Cohen Is Done But Not Finished In His M.A.D. Legal Strategy

250px-Nuclear_fireballBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of Michael Cohen accusing Donald Trump of lying about his lack of prior notice of the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.  Cohen’s allegations present an obvious risk not only to Trump but himself.  What is most striking is that Cohen is alleging that specific people were in the room during Trump’s briefing and his approval of the meeting.  That is an unnecessary risk to take if you are lying about the meeting as opposed to alleging a one-on-one conversation with Trump.  Thus far, no one has corroborated his story while the Trump team is alleging proof that the critical tape has been altered.

Here is the column: 

The evolution of Michael Cohen continued this week with his implication of Donald Trump in the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyers in June 2016. This is all part of the new Michael Cohen rolled out last week by his lawyer, Lanny Davis. As Davis explained, it is all part of Cohen’s “new resolve” to “reset his life” where he is trying “to tell the truth.”

For most of us, truth is not so much an option as it is an obligation but, then, most of us are not like Michael Cohen. At best, Cohen comes across as Watergate-era attorney John Dean without the guilt (or discernible legal skills). At worst, he is the type of person once described by fabled Texan Sam Houston as having “all the characteristics of a dog except loyalty.” Whether this is the new or old Michael Cohen, his move this week could present serious perils for both himself and his former client, Donald Trump.

Trump has long denied prior knowledge of the Russian meeting. That position was supported by his son Donald Trump Jr. who spoke both under oath and to investigators. Trump Jr. was closely questioned on this very point, including possible calls to his father before or immediately after the meeting. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have repeated this denial. Yet, Cohen now alleges that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting. He reportedly said further that he could name other people in the room when Trump was briefed on the meeting and gave his approval.Trump today repeated his own denial and tweeted that “I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?). He even retained Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make the choice!”

It was a curious jab at Cohen for hiring Davis, since Trump has hired former Clinton lawyer Emmett Flood as his own counsel. However, the denial could not be more clear. In other words, someone is lying. Indeed, Cohen’s new role as a truth teller seems to have triggered a self-destructive impulse. This is a type of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) strategy with a twist. Usually you make such a threat to avoid the actual MAD move.

Here, Cohen is going MAD in the hope, perhaps, of post-apocalyptic survival through a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller. The new account seems to contradict Cohen’s prior statements to Congress and investigators when he was specifically pressed on this very question. Even if Mueller gives him a deal, it will not protect him from state charges and it could involve a guilty plea, as with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Of course, if Cohen’s account is corroborated, this could get real bad, real fast, for Trump. It is not that Cohen’s account changes the dynamic on collusion. Even if Trump approved the meeting, it could still be as it has been described — a willingness to hear alleged evidence of criminal conduct on the part of Hillary Clinton or her associates. However, in many ways, this would be more serious than trying to fashion some unknown crime of collusion. This would be a clear and often used crime of making false statements. It is the very crime that Mueller has used to indict a myriad of people in this investigation. It is not a risk for President Trump, who has not discussed this matter under oath or to federal investigators — but that may not matter, given the person in the crosshairs of such an allegation: Donald Trump Jr.

Once you go after the son, Trump could well act more as a parent than a president. If President Trump approved the meeting, Trump Jr. could be indicted under 18 U.S.C. 1001 as well as possible perjury laws. The same is true for some Trump aides, but this is his son. Ironically, Trump would be in the same position as Flynn, who copped a plea reportedly in part to protect his son, Michael Flynn Jr. Trump is not likely to cop a plea, since he has more options than did Flynn, but they are all bad options.

Trump’s visceral rhetoric has never been matched by real actions. That could change. He has long railed against the investigation and called for it to end. If Mueller were to pursue his son, Trump could lash out and fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That list could grow, since Trump may be hard-pressed to find anyone at the Justice Department willing to shut down this investigation (let alone the investigation being handled in the Southern District of New York).

Trump could also fire off a slew of pardons, even including one for himself. That would trigger cascading events which could well lead to criminal or impeachment counts, or both. At a minimum, it would push this matter on a fast track toward impeachment, just as the House of Representatives may flip to Democratic control in the November midterm elections.

New Jersey mobster Sam DeCavalcante once said, “Honest people have no ethics.” Cohen’s new found “honesty” appears to rest on the same dubious distinction, as he actively seeks to incriminate his former client to save himself with secret recordings and gotcha accounts. It also is possible that the “new” Cohen is a lot like the old Cohen — a stranger, perhaps, to both honesty and ethics. Nevertheless, he has the ability to move this scandal into a new and precarious stage for this administration.

Cohen now knows that he is fighting for simple survival, and that makes him dangerous. The real “truth” is that Cohen is done — but that does not mean he is finished.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

342 thoughts on “Cohen Is Done But Not Finished In His M.A.D. Legal Strategy”

  1. “Liberals, who now warn of Trump’s “war on the press” long ago excused Eric Holder’s monitoring of the Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen. And they had no problem with John Brennan lying under oath when he claimed the Obama CIA had not monitored the computers of Senate staffers (he would lie brazenly again under oath about drone collateral damage and his role in seeding the Steele dossier). …

    The Left is fine with the idea that the FBI, with a wink and nod from the CIA, can insert spies into an ongoing presidential campaign, on the rationale that embarrassing information might be collated, leaked, and thus useful to “insure” that a supposedly dangerous man would not be president. Should a right-wing FBI do the same with a candidate Bernie Sanders, reminding us that Sanders went to Moscow on his honeymoon and therefore was under suspicion, what would the Left say? …

    Just watch soon what the Left has birthed. Thucydides, writing more than 2,400 years ago about the civil strife on the island of Corcyra, observed that “men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.” They are not going to like the results when in their “day of danger” they cry foul and no one listens.”

    For complete Hanson op-ed:

  2. Here’s the other ongoing and similar situation. Manafort is staking his eventual release on the Judge’s ethics. Never mind Manafort’s. Meuller is staking his entire existence on flipping Manafort who may very well be unflippable and if found guilty e pardonable.

    Recall the old legal saying better a hundred go free than one innocent be jailed. The number ranges from ten to a thousand and is attributed to many but here is one version

    Blackstone’s formulation – Wikipedia

    In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation is the principle that: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, … From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to … The principle is much older than Blackstone’s formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials.

    Judge Learned Hand seems to be the orignator of the 1,000 version.

    The corollary is the “Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.” Would Manafort have been noticed without the false evidence now we know where it really came from? If so …. all the evidence on just about anything and everything is trashed. Some of that spilled on to the 12-20 businessmen to GRU etc in Russia as well.

    Chances are not slim Manafort will be discharged and sent home with no more than a slap on the wrist…and even if Mueller can flip him his poison tree problem will render it moot. Leaving him with nothing to show fo a year and a half UNLESS Mueller himself flips and goes after the Comey Clinton Group.

    Cohen from what it looks like now is unedible dog meat.

    Who said objectivists are not creative GRIN.



    Column was written by Hugh Hewitt for this evening’s Washington Post. Column discreetly acknowledges that Trump is a less than normal president prone to controversy.

    Yet Hewitt strongly encourages Republicans to ‘vote Republican’. Because if “radicalized” Democrats take over Congress, we’re really in trouble!

    1. “Trump is a less than normal president ”

      Here we see Peter Shill trying to back up his assertion that Trump is not a normal president (in the negative sense) but that is not what the author said and the word “normal” is never even used. If anything the author points out that Trump is a better president than most and advises people not to vote Democratic for the simple reason is their policies work against the general public.

      Peter Shill is a “less than normal” poster who doesn’t adhere to any form of intellectual honesty.

      1. Peter Shill’s quotes and recaps cannot be relied on. He twists and distorts them on a very regular basis.

        Best bet is to just keep on scrolling past them.

        1. Foxtrot, the blog is an excellent blog and Professor Turley provides an interesting set of views. Sometimes people add to his questions and statements. That is also good but most of the posting is junk.

          When I have the time I like to let the leftists know that what they say is crap. I can’t do that outside in the real world because these leftists are violent. Put a Trump bumper sticker on the car and your car will be vandalized. Put a Trump sign on your lawn and your lawn will be wheeled. Try being young and saying anything. That is a risk of being fired. Try allowing people to know that you support Trump and they will never speak to you again. (That might not be a bad thing.)

          The left is violent and the right mostly polite yielding to the left. That doesn’t work. Did it work with Romney who was essentially a nice guy? How about GWB or even his father? What happened during Reagans Presidency. Remember Vietnam? The left blew up buildings, killed people and was as violent as could be. That only happens because good people refuse to stand up.

          I believe in standing up because that seems to be what works. That is the essence of the Trump Presidency. I don’t support violence on either side but I do believe in protecting oneself, family and friends. Trump is doing the right thing because all the other ways haven’t worked.

          1. The left is violent and the right mostly polite yielding to the left. That doesn’t work.


            I don’t believe so much that the Right is mostly polite, it’s something else altogether. I recall a little while back that you were trying to encourage me to be more confrontational when dealing with the Left. At least I think that was the word you used. The fundamental problem I have in discourse with these people is I have a line that I won’t cross, they don’t. My values and ethics won’t allow me to knowingly lie, manipulate facts, distort the truth, whatever you want to call it, to win an argument. My principles are not a moving target either. This means when political parties move, they move without me. This is what I believe being an Independent should mean. I will vote for the candidate that most nearly represents what I believe in. And they will have to prove it before I vote to reelect them.

            I say all that because in a country ruled by lawfare, I’m at a disadvantage…for now. The Progressive Left (PL) and the Progressive Right (PR) are playing with house money. They know constitutionally-principled Americans won’t support weaponizing government agencies to infringe the rights of anyone. So, progressives feel empowered to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, knowing they have everything to gain and not much to lose. There is no better example of this than Hillary Clinton. President Trump is the result of progressives backing principled Americans into a corner. They really should think twice about doubling-down.

            1. “I recall a little while back that you were trying to encourage me to be more confrontational when dealing with the Left.”

              Olly, I don’t think I was trying to encourage you to be more confrontational rather encouraging you to recognize that confrontation is one way of dealing with things. Trump got where he is today by being confrontational. I voted for someone else in the primary but now I realize that I voted for a good person but not one that could survive in this environment. (read the entire Hanson article I posted in one of my last posts.)

              I remember Vietnam, a war I was not in favor of. I remember marching against the war and being in association with people from the left some of whose names might be familiar to you. They were animals. They spit on soldiers who had nothing to do with American policy. The soldiers were brave children and fought with the intention of protecting our freedoms. I was sometimes an outcast among some of the anti-war folk. At times I carried an American flag and would never demean a soldier cheering them instead. I saw the left push an innocent white boy into the fray hoping the police would break his skull open so they could have a favorable news article with pictures. I saw these leftists trying to injure the police hoping to create violence. I saw the results of them accidentally blowing up a brownstone in lower Manhattan. The left has no shame and today people like Bill Ayers walk the streets free when they should be rotting in jail. Hanoi Jane may have been against the war like I but even then it was clear she was garbage.

              “My values and ethics won’t allow me to knowingly lie, manipulate facts, distort the truth”

              Those are good values but that doesn’t mean you can’t use those values to turn things around against the cr-p that we hear daily here and elsewhere. That doesn’t mean one can’t support financially and otherwise those that are out in the open being pummelled by political correctness along with the violence of the left.

              “I will vote for the candidate that most nearly represents what I believe in.”

              That is what I did most of my life but in recent years the left has become dangerous and one can’t offer them support of any kind because such support undermines the principles this nation was founded under. Do I like Republicans? No, but they are the only alternative at the present time. What does Ocasio stand for? Nothing. She is both ignorant of history and naive. She is the type of leftist that brings leftists to power such as what we saw in Stalin’s Russia and what we see in present-day Venezuela. In Stalin’s Russia, she would have probably been one of the earlier ones to be killed.

              (One thing to remember is the right consists of everyone the left doesn’t like or have dispensed with.)

              1. What does Ocasio stand for? Nothing. She is both ignorant of history and naive.

                This is the area I focus all my attention on. Not the Ocasio’s of the world so much as those too ignorant of history and US Civics to know what they are doing when they vote for them. My participation in this blog is just a fraction of my effort towards civics literacy.

                I facilitated an online root cause analysis about 8 years ago that lasted about 1 year. It had only one question and when I wrapped it up it had about 1000 responses. The question was:

                We have many problems with many causes, but is their one root cause?

                The responses began as you’d expect with every imaginable pet cause and who to blame. The two questions I always responded back with was:

                1. If that problem went away, would all other problems go away or be significantly impacted?
                2. If that problem went away would it not come back?

                Ultimately, we did boil it down to not 1 but 3 root causes:
                1. Voter Ignorance
                2. Voter Apathy
                3. Dependency Culture

                So from that, I decided to focus all my attention on those areas, and the reason is not that complex. Nothing will change…ever, if we don’t have a culture of self-reliance that is civically literate and engaged in self-government.

        2. But we can have faith in Foxtrot because he’s a good Republican. You know how that goes. Only the good guys are rooting for Trump.

          1. You can have faith in Foxtrot because she/he is honest and honorable. Foxtrot would never think of lying like Peter Shill or falsely quoting another. It’s not your politics Peter, it is your personality flaws that force everyone to question what you say.

    2. We heard a similar argument in 2016, and one frequent commentator here really stressed that “Hillary was the lesser of two evils.”
      There’ll be over 450 different campaigns and elections in about 4 months, and some may campaign on that “lesser of two evils” platform.
      No matter how the election goes, we’ll be seeing plenty of new faces in Congress with so many incumbents leaving Congress.


    Tax Cuts Bust ‘Secular Stagnation’

    Progressive economists said growth was gone for good. Then Trump changed policy.

    Mike SolonJuly 29, 2018 2:47 p.m. ET
    Are low taxes key to a booming economy? Their success is harder than ever to deny after Friday’s report that the U.S. economy grew 4.1% in the second quarter, bringing the average quarterly growth rate during the Trump presidency to 2.9%. This explosive growth, and the accompanying spikes in hiring and wages, should finally discredit three popular claims made by opponents of the president’s policies: that tax cuts would blow a hole in the deficit, that corporate tax cuts would serve only rich investors, and that secular stagnation was a valid excuse for the slow growth of the Obama era.

    In the first five quarters of the Trump presidency, growth has been almost 40% higher than the average rate during the Obama years, and per capita growth in gross domestic product has been 63% faster. As usual, the largest single beneficiary of faster growth is the government. The Congressional Budget Office reports that faster growth under President Trump has already added $1.3 trillion to the 10-year federal revenue projection, with the CBO’s April economic adjustment alone showing an addition of $1.1 trillion—the single largest growth-driven revenue gain ever reported. State and local governments can anticipate a similar dividend, amounting to as much as $600 billion.

    The CBO now projects that additional revenue from this economic surge will offset 88.2% of the estimated 10-year cost of the tax cut. That contrasts sharply with the CBO’s assessment that President Obama’s economic slump lost $3.2 trillion in projected 10-year revenues during his last three years—almost five times more revenue lost than was gained by his 2013 tax hike. These results have confirmed again that weak growth is the fastest way to lose revenue and strong growth is the fastest way to raise it.

    The revenue trend shows that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was fiscally conservative as a tax cut but economically powerful as tax reform, as accelerating growth appears likely to cover its cost and more. Even better news is that the public revenue windfall comes not as a drag on growth but as a slice of larger gains. The CBO’s April revision projected an extra $6.1 trillion in GDP over the next decade—more than $18,000 of growth for every man, woman and child in America.

    The next popular myth undone by the growth renaissance is that corporate tax cuts benefit only rich shareholders. Since the tax cut, the Labor Department reports that worker bonuses have hit the highest level ever recorded. The Commerce Department reports that wages and salaries are growing almost 25% faster under President Trump than under Mr. Obama. The recent tidal wave of customer rebates from utilities and cable companies also exposes the massive burden that high corporate taxes had been imposing on consumers.

    The stock-market boom spurred by tax reform helps the middle class, too. A 2016 study in Tax Notes found that about 50% of all domestically owned corporate shares are in individual retirement accounts and pension plans—the nest eggs of working Americans. Another 17.6% of shares are held by nonprofits and life-insurance companies. Record dividends and buybacks could see total shareholder returns this year exceed $1 trillion, with the majority flowing to retirees or charities like United Way.

    Perhaps the most important narrative discredited by the economic revival is the “secular stagnation” excuse. Throughout the Obama years, progressive economists said Americans had become too old, lazy and complacent to achieve the growth that was regular before 2009. But somehow American workers overcame all of these supposed weaknesses when Mr. Trump changed federal policy. The problem was not our people but our government. Stagnation is not fate but a political choice.

    With any luck, the economic turnaround will bring the pro-growth wing of the Democratic Party out of hiding. Three times in the postwar era, Congressional Democrats joined Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton to cut taxes and enable growth. America could use that kind of bipartisanship again.

  5. So far neither Cohen or Trump have been put under oath about the meetings. Trump’s lawyer claims the others in the room deny the allegation. I am going to presume that Trump’s lawyers talked to the individuals before they make that claim. Better still if they could get them to say it under oath. Tough to tell sometimes who is telling the truth until all the facts are out, but my money is on Trump on this one.

  6. The ace up Cohen’s sleeve that will take a coordinated effort with Mueller to produce is a cooperating witness that sees it is better to jump ship and cut a deal than to stick with Trump, if Trump is indeed lying. Trump has established himself as the biggest liar in Washington and has admitted as much. So, another person that can be targeted through Cohen’s grand gesture, someone who can perhaps be fingered for other stuff, and; well one can only hope.

    Even the most obtuse must admit that this is not about whether Trump is guilty or not, for he is guilt personified, but whether or not he can get away with it. Trump’s core supporters want him to get away with it, because that is what a mobster does. Trump’s supporters are the gang in the courtroom that laugh and hug the accused when he gets off on a technicality. It’s not about justice. It’s about the law. The law is a tool that can be used to seek justice, pervert justice, or avoid justice. Trump has perverted justice all his life. This is what it is all about, who will win, not justice.

  7. I haven’t read all the comments. And I know that Cohen is ethically compromised every way till Sunday. But surely his turning on his former client, impugning him, exposing his former client’s lies—if they’re that, revealing confidences, and so on in that vein, are all breaches of his fiduciary obligations to Trump. And if they are that, then how can Davis, Cohen’s lawyer, advise it, countenance it, participate in it?

  8. Can one of you legal eagles tell me why, given this, Mueller should be investigating anything to do with the firing of James Comey: DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.

    1. RSA,.,,
      – On a related matter, see the Oct. 30, 2017 edition of THE ONION;
      “I’ll make those b******s pay, a teary-eyed Mueller whispers into a locket with a photo of Comey”.
      The close professional ties, and a personal friendship, made Mueller look like he had some conflicts of interest right from the start.
      I’ve said before that I don’t fault Rosenstein fof appointing a Sp. Counsel, but choosing Mueller was a mistake.

      1. Mueller is a tough old marine with balls of steel and years of government service. He is everything Trump isn’t.

        1. Peter Hill – he is an old Marine with years of fu*k ups behind him.

  9. Professor Dershowitz said it best, “you can investigate an innocent man forever.” There needs to be and end point where you say enough is enough. There also needs to be a starting point where you say “I have a reasonable belief a crime has been committed and that this person is suspected of complicity in it AND I can articulate facts in support of this suspicion. This is a damaging, divisive investigation that has no end in sight. Mueller should know better.

      1. George

        There is a documentary/interview with Orson Welles, where he discusses his films and their underlying and sometimes subliminal structures. When asked if the ‘victim’ in Kafka’s ‘The Trial’ was guilty, Welles laughs and states, “Guilty? Of course he was guilty, guilty as hell.” That is what makes it work, the guilty that the audience wants to believe is innocent. The audience targets the oppressors not because the victim is innocent but because he is like them and oppressed. Perkins was guilty. Trump is guilty, guilty of much more than knowing about some meeting.

    1. Mespo,

      Many of the lawyers involved on all sides have been very disappointing to me, even Prof Turley.

      Of all the different issues around this case maybe you can explain a few of it’s pieces to me.

      I keep hearing the Govt’s investigation began in July 2016, yet the OIG’s recent report points out the investigation was active at least as early as Dec 2015.

      This is without mentioning the proof Trump was being spied on by the govt even back to 2004 without a valid warrant. (Larry Klayman)

      That brings me back to the FISA Warrant & it’s renewals.

      I’ll save us all from the flow chart of names other then Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Clinton,Obama, some of the Russian’s Bosses from the above meeting story.

      That the now known fraudulent Clinton/Obama Pissgate Paper was key in the FBI/DOJ obtaining the FISA Warrant & it’s renewals.

      And as the USC points out along with Treason, Fraud Upon the Court is another major crime against this country.

      So why do any of these lawyers for people Meuller wants to question give Meuller/DOJ the time of day when Meuller & Rosenstein are openly running out of control, unconstitutionally investigations
      all based off of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, fraudulently obtained warrants?

      Why didn’t they go to their own local Fed district court & demand present evidence or the court to issue a cease & desist order against DOJ/Rostenstein/Meuller?

      1. Oky1:

        “Why didn’t they go to their own local Fed district court & demand present evidence or the court to issue a cease & desist order against DOJ/Rostenstein/Meuller?”

        The dirty little secret of criminal investigations is that the federal bench are … ahem … cautious … about reigning in anything the prosecutors want to do lest they be seen as soft on crime. I’ve never seen a AUSA called on the mat for any excess with the small exception of a case we worked with Lee Bailey some years ago where the Fourth Circuit oh-so-mildly admonished a part-time prosecutor for putting undo pressure on a spouse/witness not to testify in Golding v. US (4th Circuit, 1999)

        As for when the investigation started, I’m betting Trump was investigated as soon as he announced his campaign in June of 2015. Likely not a FISA warrant, just your run-of-the-mill G-man round-up of witnesses looking for dirt which is always for sale against prominent men.

        While we’re talking FISA Court, where the Hell are the bamboozled judges and contempt citations. Here’s Rule 13 of the FISA Court that no one ever mentions:

        What about the duty on the FISA Court applicant to correct facts and disclose non-compliance like holding back the info about the dossier’s origination? The judges have a role too in preserving the integrity of the system. Where are they? This is why secrecy kills a democracy.

        1. While we’re talking FISA Court, where the Hell are the bamboozled judges and contempt citations.

          In a secret underground bunker, deep within the… Oops, sorry, that’s where Mark Levin is hiding out.

          Anyway, great questions!

        2. Thanks Mespo.

          I’ll be interested to see Manafort’s lawyers in court & their reaction.

          Hopefully far better then Trumps lawyers that appear to me to be incompetent fools.

          Rhetorical question: does Turley and others realize there are many very great lawyers out in fly over country & Judges as well!!

          George pointed me back to the correct version of the the impeachment of Rosenstein vs USC:

          Article 2 Section:

          …….. ( Rosenstein related) all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


          This info should be for Everone.

          A family member has been under going cancer over the past year & how well you are informed & how fast you react may make all the difference in the world.

          I’ll write about it another date but sharp fast action on my part had that head of oncology fired & that family member moved across town to Cancer Treatment Center of American.

          Stage 4 Cancer!!! Instead of the other side of town’s proposed crappy treatment our family got the patient the premium treatment.

          The relevant point is knowing in minutes who the azzhole creeps are fast & firing them.

          As of today the patient, formerly Stage 4 is now in REMISSION!

      2. Claptrap, bald-faced lies, and conspiracy-paranoia. But it looks good on you though. Thanks for checking in from the bedlam quadrant.

        this is to “I’ve found a decoder ring to a new secret website with real info” okie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – Some of us read the OIG report. It was a revelation. The Democratic Party is not taking us to the Promised Land, rather to the slaughter yard.



    Trump’s lawyer/spokesman Rudolph W. Giuliani appeared on Fox News’s and CNN’s morning shows on Monday to downplay the idea that colluding with the Russians would have even been illegal and to argue against strawmen.

    The most notable portion of the interviews was when Giuliani rekindled the idea that collusion isn’t even a crime. Trump’s defenders have occasionally noted that the word doesn’t appear in the criminal code — which is true but misleading– but Giuliani took it a step further: He basically suggested Trump would have had to pay for Russia to interfere on his behalf.

    “I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians,” Giuliani said on CNN. “Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

    He added on Fox: “I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.”

    In case you forgot, Trump himself has been arguing for more than a year not that collusion wasn’t a crime, but that there simply was “no collusion.” Just like Trump’s legal team has taken to arguing that a president can’t legally be guilty of obstructing justice, it’s now arguing that the other side of the investigation that has to do with Trump — the collusion side — is also a bogus standard. Or at least that seems to be where this is headed.

    Giuliani also seemed to offer a very narrow denial of what happened with the Trump Tower meeting. While discussing Michael Cohen’s allegation that Trump knew about the meeting, Giuliani focused his defense on arguing not necessarily that Trump didn’t know about it — but that he wasn’t physically at meetings at which information from Russians was discussed. And he did it on both shows.

    “Even this Russia meeting — I’m happy to tell [Robert Mueller] he wasn’t there; he wasn’t at the meeting,” Giuliani said while arguing that Mueller doesn’t need to interview Trump.

    Edited from: “Rudy Giuliani Just Obliterated The Goal Posts On Russia Collusion”


    1. Peter Hill – can you find somewhere that collusion is a crime?

      1. Paul, is that a defense you’d go with as Trump’s attorney?
        I’m not sure it would look good in headline form.

        1. Paul ought to go with it because an indictment for simply “collusion” is DOA legally speaking unless you’re talking about anti-trust Law which we’re not.

          1. Rudy is right. ‘Collusion’ in itself is not specific enough to qualify as a one-word charge.

            The problem is that Trump has maintained from the start that Russian meddling is ‘fake news’. So how can Rudy pivot to a defense where ‘collusion isn’t a crime’? Does that mean Trump’s sympathies for Russia were genuine all along?

            Therefore this, “Collusion’s Not A Crime’ defense gets a little murky.

            It makes me wonder if old Rudy is trying to burn the trumpster. Why didn’t Trump give Rudy a spot in his cabinet? Rudy deserved a place for granting legitimacy to Trump. The same could be said for Chris Christie, too.

            So I wonder if old Rudy trying to f..k Trump up.

                1. Here’s a real gem from the article linked above that could lend credence to Mr. Hill’s theory about Giuliani settle scores with Trump:

                  Asked by CNN how he could be sure that Trump didn’t have advance knowledge about the June 9 meeting, Giuliani said, “Nobody can be sure of anything.”

          1. Conspiracy to defraud the United States is a crime [with twelve syllables]. Solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution is a crime [with eighteen syllables]. Collusion is not a crime [with three syllables]

            1. L4D still enables David Benson – so, when is Mueller, with his expanded mandate going after Hillary and her foreign contributions?

              1. As I’m sure you know, the regulations for appointing special counsels require the need to investigate of a member of the executive branch. Hillary Clinton resigned from the Obama administration in early 2013. She has not been a member of the executive branch since then. If you can identify substantial and credible evidence that Hillary Clinton may have committed a crime before 2013 while she was still serving as Secretary of State, then you might more reasonably request a special counsel investigation of Clinton.

                1. L4D still enables David Benson – how the devil did he get Manafort then? And his mandate has been secretly broadened.

          2. I did. ‘Collusion’, as a one-word charge, would not be a crime. It’s too vague.

            1. Peter Hill – last I heard the President is not going to meet with Mueller until there is evidence he is guilty of a crime.

    2. The above is Peter Shill so one doesn’t know if the quotes were correct or if he plagiarized what he wrote or if anything at all is true. Does anyone want to bet their reputation by repeating anything Peter Shill says?

      1. Awesome. When the facts and the law are against you, attack the messenger. The trump-deranged are sweating aren’t you; how do you like it?

        this is to “but old white guys usually are better liars than these klowns” allan

        1. Marky Mark Mark – so far, there is nothing to break a sweat about. The irony is not lost on me with you using the line “When the facts and the law are against you, attack the messenger.” You attack the messenger more than anyone on this blog. Evidently, both the law and the facts are against you. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

          1. Excerpted from the article linked upstream from here:

            Asked by CNN how he could be sure that Trump didn’t have advance knowledge about the June 9 meeting, Giuliani said, “Nobody can be sure of anything.”

            1. L4D still enables David Benson – I am not sure you exist or the sun will come up tomorrow, but odds are you do and the sun will.

              1. The odds are that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened and approved of it. Meanwhile, Trump’s own lawyer said on TV that he’s not sure the that Trump didn’t know about and approve the Trump Tower meeting before it happened. So what else is Giuliani not so sure about? No collusion? No obstruction? Are we even sure that Giuliani truly is Trump’s lawyer?

                1. L4D still enables David Benson – so far no one has said anything illegal went on at the meeting at the Trump Tower. Even if DJT knew in advance, knowledge in advance of a legal action does not make one a criminal. Or, at least it didn’t use too. You, like Mueller, are in search of a crime that does not exist.

          2. So Trump’s lawyer told CNN that nobody can be sure that Trump didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened. And Paul Caviler Schulteacher is telling Mark M. that so far there’s nothing to break a sweat about. You know what? Just because Trump is on the verge of changing his story about the Trump Tower meeting for the umpteenth time already doesn’t mean that Trump’s troopers in the field should break a sweat over the prospects for the entire “nothing happened” cover story having the lid blown off it.

            First they said it was all about the adoptions. Second they couldn’t remember exactly how many Russians were in the room with them. Third they admitted that they discussed the Magnitsky Act, Bill Browder and the Ziff brother’s donations to Clinton and Democrats. Fourth they insisted that Trump knew nothing about the meeting before The NYT reported it on July 8th, 2017. And the whole way through they insisted that nothing happened at the Trump Tower meeting. So no sweat. If it turns out that Trump knew about it and approved of it before it happened, it could still be at least provisionally true that “nothing happened” at the Trump Tower meeting.

            P. S. Did you hear the bit about Giuliani pondering out loud on the public airwaves whether conspiracy to defraud the United States [a.k.a. collusion] is even a crime in the first place?

Comments are closed.