Report: Trump Told Cohen To Lie To Congress

There is a new report out today that President Donald Trump directed his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. The sources are described as two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. It is not clear if that means two officials currently involved or previously involved (which would include some of the fired or removed officials like Andrew McCabe or James Comey). Nevertheless, if true, such an allegation could easily be translated into a criminal allegation or article of impeachment. It comes down to the proof. What is clear is that, if the proof is Cohen alone, they have work to do on this one. Cohen is a serial liar and felon. I have written that I agree with the Democrats in calling him to testify and that his testimony could prove useful in giving needed details. However, Cohen is about as credible as a mob torpedo without being thoroughly and completely verified by more credible sources. There are also some gaps in the story as well as obvious defenses.

The Buzzfeed story says that, while he was denying any business deals in Moscow, Trump supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign and to meet with President Vladimir Putin. He is quoted as saying “Make it happen” to Cohen. Cohen says that Trump later told him to lie about the timeline and the effort to build a Trump Tower worth hundreds of millions in Moscow.

Trump told the public he had no business deals with Russia, though he could claim that this was not a business deal but simply one of many prospective deals. Later (when Cohen flipped and revealed the alleged details) Trump gave the answer that he should have given from the outset: “There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would have gotten back into the business, and why should I lose lots of opportunities?”

That is plausible for a developer. However Cohen is saying that after the election he was directed coached to lie to Congress by Trump and further implicates Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. in misleading statements about their claims of minimal roles. Yet, again, perjury and false statements prosecutions must be based on something a bit more tangible than Trump Jr. referring to being “peripherally aware” of the project. That is a subjective description and a prosecution would normally involve more concrete false statements that can be proven objectively to be untrue.

Nevertheless, the story only highlights the significance of the testimony of Cohen on February 7th. Cohen however may be getting cold feet after no allegations arose his week over his arranging to rig polls and pocketing money illegally from the Trump organization. Lying the public in a campaign is not a crime or most of Congress would be dealing with constituents from the federal pen. However, encouraging a congressional witness to lie is a crime. You just have to prove it.

205 thoughts on “Report: Trump Told Cohen To Lie To Congress”


    Democrats don’t care about American families or the Dreamers. All the Democrats care about is power.

    [edited from various news sources.]

    About a third of the way into this article ( 8th paragraph, I think), there is mention that the perception within the DOJ is that Mueller’s statement means that the Buzzfeed allegations are mostly false.
    The reasoning being that Mueller does not like to communicate with the press, the public, or anyone outside of the tight Special Counsel/ DOJ investigative circle; and that he would not have taken the extraordinary ( for him) step of issuing a public statement unless there was really critical need for him to correct the record.

    1. Mueller can’t stand leaks nor leakers. That’s for sure. But the main problem with the BuzzFeed report is the timing [not now] and the revelation of details that Mueller was holding back to protect ongoing investigations. What Cohen said in his allocution statements is the only information that Mueller was willing publicly to disclose until later [as in not now]. The BuzzFeed report discloses additional details about Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump that had only been hinted at in Cohen’s allocution. Now there are two investigators in deep trouble with the boss. I wouldn’t want to be either one of those two.

      1. It’s not primarily a matter a leaks….a major problem is that we’ve got this 30 months of investigative limbo, innuendo, speculation…. and the investigators have gone out of their way to avoid say jack**** about where they’re at, where they’re going with this thing, and when, or will, they wrap it up.
        This endless garbage about. “needing to protect the investigation” is really wearing thin.

        1. Tom, you’re in absolute denial. From your comments above, one might think the Mueller Probe has revealed ‘nothing whatsoever’.

          But the fact is the Mueller Probe has already led to several indictments and convictions. Paul Manafort was the most dubious of campaign managers. Michael Flynn was the most dubious of National Security Advisors. Michael Cohen was the most dubious lawyer a president could have had!

          Yet outraged Republicans like Tom Nash keep pretending the Mueller Probe has found ‘nothing’.

          1. “Tom, you’re in absolute denial. From your comments above, one might think the Mueller Probe has revealed ‘nothing whatsoever’.”

            Peter, the Russia probe was to find out if the President was involved in illegal dealings with Russian politicians. It was not to convict people of not filling out the right forms, forgetting details in discussion with the FBI, errors etc.

            With regard toTrump and with regard to the nature of the investigation, what has Mueller found to date? NOTHING!

            All the other garbage you talk about either did not require a special prosecutor or shouldn’t have happened.

            We have however, learned a lot about Mueller and his involvment in many failures and in other things that should never have happened. We also have learned that he will surround himself with people that are investing something where they played a part. I applaud Mueller for his military service, but I don’t think he has performed all that well since then though he may have satisfied the puerile needs of our leadership.

            1. Alan, if you think legitimate presidents retain lawyers like Michael Cohen, then ‘your’ sense of ethics is open to question.

              1. Peter, once again you speak based on the knowledge of a no-nothing or an unsuccessful person. I don’t like Cohen and knowing what I know today I wouldn’t deal with him. However, before all of this I knew little of Michael Cohen so if it appeared as if he was the one to get my job done I might have hired him.

                Has anyone ever taken note when one of the most prominent members of a community ends up on the front page of the newspaper charged with heinous crimes? Think of Madoff. Some of the most convincing people end up being the biggest criminals. Your ability to think more than one level deep is severely impaired.

              2. What, he’s ‘illegitimate’ because Michael Cohen worked for him? Was BO ‘illegitimate’ because he undertook business deals with Tony Rezko? How about HRC and her law partner, Webb Hubbell?

          2. The “convictions ” you speak of have little to NOTHING to do with the underlying allegations of Trump “working for or with the Russians” to win this election. So far there is NO evidence to show that he did. The convictions you speak lead me to believe that the purpose of this “investigation ” is to distroy the lives of as many people around Trump as possible. Tell me again what crime did Congress tell Mueller to investigate

          3. That is a standard response….look at the scorecard!
            Look at all of the indictments, etc.!
            I said earlier in this thread, and I’ve said previously, that when an investion is targeting a president because of allegations that he has illegally conspired with a foreign leader, it’s critical to answer that question in a sonewhat timely manner.
            I’ve said THAT has not been done, not that “nothing whatsoever” has been done.

            And if investigations are going to drag from the time of president’s candidacy, months before the election, midway into his first term, it’s essential to keep the public generally informed about where the investigation is at, where it’s headed, and when it might wrap up.
            Those three things don’t have to be precise daily updates, involve mass unredaction of document, compromise investigations, etc.
            But there needs to be something better than stone, cold silence.
            Maybe you’re tired of the “stream😷😒of updates and announcements” coming out of the Special Counsel’s Office.
            Presidential election campaign cycles have gotten longer and longer over the years; it’s early 2019, and we’re already seeing candidates either declaring, or signaling that they likely will be candidates.
            That is an additional time factor element that makes stretching out this extended melodrama even more damaging.
            Sorry if this response distracts from your holy work as the sanctimonious propaganda mouthpiece for the DNC, St. Peter.

      2. “But the main problem with the Buzzfeed report is the timing ( not now) and the revelation of details that Mueller was holding back to protect ongoing invetigations”.
        Based on the indications that I’ve seen, and the reporting I have seen, the “main problem with” the Buzzardfeed report is that it falsely claimed that there are documents and other strong evidence that show that Trump instructed Cohen to lie.
        The main problem does not seem to be, “well, the allegations and other claims in the Buzzardfeed article are basically correct but Mueller didn’t want it to come out just now”.
        So, which is it? Is it “just a matter of timing”, or that the claims made by Buzzfeed are basically BS. We “should know” for sure in fairly short order. But we “should know” a lot more about what’s going on if the Special Counsel bothered to ever communicate with the American public.
        In the meantime, people can “place their bets” on the scenario laid out above by Late4Dinner, that “it’s the timing”, or the other scenario, that the Buzzardfeed article is BS.

        1. Mueller may need to rely upon Cohen’s testimony at a trial of members of the Trump campaign, such as Donald Trump Jr., just to name one, on a charge of Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. The question of whether Trump explicitly directed Cohen to lie to Congress in 2017 rather than merely encouraging Cohen to give congressional testimony in 2017 that was consistent with Trump’s “messaging” during the campaign in 2016 is almost certainly irrelevant to Mueller’s case-in-chief against members of the Trump campaign, such as Don Jr., for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States during the campaign in 2016.

          As for the notion that the “. . . Buzzardfeed report . . . falsely claimed that there are documents and other strong evidence that show that Trump instructed Cohen to lie,” the sourcing for that BuzzFeed report might very well be two law enforcement officials from the Southern District of New York, who have no need to rely on Cohen’s testimony at any trial of Individual 1 or his eponymous Organization. Consequently, there’s a distinct possibility that such documents and witness statements might exist “that show Trump instructed Cohen to lie,” but that are nonetheless irrelevant to the case-in-chief that Mueller and his crew have been working on all the live long day.

          1. Like hell it’s “irrelevant”….IF in fact Trump directed Cohen to commit perjury, and there is strong evidence of that beyond a “he said/ he said” situation, that is about as relevant as you can get.
            The specific comments that L4D made were that it was “the leaking, and the timing ” of the Buzzardfeed article, and not the substance/ allegations in the article; she very carefully avoided saying that the allegations were false, and by stating that “the problem ” with the article was the “leaks/ timing”, strongly implied that the statement from Mueller’s office was not challenging the accuracy of the article.
            That was the point of my “which is it?” comment.
            Forget about peripheral issues like “timing or leaking” ; those allegations are either bogus, or they are not.

    2. P. S. Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post is no better than BuzzFeed. Barrett is grossly overstating the scope of the special counsel’s public statement that the BuzzFeed report is inaccurate. Barrett’s conclusion that the BuzzFeed report is mostly false does not follow from the special counsel’s public statement about the inaccuracy of the BuzzFeed report. Mueller is upset that the BuzzFeed report reveals more details about ongoing investigations than Mueller was willing publicly to disclose at this time. That’s the real problem with the BuzzFeed report.

        1. I’ll mark that on my calendar for Saturday January 19th, 2019. It could come in handy at a future date.

          P. S. Did you know that Devlin Barrett used to work at the Wall Street Journal circa 2016? WSJ fired Barrett for some kind of reason I can’t remember. Stay tuned.

          1. Correction: WSJ fired Jay Solomon who currently works at The Hill. Devlin Barrett “defected” to the WaPo for reasons that are not yet clear. It could have something to do with the various Clinton Foundation investigation stories that were planted in the WSJ in 2016.

          2. I think that L4B forgot to mark January 20th, which is not surprizing.
            I did not forget to mark it.

  3. Mueller’s office has called the BuzzFeed article “inaccurate”. The spin doctors of the Democratic Party and the left-leaning press are now reframing their narrative, saying an account can be “inaccurate but true”.

    It would have been helpful if Mueller’s office had defined in what ways the BuzzFeed article is inaccurate.

    “Inaccurate but true” is an oxymoronic phrase. If a statement is inaccurate, it is untrue in every way that it is inaccurate. Even the true parts of an inaccurate statement may be perverted to mean something untrue by the untrue parts of that statement that suggest or utter a falsehood..

    1. Left media can’t take “No” for an answer just like Jim Carey character in Dumb & Dumber: “So you’re telling me there’s a chance”. They parse words to desperately try to keep the Buzzcrap story alive. I noticed lefty loon Late4Yoga is responding this morning but I am not going to waste a minute reading any of her Shiite as she has no credibility. She is the same person who kept trying to spin the New York Times article on Manafort sharing polling data with Russians even after the news rag admitted it was fake news.

  4. Questions
    Are not All lawyers licenced to practice in the United States subject to rules, regulations and law that requires them to be honest ; as Officers of the court they are held to a Higher standard And are forbidden to take part in anything illegal.
    THUS, if your Non attorney client out of ignorance or with intent as you to perform an Illegal or unethical act; it is YOUR DUTY to refuse. No client can Make you break the law.
    Trump Told me to do it is Not a defence .

  5. The special counsel’s office has issued a rare public statement disputing the accuracy of a news report saying that President Donald Trump told his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

    Spokesman Peter Carr says, “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.”

  6. Mr. No Comment: Meet the Utahn who speaks for the special counsel’s Russia-Trump probe, but don’t expect him to say too much – The Salt Lake Tribune
    This guy is as busy as the Maytag repair man.
    I’d never heard of him until tonight; I wonder what he does with all of his spare time at work.

  7. “Report: Trump Told Cohen To Lie To Congress”

    “ Nevertheless, if true, such an allegation”

    I ask the professor why should he be writing so many stories on things where he has to say: “Nevertheless, if true…”? Doesn’t this story and a whole bunch of others by the press make the professor suspicious? Shouldn’t he be more suspicious then he is?

    It sounds like the professor is jumping too fast. We can now see why the media is known as FAKE NEWS (not a good thing as the country needs a stong and vibrant press that tells the truth and investigates.), but does professor Turley want his blog to be known as FAKE as well where he has to preface his comments with: “ Nevertheless, if true, such an allegation…”.

    1. “I ask the professor why should he be writing so many stories on things where he has to say: ‘Nevertheless, if true…’? — Allan

      Reads like many of your posts, Allan.

      “Doesn’t this story and a whole bunch of others by the press make the professor suspicious?” — Allan

      Seems it doesn’t, Allan. Also, why don’t you list your, “whole bunch of others”, that should make Turley suspicious. Present the documentation you so frequently berate others for not doing.

      “Shouldn’t he [Turley] be more suspicious then he is?” — Allan

      Obviously, your choice of adjective is wrong; maybe you mean cautious. Who knows, though, as they are your words — getting higher in frantic pitch every time you write them.

      “It sounds like the professor is jumping too fast.” — Allan

      It is possible, Allan, that your bumping posterior can’t keep up.

      “We can now see why the media is known as FAKE NEWS … but does professor Turley want his blog to be known as FAKE as well …” — Allan

      Your obtuseness in recognizing your own hypocrisy is showing. You valiantly point out other’s, but this post of yours supersedes any that you have so copiously commented on.

      1. WWAS, I see that you have difficulty understanding things that are not in their simplest form. Turley jumped on a report that was FAKE NEWS based on the words ‘IF true”. He has done that before. I don’t think that helps Professor Turley in the long run.

        “Shouldn’t he [Turley] be more suspicious then he is?” — Allan

        “Obviously, your choice of adjective is wrong; maybe you mean cautious.” WWAS

        Since there have been so many news reports (FAKE NEWS) that have turned out wrong and jumped upon for ideological reasons he should be both more suspicious and cautious. Instead of assuming BuzzFeed (unconfirmed) was accurate and writing an ‘if true story’ perhaps he should have skipped the story until confirmed or used a different way of presenting it. He has done this before with other media and you can look it up yourself. WWAS can say ‘the President met with Putin many times while on the campaign trail’. A careful person if writing a story would not hinge the story on an ‘If true’ proposition. Eventually it would look silly which is what you sound like in this narrative of yours. So be it, for you sillyness is par for the course.

  8. Buzzfeed is Sh!tfeed.

    And a little song to warm your hearts:
    (sung to the tune of ‘Wheels on the bus go round and round’)

    the dems on the bus go waa waa waa, waa waa waa, waa waa waa, the dems on the bus go waa waa waa, all thru DC

    1. Gee, what a shock. Prepare for another Russian/impeachment “blockbuster” story next week. It’s become a circus.

    2. Gee, what a shock. I wonder what next week’s Russian/impeachment “bombshell” story will look like.

    1. Mespo,…
      There was an article about a week ago in the WaPo about reporters’ anger at Buzzardfeed for their sloppy reporting.
      If this is as bad as it looks for that rag, I hope it ends up as roadkill.

  9. Speaking of lies, Gillibrand comes to mind, that amazing defender of Bill Clinton after he was found guilty of raping women, commiting perjury, losing his law license and now preening to be the defender of women…um…womyn

    How Dims can show their faces in public and pretend to be for anyone except themselves is a mystery that blow the Big Bang Theory by a few light years


    As Ms. Gillibrand passes the hat down Wall Street, the money will keep piling up. Maybe she can tap the Clintons’ network, too, if she has convinced them to forgive her.

    Asked last February if she had spoken to them recently, Ms. Gillibrand demurred. “I don’t wanna talk about that, but—I can tell you one thing,” she said. “Hillary Clinton is still my greatest role model in politics.”

    Now there’s a slogan for 2020.

  10. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

    – Lavrentiy Beria
    Stalin’s Director of Secret Police

    Hillary Clinton set up an illegal server, illegally used private e-mail, mishandled classified material and conducted the destruction of evidence consisting of 30K e-mails using Bleachbit. She conducted a lucrative, global pay-for-play scheme as Sec. of State. She was complicit with and conspired with a known philanderer, molester, batterer and rapist.

    Obama set up a pseudonymous e-mail account to illegally and “covertly” correspond with Hillary using her illegal server and illegal private e-mail and was complicit with Hillary in mishandling classified materiel.

    We have a preponderance of irrefutable evidence against Hillary and Obama.

    We have no evidence of a crime by President Trump.

    We do have an inexorable, open-ended, political “witch-hunt” executed with extreme prejudice by Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller and his Schutzstaffel which no one in Washington D.C. could come away from unscathed.

    “If Comey had indicted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama.”

    – Andrew McCarthy
    National Review

    “Americans commit an average of three felonies a day.”

    – Mic

    Peter Strzok, “We’ll stop it.”

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

    Lisa Page, ” The texts mean what the texts say.”

    “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

    – Lavrentiy Beria
    Stalin’s Director of Secret Police

Comments are closed.