General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNovartis paid $1.2m to "The Fixer," had 1 meeting, then decided he was "unable to provide services"
?
Verified account
@Tom_Winter
NBC News: In a new statement (their third) Novartis says they paid $1.2 million to Michael Cohen, had one meeting with him and determined he would be "unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated related to US healthcare policy matters." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniels-lawyer-cohen-got-500k-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-n872481
Link to tweet
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniels-lawyer-cohen-got-500k-russian-oligarch-viktor-vekselberg-n872481
dalton99a
(81,667 posts)Sad.
Skraxx
(2,985 posts)$1.2m and no services rendered. Sounds legit.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It kills me how much NY lawyers can charge for services that you can get much cheaper in Philly.
manor321
(3,344 posts)That's hilarious!
Does not pass the smell test.
dsc
(52,172 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)say, $130K?
Leghorn21
(13,527 posts)Keep talkin, No!! We expect another statement from you, oh, just before dinner this evening, thanks in advance!
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)winstars
(4,220 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)Novartis bribed Trump via Cohen, and neither one of them delivered. What a shock. Trump doesn't deliver on his promises, bribed or not.
Raven123
(4,917 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,675 posts)Surely a publicly-traded company didn't fork over $1.2 million without even a pro forma agreement to set the parameters.
What....where they on drugs or something?
Uncle Joe
(58,504 posts)Thanks for the thread, Miles Archer
rurallib
(62,477 posts)but they will be re-elected with 99% approval - hell they'd probably put Cohen on the board.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,031 posts)bribery and money laundering charges, SEC, FTC, FEC and IRS investigations, shareholder lawsuits, flatulence, incontinence, hair loss and erectile disfunction
sunonmars
(8,656 posts)OnDoutside
(19,982 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)It makes no sense for them to contract to pay over a million dollars to someone who they could subsequently see completely through in one meeting. I would expect some preliminary discussions to explore what of value could be offered before spending that type of money. I would expect some contingencies built into the contract allowing it to be terminated prior to full payment if services provided were inadequate.
I think there is something here that they are not admitting to.