In the aftermath of Vertical Group’s controversial report according to which Gordon Johnson calculated that the Model 3 cancellation rate was a disastrous 66%, following a tide of client requests for further clarification, the outspoken analyst has released a follow up report in which Vertical Group’s Gordon Johnson highlighted the following key dates and comments:
8/1/17 – Following 2Q17 results (i.e., August 2017), Elon Musk noted that TSLA had 518K in Model 3 reservations, with cancellations of 63K, or net reservations of 455K (link);
11/1/17– After 3Q17 results, TSLA did not provide a detailed Model 3 reservation figure, but instead told investors that “global reservations continued to grow significantly” (link); and
5/2/18 – In the 1Q18 earnings press release, Model 3 reservations were stated to “exceed 450K at the end of Q1” (link).
So, Johnson explains, if on 8/1/17, net reservations for Model 3 cars were 455K, then on 11/1/17 “global reservations continued to grow significantly” according to Tesla, yet on 5/2/18 net reservations were still just 455K cars (including 10K cars delivered through the end of 1Q18), that means over roughly a 10-month period new reservations were essentially flat, or 0 vs. TSLA’s target to produce 5,000 cars/week.
This would represent a big shortage of demand vs. supply on its own, but there’s more.
Based on comments from Gordon Johnson, in discussions with Tesla management on Wednesday evening of this week, which ended up corroborating his analysis, he was told that over the past roughly 10 months new reservations for Model 3 cars have been flat (or, again, stated differently, zero). While Tesla noted that this was because the backlog was “full”, and predicted that if 50% of the current 455K in net reservations were canceled they’d be filled the next day, this is a very important, and potentially problematic, statistic for Tesla bulls (i.e., while everyone is focused on Tesla achieving 5K car/week of production, maybe the attention should be on demand instead).
Why is it important?
Well, on Tesla’s 5/2/18 earnings conference call, when Joseph Spak from RBC Capital Markets asked the following question:
“The first question is related to the Model 3 reservations, and I was just wondering if you gave us a gauge as maybe some of the impact that the news has had. Like, of the reservations that actually opened and made available to configure, can you let us know, like, what percentage have actually taken the step to configure?”
Elon Musk responded with his now infamous: “We’re going to go to YouTube. Sorry. These questions are so dry. They’re killing me.”
* * *
Judging by the sensitive CEO’s reaction, it appears that any legitimate analysis around this topic is very important.
We would look for clarification from Tesla if indeed Model 3 reservations have been “flat” for some time now.
The Mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico – Carmen Yulín Cruz (D), along with her administration and several suppliers, are under FBI investigation for corruption according to El Vocero de Puerto Rico.
The FBI reportedly launched the probe following a Feb 21 lawsuit filed by the former director of procurement, Yadhira Molina, who alleges that officials punished him for reporting “alleged irregular acts” by the procurement division of Mayor Cruz’s administration which occured in 2015 – which may explain supply shortages during Hurricane Maria in 2017 which Mayor Cruz blamed on President Trump, and others have pointed to a union strike.
According to the suit, a supply company incorporated shortly after Cruz became mayor was awarded “preferred supplier” status, which paid them 3x more than “regular suppliers,” and that city officials engaged in a corrupt scheme to steer business their way.
The lawsuit states that during the Fiestas of Calle San Sebastián in 2015, Molina began to notice a frequent practice that consisted of his supervisors making requests for purchase orders in the afternoons or quotations for suppliers to deliver them the next day.
It is alleged that given the “pressure” for the artificial time of the orders, the municipality of San Juan paid “preferred suppliers” three times more than the “regular suppliers”, since the former could deliver them in a short time.
The document mentions that among the preferred suppliers was Lionel Pereira from BR Solutions Corp., a company that wasallegedly incorporated on February 23, 2013, shortly after Cruz Soto became mayor.
According to the legal recourse, the plaintiff was retaliated against and persecuted after reporting the irregularities to the municipal secretary, Magdiel Pérez González, and to the Office of the Comptroller. –El Vocero
In some cases, the “preferred supplier” would receive a list of materials and specifications in advance so that they were ready for the upcoming order.
Presumably, because BR Solutions Corp. had the knowledge that it would be selected, it obtained the materials weeks before the municipality of San Juan issued the requisition of purchases.
One source told El Vocero that high-ranking current and former city employees have been interviewed by federal agents in connection to the probe – and say that the FBI has documentary evidence in the case.
“Nasty Woman” accused of withholding supplies…
Cruz made headlines in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria for her public spat with President Trump – who she accused of withholding supplies after initially praising FEMA relief efforts just days before, which prompted him to call her “nasty,” an insult he previously bestowed upon Hillary Clinton.
The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump.
She embraced Trump’s insult, donning a black t-shirt that read “NASTY.”
Later, speaking in front of a giant stack of US aid pallets, Cruz accused Trump of “killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy.”
“We’re dying here, and I cannot fathom the thought that the greatest nation in the world cannot figure out logistics for a small island of 100 miles by 35 miles long. So I am asking the president of the Untied States to make sure somebody is in charge that is up to the task of saving lives.” -Carmen Yulín Cruz
Except, Cruz may have been the one withholding supplies…
According to a caller to a New York City Hispanic radio station who identified herself as a Puerto Rico police officer from the San Juan suburb of Guaynabo, the Cruz administration was guilty of “staggering negligence and dereliction of duty in the wake of Hurricane Maria”
“What us Puerto Ricans need is the U.S. Armed Forces to come in and distribute the aid.And that they stop the Governor, Rossello, and the Mayor, Yulin, from continuing on doing what they’re doing. It’s an abuse; it looks like communism, in our own island,” the caller said.
“There are dozens and thousands and thousands of food [boxes] and when people ask, we cannot give anything away because Carmen Yulin says that we cannot take anything out, because everything is a soap opera here – everything is a show,” the caller reports. “There have to be cameras here and there because, you know, they are just looking for votes for the upcoming years.”
“Carmen Yulin won’t move unless there is a camera behind her,” the caller continues. “I need to speak for the people because the people are suffering. Because I, as a cop – along with other police partners – we are seeing it.”
Meanwhile, another explanation seems just as likely; according to the Conservative Treehouse, San Juan teamsters didn’t show up for work to distribute supplies.
Puerto Rican born and raised, Colonel Michael A. Valle (”Torch”), Commander, 101st Air and Space Operations Group, and Director of the Joint Air Component Coordination Element, 1st Air Force, responsible for Hurricane Maria relief efforts, has the following comment:
“…They have the generators, water, food, medicine, and fuel on the ground, yet the supplies are not moving across the island as quickly as they’re needed.
“It’s a lack of drivers for the transport trucks, the 18 wheelers. Supplies we have. Trucks we have. There are ships full of supplies, backed up in the ports, waiting to have a vehicle to unload into. However, only 20% of the truck drivers show up to work. These are private citizens in Puerto Rico, paid by companies that are contracted by the government”.. (link)
The ports are so full of relief supplies they can’t fit any more on the available space. CNBC ground report confirms Colonel Valle’s ground report. WATCH:
The reason for truck drivers not showing up? The Puerto Rican Truckers Union, Frente Amplio, is refusing to move the product.
The older man in this video (below) is the boss of a very sketchy (corrupt and violent) Puerto Rico trucker’s union called Fente Amplio. The Union Leader’s name is Victor Rodriguez. The reporter is pleading with Rodriquez to set aside his political grievances with the Puerto Rican governor. Mr. Rodriquez (toothless) angrily shouts NO, and states the truck drivers have a right to be mad and will punish Puerto Rico to prove their union’s strength.
Here’s another report with three independent sources confirming the work stoppage:
WAPA Television confirmed that the strike is related to a recently passed law known as “The Senate Project 525 meant to Administratively Transform the Public Service Commission.” The law covers the recognition of UBER and other transportation methods but Rodriguez refuses to listen to reason or hear related facts.
The law is more commonly known as “The Senate’s 525 Project.” This video should dispel the rumors as to whether or not the supplies are sitting in the port because there isn’t fuel or because the drivers have been instructed NOT to drive.
The Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin decided to keep her mouth shut about the strike and insult President Trump instead. It was a foolish and unfortunate choice considering Puerto Rico is out in the middle of the ocean. President Trump doubled down his efforts and was preparing for the tragedy “even before” the hurricanes hit Puerto Rico. -SNN.bz
Did mayor of San Juan mention union workers at port are on STRIKE & demanding money first before distributing supplies off boat? #amjoy
Oil prices are in a holding pattern as we await the outcome of the OPEC+ meeting in a few days…
…and while the result of that meeting will almost completely control the direction of oil prices in the near-term, there is a bit of disagreement among analysts over the bigger picture in regards to the trajectory of oil prices going forward.
So, let’s take a look at two different outlooks, one bearish and the other bullish.
The bearish case
Oil prices have fallen back from $80 per barrel, the direct result of the market recalibrating to the likelihood of higher OPEC+ production in the second half of the year. Indeed, the single largest factor that could push prices down going forward would be a sizable increase in OPEC+ supply.
However, OPEC and Russia are not the only factors at play. A few other factors could help keep a lid on oil prices over the next year or so.
The first thing that comes to mind is soaring U.S. shale supply. The U.S. has added somewhere around 800,000 bpd since the start of the year, a staggering sum. Infrastructure constraints in the Permian are real, but so far they have not slowed down output. The EIA sees the U.S. adding another 80,000 bpd in June from a month earlier. In 2018, the U.S. could average 10.8 mb/d, but it won’t stop there. The EIA sees production skyrocketing by 1 mb/d to an average of 11.8 mb/d next year.
The bottom line is that the International Energy Agency expects oil demand to grow by 1.4 mb/d this year, but non-OPEC supply (mostly U.S. shale) will grow by 2 mb/d. Next year, the story is the same: demand grows by another 1.4 mb/d, and non-OPEC supply will grow by 1.7 mb/d. These numbers suggest that the U.S. and a handful of other non-OPEC countries will more than meet global demand.
Those numbers by themselves are sobering. Once you add in another 1 mb/d of potential OPEC+ production, the market starts to look well-supplied through next year. “While geopolitical tensions and lingering risks of large supply disruptions remain an upside risk through 2H18, we think that prices will be corrected downwards towards end of the year and remain capped in 2019,” JP Morgan wrote in a note.
There are also some risks to demand, not least of which is the recent run up in prices (the IEA revised down its demand figure in May by 100,000 bpd because of higher prices). The possibility of an economic slowdown, possibly from emerging markets, could weigh on demand growth. The past few months has seen currency upheaval in Argentina, Turkey and Brazil, among other places. Argentina just sought an IMF bailout and Brazil was temporarily crippled by nationwide strikes, spurred on by high fuel prices.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is hiking interest rates, which is putting pressure on indebted countries, making debt harder to pay off, particularly as their currencies weaken relative to the dollar. This is by no means a foregone conclusion, but an economic downturn could cut into demand. Bank of America Merrill Lynch said that it is conceivable that oil drops to $60 per barrel in 2019 because of emerging market dangers.
The bullish case
The case for higher oil prices is a bit more obvious. Global inventories are already back to their five-year average. OPEC+ has kept more than 1.8 mb/d of supply off of the market for the better part of 18 months.
But the outlook for higher oil prices comes down to the severe production outages in several places, with Venezuela front and center. The South American nation has already lost 350,000 bpd this year, and the declines are accelerating. Operations at PDVSA’s refineries and storage facilities in the Caribbean have been disrupted by ConocoPhillips, and the facilities in Venezuela are buckling under decrepit conditions.
Upgraders are being shut down and production – already in decline – will have to be curtailed because there isn’t enough storage, and in any event, the ports can’t handle the export volumes that PDVSA has promised its customers. That could lead to a declaration of force majeure. Ultimately, Venezuela’s production, which averaged 1.39 mb/d in May, is rapidly heading down to the psychologically important threshold of 1 mb/d. Who knows if it will stop there.
But supply disruptions loom elsewhere. Iran could lose 500,000 to 1 mb/d because of U.S. sanctions, although that scenario is subject to a great deal of uncertainty.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that two of Libya’s largest oil ports stopped loading oil this week because of clashes between rival groups. Years ago, instability and civil war knocked off much of Libya’s output. That has since been restored to around 1 mb/d, essentially double the levels from a year ago. But the latest clashes are a reminder that Libya’s output cannot be assumed.
Nigeria is also seeing lower exports because a key pipeline has been shuttered. Reuters estimates that Nigeria’s oil exports could plunge from just under 1.8 mb/d in June to just 1.43 mb/d in July. Force majeure on Bonny Light remains in place.
OPEC+ will likely increase output, but higher production might not even offset these outages. A modest increase from Saudi Arabia and Russia might be swamped by major disruptions, especially if they occur all at once.
The only thing preventing oil from going to $100 per barrel or higher is the prospect of a wave of U.S. shale. Indeed, the forecasts are impressive, but what if U.S. shale can’t live up to the hype? For at least the next year or so, pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian could restrain production growth. The Permian pipelines are essentially filled to the brim, and discounts for Midland crude are painfully large. It is unclear how this will play out, but if U.S. shale undershoots, the oil market could find itself short on oil.
That becomes a serious problem when OPEC uses up a lot of its spare capacity. Raising output now could keep the market well-supplied, but it comes at the expense of spare capacity, which could drop to dangerously low levels over the next year.
“Now it’s getting interesting,” hedge fund manager Pierre Andurand told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. “We are in the middle of a multiyear bull run,” he said. “We could see $100 oil this year…$150-plus in 2020-2021.”
Just as China promised, they have responded “immediately” to President Trump’s “very big tariffs” and just unveiled $50 billion in tariffs against US goods including soybeans, light aircraft, orange juice, whiskey and beef, starting July 6th.
On June 15, 2018, the U.S. government issued a list of goods subject to tariffs, which will impose a tariff of 25% on about 50 billion U.S. dollars of goods imported from China, of which about US$34 billion will be goods from July 6, 2018. It began to impose tariffs and began to solicit public opinions on about 16 billion U.S. dollars in tariffs. The U.S. measures violated the relevant rules of the World Trade Organization and it is contrary to the consensus reached in the Sino-U.S. negotiations. It seriously violates our legitimate rights and interests and threatens the interests of our country and people.
According to the “People’s Republic of China Foreign Trade Law,” “The People’s Republic of China Import and Export Tariff Regulations,” and other laws and regulations and the basic principles of international law, the State Council Tariff Commission decided to impose an additional 25% on 659 items of US$50 billion imported goods originating in the United States. Tariffs, including 545 items of approximately US$34 billion in goods, have been subject to additional tariffs since July 6, 2018, and the implementation time of additional tariffs on other commodities has been announced separately.
This is exactly what Goldman Sachs was worried about: “We expect a minimal effect on growth and consumer price inflation from the tariffs, if implemented, but the announcement raises the odds that additional restrictions will be proposed over coming months.”
In a twisted celebration of the start of the 2018 World Cup in Russia (not to mention the Spain – Portugal Group B opener on Friday), Spanish tax authorities have secured a guilty plea from football superstar Cristiano Ronaldo, handing him a two-year prison sentence – which he is unlikely to serve – and an 18.8 million euro (about $22 million) fine. Instead doing time, Ronaldo will face “probation” – with exceptions of course to allow him to continue earning money with Real Madrid, income that the Spanish government can then find a way to tax.
According to RT, Ronald took a deal with the Spanish State Bar and accepted the conditions, which were also imposed by Spain’s Tax Agency, over allegations that he avoided 14.7 million euros ($17 million) in taxes through an opaque scheme that funneled earnings from Ronaldo’s image rights to tax shelters in Ireland. Ronaldo recognized four fiscal offenses, receiving six months for each crime. Luckily, under Spanish law, individuals with no prior criminal record can instead receive probation. (This is also why Lionel Messi avoided a 21-month Spanish prison sentence – also for evading taxes and had punishments for him and his father reduced to fines by the court).
Ronaldo had initially denied allegations that he had avoided paying taxes to the Spanish government between the years 2011 and 2014, according to the Daily Star. Lawyers for Ronaldo have been in negotiations about a settlement for months now. We imagine the massive fine would make a victory over Spain that much more enjoyable.
The FBI brass must have needed hazmat suits to scrub DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on agency misconduct around the 2016 elections. The result of their mighty exertions is something like 500 pages of pasteurized tofu. I will be surprised if a new scandal does not erupt over exactly how the scrubbing went down, and I wouldn’t count out the possibility of the original unscrubbed report emerging from deep inside the FBI itself. You have to wonder how embarrassed Mr. Horowitz is, and whether he, or others seeking to defend his integrity, might do anything about it.
In any case, the report managed to whitewash or evade altogether the most troubling angles of the FBI’s role around this garbage barge of institutional roguery.
Among unanswered questions: just what were Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch up to in their mysterious airport tête-à-tête July 2016, a few days before then FBI Director James Comey let Mr. Clinton’s wife, a presidential candidate, off the hook on the email server issue? How did Deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe consort with Clinton campaign bag-man and then Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe in a way that dropped nearly $700,000 into Mrs. McCabe’s own campaign war chest for a state legislative race? How did the wife of FBI higher-up Bruce Ohr get on the payroll of the Fusion GPS company that brokered the nefarious Christopher Steele “dossier?” How did the FBI conceal the Clinton campaign’s payments for the Steele dossier from judges who ruled on FISA warrants against Trump campaign associates?
Instead, the OIG report focused on the now-shopworn “love-bird” emails between FBI counter-espionage chief Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, finding only a vague “biased state of mind,” but nothing tied to any particular actions taken by them, despite overt declarations of intent by Strzok to “stop” Trump, presumably by using the powers of the FBI. Former FBI Director Comey got off with the equivalent of a wrist-slap on vague allegations of “insubordination” — to whom? What did insubordination have to do with Comey granting immunity to many Clinton campaign factotums before Mrs. Clinton was interviewed by the agency (not under oath, by the way, for reasons never advanced nor discussed in mainstream media).
If this is the end of all these matters then the FBI will remain permanently tarnished and the public interest will have been very poorly served by a tractable Inspector General who is sure to be a national joke in the months ahead — the pooch screwed by his own pack. The USA really can’t take a whole lot more institutional failure without irreparable political damage. Americans will become only more distrustful of our reckless leviathan state, and more inclined to disrespect it.
Meanwhile, the Mueller probe slogs on — a likely set-up from the get-go by the same cast of characters and their political allies, who set it in motion as a vengeful ruse against their own nefarious election meddling. They may easily find misdeeds in Donald Trump’s lifetime of sketchy real estate finaglings and associations, especially with mob interests that rule the New York City construction scene, and they have means to shift all that to the US attorney there, but after two years, the Russia collusion story itself looks like a figment.
Also meanwhile, more dangerous forces are loose on the international finance scene now, with the European Union twisting slowly slowly in the wind over a gale of unraveling bad debt. The situation will infect the global system, including this country, and the nation’s attention will shift to the cascading repercussions soon enough.
Since the Federal Reserve hiked rates, “big” US banks have dramatically underperformed “small” US banks, continuing a trend that has been going on since February…
But it’s broader than that this “big” bank blow-up is global.
The stock prices of 16 of the most ‘Systemically Important Financial Institutions’ (SIFIs) in the world are now in bear market territory (down by 20% or more from their recent highs in dollar terms); and as the FT reports, this has caused Ian Hartnett, chief investment strategist at London-based Absolute Strategy Research, to issue his first “Black Swan” alert since 2009.
Of the 39 SIFIs, these are the 16 in bear market territory: Deutsche Bank, Nordea, ICBC, UniCredit, Crédit Agricole, ING, Santander, Société Générale, BNP Paribas, UBS, Agricultural Bank of China, AXA, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Bank of China, Credit Suisse and Prudential Financial.
At some point, says Hartnett, central bankers will have to respond to bearish signals from almost half the global SIFIs, rather than continuing to tighten monetary policy:
“The clue is in the name,” he said.
“If these banks are supposed to be systemically important then policymakers ought to be watching them to see what is happening.”
“The synchronised dips were a sign of global financial stress.”
At the same time the credit risk of some of the largest banks in the world has risen significantly…
And the TBTF US Banks have started to tumble…
But SIFIs have globally underperformed the markets…
As The FT goes on to note, what many of the harder-hit Sifi banks have in common, said Mr Harnett, was a heavy dependence on US-dollar funding, putting them at risk of a squeeze if US rates continue to rise and the dollar continues to strengthen. Banks in Canada, Australia and Sweden, in particular, came through the last crisis in relatively good shape, thanks largely to their exposures to China and a strong commodities market. But in the years since then, the banks had overextended, he said, trying to support rapid asset growth with wholesale funding, rather than traditional deposits.
Finally, Hartnett noted bullish remarks from Jamie Dimon on CNBC last week, when the JPMorgan chief celebrated strong consumer and business sentiment and said he could find no “real potholes” in the outlook.
“The good news does not last for ever,” he said. “Those kind of comments are usually just before things start heading down.”
Sooner or later, Powell is gonna get the tap on the shoulder from his real bosses and judging by the collapse of many of the SIFIs, it’s soon.
The machine learning random forest algo predicts Spain is favored over Germany mainly due to the fact that Germany has a comparatively high chance to drop out in the round-of-sixteen.
Combining the odds from many different bookmakers puts Brazil as the clear favorite to win the 2018 World Cup, with a probability of 16.6 percent, followed by Germany (12.8 percent) and Spain (12.5 percent).
MIT reports there is a better way to predict the 2018 World Cup winner,
But in recent years, researchers have developed machine-learning techniques that have the potential to outperform conventional statistical approaches. What do these new techniques predict as the likely outcome of the 2018 World Cup?
…a combination of machine learning and conventional statistics, a method called a random-forest approach, to identify a different most likely winner.
First some background. The random-forest technique has emerged in recent years as a powerful way to analyze large data sets while avoiding some of the pitfalls of other data-mining methods. It is based on the idea that some future event can be determined by a decision tree in which an outcome is calculated at each branch by reference to a set of training data.
…The predictions arrived at through this process differ from others in some important ways.
For a start, the random-forest method picks out Spain as the most likely winner, with a probability of 17.8 percent.
…a big factor in this prediction is the structure of the tournament itself. If Germany clears the group phase of the competition, it is more likely to face strong opposition in the 16-team knockout phase. Because of this, the random-forest method calculates Germany’s chances of reaching the quarter-finals as 58 percent. By contrast, Spain is unlikely to face strong opposition in the final 16 and so has a 73 percent chance of reaching the quarter-finals.
If both make the quarter-finals, they have a more or less equal chance of winning. “Spain is slightly favored over Germany mainly due to the fact that Germany has a comparatively high chance to drop out in the round-of-sixteen,” say Groll and co.
There you have it, folks, the machines predict Spain or Germany while the bookies bet on Brazil. Make sure to read the entire article on how machine learning makes it prediction, it is well worth your time. See here.
In a headline that seems to get trotted out every two or three days, CNN is reporting that Michael Cohen is seriously considering cooperating with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York to lighten the pressure on himself and his family. The story was sourced to “a source familiar with the matter,” which is interesting, because the story reads like a message drafted by Cohen – a message urging President Trump to do more to help his personal attorney, who has been said to know “where the bodies are buried” at the Trump Organization.
The tone of the story makes us wonder if the “source” cited by CNN is, in fact, Cohen himself. Line by line, the story has a suspicious consistency. Cohen has “expressed anger” at “the treatment he’s received from the president” accusing Trump of “minimizing his relationship” with his former personal attorney – an obvious reference to an interview with Fox & Friends where Trump said Cohen handled “a tiny fraction” of his overall legal work, a comment that was said to have bothered Cohen.
Furthermore, in what sounds like Cohen making clear that there’s still time for Trump to pitch in, CNN added that Cohen hasn’t met with prosecutors to discuss a deal – though it’s something that he’s apparently considering.
Cohen has expressed anger with the treatment he has gotten from the President, who has minimized his relationship with Cohen, and comments from the President’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the source said. The treatment has left him feeling isolated and more open to cooperating, the source said.
[…]
Pressure on Cohen has been building since an April FBI raid on his home, office and hotel room when agents seized over a dozen electronic devices and multiple boxes of documents.
It isn’t known which particular remarks by the President or his allies have irked Cohen — or if it is the totality of them — but tensions have grown since the FBI raid.
Cohen has not met with prosecutors to discuss any potential deal. He is currently seeking new lawyers with the goal to find a legal team with experience appearing before judges in the Southern District of New York and working with the US attorney’s office in Manhattan, CNN reported earlier this week.
If Cohen does cooperate with investigators, it isn’t clear what specific information he would provide. But the President’s longtime “fixer” has worked inside the Trump Organization for a decade and was involved with, among other things, discussions to brand a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Cohen is also in the process of changing legal teams as his lawyers are finishing up the review of millions of documents seized by the FBI to determine which ones might be protected by attorney client privilege. At this point, Cohen probably hasn’t made the final decision about whether to cooperate. Whatever happens will likely depend on how Trump and his allies respond to this coded message. If this is accurate, it doesn’t reflect well on CNN, which basically allowed itself to be played by a source. In fact, it’s difficult to justify publishing this, aside from knowing that it would get traffic that web editors so desperately crave.
