Image 01 Image 03

Court Filing: Trump and Michael Cohen were aware of Schneiderman alleged assaults in 2013

Court Filing: Trump and Michael Cohen were aware of Schneiderman alleged assaults in 2013

Motion for a protective order by Attorney Peter Gleason asserts that In 2013 retired journalist Stephen Dunleavy discussed allegations “with Mr. Trump as evidenced by a phone call I received from Attorney Michael Cohen”

When the New Yorker reported that Eric Schneiderman was alleged to have assaulted four women, everyone including us expressed amazement about a 2013 tweet by Donald Trump:

Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone – next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner

There was a lot of speculation as to what Trump knew, or whether it was just a gut feeling.

While we don’t know for certain, a court filing today in the lawsuit over records seized from Michael Cohen’s law office raises the likelihood that both Trump and Cohen  were aware.

A letter motion for a protective order (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) was filed today by attorney Peter J. Gleason. The motion seeks protection for any information shared with Cohen in 2013 about the Schneiderman accusers. Here is the text of the letter motion in full:

In light of the recent developments regarding the former New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a protective order is requested regarding any
and all records that may be contained in the seized files of Mr. Cohen regarding my discussions with Mr. Cohen concerning two women that were sexually victimized by Mr. Scheinderman.

By way of history my law office has an open door policy for any individual who has been victimized by entities that because of their status and power are able
to destroy lives with impunity.

My office was contacted some years ago by two unrelated women who at two separate times (approximately 1 year apart) claimed that Mr. Scheiderman was sexually inappropriate with them.

After the first consultation with one of Scheinderman’s victims I explained to her how invariably the very entities that were established to protect her would ultimately turn on her to protect the power elite that includes Scheinderman.

Approximately one year later, sometime in 2013, another woman contacted my office with an almost identical story on how she too was victimized by Scheinderman. At first glance the logical recommendation would have been to report this matter to the Manhattan District Attorney. Unfortunately, I had to advise this woman against reporting the incident to the Manhattan District Attorney Office based on my past experience in reporting prima facie political corruption that was ignored by the office, some of which were ultimately prosecuted elsewhere.

At a minimum, I wanted these women to realize that somebody believed them, and that their horrific experiences at the hands of Scheinderman would not be
brushed under the rug.

I discussed the matter with a retired journalist by the name of Stephen Dunleavy who suggested and offered to discuss the matter with Donald Trump. Mr.
Dunleavy did indeed discuss this very matter with Mr. Trump as evidenced by a phone call I received from Attorney Michael Cohen.

During my communications with Mr. Cohen I shared with him certain details of Scheinderman’s vile attacks on these two women.

The extent of Mr. Cohen memorializing any of our communications is unknown. However, these two women’s confidentiality, as victims of a sexual assault, should be superior to that of any unrelated subpoena.

Furthermore, the letter to the Court dated May 9, 2018, raises concerns of what appears to be reckless behavior on the part of Mr. Avenatti, particularly in the
event his client should be given leave to intervene.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Court issue a protective order and seal any and all correspondence that Mr. Cohen may have
memorialized regarding our communications which pertain to Mr. Scheinderman’s assault on these two women.

The reference to “reckless behavior on the part of Mr. Avenatti” appears to reference the release of Cohen bank records, as detailed in our post, Michael Cohen lawyers ask court to require Michael Avenatti to reveal source of bank records.

This raises all sorts of interesting speculation as to how it was the New Yorker came to find out the information. Perhaps two things happened unrelated: Trump being aware and the New Yorker finding out independently. That’s what Jane Mayer, co-author of the New Yorker article, tweeted, suggesting that the women mentioned in the court filing about Trump are not the same women in her story — which means there are more accusers out there than the four women in the New Yorker story:

Just to be clear: not one source for our story on Schneiderman has any ties to Trump or Michael Cohen. Our sources all are deeply opposed to Trump and deeply disappointed that Schneiderman let them and their Cause down.


No, I don’t know anything about those women, but the women we spoke to were not the same ones.


They aren’t our sources. They are different women.

Or was it a Trump surrogate maneuver to bring down Schneiderman, someone going after not only Trump but his family and businesses? Or as some are speculating, removing Schneiderman from the scene because Schneiderman had promised to go after people Trump pardoned as to federal crimes.

Update 5-12-2018

The Court has ordered Gleason to file a Memo of Law in support of the motion by May 18 or withdraw the motion.


Cohen v. USA – Motion for Protective Order as to Seized Records Regarding Eric Schneiderman Victims by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


New York. New York. It’s a wonderful town.

OleDirtyBarrister | May 11, 2018 at 1:40 pm

A “motion” for a protective order? He he.

I don’t believe that letter satisfies the local rules on font, format, or citations to evidence and authority. It is marginal whether it certifies Fed. R Civ. P. 7, and might even violate the LR’s for communications with a judge.

I’m seriously confused. I can’t see where attorney Peter J. Gleason has any standing to file for such a protective order.

If any of the accusers file suit against Schneiderman I can see where their attorneys can file to see if there’s any such evidence in the seized files.

Makes one wonder if Cohen’s files were seized not to discover evidence against Trump but rather to find and destroy evidence against Schneiderman. There’s a big tangled web of unrelated stuff becoming related.

One thing I know for sure: There’s a lot of D.C. lawyers getting rich.

I’m seriously confused. Why on earth would a journalist suggest that Donald Trump be consulted?

Let me see: Donald Trump, private citizen in 2013, was responsible for some government official being a sleaze….. why, exactly?

casualobserver | May 11, 2018 at 2:54 pm

Hahaha. Like it matters who know what, when and whether someone allied with Trump set things in motion. His resignation was requested so quickly, it’s hard to imagine that Cuomo wasn’t prepared for it and simply waited, perhaps with the hopes nothing would ever be triggered. Can his office really assess everything so thoroughly within a few hours of it going public that they had not other recourse? They didn’t ask for time to look into it, for example.

As the source of the Schneiderman accusations came through the New Yorker, it is much more likely that this was a preemptive strike on Schneiderman, pre-reelection campaign.

Look, the New Yorker is a staunch liberal/Progressive organ. And, Schneiderman is a staunch liberal/Progressive New York Democrat. Does anyone really believe that the New Yorker ran this piece without the approval of the liberal/progressive Establishment? Schneiderman’s years long proclivity for rough, sometimes extremely rough, behavior toward women was apparently an open secret within the New York political scene. He was taken down by liberal/ Progressive forces, not Donald trump or Michael Cohen.

It is reasonable to assume that the two women, who spoke with Attorney Gleason, were not the women who spoke with the New Yorker. If they were, that horse was out of the barn already and there would be no need to “protect” their identities if such should be found within Attorney Cohen’s rercords.

    The story was broken by Woody Allen’s kid. You think they could just put a lid on this and he walks away and no one ever hears of it again? You think someone with his background would tolerate the New Yorker strangling the #MeToo moment, when he’s the one who ripped the bandage off the Harvey Weinstein issue?

      Mac45 in reply to JBourque. | May 11, 2018 at 8:24 pm

      The reporter does NOT own the New Yorker. So, yes, this story could have been quashed just as the Weinstein story was years ago. But, it does not appear that anyone in the liberal/Progressive Establishment tried. This should tell you something.

This isn’t a revelation. Obviously he knew. He tweeted about way back then.

Wiener out, … something something … schneiderman way worse.

Henry Hawkins | May 11, 2018 at 3:59 pm

I’m pretty sure no private citizen has a duty to report what could only be hearsay, a rumor/gossip, assuming the alleged offense wasn’t personally witnessed, and maybe not even then (cue attorneys).

blah deblah | May 11, 2018 at 4:07 pm

O so now the narrative is, why didn’t Trump say something sooner?

I suspect they are going to try and imply that Donald engages in paying off politicians. Donald knows all their secrets and who can be bought. It’s kind of a catch 22 for the NY power structure and Clinton/Obama teams – if they show Trump bought off Schneiderman, then they risk exposing everyone else that bought him off too. That’s probably a big list of big time Dems and donors.

Oh, the little black book.

Or maybe Trump just knew the same secret everyone else knew and when Schneiderman spouted of, Trump fought back, sending a powerful message about stones and glass houses.

Hopefully the latter, but if the Dems are pinning their hopes on the former, I think it will blow back just like #metoo

I started thinking more about my previous comment- and the information presented by attorney Peter J. Gleason.

“I discussed the matter with a retired journalist by the name of Stephen Dunleavy who suggested and offered to discuss the matter with Donald Trump. Mr. Dunleavy did indeed discuss this very matter with Mr. Trump as evidenced by a phone call I received from Attorney Michael Cohen.”

2013. Trump announced his candidacy on 16 JUN 2015. Why in the world would in 2013 would a journalist offer to take this information to a businessman- not a politician or lawyer- and why would the lawyer take him up on it? What else did they discuss that made this seem like a good idea? Was Trump collecting information on The Swamp in 2013? There are stories that Trump made one trip to Epstein’s Island. One. And left on the next plane out, disgusted by what he saw. And taking note of who he saw. I couldn’t find a quick reference to that, but I know I’ve read it.

Which brings next point. Under the radar, as in not widely reported, but information is out there, child pornography arrests are way up since Trump’s inauguration. My now former family doctor, a lifetime resident of the local community, 68 years old, is sitting in jail on child porn charges, awaiting trial. From what I see, he isn’t part of a child porn ring, but got caught up as they investigated child porn suppliers. But apparently a lot of the people rounded up are, and are the low hanging fruit, being squeezed for information about others. While a philanderer, Trump apparently doesn’t much care for abusers and deviants.

There’s a lot of dots. And they seem to be connecting. I’m beginning to think that maybe Qanon isn’t a masterful troll but a Trump insider. And that the IG dump when it occurs is simply going to be the first case of brown stuff hitting the rotating air moving device.

    gospace in reply to gospace. | May 11, 2018 at 6:52 pm

    This must be the Steve Dunleavey referred to:

    Gossip columnist for the NY Post.

    elle in reply to gospace. | May 11, 2018 at 11:55 pm

    I agree that we will see much on the child trafficking front coming to light Or maybe it’s so disgusting that we won’t. The undercurrent is everywhere, from seasoned investigators crying over what was on Weiner’s laptop, Epestein Island, Clinton’s funding a notorious sex trafficking lawyer for that girl from Idaho who was held in Haiti, O’Keefe’s Acorn sting in San Diego with underage prostitutes being brought in, etc. etc.

    Donald doesn’t drink and I also remember seeing a comment that the child perv’s disgust him.

I don’t know who this guy is, but Judge Wood has finally been informed(she let press attorneys argue without standing or recognition) that attorneys must file an appearance (because I have now seen her demand it elsewhere) and a Motion to Intervene which is a hearing motion unless stipulated by all parties. And it is by no means automatic. As for the preservation pending subpoena notice, that would most properly be directed to the holding parties, and not the court which, in my experience, has never destroyed evidence, but rather returns it to proper custody.

regulus arcturus | May 11, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Funny how Pres. Trump knew, but not NY St. Bar, Chucky Schumer, Kirsten whatsherface, and all the other “good liberals” in that wonderful bastion of abuse.

Mr. Gleason said in an interview that Mr. Cohen had told him that if Mr. Trump were to run for and be elected governor of New York, he would help bring to light the women’s accusations about Mr. Schneiderman. There had been deep animus between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schneiderman ever since Mr. Schneiderman filed a $40 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump University in August 2013…

Mr. Gleason also said in the interview, without offering details or corroborating evidence, that he had told elected officials of his concerns about Mr. Schneiderman’s abusive behavior nearly five years ago, but was rebuffed.

Well. That would explain a lot…

Time to just shut it down, declassify everything, expose to sunlight of publicity. POTUS can order it, people I read are really starting to question why he is not ending the whole sordid affair. Public opinion is squarely on his side, the courts have suggested Mueller is out of bounds.