken place.[61]"

The following day, The Post reported that Cohen had told associates that he witnessed an exchange in which Trump Jr. told his father about an upcoming gathering in which he expected to get information about Clinton. The Post did not report that Trump Jr. told his father that the information was coming from Russians.

The information in the Post story, which was attributed to one person familiar with discussions among Cohen’s friends, came from Davis, who is now acknowledging his role on the record. Davis said he should not have expressed such confidence in his information. “I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis said, adding: “I regret my error.” In the past week, when asked directly by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether there was information that Trump knew about his son’s meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya beforehand, Davis said, “No, there’s not.”[1][2][3] 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/attorney-for-michael-cohen-backs-away-from-confidence-that-cohen-has-information-about-trumps-knowledge-on-russian-efforts/2018/08/26/09d7f26e-a876-11e8-97ce-cc9042272f07_story.html?utm_term=.0761fba9ed61
  2. ^ http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403718-lanny-davis-tempers-confidence-that-michael-cohen-has-info-on-trumps
  3. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/attorney-for-michael-cohen-backs-away-from-confidence-that-cohen-has-information-about-trump%E2%80%99s-knowledge-on-russian-efforts/ar-BBMtTZC?ocid=spartandhp

Discussion at BLPN about Michael Cohen and The Spectator

Please see this discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Politrukki (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to actual court documents from August 21, 2018

Can we obtain the actual documents used in court on August 21 to establish and record his plea agreement and the transcript of his allocution? It will be good to link to those from this article. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok I found the documents. The plea agreement is at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779522/Michael-Cohen-Plea-Agreement.pdf and the charges are at:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4779524/U-S-v-Michael-Cohen-Information.pdf I hope these are helpful. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Image in infobox

There is some disagreement about what image should be used in the infobox. Here is why I believe File:Michael Cohen headshot.jpg is a better image to use than File:Michael D. Cohen.png:

  • The image size of Michael Cohen headshot.jpg is much larger (1929x2365) than Michael D. Cohen.png (220x345). The original picture uploaded (File:Michael Cohen.png) was even smaller, at 179x320.
  • The first image is also clearly much sharper and better quality. The second image is pixelated and grainy because it was enlarged from the original image. You can clearly see artifacts in the background, and his shirt collar is barely distinguishable.
  • The first image has much better colouring. Cohen's face looks orange on the left side and violet on the right side in the second photo. His facial features and hair are also blurred, while you can see them distinctly in the first photo.

Please feel free to weigh in. Woebegone (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about more than technicalities. The main point of your argument is obviously farcical and meant to promote a BLP photo that shows the subject in an awkward and unfortunate pose. While the new photo is not as crisp as the bad photo (though it is acceptable) it is clearly a better representation of the subject, which is the main point of having a photo in the stub. The subject is not known to have a facial disfigurement warranting the awful picture Woebegone is insisting on using. Rather than reverting my edits back to the bad photo based on technicalities (wrong pixel size, shouldn't be thumb), why didn't you just make the simple edits yourself? Rather than insisting on the use of the awful and unnatural pose in the original photo, why didn't you try to remedy the situation with a different photo? I will assume good faith for now, but I am switching back to the new photo until someone replaces it with a natural-looking photo that is better quality. But the awful Michael Cohen headshot.jpg is not acceptable as an encyclopedic entry. Blacklist21 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Blacklist21. Please try to keep the conversation civil—there's no need to call anything awful. Do you have any refutations to my specific arguments? Woebegone (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Lol. Knock it off Woebegone. Nothing I said was uncivil. The primary function and goal of the BLP picture is to present a true visual example of the subject. The old picture is a poor representation of the subject. The fact that it is sharper and better quality does not matter if the picture itself is not representative of the subject. Coloring is also a very distant second. In this particular case, the old picture was sharp and well-colored but was far from accurate and appropriate for the subject. There is no reasonable argument for reverting to the old photo except to show the subject in an awkward and unflattering pose. Blacklist21 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
(Coming from WP:3) I believe the File:Michael Cohen headshot.jpg photo does not meet WP:MUG standards, as the subject appears to be talking thus did not expect to be photographed. I also agree that it looks unnatural and awkward. Gouyoku (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've found more photographs (although not necessarily better ones). See Commons:Category:Michael D. Cohen. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the old photo is out of form for WP:MUG, though an exception might be made in the case of a lawyer whose mouth typically is in motion — File:Michael Cohen headshot.jpg seemed so very suitable for this particular individual, as he has frequently been photographed mid-sentence. Just a thought. Lindenfall (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Imprisonment sentence

Cohen's just been sentenced to three years. I would update the "Criminal status" in the bio panel but I'm unsure of how it should be phrased so I'm going to let someone else do that.

OliverDavenport (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Michael Cohen has a son and a daughter. Only the daughter is mentioned on this article. Please add a reference to his son in the Personal Life section. Source that mentions his son: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michael-cohen-sentence-trump-1.4942319 Clark Westerfeld (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Bsherr (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixer and/or spokesperson

Is it worth mentioning somewhere in this article that multiple outlets have alleged that he is more of a fixer than lawyer? Schnapps17 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the word "fixer" isn't even mentioned in the article, in spite its use in myriad RS to describe him. It should get some mention. A lawyer can function as a fixer. A lawyer with only three clients....? Not much of a lawyer, but still a lawyer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is now about the last place resisting to call him this. He swore in court that he acted as one to keep two of Trump's sexual affairs out of the limelight during the election. It's not NPOV to keep it out now. Besselfunctions (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"spokesperson"?

The lede sentence used to describe Cohen as a "lawyer and spokesperson" for Trump. I have removed "spokesperson". The two sources don't call him that, and in fact I have never seen him described that way. (Sources often say "lawyer and fixer" but I think we are right to leave out "fixer".) Sources sometimes describe him as an "adviser" or "close confidant". But as for "spokesperson" - has anyone ever seen him fill that role? Step out in public as a spokesman for Trump? I would say instead that he is a private person, who shuns the limelight and whose influence on Trump is private. Anyhow, I removed it. Everybody OK with that? Anybody think we should add any other descriptor? --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I see a section just above this one, suggesting that we ought to include "fixer" somewhere. I oppose that. If you read our linked article about "fixer"/"cleaner," it makes it sound like someone whose actions are definitely illegal. The media use the word lightly as meaning someone who makes problems go away, but the term has much stronger negative connotations than that. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Schnapps17 and BullRangifer: Sorry, I responded to your comments in the wrong section. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I have tweaked the headings. I also tweaked the Fixer article yesterday to include the softer/lighter meaning in the lead, since it was in the body. I think we can use that article, and I still favor including "fixer", as it's a common and very accurate description of his role, much more than as a lawyer. Yes, he's a lawyer, but often uses that role as a fixer. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What about saying something like "many outlets have described Cohen as a fixer for Donald Trump". Schnapps17 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox criminal: improper?

I think the usage of {{Infobox criminal}} should be discouraged in this article. The template's page states: This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or Murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. While Cohen certainly has been in the news recently with respect to criminal activities, clearly the bar is not met for the criminal infobox. The more neutral and appropriate would be simply {{infobox person}}. The amount of text devoted to criminality should also be balanced and proportional, whether in infoboxes or text. I say this as no fan of Cohen, and a left of center editor myself, but as Wikipedia is predominantly written by left of center editors, and sourced to left of center media, our (your) biases should all be checked. Should Anthony Weiner have {{infobox criminal}}? Note that his charges are not even included. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these fields should be removed from his Infobox, as misused and inconsistent with others of his ilk. Lindenfall (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to remove this infobox. It is not the main thing he is noted for. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
This looks like a rough consensus to remove it - but the box is still there, and its presence has been noted by the media (see above). How do other people here feel about this? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I felt it was a pretty funny story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It should be consistent with the Paul Manafort and Rick Gates articles. Besselfunctions (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Charges and Possible Sentence

I have been searching for weeks now. Does anyone have a list of the actual charges that Micheal Cohen was facing, and the possible sentence for each charge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.164.195 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixer?

We had some debate here, back in April, about whether to describe Cohen in the lead sentence as Trump’s fixer. User:Schnapps17 and User:BullRangifer were in favor, I was opposed. User:Besselfunctions raised the issue again just now. I realize now that the reason I was opposed was because we do not have a decent article here about “fixer” in that sense. Or rather, we have the wrong article. We have a mention of it at Cleaner (crime) as if the words were synonymous, but they aren’t. Not at all. There isn’t even a source or a reason why somebody decided to include “fixer” in that article. So I decided we need to create a proper article about “fixer” and then we could use the word here. I have made a draft, User:MelanieN/Fixer. I’m going to be away from the computer for the next few days but I encourage the rest of you to chime in at that draft, improve it, add references, add material - and in particular to comment at the talk page about what the article should be called. I’ll be back in a few days and then we can hopefully launch this as an article and get “fixer” into the lead. Thanks, friends! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent start. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:MelanieN Ugh. You are doing a circular definition of it being him... not good structurally. And making up a definition article just to insert for his article is odd and has a bit of whiff to it. I think it’s not really a good idea anyway, as this is a vague dramatic label or slang term used in descriptive like “pit bull” was. So the usage in article would have the word shown as something said be enquoted like ‘described as Trumps “pitbull”, not linking to Pitbull there, or ‘described as Trumps fixer or pitbull’ without wikilink. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Mark. The term long predates Cohen, and I wasn't really creating an article so we can use the term in the Cohen article (I realize I may have sounded that way); mostly I was offended that our article that purports to be about fixers is so bad, and like the WP:SQUIRREL that I am, I immediately wanted to fix it, to create a proper article that would define it correctly. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary there has to be more to the article than definition so I was adding examples of its use and citation in sources. As I read more I am wondering about expanding the article to include some of the other types of fixers, such as a person who fixes a sporting event, or the use of the term by journalists - now described in another very bad article, Fixer (journalism). In any case I agree with you that this would need to be an article that can stand on its own terms. It can't be just about Cohen. MelanieN alt (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
? OK, again I would suggest that any usage here of him being described as a fixer or pitbull simply relate that without wikilink, as we can cite that it was used but not what the person meant by it or if it was meant metaphorically. We don't need to go into it in the article if the RS point is he was 'described as "pitbull" or "fixer"', we should just follow the cites. (Fixer could simply refer to one who makes arrangements or negotiations as in fixer (movies), or a recovery specialist as in fixer (business), or fixer (drugs) and so forth.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to note, you seem to be raising a false argument here: no one has suggested "pit bull". People are suggesting "fixer", because many neutral reliable sources use that term and it has an actual meaning as something people do - unlike pit bull. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added "fixer" to the article with a link to Fixer (person). -- MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"Convicted felon" in lead sentence

Up to now our lead sentence has been “Michael Dean Cohen (born August 25, 1966) is an American attorney and convicted felon, who worked as a lawyer for Donald Trump from 2006 to 2018.” User:Cogaidh removed “convicted felon”, questioning whether it is appropriate.[4] I don’t believe we have discussed this here up to now. What do people think? What is done at articles about other people in similar situations? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The examples that came to my mind were Chuck Colson, John N. Mitchell, and Roy Cohn (also a Trump lawyer). None of them have their crimes listed in the first sentence, but there is some mention in the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as attorney and convicted felon in the state of New York. Cohen will lose his license. Besselfunctions (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Even if he loses his license, he is still an attorney. He is just an attorney who cannot practice in New York. If you have a law degree you are an attorney, even if you never practice anywhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Having a law degree does not make someone an attorney. Being admitted to practice law in some jurisdiction makes you an attorney in that jurisdiction. If Cohen is not admitted to practice in some jurisdiction other than New York (and I can find no evidence that he is), then he is no longer an attorney. In New York, for example, a person may not "... assume, use, or advertise the title of lawyer, or attorney and counselor-at-law, or attorney-at-law or counselor-at-law, or attorney, or counselor, or attorney and counselor, or equivalent terms in any language, in such manner as to convey the impression that he or she is a legal practitioner of law ... without having first been duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of record of this state, and without having taken the constitutional oath." NY Judiciary Law § 478. 2600:6C40:4C00:1556:991:E55C:387A:58E0 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson lead sentence "Orenthal James Simpson (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed The Juice, is an American former running back, broadcaster, actor, advertising spokesman, and convicted robber." There is precedent. Eponymic (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone has restored "and convicted felon" to the article. Should we leave it there? We have several comments here to keep it, and no one objecting. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - in lead, not in first line. (I will revert the edit done during TALK as contrary to good consensus practice, and ask you to implement the TALK result.) The position should not be in first line per MOS:OPENPARABIO, as this is not a position or role by him. The mention of being Trumps lawyer in para 1 is correct per WP:LEAD as the only reason he is notable, but mention of involvement with Stormy Daniels would logically be lower, and the guilty plea would be after that. Also, we do have BLP and general guidances to restraint from headline-style dramatic usages. Since it is in a lengthy para 3, having it also in line 1 seems overkill. The examples of handling in List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes varies as there seems no specific policy, and many do not have it in the lead at all (e.g. Marion Barry). As para 3 for Scooter Libby as already done in this article seems reasonable, or line 2 as done for Michael Flynn if para 3 is removed — but multiply done is wrong, and line 1 is wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that Americans widely regard someone who has been convicted of a crime as holding a special status as "felon", and that Americans attach great importance to this characteristic (other countries' cultures are different; many European nations don't consider someone convicted of a crime to hold a life-long special status). Since we, namely Wikipedia, merely write about what's out there, in the sources, an American person's status as a felon might be relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead sentence. The first sentence is often the only part of the article that gets included e.g. in search results. It's also the only part of the article that the reader is almost guaranteed to actually read. For this reason it's supposed to be a "summary of the summary" of the article, mentioning the most important information about the article subject. Per MOS:OPENPARABIO the opening paragraph should include e.g. "the notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played" and "why the person is notable." Cohen was relatively obscure before Trump ran for President; his primary claim to fame is becoming entangled in the investigations of and related to Trump, leading to his conviction and himself becoming a felon. This clearly qualifies as both "activities they took part in, or roles they played" and "why the person is notable" under MOS:OPENPARABIO. --Tataral (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Intro?

Hi. In the Introduction info, it claims, "The investigation led to him pleading guilty on August 21, 2018, to eight counts of campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud." This sentence is misleading, in that it sounds like he was pleading guilty to "eight counts of campaign finance violations" when it's only one count, while "tax fraud" makes up 5 of the 8 counts against him.

Perhaps you should word this differently? For example: "The investigation led to him pleading guilty on August 21, 2018, to eight counts, INCLUDING campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud." Or, "The investigation led to him pleading guilty on August 21, 2018, to five counts of tax fraud, as well as a campaign finance violation, and bank fraud."

I hope the purpose of leaving the original sentence as presently written is not to misinform people out of some political motivation. Thanks!14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.15.183.146 (talk)

I added "including" to that sentence to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing it out! - PaulT+/C 06:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Testimony in Congress

That was impressive. Should be included somewhere; unsure though on which pages. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added information about each of his three congressional appearances that week. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Michael Cohen (lawyer) → ? – The page should be renamed, let's discuss which is better. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(former lawyer) Iamhoomanbagheri (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be reached, but I do agree. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense as Cohen said earlier today in his hearing that as of yesterday, he is no longer a lawyer but I am not sure if such a format is commonplace for a lawyer to have: "name" (former lawyer), but if it is allowed, I suppose to go ahead. Aviartm (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why I posted this move request, to gain consensus on a new page title. Thanks for your comment. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
is it possible that the subject of this page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Michael Cohen"? The first 20+ pages of Google searches are about him , and take a look at the view count of all pages here of people named Michael Cohen, which shows this page with significantly more views than the others. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree to change of title, e.g. "Michael D. Cohen," his middle initial being the distinguishing feature from others who may carry the same name. In the body of the article, a detailed account of his past profession as Trump's personal lawyer will be and is duly mentioned.Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Michael D. Cohen already exists. Should that page be moved to Michael Cohen (professor)? Maybe Michael Dean Cohen is a better option? - PaulT+/C 23:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, writing "Michael Dean Cohen" would be the best option, in this case. Any secondary title ("lawyer" or "professor") should only be used according to the preponderance of that man's work.Davidbena (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Michael D. Cohen already has an existing redirect: Michael Cohen (academic). I think we agree on the main point though that Michael D. Cohen isn't a good option in this case. - PaulT+/C 00:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Why change? He is still notable for being a lawyer. I don't think we would normally change the disambiguation just because a person had retired, or died, for example. PC78 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment see previous discussion on this here. This page was originally named Michael Dean Cohen and Michael D. Cohen (lawyer). I don't think either of those two options are the best one. I agree with Zingarese that Michael Cohen would be ideal. I think it fulfills WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the existing disambiguation page there can be moved to Michael Cohen (disambiguation). This would also potentially simplify the various hatnotes at the other "Michael [x] Cohen (y)" articles. Of course, this would require a larger discussion at Talk:Michael Cohen as well. - PaulT+/C 00:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is. There are a dozen other Michael Cohens here; to make him into the primary topic would be to succumb to Recentism. He is rarely described as "Michael Dean Cohen". He is best known as a lawyer, even if he currently can't practice. He is usually described as "Trump's personal lawyer" and that activity is the only reason he has achieved fame. Michael Cohen (lawyer) has worked this long and I don't see any compelling reason to change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If "recentism" is your concern, changing or not changing the title of this article will be inconsequential, since no matter what we do with the title, recent events will continue to shape the contents of this article.Davidbena (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - MelanieN comment makes sense to me. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. Cohen is best known for his role as a lawyer, and that doesn't change because of disbarment. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires evidence of long-term significance, and it is far too soon to tell whether this Michael Cohen has more lasting importance than any of the other Michael Cohens. Bradv🍁 01:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. The first sentence of the lede says "is a former American attorney". The Infobox says "disbarred". The "Legal career" section of the article says "Cohen was automatically disbarred in New York." It's clear enough he is a disbarred lawyer. The title of the article reflects reasonably well what this "Michael Cohen" is known for. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree to Change. I agree with Zingarese and MelanieN. Quaerens-veritatem 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm pretty sure that Zingarese and MelanieN have opposite opinions... unless I missed someone changing their mind (very possible)? Just wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. - PaulT+/C 06:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Haha... I didn't really convey any opinion, just raised the question regarding the subject of this article being the PRIMARYTOPIC. But I do agree with MelanieN regarding recentism. Something else to think about... we should cater to the demands of our entire global audience -- not just those in the United States -- and not succumb to the principle of WP:NWFCTM (not what first comes to mind). Zingarese talk · contribs 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair point and my apologies. I should have mentioned this in my comment above - what I was mainly getting at was that MelanieN's opinion was being misinterpreted by Quaerens-veritatem as being in favor of changing the name of the article, which I don't believe is the case. It seems that both of your opinions were misinterpreted, and in particular yours was misinterpreted twice (once by me )! Sorry about that! - PaulT+/C 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, mistyped. I agreed with the comments I referenced and MelanieN's opinion, so I should have used Keep as it is. Quaerens-veritatem 23:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Talk @Psantora: Thanks!
  • No worries, I was just trying to clarify. Regarding your signature though, double-check the "Signature" section at your Special:Preferences page and make sure the text below "Your existing signature:" includes a link to at least one of your user page (User:Quaerens-veritatem), your talk page (User talk:Quaerens-veritatem), or your contributions page (Special:Contributions/Quaerens-veritatem) as per WP:SIGLINK. If it does not and you aren't sure why and you'd like to change it back to the default, then you can put the following text into the "Signature:" text box: [[User:Quaerens-veritatem|Quaerens-veritatem]] ([[User talk:Quaerens-veritatem|talk]]), check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox (see also this image for a visual example), and then finally press the "Save" button at the very bottom of the page to save the changes to your signature. Altertatively, you could also simply hit the red "Restore all default settings (in all sections)" text next to the "Save" button, but that would revert any customizations you have made to your settings. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or you could also turn to the Wikipedia Help Desk for additional assistance. Thanks and I apologize if I caused any confusion for you. - PaulT+/C 04:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Psantora: You haven’t confused me, Paul. Rather, your helpful instructions were very clear, concise, and complete. I probably never would have figured it out myself and coding properly is still (obviously) a big work in progress for me. Thank you, Paul, so much for taking the time to share your knowledge and provide me the help I needed. Very much appreciated! I wish everyone was as helpful as you are. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Best known as a lawyer. This remains the case. Wait for sources to describe him differently in their introductions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep it as Michael Cohen (lawyer) as this is the individual's main life profession and area of expertise, and his notability stems from his being a lawyer. —Anomalocaris (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Michael Cohen (fixer). He may have been a lawyer, but after reading through most of this article it is pretty clear that fixing was mostly what he did as a living... - PaulT+/C 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
He is known as a "fixer". But that is slang. And if that were an appropriate title, it would have been just about as appropriate before he was disbarred. As a disbarred lawyer, he is also no longer a "fixer" in the same capacity that he was a "fixer" before becoming disbarred. The suggested title is not entirely out of the question but I think it is a second-best choice. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. It also seems like we are approaching WP:SNOW territory. Is anyone still in favor of changing the name? (I'm pretty ambivalent at this point.) - PaulT+/C 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content of closed-door hearings

@Nightscream: Can we discuss this edit, where you objected to the sourcing of a sentence about what his testimony would be about, saying This is bullshit. You cannot support a statement about the content of testimony with a news story written BEFORE the testimony took place, which was about PREDICATIONS on what the testimony was GOING TO BE about. Nice try. I agree it would be better if we could have a source after the fact, but after a closed-door session nobody says what was covered, so before-the-fact predictions are all we have. I do believe that some indication, some educated guess, of what might be covered is valuable to the article. What do you think? What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave it out and wait for the transcript. soibangla (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, whatever the passage in the article says has to be supported by the citation at the end of it. The source that was cited at the end of that passage not only did not, but could not, for the aforementioned reason. If sources exist as to the content of those closed-door sessions, then by all means, cite it. And if not, because the content of those sessions is not known, then how can WP describe what it is? Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it out. I admit it is speculation, even though informed speculation. We could quote what some of the members said after the hearing, but that kind of comment, after a closed-door hearing, tends to be so vague as to be worthless. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox wrapping and forced line breaks

This is concerning this edit by Mandruss (original). Can I ask what formatting issue you were seeing to make this change? The nowrap templates are important so that the line breaks happen in predictable places.(Sorry for so using so much room, I've collapsed everything to make the discussion easier, but feel free to format better if necessary.)

Infobox formatting examples
In the current version I see this:
Democratic ​(before 2002; ​2004–
2017; ​2018–present)
Republican ​(2002–2004; 2017–
2018)
3 years in prison; ​fines; ​asset
forfeiture; ​disbarment
With the nowrap templates as in the original version, the text looks like this:
Democratic ​(before 2002;
​2004–2017; ​2018–present)
Republican
​(2002–2004; 2017–2018)
3 years in prison; ​fines;
​asset forfeiture; ​disbarment
Other variations
Other possible variations are:
If the screen is really small
Democratic
​(before 2002;
​2004–2017;
​2018–present)
Republican
​(2002–2004; 2017–2018)
3 years in prison;
​fines;
​asset forfeiture;
​disbarment
or
If the screen is really big (though I don't think this is actually possible due to the maximum size of an infobox)
Democratic ​(before 2002; ​2004–2017; ​2018–present)
Republican ​(2002–2004; 2017–2018)
3 years in prison; ​fines; ​asset forfeiture; ​disbarment
The idea is to allow the code to predictably change depending on the width of the screen:
Democratic {possible break}​(before 2002; {possible break}​2004–2017; {possible break}​2018–present)
Republican {possible break}​(2002–2004; 2017–2018)
3 years in prison; {possible break}​fines; {possible break}​asset forfeiture; {possible break}​disbarment
Possible improvement/compromise, with my (current) objection to it
One possible improvement/compromise would be to add a {{wbr}} between "2004;" and "2017", but the reason I did not include that was so that the years in both sections line up chronologically and all post-2002 changes happen in tandem. However, doing that would cause it to look like the below because priority is given to keeping as much text on the first line as possible:
Democratic ​(before 2002;
​2004–2017; ​2018–present)
Republican ​(2002–2004;
2017–2018)
3 years in prison; ​fines;
​asset forfeiture; ​disbarment

If there were some way to give preference to the break between "Republican" and "(2002" over "2004;" and "2017", I would be on board with that change.

From the above cases, I think they are *all* (even the one where I have a quibble) preferable to the current formatting where breaks happen unexpectedly between "2004–" and "2017", "2017–" and "2018", and "asset" and "forfeiture;".

What did you see that caused you to make the change? Was something breaking on other screens that I'm not aware of/didn't anticipate/don't understand? Thanks. - PaulT+/C 19:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: This is what I saw before my edit. Image 1, Image 2. The infobox was impossibly wide and contained a massive amount of wasted white space, and I had never seen a lead squeezed to that degree. It now looks like this. Image 3, Image 4.
Generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable doing much to try to "dress up" formatting in an infobox because of the variables that can affect the result; what works great for you may fail miserably for others because of user customization of things like font size. Letting the browser do its own thing with textflow yields the best compromise in my opinion, despite often not being as pretty as it could be if we had only one target browser and settings.
In my opinion the current state is clearly the "least bad" of the two choices, but if you know of a better way to address the problem feel free. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Yeah, thats bad™. I just did some spelunking in Firefox and I think I found a version that works correctly now. It seems that {{wbr}} doesn't work properly in that browser. Not cool. I worked around it but the code isn't as clean unfortunately (it is still plenty readable though). Let me know if you see any issues with this version and I'm going to try to investigate why {{wbr}} isn't working as expected in Firefox (and/or why I'm using it incorrectly, which to be honest is more likely). Thanks for the screenshots. They were very helpful. - PaulT+/C 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: Looks ok to me. Now all you have to do is watch this article forever, to protect that from the hordes of editors of the "That's DIFFERENT! Kill it!!" mind-set. Since other editors aren't likely to defend your coding against that, even the few who fully grasp its purpose. It sucks being better than average.
Me, I'll continue to take the safer route. I don't care to try to master the idiosyncrasies of all the various platforms and browsers, and which user settings affect the rendering in what ways, so as to know which formatting tricks are ok to use and which aren't. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Category on Russian interference

I added Category:People associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections to the article but it was reverted by User:MelanieN alt here.

I agree that it is a tenuous connection, but the fact is that Cohen's efforts to conceal the Trump Tower Moscow project contributed to possible kompromat on the president. In November 2018, Cohen entered a second guilty plea for lying to a Senate committee about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Furthermore, he is listed in the relevant individuals section of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Trump associate Felix Sater emails Trump lawyer Michael Cohen: "Michael, I arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putin's private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin [...] Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin's team to buy in on this". Sater also tells Cohen that the Kremlin's VTB Bank is ready to finance a Trump Tower project in Moscow. and he has been cooperating with the Special Counsel investigation (2017-present) (Cohen's attorneys stated he kept Trump "apprised" of the "substantive conversation" Cohen had in January 2016 with a Russian official, and discussed with Trump traveling to Russia to advance the project during the summer of 2016.... Cohen "remained in close and regular contact with White House-based staff and legal counsel" as he prepared to provide false testimony to Congress) including allegedly witnessing Don Jr. telling his father about the Trump Tower meeting, which potentially directly ties knowledge of cooperation with the Russians to Trump. (That last point is not currently in the article, but is directly from his congressional testimony and likely should be added in once a more digestible RS is found.) I think all of these items add up to Cohen reasonably being a part of the Category:People associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Does anyone else agree? - PaulT+/C 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. My belief is that we should put a subject in a category only if there is affirmative information in the article putting them in that category. We report no such connection in this article. The category is very specific, it's about Russian interference in the 2016 election. It's not about "anything that connects Trump or Trump's people to Russia" or "things that suggest Trump might be compromised by Russia". What we do have with regard to Cohen: he worked on the Trump Tower project, but we have no evidence connecting that proposed project with Russian interference in the election. He heard Donald Jr. tell his father something about "a meeting" which he now thinks may have related to the Veselnitskaya meeting; too vague. He overheard Stone tell Trump about Wikileaks; ok, that makes him a possible witness to one aspect of the Russian operation, but I'm not sure that makes him "associated". Also remember that he said in his testimony that he knows of no hard evidence of collusion with Russia. IMO this connection is too weak to put him in that category. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I read the category as being a little more broad (clearly!) and put more emphasis on the "associated" part of it. Whether it was intentional or not, Michael Cohen is certainly associated with the interference. What I think you are arguing is whether the degree of this association is sufficient to list this page in the category in question. This isn't necessarily the place to have this discussion, but my take is if the person is (appropriately) listed in relevant individuals section of Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (and subsequently the 2017/2018/2019 pages as well where that section is transcluded), then I think they should be included in either this category, or one of its child categories. That is what logically makes sense to me, but I'm open to hearing other interpretations. - PaulT+/C 04:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, one additional point is that Michael Cohen is cooperating with the Special Counsel (in fact pled guilty to a charge brought by that team) and the scope of the SC's investigation is limited to Russian interference. Cohen is one of 34 people (only 12 with wikipedia pages) that have had charges brought against him from that team. If the relevant individuals section of the timeline is too broad, Cohen's inclusion in this much smaller group should be sufficient to place him (and the other 11 pages) into this category or its child categories (some are organizations, not people). IMHO, obviously. ;) - PaulT+/C 05:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I will also wait for more input from others. Meanwhile I just want to question your apparent belief that the special counsel's brief is so limited that any charge brought by that office must be related to Russian interference. That clearly is not the case. The Mueller charges against Cohen were mostly for personal financial crimes, plus one count of violating campaign finance laws by not reporting hush money paid to an accuser; this was interpreted as an attempt to influence the election, but in a purely domestic way unrelated to Russia. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on waiting on more input. But. At the risk of sounding like a complete ass... actually, the only (current?) Mueller charge against Cohen has to do with lying to Congress - specifically about Trump's knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow project during the campaign (I think). Those other charges you mentioned came from the SDNY, which was a result of the Mueller referral, but not a direct charge from Mueller - see the list of charges (specifically the section(s) on Cohen to see the distinction). I realize it is a very pedantic point and is very easily lost in all this craziness (whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com indeed).
And, to go even more off-topic, you are correct that the SC's scope is larger than just Russian interference/links between the campaign and Russia (and potential collusion/treason), but only marginally so. It also includes obstruction of justice (and apparently financial investigations as well, though I will be very surprised if that isn't also limited to dealings with foreign actors mainly focusing on Russians). The "Scope" section of this template has a good summary of links, if incomplete, but the main summary section at the top of Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) is pretty definitive about scope too. Having said that, a lot of this is speculation until we get the final report, so I understand your hesitation to pigeonhole the charges. - PaulT+/C 09:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You are correct and I was mistaken. The Mueller office brought just one charge, for lying to Congress, which I guess was added so as to give him something to plead to as part of the plea bargain. Still. That charge related to the Trump Tower Moscow project - which as far as we know was completely unrelated to Russia's interference in the election. Yes, lying about it was an attempt to influence the election - but that was an attempt by Americans, not by Russia. I agree that Mueller has been looking into other topics (as far as we know, that is; his office is a black hole as far as information goes). And if the category was "people being investigated by the special counsel" I certainly agree it should apply here. But Russian interference? I'm not seeing it. (If the "met with Russians in Prague" allegation ever gets confirmed, then yes!) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a new category then... Just to add one more point about another Cohen connection to Russia: Columbus Nova#Connection to Viktor Vekselberg and payments to Michael Cohen, though this is post-election activity and appropriately mentioned in this article as well. Regardless, there clearly is very little interest in adding this category as things currently stand since no one else has bothered to comment. I'll give some thought to adding a separate category then. - PaulT+/C 18:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen so many references in an article that appear to be just rumor and speculation. Sandvol (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Cofounder of national diversity coalition for Trump

Relevant to article? I would think so. Wikipietime (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MIchael Sorrentino versus Michael Cohen

Please note that both of them served jail time at the same jail. Both of them were known for something else other than their convictions. Yet, the editors of Michael Sorrentino's page blocked the page to prevent the inclusion of "convicted felon" in the page. More troubling - the editors for Michael Cohen's page *insist* that the term "convicted felon" should be included. It bears noting that *only* Michael Sorrentino has a pecuniary interest in keeping the term "convicted felon" from his page (he is currently filming Jersey Shore Family Vacation). So, unfortunately, it seems big money (MTV or Sorrentino himself) is influencing this process, or, Cohen is being targeted. Regardless of the fundamental reason, there is clear disparate treatment. Let's talk. Pt67 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Pt67

This is why I don't edit controversial BLP articles...

I wanted to let this page's editors know that I deleted a paragraph about what I viewed as an unnecessary tangent. There is a lot of content that does not involve Cohen here, but rather with the 2016 Presidential election. While I understand the usefulness of including information about Russia's involvement with the 2016 election, I feel like it is dominating the focus of the "Career" section, which should be pertained to Cohen and his actions, and less of the people surrounding him. I mean, Cohen isn't a good person by any means, but this article doesn't really have a strong focus on Cohen in particular, but the scandals that he was apart of. Just elaborating on my reasoning to delete the paragraph (two sentences). I don't plan to dabble anymore into this material, as it isn't my forte. As I was researching current events, I just happened to find my way back to Wikipedia, noticed a problem, and fixed it. Just something to consider for highly volatile BLPs. Utopes (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. Dead people are no longer what they used to be, but we don't put "dead" in front of every one of them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Cohen (lawyer) → Michael Cohen (disbarred lawyer) – I apologize for the hasty page move, but the problem remains: Cohen is no longer a lawyer, so the current article title is plainly inaccurate. Nor is his situation similar to that of someone who has voluntarily retired from a profession and for whom the title might continue to be used. Like a defrocked priest, a disbarred lawyer is a peculiar kind of lawyer whose defining characteristic is not actually being a lawyer at all. "Former lawyer" is not a suitable alternative because it fails to convey that the person was stripped involuntarily of the title, and would not distinguish him or her from a retired lawyer and thus fails WP:PRECISION. I confess I can’t immediately think of a plausible alternative. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose since when do we do this with any article? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and maybe close early. No. Wikipedia is not set in the present, lest most biographies be Aristotle (corpse) or the like. Cohen was a lawyer, and that's good enough for a historical reference like Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Cohen not being a lawyer at the present time does not change the fact that he was a lawyer and is known as one. This is not done for any article on Wikipedia (i.e. if actor John Doe retires, we don't change his article title to John Doe (retired actor), it just stays John Doe (actor)). TheSubmarine (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Phil McGraw is still called "Dr. Phil" even though he has no license. Bill Clinton's lead leads with "lawyer" even though he was disbarred. Cohen's notability comes from his time as a lawyer. It's also a fail of NPOV to include "disbarred" in the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously, and I would like people's opinion if I should move-protect this article? This is only the second inappropriate move in the log, but I'm thinking we should prevent moves without an RM discussion and consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

P.S. I went ahead and move-protected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

dates are wrong?

"...who served as an attorney for U.S. President Donald Trump from 2006 until May 2018."

2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.34.123 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war spillover from the Michael Avenatti page

I've reverted the recent changes to the Michael Cohen page, as it is spillover from an apparently escalating edit war over the Michael Avenatti page. The orchestrator of this edit war, Mhayes3 and his various alias accounts (including 24.164.151.6), has been censured many times for engaging in edit war behavior on at least several pages, but even after several temporary bans he goes right back to it. I'm not sure what else to do on this. Alvint69 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In section 2017

"According to a Czech intelligence source, there is no record of him entering Prague by plane, but Respekt magazine and Politico pointed out that he could have theoretically entered by car or train from a neighboring country within the Schengen Area, for example Italy. In the latter case, a record of Cohen entering the Schengen zone from a non-Schengen country should exist, if it occurred."

Italy is not a Chzechia's neighboring country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.175.91 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Felon status

FlightTime, he is a convicted felon; why did you reverse the changes? 71.62.20.24 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does this need to be discussed first? He has, as a matter of fact, been convicted of a felony. 71.62.20.24 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Because it's not a neutral way to introduce the subject. His felony conviction is discussed in the lead and the body. There is no benefit to starting the article with "is a convicted felon". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)/Archive_1&oldid=1223199533"