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.
The Court has ordered Gleason to file a Memo of Law in support of the motion by May 18 or withdraw the motion.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.