Columns, Congress, Criminal law, Politics

Trust But Verify: Cohen To Return To Congress In Role Of Reformed Sinner

Below is my earlier column on the scheduling of testimony for President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen. The new Democratic majority is right to call Cohen who, while he will not discuss matters under investigation with the Special Counsel, can supply needed details on his allegations on other alleged crimes. While he may bring new details, he will bring little credibility as a proven serial liar. Nonetheless, he joins a long line of disreputable characters called before Congress. They are a necessary cost of oversight in some scandals, but Cohen’s record demands more than the usual degree of corroboration. Any oath that Cohen takes at this point will be viewed as a moment worthy of its own laugh track.

Here is the column:

There are a lot of questions awaiting President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, in his scheduled appearance Feb. 7 before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

However, the most immediate question will be whether Cohen’s taking of the oath to testify will be followed by the usual comedic two drums and a cymbal riff. After a long and documented history as a liar and felon, Cohen’s taking of any oath deserves proper musical accompaniment.

Nevertheless, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is right to call Cohen to testify. And to their credit, Republicans in the Senate are also considering calling Cohen before he goes off to prison.

Cohen is not the first thoroughly discredited person to testify before Congress. The list ranges from mobster Frank Costello and quiz show fraud Charles Van Doren in the 1950s to drug gouger Martin Shkreli in 2016.

However, even liars can supply details of criminal conduct. Now that Cohen has accused President Trump of involvement in criminal conduct, the American people deserve to hear Cohen’s claims in greater detail. Moreover, the public has the right to see Cohen examined on those details and his own credibility in making these allegations.

Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court in August to tax fraud, making false statements to a bank and a campaign finance violation. He said the campaign finance violation involved a payment made during Trump’s presidential campaign to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in return for her agreement not to publicize her allegation that she had an extramarital affair with Trump years earlier.

Cohen said he was directed by Trump to make the payment to Daniels. The president has denied he had an affair with Daniels and denied any wrongdoing regarding the payment.

In addition, Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying to Congress about how long negotiations for a Trump Tower project in Moscow went on in 2016. No deal was reached on building the tower.

Cohen is heading to prison as a result of his guilty pleas – but not for as long as he deserves. U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III called Cohen’s history a “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct” and said “each of the crimes involved deception and each appears to have been motivated by personal greed and ambition.”

New York federal prosecutors denounced Cohen as a manipulating liar with a long history of being a legal thug. Yet Pauley gave Cohen an extremely generous deal of just three years in prison. It was not half of what he deserved, but Cohen has lived his life from one scam to another.

Cohen is likely to try to portray himself now as a redemptive sinner – an act that is almost an affront to sin. For those who have long been critics of his infamous career (and the failure of the New York Bar to take action against him), the act will be as infuriating as it is unbelievable.

Cohen made himself rich victimizing more vulnerable people. In 2015, when Harvard Lampoon staffers played a prank on Trump by having him sit in the stolen “president’s chair” from the Harvard Crimson for a photo and an endorsement, Cohen threatened the students with ruin.

Cohen was quoted by a student on the Harvard Lampoon staff as saying: “I’m gonna come up to Harvard. You’re all gonna get expelled. If this photo gets out, you’ll be outta that school faster than you know it. I can be up there tomorrow.”

While some reporters are actively rehabilitating Cohen now that he is a foe to President Trump, Cohen previously lied to and threatened journalists on behalf of Trump. When former Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak wrote about a biography that included allegations from Trump’s first wife, Ivana, that Trump raped her, Cohen did not hesitate to attack.

In a phone call recorded by Mak, Cohen told the reporter: “You’re talking about Donald Trump, you’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, a presidential candidate, as well as private individual, who never raped anybody and, of course, understand that by the very definition you can’t rape your spouse.”

As a matter of law, it is a crime to rape anyone – including a spouse.

Cohen added in the recorded call: “Mark my words for it, I will make sure that you and I meet ne day over in the courthouse and I will take you for every penny you still don’t have, and I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else.”

So why would anyone want to hear anything from a guy who couldn’t lie straight in bed?  Because Trump selected Cohen to be his lawyer and employed him from 2006 until last year. Cohen served as a vice president of The Trump Organization and later as Trump’s personal attorney.

More importantly, Cohen’s allegations concerning the payoffs have some independent corroboration. Hush-money payments were made to Daniels and to another woman alleging an affair with Trump. Other people have reportedly supported the account that the payment to Daniels was made to suppress news that could have hurt Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 presidential election.

Trump picked not just Cohen but Paul Manafort – two of the deepest bottom feeders in the New York-Washington corridor. (Manafort served as chairman of the Trump presidential campaign and was convicted in August of eight charges of tax and bank fraud unrelated to his work on the Trump campaign. He also pleaded guilty in September to two conspiracy charges.)

This is the cost of such poor judgment by Trump regarding the people he has hired.

That does not make the payments a clear criminal act. As I have previously stated, there are strong defenses that Trump can raise over his motivations in the payments. Such a violation would ordinarily be handled as a civil matter with a fine rather than with a criminal charge.

However, that does not mean that the allegations are not serious. Last year, I wrote columns saying that the payoffs represented the greatest threat to this White House and that Trump was facing an existential threat by keeping Cohen as his lawyer.

Obviously, anything Cohen says in his congressional testimony will have to be accepted with an asterisk denoting the sources as a serial liar. However, truth can sometimes be mined from a sinkhole of lies.

Will Cohen testify truthfully before Congress? It’s impossible to say but it would be an exercise of hope over experience.

We need to have that truth. The cost is dealing with disreputable individuals like Cohen. In this case, we might want to proceed under President Reagan’s famous pledge to “trust but verify.” With Cohen, however, I recommend dropping the trust part.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public Iiterest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney.

122 thoughts on “Trust But Verify: Cohen To Return To Congress In Role Of Reformed Sinner”

  1. Professor Turley, behind the veil of democrat obfuscation, the bad guys are getting away:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, “We’ll stop it.”

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “The texts mean what the texts say.”
    ________________________________________________

    Samantha Power Sought to Unmask Americans on a Daily Basis

    “Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

    Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

    The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

    OBAMA OFFICIAL MADE ‘HUNDREDS OF UNMASKING REQUESTS,’ GOP CHAIRMAN SAYS

    In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned “that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration.”

    The “official” is widely reported to be Power.

    During a public congressional hearing earlier this year, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina pressed former CIA director John Brennan on unmasking, without mentioning Power by name.

    Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?

    Brennan: I don’t know. Maybe it’s ringing a vague bell but I’m not — I could not answer with any confidence.

    Gowdy continued, asking: On either January 19 or up till noon on January 20, did you make any unmasking requests?

    Brennan: I do not believe I did.

    Gowdy: So you did not make any requests on the last day that you were employed?

    Brennan: No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed.

    Brennan later corrected the record, confirming he was at CIA headquarters on January 20. “I went there to collect some final personal materials as well as to pay my last respects to a memorial wall. But I was there for a brief period of time and just to take care of some final — final things that were important to me,” Brennan said.”

    – Bret Baier, Catherine Herridge,

    1. George: you need to be medicated over your OCD regarding Strock and Page. Seriously. You obsess over this every single day, and it means literally nothing in the overall picture of Trump and his lack of fitness for office, his endless lying and his connections with Russians with whom he is or wanted to do business and who helped him get a few extra votes in a few key districts, which is how he “won” despite losing the popular vote. Nothing those two ever said begins to compare with Trump’s misdeeds and harping about that comment makes you look impaired.

      1. Comrade NUTCHACHA, Thanks for reading…again! And thanks for once again providing the distorted generational welfare and “Affirmative Action Privilege” perspective. It’s good to know what the confiscated and redistributed tax dollars of Americans have wrought…I mean bought. I hope the foolish gullibility of Americans persists…for your sake.

        1. Kurtz, haven’t you heard, ‘newspapers are doomed’. Without a sugar daddy fine papers like The Post would have to cut their staffs to skeleton crews. It happened to the L.A. Times. And I don’t think The Tribune is doing that much better. It’s a sad development. We need local papers keeping track of local government.

          1. “Without a sugar daddy fine papers like The Post would have to cut their staffs to skeleton crews. It happened to the L.A. Times. And I don’t think The Tribune is doing that much better. It’s a sad development. We need local papers keeping track of local government.”

            We need honest papers not rags like WaPo and the NYSlimes that are pushing news because they favor it and it makes them money. They have abused their privilege.

  2. MCCONNELL OVERRODE RUSSIA CONCERNS..

    ENABLIING TRUMP TO AVOID SCRUTINY DURING 2016

    The New York Times reports that after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director, FBI officials began an investigation into whether Trump had been working for Russian interests. The concern was that, in obstructing the FBI’s inquiry, Trump might have made it harder to determine what Russia had done during the election — thus helping Russia skirt accountability for an attack on American democracy.

    Meanwhile, The Post reports that Trump has gone to great lengths to conceal his private discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin from even his own advisers. The result: “there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years.”

    One shadow narrative unfolding in the background over the past two years has been the gradual discovery of just how broad the scope of Russian sabotage of the 2016 election really was. This has made certain events during the campaign appear more serious in retrospect.

    In September 2016, as The Post has reported, top Obama administration officials privately asked senior congressional leaders in both parties to go public with a united front against Russian interference. But McConnell refused, claiming (in The Post’s words) that “he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” McConnell also questioned the intelligence demonstrating Russian sabotage.

    We have since learned a great deal about the Russian interference that McConnell raised doubts about. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s indictments of Russian nationals laid out a very detailed plot to corruptly swing the election. More recently, Senate Intelligence Committee reports demonstrated the extraordinary reach of the Russian disinformation campaign, which included elaborate efforts to divide the country on racial and cultural lines.

    Remember, it was widely known during the election that some sort of Russian interference efforts were taking place. Candidate Trump was downplaying the seriousness of these efforts, or dismissing them altogether.

    It’s hard to know how much of a difference it would have made if congressional leaders went public with bipartisan acknowledgment and condemnation of the Russian interference effort. But it certainly could have helped educate the public and shed light on just how indefensible Trump’s downplaying of Russian sabotage really was. Of course, that might have hurt Trump’s candidacy, so for McConnell, it was apparently a nonstarter.

    Now we discover that there is fresh reason to wonder just how deep Trump’s loyalties to Putin and Russia ran throughout that whole period. What we still do not know is how detailed and convincing a briefing McConnell and other officials received on what was happening. We should revisit this.

    What’s more, we’re also learning that in the view of intelligence officials, Trump’s obstruction of justice efforts were potentially more damaging to the country than we thought. They concluded that by firing Comey, Trump was making it harder to learn the truth about Russian sabotage of our democracy irrespective of whether there was any collusion.

    In retrospect, failure to protect Mueller looks worse.

    Edited from “Trump Is Doing Immense Damage. He Has A Hidden Helper”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. RE. ABOVE:

      The key passage here is:

      In September 2016 top Obama administration officials privately asked senior congressional leaders in both parties to go public with a united front against Russian interference. But McConnell refused, claiming that “he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.”

      One could argue that had Mitch McConnell allowed a national discussion on Russian interference back in September of 2016, Trump might never have gotten the White House. Trump, we recall, lost the Popular vote by 2.8 million.

      So the question becomes, ‘Could Trump have pulled off his Electoral College Victory had there been a national discussion about Russian interference?”

      One could say this question is highly debatable. The public might have taken a completely different view of Wikileaks had there been a national discussion on Russian interference. America might also have viewed Donald Trump from a different perspective. His utterances like, “I love Wikileaks”, and “Vladimir Putin If You’re Listening– might have played much differently had the public been completely aware of Russian interference.

      1. “Trump, we recall, lost the Popular vote by 2.8 million.”

        Take note how fascists don’t believe in Constitutional law. Trump is the legitimate winner of the election. He spent his time garnering the electoral vote. Had the popular vote been needed he would have spent his time getting votes from the most populous areas and likely he would have won. Trump changed a lot of minds in sparsely populated areas so I think he could have done the same in densly popular ones, but then he might have lost the electoral college which is what counts.

        Had the FBI acted appropriately then the Russian interference question would have died and instead the conversation might have been how the trial was going for Hillary and how many years she would get in Jail. Now the question is whether some of those at the FBI will end up in jail.

          1. Tabby, Trump’s sham commission on ‘voting fraud’ completely failed in its mission. No proof of ballot stuffing here in California. I have yet to see any news stories specifying ‘which’ voting districts are even suspected of fraud.

            1. Let’s start with the ballot harvesting and move on from there, Peter.

              1. Tabby, is ‘ballot harvesting’ conservative shorthand for states that encourage ‘voter participation’? I think it is that shorthand. But you introduced it here to create the impression California let’s ‘anybody’ vote.

                Voter participation lacks in many states. And Republican policies openly discourage voting. Chronically poor people fear they might be busted for showing up to vote.

                Chronically poor are chronically in trouble just for being poor. So they worry about cops and I.D’s at polling sites. That was the intention of Republican voting laws. To scare people out of voting. It can make the difference in close elections!

                1. You are full of BS Peter. The money spent by the left to subvert the voting process is more than enough money to help anyone in need vote.

                  One needs identification to charge a $3 item at Walmart, to get on a plane, and to certify who they are when doing many transactions. If anything requiring proper ID would help the legal citizen that is poor for lack of such ID can isolate them. That is what the left is fighting against. The poor integrating into society. They want the ability to have people vote where they aren’t supposed to. They also want more write in ballots so that they can have their people illegally do so. Conservatives are more reluctant to break the law so anything that stimulates law breaking is more likely to help Democrats.

            2. California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls – Settle Judicial Watch Federal Lawsuit
              Judicial WatchJANUARY 03, 2019

      2. Glenn Greenwald an honest liberal says:

        “LAST WEEK, the New York Times reported that the FBI, in 2017, launched an investigation of President Trump “to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security” and specifically “whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” The story was predictably treated as the latest in an endless line of Beginning-of-the-End disasters for the Trump presidency, though – as usual – this melodrama was accomplished by steadfastly ignoring the now-standard, always-buried paragraph pointing out the boring fact that no actual evidence of guilt has yet emerged:

        The lack of any evidence of guilt has never dampered the excitement over Trump/Russia innuendo, and it certainly did not do so here. Beyond being construed as some sort of vindication for the most deranged version of Manchurian Candidate fantasies – because, after all, the FBI would never investigate anyone unless they were guilty – the FBI’s investigation of the President as a national security threat was also treated as some sort of unprecedented event in U.S. history. “This is, without exception, the worst scandal in the history of the United States,” pronounced NBC News’ resident ex-CIA operative, who – along with a large staple of former security state agents employed by that network – is now paid to “analyze” and shape the news.

        The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation of Trump is far from the first time that the FBI has monitored, surveilled and investigated U.S. elected officials who the agency had decided haroberd suspect loyalties and were harming national security. The FBI specialized in such conduct for decades under J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the agency for 48 years and whose name the agency’s Washington headquarters continues to feature in its name (see photo above).

        https://theintercept.com/2019/01/14/the-fbis-investigation-of-trump-as-a-national-security-threat-is-itself-a-serious-danger-but-j-edgar-hoover-pioneered-the-tactic/

      3. the question you have is whether or not the FBI’s interference with the popular electoral process was sufficient. since your favored daughter lost, your answer is likely NO

  3. JT’s MO is in full mode today. He seems to be so worried about if Cohen lied, but has no problems what so ever about Putin’s boy. JT’s and his look over here posts every time there is bad news about Trump is so predictable it has gotten to the point that maybe book-makers should be taking bets on JT’s posts. And for the regulars that agree with JT, I’m sure if they were around back then they were screaming about how Bill Clinton should resign on the spot because of a lie. But with Trump, it’s nothing to see here from JT and his right-wing followers.

  4. Attorney Client Privilege
    The Law Dictionary

    “The attorney client privilege secures the client from the potential sensitive information being disclosed to other people. The law requires that an attorney does not reveal any communications or letters between him/her and his/her client to any third party, which includes business associates, competitors, government agencies and even criminal justice authorities. This requirement helps the client to speak with his/her attorney honestly and without a fear that his/her sensitive information will be disclosed.

    The attorney client privilege has existed for a long time and has been practiced way back in the Roman Empire.

    In order for the communication to qualify for the attorney client privilege, it needs to be done in confidence and between the privileged persons (an attorney and his/her client) with the desire of receiving or providing legal assistance. Many clients assume that the attorney/client relationship exists, when it actually was not established. If a person just consulted with an attorney on the phone and shared some sensitive information without retaining the attorney to represent her or him, it is probable that the attorney client privilege is nonexistent here. The attorney often acknowledges the representation of a person if he or she sends the person a letter agreeing to represent him or her, by orally agreeing to the representation or, finally, by sending the contract fees to the future client.

    It is important to know that not every communication between the attorney and the client protected by the attorney client privilege. For instance, if a shared information can be obtained from a non-privileged source, it is not protected by the attorney client privilege.

    Since it is the client who holds the attorney client privilege, the client is also the one who can assert or waive it at any moment.

    Furthermore, the law established the certain exceptions to the attorney client privilege. The most common exceptions to the privilege are the death of the client, fiduciary duty, crime or fraud exception and common interest exception. Fiduciary duty exception means that a corporation does not always has the right to assert the attorney client privilege. For instance, if corporation shareholders wish to pierce the corporation’s attorney privilege, the corporation cannot just assert its attorney client privilege. Crime or fraud exception to the privilege applies if a client seeks advice from an attorney to assist with committing a crime of fraud. However, if the client has completed a crime and seeks the legal help, such communication is under the attorney client privilege unless the client is seeking advice on covering up his or her crime. Common interest exception to the privilege applies if two clients are represented by the same attorney. In this case, neither client may assert the attorney client privilege against the other party in the litigation process.”

    1. George: the attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply when the information sought to be hidden involves collusion to commit a criminal offense, including obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury or fraud. That’s why your boy Trump won’t win on this one.

  5. TURLEY CASTS JUSTIFIABLE DOUBTS ON COHEN

    BUT ‘WHY’ DID TRUMP RETAIN SUCH A SCOUNDREL..??

    Cohen was Trump’s idea of a lawyer who offered ‘extras service’. One who ‘went that extra mile’ defending Trump’s interests. For these reasons Congress should learn what Cohen has to say about his years with Donald Trump.

    One recalls that amid the Watergate hearings Congress took testimonies from ‘Plumbers’ and ‘Dirty Tricksters’ to illuminate the inner-workings of Richard Nixon’s White House. So however lacking in ethics Michael Cohen might be, he was ‘still’ Trump’s lawyer for about 10 years. That alone makes Cohen a relevant figure for examining Trump’s lack of ethics.

    1. he’s a New York real estate developer. That in itself alone explains why he retained a mensch like Cohen.

      This has been a whole lot of nothing.

    2. “BUT ‘WHY’ DID TRUMP RETAIN SUCH A SCOUNDREL..??”

      Why would anyone associate with you? I personally would stay away from both Michael Cohen and Peter Hill. I like to be around honest people.

      I am still waiting for you to state the Fox News programs that you will prove lie daily. Your lack of follow through should pi-s everyone off.

      1. Alan, I posted 2 examples of Fox News personalities asserting things that are absurd and, or, untrue.

        1. How about every time Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham and Pirro use the phrase “deep state”? Despite being base on literally nothing, they’ve managed to hook a few followers like you.

          1. That is a matter of definition. I think they have defined deep state and kept their discussion within those confines,

        2. …And I posted responses that demonstrated what you posted was garbage. In other words what you have been calling lies are more opinion or statements that are contrary to media sites that have actually altered words people have spoken. Get to Fox News where your claim originated and a specific show and I will tape it with a few others as can you along with everyone else. Then we can accurately debate what was said. I don’t agree with everything said on Fox News but as far as integrity goes they beat the The New York Slimes by a mile. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

          Let’s get on with a true debate with facts in hand.

    1. good article

      you know this notion of trump “unwittingly cooperating” with Putin is just a ploy to discredit policies that are not favored.

      was JFK just an unwitting agent of Kruschev when he de-escalated the Cuban missile crisis?

      You see my point, I hope

      1. Kurtz, JFK is ‘not’ a good example here. I don’t think Kennedy would meet today’s standards of transparency. His affairs with Exner, Monroe and various call girls would make Kennedy an even bigger risk than any recent president other than Trump.

    2. On What Grounds Can the FBI Investigate the President as a Counterintelligence Threat?

      By Jack Goldsmith Sunday, January 13, 2019, 9:16 AM

      https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-grounds-can-fbi-investigate-president-counterintelligence-threat

      Excerpt:

      I hope that there is less to this story than meets the eye: that the story highlights a minor procedural step in a time of perceived crisis that was quickly deemed unnecessary or inappropriate and was reversed or dropped, and that the Times is now making it into a bigger deal than it was and is.

      The Times story raises other hard questions. For example, what would happen if Trump, once he learned about the counterintelligence investigation of him, ordered it to cease on the grounds that he deemed it contrary to the national security interests of the United States? Would the FBI cease its investigation, or would it deem the president’s order, like its interpretation of the Comey firing, as further evidence of the president’s threat to the national security interests of the United States? Perhaps the official ordered to end the investigation would at that point resign, or would continue with the investigation until fired by the president. But these questions highlight the fraught position the FBI adopted in opening a counterintelligence investigation of the president based on its leadership’s judgment that he is a threat to the national security.

      There are also hard questions on the other side. What exactly is the FBI supposed to do if it stumbles onto unambiguous evidence that the president is compromised, and acting on behalf of a foreign power, and has pledged to that foreign power to blow U.S. assets? As I noted above, I don’t think there is a problem if the FBI, to the president’s knowledge, investigates the president’s actions as a collateral component of a broader counterintelligence investigation of a foreign operation. This has been happening for a while and I see no objection to the Mueller investigation as described in Rosenstein’s order. The dangerous point comes if the FBI opens an investigation of the president, unbeknownst to him, based on its perception of his threat to national security. The line between these two things might be fudgable and the FBI might be able to collect all, or almost all, the information it needs without crossing the line. But it might also be that in some circumstances the only thing the FBI can do is to report what it stumbled upon to Congress and the American people and let them decide what to do.

      As David Kris said at the end of the podcast, and I paraphrase here, there is no elegant or satisfying solution to the problem of a president about whom plausible questions are raised concerning his ultimate loyalty to the United States. I also agree with David that the conundrum the FBI found itself in in the spring of 2017 was almost entirely attributable to the president’s norm-defying (to put it mildly) behavior. But there is more at stake than just this president. As I have noted many times, one of President Trump’s most nefarious skills is to act in norm-busting ways that cause people and institutions to respond to him in norm-busting ways. If indeed the FBI took the unprecedented step of opening a counterintelligence investigation directed at the president premised on his threat to national security, I hope the bureau had much stronger evidence for doing so than the Times story provided—and I hope that something of investigative substance actually turned on it. Otherwise, the step strikes me as deeply imprudent.

  7. Liar, liar, your pants are on fire!
    However. How does one know what a lie really is?
    All this “Russian collusion” apCray is based on two words which are horseitShay to begin with. If I speak with some sales rep from China am I in collusion with “China”? By that I refer to the Chinese government or nation as a whole? Or if i speak with a Frog am I in “collusion with France”? There is a hop, skip and a jump here with all this Russian collusion yak.

    Now. When we talk about Trump speaking directly to Putin then we have a true discussion. Is there “collusion”? Was FDR in “collusion” with our ally Stalin in the war against Hitler? Russia was our ally. But then there was “the Cold War”. So now we can not even talk with any person of Russian descent even though Gorbachov brought down that Wall.

    As for Cohen. A goof.

    1. Furthermore, Russians have not openly donated to election campaigns, bribed them with all expense paid trips, and made threats against US elected officials for decades as Israelis have done clearly and openly in exchange for favors to Israel. Accusations regarding Russia lose all credibility if the same standards are not applied to Israel.

        1. Is this the hobby you follow betwixt and between reading Kennedy assassination literature?

      2. “made threats against US elected officials for decades as Israelis have done clearly”

        It sounds as if autumn never left us. List those threats. Make sure you can explain how all other nations do not do what you claim Israel does.

      3. Furthermore, Russians have not openly donated to election campaigns, bribed them with all expense paid trips, and made threats against US elected officials for decades as Israelis have done clearly and openly in exchange for favors to Israel.

        We’re always getting a window into your fantasies.

    2. How about the plans for Trump Hotel Moscow with a free multi-million dollar penthouse for Putin? How about Trump’s tax returns, which would show who he’s beholden to and how much he’s borrowed, which he won’t show us? How about lifting of sanctions against Russia? Why is that being pushed by the Trump administration (if that’s what you want to call that circus)? How about all of the evidence of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election in order to favor Trump, which Trump refuses to acknowledge? Why did Trump confiscate the transcripts made by the interpreters of his meetings with Putin? How many secret meetings have there been? What was discussed? Trump is not an emperor. He is supposed to be a public servant.

      1. How about Trump’s tax returns, which would show who he’s beholden to and how much he’s borrowed,

        Add Natacha, Esq. to the list of people who can’t tell the difference between a tax return, a profit-and-loss statement, and a balance sheet.

        1. No kidding. Her ignorance is almost embarrassing. Except that she is so eat up with hatred it’s hard to feel sorry for her.

    1. Turley has some of the cognitive bias he is talking about and leans in a leftward direction but in the end with regard to the claims involving Russia “the New York Times story does not suggest that this counterintelligence operation found any basis for the original allegation.” However, there is a lot of evidence that the Clinton campaign was at least partially behind what many would call the criminal activities of the intelligence community while other activities link her unfavorably with the Russians with regard to the transfer of large sums of money from Russian accounts to Clinton accounts.

  9. “While he may bring new details, he will bring little credibility as a proven serial liar.”

    That is all one need to know about Michael Cohen.

    Any of his testimony before many of the Democrats in Congress will be little more than one liar speaking to many.

  10. Now Lefty Loons like Late4Yoga, PH & Enigma Man gonna really behind Rat Michael Cohen this week instead of Daddy Muler as their Great White Hope to bring down their Evil Boogeyman Trump. Politics really does make for strange bedfellows. Oy ve!

    1. Above comment authored by Bill Martin. Somehow system labeled above “Anonymous:. Bill Martin don’t hide behind “Anonymous” – he own it. PS: Prediction: Lefty Loons flailing out of control and will crash before this year’s Super Bowl.

    2. You aint just whistling Dixie

      “…the American people deserve to hear Cohen’s claims in greater detail….”

      Americans dont want more theater, witness further polarization nor have it confirmed the US Congress is dysfunctional. Americans want a government they can rspect and be that shining losght on a hill

      Cohen’s appearance is to satiate the Dims thirst for vengeance against Trump. Better if they addressed black on black violent crimes, wasted tax dollars, illegal immigrants, the Dems partying in Puerto Rico during the Govt shutdown and on and on and on… but then that would require the Dims and Reps acknowledged their own crimes

      Legislative branch

      Barack Obama terms

      Steve Stockman (R-TX) was convicted of fraud. (2018)[4]
      Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[5] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. (2017)[6]
      Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. (2017)[7][8]
      Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges. (2016)[9]
      Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for illegally structuring bank transactions related to payment of $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.[10] (2016)
      Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to eight months in prison. (2015)[11][12]
      Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)[13][14][15]
      Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[16]
      Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two-and-one-half years’ imprisonment. (2013)[17]
      Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[18][19]

      W. Bush terms

      William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was charged in August 2005 after the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from his home freezer. He was re-elected to the House in 2006, but lost in 2008. He was convicted November 13, 2009, of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (2009)[39] Jefferson’s Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was sentenced to 84 months for bribery. (2006)[40]
      Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal involves the efforts of Abramoff to influence Congressional action concerning U.S. immigration and minimum wage laws. See Executive branch convictions. Congressmen convicted in the Abramoff scandal include:
      Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison. (2007)[41]
      Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty November 28, 2005, to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal and was sentenced to over eight years in prison. (2005)[42]
      Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005 and was sentenced to four years in prison. (2005)[43]
      Bill Janklow (R-SD) was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. Resigned from the House and given 100 days in the county jail and three years’ probation. (2003)[44]
      Jim Traficant (D-OH) was found guilty on ten felony counts of financial corruption, sentenced to eight years in prison and expelled from the House of Representatives. (2002)[45]
      Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested for lewd conduct in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007, and entered a guilty plea to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct on August 8, 2007.

      Rapist Bill Clinton terms:

      Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. (1997) He was later convicted of 12 counts of bank fraud. (1999)
      Wes Cooley (R-OR), was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years’ probation (1997)[52] He was later convicted of income tax fraud connected to an investment scheme. He was sentenced to one year in prison and to pay restitution of $3.5 million to investors and $138,000 to the IRS.[53]
      Austin Murphy (D-PA) was convicted of one count of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home. (1999)[54]
      House banking scandal[55] The House of Representatives Bank found that 450 members had overdrawn their checking accounts, but not been penalized. Six were convicted of charges, most only tangentially related to the House Bank itself. Twenty two more of the most prolific over-drafters were singled out by the House Ethics Committee. (1992)
      Buz Lukens (R-OH) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.[56]
      Carl C. Perkins (D-KY) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).[57]
      Carroll Hubbard (D-KY) was convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife’s 1992 campaign to succeed him in Congress.[58]
      Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.[59]
      Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) was convicted of filing false disclosure forms to hide unauthorized income.[60]
      Congressional Post Office scandal (1991–1995) was a conspiracy to embezzle House Post Office money through stamps and postal vouchers to congressmen.[61]
      Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995.[62]
      Joe Kolter (D-PA) pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and sentenced to 6 months in prison.(1996)[63][64]

    3. they gotta make a spectacle to overshadow the coming Meuller report outcome which will be a big disappointment for the Democrat smear machine. they’re spinning it already so you know it’s coming

  12. Who in their right mind would either hire or believe a man like this. Who would hire a lawyer that secretly tapes private lawyer client conversations. This guy will say anything to save his own a$$.

    1. I suspect Trump admired the man’s energy, resourcefulness, and aggression. Turley keeps going on about what a lousy lawyer he is. Turley doesn’t practice law in New York (or, really, anywhere), so no clue how he’d know. But this chap from a fairly ordinary background with a very ordinary tour through higher education nevertheless made himself wealthy through a variety of businesses. Trouble is, the man’s unethical, and that’s come back to bite him. (And bite Trump in the process).

      Trump’s personnel decisions are very uneven.

      1. “Turley keeps going on about what a lousy lawyer he is. ”

        You noticed that too eh? Notice how he has given Avenatti a pass

        “JUDGEMENT DAY”
        Judge Poised to Force Michael Avenatti to Open Books in Divorce Case
        Stormy Daniels’ lawyer claims he has paid his ex-wife what he owes, but she says he’s behind $1.7 million in child and spousal support.”
        https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-poised-to-force-michael-avenatti-to-open-books-in-divorce-case

        1. avenatti nor any other man owes any lady that much for child support. ridiculous

      2. I think your assessment of Cohen has been very high quality and the most plausible as far as I can tell. Thanks for repeating it

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      The entire Russia collusion vs. FBI corruption battle of narratives has proven to be a rush to judgment through “cognitive bias,” legal expert Jonathan Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.

      And it all started with the FBI’s use of the Democratic-funded dossier fueling a fire still burning, with the media fanning the flames, Turley wrote.

      “The result is two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other,” Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote. “There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons.

      “Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.”

    2. More quotations from Turley excerpted from the article linked above:

      “Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side,” he wrote. “In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives.

      “In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy.”

      Without a concrete answer, both sides have merely consolidated their original convictions, further polarizing it all, he added.

      “Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation,” Turley concluded. “Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.”

      [end excerpt]

      What a lovely plaintive tone Turley adopts in the quotations above. It’s almost as though Turley were suing for peace. All we have to do to achieve that peace is to confess our “path dependency,” accept that each side may have been equally wrong about the other side and forego any concrete answer that consolidates either the one or the other of our original, polarized convictions.

      Compare that to the tone Turley deploys in today’s original post about Cohen’s upcoming Congressional testimony. Surely something’s up with Turley.

      1. Extra credit multiple choice pop quiz.

        [“T]he greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history” was

        A) The Maginot Line.

        B) The Treaty of Versailles

        C) The Mueller Probe.

  14. Excerpted from FOXNews c/o Slate:

    “So I’m going to ask you,” Pirro says with a laugh, “Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia?” Trump fired back: “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked. I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written.”

    Repeated for emphasis: “I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written.”

    Did Trump really say that? Yes he did. But what did Trump mean by what Trump said? Well . . . We’ve all seen that trick before. Haven’t we? Trump misspoke. Trump did not mean to say that he, Trump, had the NYT write “the most insulting article [Trump has] ever had written.” That’s merely what Trump said. What Trump probably meant to say was . . .

    You know what? Somebody lese is going to have to fill in that blank. Trump has been planting stories with Maggie Haberman and Mike Schmidt of the NYT for many years. Consequently, I’m not going to discount the possibility for a literal interpretation of Trump’s remark to Pirro. Trump may very well have had his old pals Maggie and Mike write up “the most insulting article that [Trump has] ever had written.”

      1. Tom Nash meant to say that the question he posted above is what Trump really meant to say when Trump said that the NYT article was “the most insulting article that [Trump has] ever had written.”

        1. What L4B “really means” is that she won’t answer the question😷, and will stonewall any and all questions about allegations that are in the Coven-Commie Dossier.

          1. I thought it was the most insulting question that Trump has ever had written.

            1. Yet again, L4B refuses to address the allegations of her Communist Party membership that were leaked from the Coven-Commie Dossier.

              1. By the way Tom, when you ask her that question you have to consider that she strongly sounds like a child born into a Stalinist family. When the Stalin papers were released the impact was so great that many of the children strayed from the former hard line Stalinist line to what was called the New Left that tried to distance its reputation from Stalin but not the basis of their ideology.

      2. I’m fascinated to know which public bureaucracy turfed out Lies4Breakfast with an early retirement deal because they coudn’t stand her a minute longer but the shoe-leather costs of a series of dismissal proceedings (and tangling with a labor lawyer provided by AFSCME or the NEA) were excessive.

        1. The entire Russia collusion vs. FBI corruption battle of narratives has proven to be a rush to judgment through “cognitive bias,” legal expert Jonathan Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.

  15. Trump’s lawyer’s decision to assert executive privilege over decisions Trump made as President-Elect to avoid answering Mueller’s questions about the transition period may have deprived Trump of an adequate defense against a charge of soliciting a bribe.

    The adequate defense at issue would have been that a President-Elect cannot commit an “official act,” even though the President-Elect is still a “public official” of sorts. But if the President-Elect cannot commit and “official act,” then the President-Elect cannot assert executive privilege over decisions made during the transition period.

    Thus, in order to provide their client, Trump, with an adequate defense against a charge of soliciting a bribe, Trump’s lawyers ought properly to withdraw their assertion of executive privilege over decisions Trump made as President-Elect and agree to have Trump answer Mueller’s questions about the transition period. If their client, Trump, can’t answer those questions without incriminating himself, then Trump’s lawyers will have deprived Trump of an adequate defense against a charge of solicitation of a bribe.

    Keep that in mind when listening to Michael D. Cohen’s testimony before Congress.

  16. Amazing how Turley can thoroughly discredit the man in advance without mention of the fact he was generally lying on the behalf of and with full knowledge of an even bigger liar. There is no question Cohen is a liar, but he also has records and tapes. There is also no question that he has access and knowledge related to Trump’s dealings. It will likely be disappointing due to the number of questions he’ll be unable to answer. We will see.

    1. When the time arrives, Turley will turn on a dime and do to Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn the exact same thing that Turley is currently doing to Michael D. Cohen, just as Turley has been doing to Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone and the whole rest of Trump’s crew–save one.

      If Turley truly were Trump’s defense counsel, then Turley’s technique would make perfect sense.

    2. Enigma wrote

      “Amazing how Turley can thoroughly discredit the man in advance without mention of the fact he was generally lying on the behalf of and with full knowledge of an even bigger liar.”

      As Peter Shill would say, Bill Clinton has been out of the White House for years. Why continue to mention “the bigger liar”….or did you mean Hillary?
      😜

      1. There’s no indication that Trump’s former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, has records and tapes of Bill Clinton.

      2. estovir – Clinton lied his ass off on a few specific subjects. Trump lies about absolutely everything. 239 lbs.? He’s not even a good liar, you and others just don’t care.

  17. For a man like Cohen, there is no truth or falsehood, just what’s convenient at the moment. He was loyal to Trump until he calculated that was potentially injurious to people closer to him (in this case, himself, his wife, his children, and perhaps any proximate relations involved in his businesses).

    When partisan Democrats aren’t lying, they resort to pettifoggery. They’ve had a number of gambits so far. The emoluments clause was one. Reconceptualizing a non-disclosure agreement as a ‘campaign contribution’ is another. None of it has anything to do with a concern for the law per se.

    1. The emoluments clause is not a trifle.

      Are we to ignore the Constitution?

      2. You do whenever it suits you. So we know how that works with you guys.

        In the case of Trump you have thrown out due process entirely; he is deemed guilty from the start with no presumption of innocence

        I guess that’s WHY the FBI converted the investigation into a counterintelligence one– to obfuscate the fact that they were finding little or no evidence of any chargeable crime against the POTUS

        this has been a landmark event of FBI over-reach as bad as Hoover

        wait don’t buy it coming from me buy it coming from Glenn Greenwald hardly a fan of Trump

        https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1084844716636733440?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

    2. “For a man like Cohen, there is no truth or falsehood, just what’s convenient at the moment. He was loyal to Trump until he calculated that was potentially injurious to people closer to him (in this case, himself, his wife, his children, and perhaps any proximate relations involved in his businesses).“

      For a man like Trump, there is no truth or falsehood, just what’s convenient at the moment. He was loyal to Cohen until he calculated that was potentially injurious to people closer to him (in this case, himself, his wife, his children, and perhaps any proximate relations involved in his businesses).

      1. No, he was loyal to Cohen until Cohen turned on him. This isn’t that difficult.

  20. Considering how many Members of Congress have been arrested on corruption and other felonies over the years it would appear Mr. Cohen might find in this a great opportunity to meet other like minded individuals.

Comments are closed.