Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics

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”

  1. Another puff-piece Turley? all the news reports including from the reporter who broke the story include mention of evidence well beyond Cohen. But somehow you just didn’t think to include that fact here.

    1. “all the news reports including from the reporter who broke the story include mention of evidence well beyond Cohen.”

      I didn’t see any such proof. Opinion is not proof.

    2. Laudanum,
      Can you be more specific on the evidence that you think is missing from column?

    3. “evidence well beyond Cohen”

      Laudyms, I guess that evidence doesn’t exist and you were very easily suckered.

        1. I’m working on it. Don’t rush me. Mueller is seriously pissed off about the leak and BuzzFeed went too far with their reporting. Cohen had said in his allocution for his guilty plea for lying to Congress that he had told those lies to Congress so as to be consistent with Individual 1’s messaging and out of loyalty to Individual 1. And that was the full extent of the information that Mueller was willing to let Cohen share with the public or with Congress at this time. The two law enforcement officers familiar with the investigation who leaked the extra details about Cohen briefing Don Jr. and Ivanka ten times about the Trump Tower Moscow deal are probably going to be fired, or at least reassigned, as soon as Mueller figures out exactly who those two investigators are. Because . . .

          Mueller did not yet want us to know that Cohen briefed Don Jr. and Ivanka ten times about the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

            1. The public revelation of that detail tells Trump that Mueller may be investigating Don Jr. and Ivanka for having coordinated Cohen’s lies to Congress with top executives of the Trump Organization so as to be consistent with Trump’s messaging during Trump’s campaign for President.

              Or did you mean the other thing? You know. The Trump Tower Moscow deal itself? While running for President? While sending signals to Russia that Trump is willing to grant sanctions relief to Russia? While the GRU was hacking the DNC et al? And shortly before Wikileaks released the first batch of DNC emails the the GRU had hacked? Is tat what you’re asking about, Dr, Benson, when you ask “So what is wrong with that?”

                1. Solicitation of a bribe is the legal issue at stake with the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

                  Giving Putin kompromat that can be exploited to extort sanctions relief and other favors from Trump is the national security issue at stake with the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

                2. Also, the legal issue [solicitation of a bribe] and the national security issue [Russian kompromat on Trump] are connected to one another.

                  Trump probably thought that if he solicited the bribe before he became a public official [President Elect] and before he became capable of committing an official act [lifting sanctions against Russia] then Trump could not be charged with solicitation of a bribe. But Putin probably thinks, or may even know, that Trump and Trump’s children promised to consider sanctions relief for Russia if Trump became President.

                  And it is that promise that makes Trump’s defense against a charge of soliciting a bribe wrong. You see, had Trump lost the election, then Trump would not have become a public official capable of committing an official act. In which case, Trump’s promises to Putin could not be the basis for a charge of soliciting a bribe. Unfortunately, Putin took Trump up on the offer and got Trump elected. And now Putin wants what Trump and Trump’s children promised Putin.

                  So the legal quandary is also a national security problem.

          2. Mueller seems to prefer that the American public be kept in the dark as much as possible.
            If he had his druthers, he’d probably like to see Secret State Trials.
            There aren’t many people as politically tone deaf as Mueller and his former boss Rosenstein.
            This creates a problem, because after 2 1/2 years of investigations with no answers to the (supposed) central purpose and central questions of the investigations, the public gets increasingly fed up with this crap.

            1. Mueller’s redactions are primarily for the purpose of protecting ongoing investigations. When those ongoing investigations reach their conclusions, most of Mueller’s redactions will be publicly disclosed. By then, whatever classified information might be behind Mueller’s redactions will have been replaced with grand jury information suitable for public disclosure without compromising any sources or methods of intelligence gathering. There was no classified information entered into evidence at Manafort’s EDVA trial. And CIPA was not invoked for the Concord Management trial, either.

              1. I’m not talking about the redactions; my complaint is that these investigators seem to think that they can drag this thing on and on, and feel that they don’t owe the American public an even basic level of communication about the issues I raised earlier.
                This whole 2 1/2 show is supposed to be about investigating a president’s possible conspiracy with a foreign leader, and we are no closer to any conclusion now, as far as public information/ updates, than we were in mid-2016.
                The redactions are one thing….”protecting the investigation” is another thing….but this protracted presence of a mute, stone-faced grand inquisitor who seems to feel that he is “somehow above” an even basic level of communication about what the hell he’s doing is
                getting really old.
                If Mueller u
                Is trying to give tractionto Trump’s claims that this is a witch hunt, he ‘s been doing a hell of a job if it.

        2. Tom wondering what Diane will write tomorrow is like waiting and watching a sewer back up.

              1. You’ll both be wearing flood pants soon enough.

                Don’t forget the clothes-pins for your noses.

  2. Professor Turley:

    Cohen is a serial liar and felon.

    While this statement is true, two questions need to be asked:

    1. Is Donald Trump so stupid that for 12 years he had in his employ Michael Cohen – a “serial liar” and eventual “felon”?

    Note: You wrote articles about the potential damage Cohen posed to Trump when the “Stormy Daniels” and Karen McDougal cases became public.

    2. Why did Donald Trump keep Michael Cohen in his employ for 12 years without knowledge that Cohen was a “serial liar” and eventual “felon” that could implicate Trump in breaking laws that bear potential impeachment hearings?

    Something is just not right. Even if Cohen is now recognized as “a serial liar and felon”, what does Cohen have to lose by telling the truth now?

    The US Attorney’s Office of the SDNY knows who “Individual 1” is. It does remain to be seen if “they have work to do on this one”, we won’t know until the DOJ Special Counsel’s office releases its finding to Congress and the general public.

    Also, the Special Counsel’s office approved Michael Cohen’s public appearance on February 7, 2019 before House Oversight Committee.

    The optics look very bad for Trump, perhaps even criminal – Trump looks impeachable.

    And since the Donald J. Trump Foundation has been found in violation of 501(c)(3) IRS regulations, methinks Cohen is not the only serial liar; and that if Donald Trump were not sitting in the Oval Office today he’d have possibly been indicted by a grand jury in all of this along with Michael Cohen. But, that’s just my hunch. You’re the legal expert. /sarc

    apologies in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors.

  3. The whole thing is moot, Rudy G said the whole thing is false, and who in America does not believe Rudy G?…. I’m glad I got thru that one without spitting out my covfefe and hamberder.

    1. You mean the Rudy G that helped Mueller, GW Bush, Chaney, Rummy, etc., Cover Up 9/11/2001, you mean that guy?

        1. You’ve just shown yourself a Fool here. Ph’in moron the physical evidence proves as much if you believe otherwise.

          1. physical evidence proves as much

            Yeah, Judy Wood rattling on about the structural properties of trees. And Stephen Jones taking time off from his cold fusion work to ‘locate’ ‘thermite’.

            1. My decades of putting up buildings of which I was fully liable for sez your a phk’in idiot if you believe “Their Official Story”.

              If so & you love that official version, by all means please explain it to our readers here, we’re all ears.

              Oh, & isn’t it about time to release those security tape videos/Pics?

  4. MOST SIGNIFICANT PASSAGE IN COLUMN EXPLAINS..

    WHY WE DON’T WANT ‘BUSINESSMEN’ RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

    “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?”
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    This passage lays bare the essential conflicts attendant when a CEO decides to run for president while still operating a business empire. Of course there will be conflicts that look scandalous in retrospect. For this one reason we have always wanted presidents to come from other branches of government. Experienced politicians, with careers in government, are easier to track.

    This passage also illustrates Trump’s basic tendency to keep ‘his’ interests in mind. When Trump says he saw no need to lose ”opportunities”, the reference is ‘money’, of course. Not necessarily money Trump had spent, but money he might not make. Historically this worry is known as GREED. ‘Greedy people worry about the money they might not make’.

    Congress needs to hear from Michael Cohen. Even if Cohen is a proven liar, his testimony can still be probed and cross-checked for truth.

    1. WHY WE DON’T WANT ‘BUSINESSMEN’ RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

      No, you don’t, because you want political offices limited to skeevy lawyers like John Edwards and useless dilletantes like Barack Obama. Since 1960, you’ve had scores of competitive Democratic presidential candidates, but only three with any history in the business sectors, the last of whom ran in 1992.

      1. Tabby, the careers of career politicians are far easier to track than the careers of so-called businessmen. Furthermore, Trump ran a ‘private company’ which means it had no obligation to issue quarterly reports to stockholders. Private companies can maintain levels of secrecy which keeps them essentially ‘dark’ to investigating journalists. This conflict with Trump Tower Moscow illustrates the perils of CEO politicians. America is better off without them.

        1. Tabby, the careers of career politicians are far easier to track than the careers of so-called businessmen.

          No, they’re not. Business has operational measures of competence. Career pols like John Kerry are for something before they’re against it.

          1. Tabby are you serious?

            “Business has operational measures of competence”.

            The Wall Street Journal, which you claim to read, carries stories every day about incompetent managers who ran their businesses into the ground. We’ve all had bosses less knowledgable than their assistants.

            This idea that ‘business knows best’ is the most ridiculous myth in politics.

            1. he was right. business has the very operational measure of competence called profits. its a very solid point and i have heard it a thousand times from regular sane and sensible folks over the years who have rued the lack of participation by some of our more competent business managers who dont want the hassles that come with politics. which is why you get a lot of inferior people in it.

              Harry Truman was an example of a non-lawyer Democrat businessman who became president. But, that was before the administrative leviathan had grown so bold.

    2. This is a bad trend. A person does not have to be a lawyer to win elected office in this country and unless it were a judgeship, should not. I am a lawyer and I feel that is bad for our republic and what they wrote against Trump for being a businessman is foolish and wrong.

      Moreover, Cohen is not a credible witness against his own former client.

      1. oh as Democrat candidates go John Edwards was not bad. I kind of liked him.

        But i agree the POTUS does NOT need to be a lawyer and nobody sensible should even suggest it. But it does show that “lawfare” has gone too far.

        1. Kurtz, I never said politicians ‘have’ to be lawyers. But they should at least have a verifiable track record in public office.

          One should note that no major corporation would hire a CEO with no experience in management. Why should ‘lack of’ experience be an ‘asset’ for The White House? It isn’t, as we can clearly see with Trump.

          1. But they should at least have a verifiable track record in public office.

            Barack Obama’s ‘verifiable track record’ incorporated NO executive experience and 10 undistinguished years in legislative bodies.

            1. Obama’s experience as a community organizer is part of what made him a success as a politician. There were other factors like patronage from Tony Rezko and others. One might go on and one. but I want to credit his aspect of his experience. It helped him beat Hillary in the primaries.

              It may seem like an obnoxious sort of activity but the theory and practice that goes into it is powerful and the American Republican right wingers consistently fail to exercise the basic social insights that go into decades of leftist agitation aka community organizing.

              I have heard a lot of people insult obama for being a community organizer but they may not be familiar with just how much social change (for good or mostly for bad ) has been ginned up by such activists.

              it’s a subject that right wingers must find boring because when I try to explain this they get all glassy eyed.

              The NRA is about the only grassroots right wing type outfit that has consistent success year after year. but, it has a special interest community to feed it, which gives it an advantage.

          2. ” Why should ‘lack of’ experience be an ‘asset’ for The White House?”

            No one is experienced for the Presidency of the US. All have serious deficiencies and Trump was no different but the politicians of the day weren’t doing their jobs. That is how Trump got elected. Peter foolishly claims that they need a “verifiable track record in public office.” Where did that lead us? It led us to nonfunctional government that couldn’t even pass a budget when one controlled the two houses of Congress and the White House. Trump had a public record that was probably far more open than the records of most policians. The public knew his downsides and they voted for him. He is President and Peter can’t accept that Hillary (the thief) lost.

          3. He has tons of executive experience with major assets and massive amounts of contracts and workers and public image and so forth. Actually in that sense he was well qualified.

            also, I think he’s doing fine, especially considering the sabotage in government from day one.

            1. Huh?! Who’s “doing fine?” If you’re referring to the antics of the day glo bozo I’d like you to to keep posting materials Just. Like. This. That’s rich; even the bozo himself has figured out what that ticking sound is.

              this is to “ya know, the Titanic looked pret–ty swell when it left port” kurtzie

        2. oh as Democrat candidates go John Edwards was not bad. I kind of liked him.

          1. Sorry, you’ll never make a personal injury lawyer who made himself wealthy via junk science ‘likable’.

          2. Sticking it to his cancer-stricken wife by nailing the likes of Lisa Jo Druck / Allison Poole / Rielle Hunter isn’t likable either.

          1. oh, a lot of people in his neck of the woods liked him alright. most people are not up on what’s junk science or not.

            and those women liked him for sure. LOL

          2. Who brought up John Edwards..?? Why is ‘he’ relevant?? I could go on and on naming Republicans mired in dumb scandals. But what’s the point?

            1. Do you even read the comments of others, PH?
              You could answer your own questions in 2-3 minutes by reading a few of the comments above.

              1. Tom, since you’re so knowledgeable, why is John Edwards relevant here? It’s just a right-wing media habit to always frame everything with ‘what abouts’ And that’s the only reason Edwards entered this discussion. He was a “What about–

                1. Peter Hill,
                  Ordinarily, I don’t do the work for a lazy fool like you who will not spent a few minutes answering his own silly questions.
                  I’ll make an exception here, since you can’t spare the time to read others’ comments when your so busy running your HHHNN media empire.
                  One of your headlines blared:
                  “WHY WE DON’T WANT BUSINESSMEN FOR PRESIDENTS”.
                  That drew a response about the various backgrounds…..you see, a business background is a background, or what one did prior to running for, or becoming president.
                  Are you following, Peter?
                  I’ll risk getting ahead of you if you are already lost.
                  John Edwards was mentioned, among others, as one’s whose background as a “skeevy lawyer” did not particularly make him well-qualified as a presidential candidate.
                  I think you added that you kind of liked Edwards before you then objected, for whatever reason, to his name being brought up.
                  I’m not going to repeat every word of every exchange that got us from point A to point B; since you didn’t read through it the first time, you sure as hell can’t be expected to read it if it’s presented to you again.
                  Maybe if people wrote their comments to you IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, YOU MIGHT READ THEM, YOU CLOWN.

    3. As I recall, when Trump first said he had no business deals in Russia, everybody already knew he had been exploring the idea of building a Trump tower in Russia. He was using the idea that he might be elected, to advance a smooth slide into building a Trump tower, while also not actually having a business deal in place.

      Being a mentally dysfunctional narcissist should be grounds for impeachment, but apparently is not. Having a business relationship with Russia shouldn’t be grounds for impeachment, but apparently is.

      1. i could care less if he tried to bid on a tower in Moscow. He’s a builder. These are like the people who are always attacking lawyers because they represented a bad client. our system requires lawyers to represent people including baddies and it requires builders to build. So, enough already on this irrelevant side trip down memory lane

    4. “WHY WE DON’T WANT ‘BUSINESSMEN’ RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT”

      This statement represents that of a very small mind and one that is more accustomed to dealing with politicians that can’t get the job done, lie and take money under the table. In 2016 a businessman was elected to get the job done and Peter has been squealing ever since.

      One of the good things about good businessmen is they never close their eyes to new and different things and ideas. Having to deal with different ideas makes Peter dizzy so he thinks it is a bad idea.

      Peter complains of greed something he sees because he is laden with ENVY.

      1. The Democratic Party is largely run by people for whom the business sector is another country (or a set of people you shake down). So, Peter fancies public offices should be held by people who have no other profession but holding office, even if they know nothing about anything but process mechanics, fundraising, and publicity campaigns. Take a look at the people who’ve led the Democratic congressional caucuses for the last 60-odd years. You have 15 people. One crossed paths with the business sector, about five practiced law, and one had a miscellany of employments over 25 years including college teaching. The others were close to pure career pols, perhaps practicing law or teaching school for a few years.

        1. Addendum: one had miscellaneous wage employments for about a decade, including a stint as a butcher. He was the recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan in his spare time.

          1. Robert Byrd was a fine Congressman and you should stop associating him with the Democrat party which did not deserve him.

            Anyways there were a lot of kluckers in the old days. Today, previous few and none of any note. Although the phony defamation outfit the splc overcounts and exagerrates them

            Gilad Atzmon on how they fight hate with with hate.
            http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/fighting-poverty-with-a-hate-map/

            1. Actually, there weren’t. The 2d incarnation of the Klan was a fad organization which grew very rapidly between 1919 and 1924 and then imploded almost as rapidly. It formally dissolved in 1944. It was quite passe in 1942 when Byrd was organizing klaverns. Keep in mind also, he was organizing in West Virginia, a state where the black share of the population was in the low single digits. Neither his predecessor in the Senate (Chapman Revercomb) nor Jennings Randolph (who sat with him in the Senate for 25 years) were antagonists of the black political agenda. I think he was nearly unique in that respect in and among the West Virginia congressional delegation.

              The one thing he excelled at was putting pork in W. Va. Which hasn’t done the state’s economy any observable good.

              No clue why Unz screwball Gilad Atzmon is on your reading list.

              1. see here is how it works. when i read something smart, i don’t immediately dismiss it because somebody doesn’t like the author

                so gilad atzmon, a lot of people don’t like him, but he wrote a good article about a wretched fraud (the SPLC) so I posted it.

                you, and others, might find it enlightening. dont worry about the authorship all the time just focus on the value of the content

        2. “Peter fancies public offices should be held by people who have no other profession but holding office, even if they know nothing about anything but process mechanics, fundraising, and publicity campaigns.”

          Peter is not a deep thinker.

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

    Another wasted posting that is meaningless. Since Cohen’s word cannot be trusted he can only be used to lead investigators to evidence. I didn’t see that Professor Turley had any evidence telling Cohen to lie. Therefore, the posting should never have been made. It would have been better if it stated what Trump eventually stated and analyzed that statement but that wouldn’t have generated the excitement this phony headline does.

    1. Cohen’s allocution to his guilty plea for lying to Congress stated only that Cohen lied to Congress “to be consistent with Individual 1’s messaging and out of loyalty to Individual 1.” That was the only information that Mueller wanted Cohen to share with the public at this time. The BuzzFeed report went well beyond the limits of what Mueller wanted the public to know a this juncture. Mueller is especially upset about the revelation that Cohen had briefed Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump ten times on the Trump Tower Moscow deal. Cohen’s allocution statements had only hinted at that possibility. But now everybody knows what Mueller did not yet want us to know.

      1. Diane is once again mind reading the mind of Mueller and can even infom us of how disturbed Mueller is. She is even indicating that what Cohen said is true.

        No one outside of Mueller knows any of these things, but Diane says she knows. She keeps saying things like this and keeps getting them wrong. One day by accident Diane might actually get things right.

  6. It’s too bad Trump didn’t tell Cohen to jump off a bridge. doesn’t this guy have a mind of his own

  7. Words matter, especially in litigation. Trump has always said he had no business with Russia. Turley is absolutely correct: prospective business deals do not seem to have been questioned, making Trump’s statement NOT a lie, as media has portrayed it. Notwithstanding, Prof. Turley is also correct that coaching a witness to lie is a different matter. My gut/visceral reaction to this is that Cohen has twisted or distorted what Trump may have said. Unless there is an actual recorded conversation, I remain skeptical.

    1. The proper response for a lawyer asked to lie, is to refuse and maybe quit. Not to go lie and then snitch later. Or, lie and then make something up against the former client because chicken shoot lawyer Cohen is afraid of jail. Shameful Cohen!

      A good lawyer is willing to go to jail rather than do the wrong thing. Either for, or against, a client.

      1. Kurtz, that is the problem with many of the bloggers on this list. They do not understand personal responsibility. They want to blame others for their failures. Instead of recognizing someone elses hard work they blame such success on that person having an unfair advantage or taking something from them.

        Did you see Eastwood’s film the mule? It has a conservative ending rather than a Liberal one and is quite refreshing.

  8. Unverified unreliable and unidentified has been proven to be wrong so very many times one has to fall back on and rely the garlic smeared stake on this non issue.

    The party involved lives by the major credo that anything done or said to advance the party is to be considered the Party’s Truth.. no matter if it changes to further advance the party.

    Repeating a lie or series of lies by serial liars is the stuff of socialists and by direct connection socialist progressives under their many names some of which are continual lies by serial liars . Such as “Our Democracy.” The name “Democrat” or being “Democratic.”

    None of them are excluded including mediia propagandists, Hollywierds, campus snowflakes, DINO’s and RINO’s.

    What is truth to them is not truth to decent people with morals, values, ethics and standards such as Constitutionalists.

    Even the term Conservative is written in their manual “See The Elephant as a term to describe all who oppose them regardless of all else. While ‘liberals’ is their term for all that is good meaning those who parrot the continually changing truths of the Socialist Party under any name. International, National, or Progressive.

    Having failed to meet an objective examination we find the nature of that natural grouping is un-naturally ‘useless and dangerous’ therefore immoral to people with morals and

    REJECTED.

    for

    use of unidentified sources

    use of known sources that are immoral

    use of constant repetition in an attempt to give credence to falsehoods

    use of clearly identified untrustworthy sources known and unknown

    use of subjectivism

    use of mystic other worldisms

    and other fallacious premises

    Ergo Sum

    Objectivism wins every time

    BANG

    Case Closed but always kept under observation.

  9. Cohen is a “ceriel” liar. Quaker Oats liar. Of course I am not sure how to spull cerial when it pertains to breakfast food.

  10. From the article:

    “But when the Justice Department sought to determine whether the firm needed to register as a foreign agent under U.S. law, Skadden, relying on the partner’s representations, misled the Justice Department about the partner’s contact with the media and submitted false documents, according to the settlement.

    John Demers, the assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement that Skadden’s failure to register with the Justice Department “hid from the public that its report was part of a Ukrainian foreign influence campaign.”

    The settlement doesn’t name the Skadden partner, but it appears to be Greg Craig, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama who led the Ukraine work.”

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/17/manafort-law-firm-ukraine-justice-department-1110362

    1. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/prominent-global-law-firm-agrees-register-agent-foreign-principal

      “In both written and oral responses to the FARA Unit between February 6, 2013, and October 11, 2013, Skadden, in reliance on the lead partner, made false and misleading statements including, among other things, that Skadden provided a copy of the Report only in response to requests from the media and spoke to the media to correct misinformation about the report that the media was already reporting. The firm also submitted documents to the FARA unit that were false.”

      So, Gregory Craig, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, lied to DOJ officials. This is a felony.

      No criminal charges. The firm paid a hefty fine.

      But Paul Manafort? Quite different treatment “under the law.”

      1. ouch tbob well you see Skadden is a major biglaw firm with a lot of pull whereas manafort was thrown under the bus. so there you have it.

  11. “Clinton’s an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?”

    –Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), in a 1995 interview

    The Left didnt care when their favorite rapist was found guilty of perjury and lost his law license, and didnt care when his lying wife lied about everything.

    So now they are Evangelical Christians?

    Trump, like LBJ, can lie all he wants as long as he builds that darned wall.

  12. Jason Leopold wrote it. Doesn’t that say it all?*

    *For the uninitiated, he’s the same “bloodhound” who reported on Karl Rove’s indictment in the Plame affair (never happened), Army Sect’y Tom White’s role in ENRON (story in Salon retracted) and psychotropic drugs given to terrorists by US personnel ( never happened).

    Yeah he’s Bob Woodward alright. On second thought maybe he is.

  13. Buzzfeed is the same “news” organization that published the “dossier” when no other news organization would hold its nose and touch it with a ten foot pole. This story sourced from Rat & FBI leakers/saboteurs is dead on arrival and won’t have legs beyond noon today heading into nice NFC/AFC championship weekend. Come MLK holiday on Monday it will be Gone Baby Gone.

    1. https://goo.gl/images/fnNtt4
      So you’ve said…..and said, and said, and said, and said, and said.
      I get that, but personally I think the guy’s way too chatty.
      And his impersonation of Boris Karloff is only fair, at best.

      1. Marco just got back from his well-deserved Winter vacation. Marco has a life. Don’t be so jealous all the time.

        1. Your self-perceived psychic powers are obviously haywire.
          There’s nothing in my comment that indicates jealousy.
          That’s like me saying to you that “you’re very perceptive”, when you’ve said absolutely nothing to deserve that comment.

          1. Doesn’t Lies4Breakfast strike you as the sort of character who might once have been played by Geraldine Page?

    2. Marco is typical lefty with no game praying for back-door coup initiated by Deep State. “Thou shalt not give praise to false gods”.

      1. Marco has given absolutely no indication whatsoever of his political affinities.

        Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

      2. I served for 25 years on active duty in the US Navy. I interacted with Marines in my first ship, USS Inchon (LPH12; RIP), and during my last duty station at NAVAIR. Those two assignments total over 9 years. During both assignments every single Marine officer, including flag officers, with whom I interacted was completely professional, totally dedicated to the mission and utterly honest. In case you’ve forgotten, Mueller is a former combat wounded Marine officer. His record of service to this country is impeccable. That’s why I write, “In Mueller I trust.” He’s earned my trust.

        1. In case you’ve forgotten, Mueller is a former combat wounded Marine officer.

          We’re familiar with what he’s doing now and with elements of his legal career, all of which makes a dog’s breakfast of the thesis you’re advancing.

        2. Your blind faith in Muler is a classic case of “Appeal to Authority”. General Flynn with exemplary military record got no free pass for his stupid mistakes nor should Muler get free pass or blind faith for his excessive Zealotry. Marco. let’s be clear – I respect your, Flynn’s and Muler’s military service but none of you should be afforded blind faith as it relates to your actions and/or beliefs thereafter.

          2. My “blind faith” (great group, btw) is based on his DECADES of government service. While Trump was trying to get out of going to Vietnam, Mueller was rehab’ing a bad knee so he could become a Marine officer and serve his country.

            Trump claims his “Vietnam” was avoiding getting STD’s during the 1970s.

            Actions speak louder than workers.

            1. Marco, I have tremendous respect for all persons who have served in the military, Mueller included, especially those that were injured but the blind faith you promote is not justified. If you recall Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-marine. Likewise, many people who did not serve in the military have turned out to be great and trustworthy people as well.

              1. Oswald was bounced out with a dishonorable discharge, for which he fancied John Connolly bore some responsibility.

                What’s a tell is Marco’s attack on Oliver North while fellating Mueller. (As well as the witless substance of the attack).

                1. “Oswald was bounced out with a dishonorable discharge”

                  DSS, I am fuzzy on this but despite his court-martials while in the marines he was given an honorable discharge. I think there was some type of family hardship. His status may have been changed afterwards but I am not sure how that works. In any event my recolection itells me your comment is wrong.

                  1. I think it was changed after he defected to the USSR.
                    As I remember it, Oswald got discharged a bit early as the result of a family “hardship” application; his mother supposedly needed help.
                    Since he gave that reason, then almost immediately defected, his discharge status was reviewed and changed.
                    I think he corresponded with the Navy to try to get it changed back to “honorable” when he came back.
                    John Connelly was Asst. Sec. of the Navy for a time in earlier in the JFK Administration; Oswald may have corresponded with him directly, or at least he saw Connelly’s name attached to the denials he received.
                    There is a plausible theory that he was actually shooting at Connelly.

                    1. I knew some of the people that were in the ER when both arrived and being Texans they said they were more concerned for Connelly than JFK. I was somewhat surprised, but maybe I shouldn’t have been.

            2. once Mueller was a lawyer he did a bang up job alright. Screwed up the following:

              botched hells angels rico trial with phony provocateurs and snitches and undercovers that were not believed by jury

              failed to supervise boston fbi office which was complicit with snitch whitey bulger’s various murders

              botched anthrax investigation and framed innocent man who was later exonerated

              lied about Iraq WMDs as FBI director

              shall i go on. ? I know various people who served and none of them lionize themselves for it and not even some veterans I know who were every bit the hero. Yet they don’t talk about it or expect a pass for what they did decades ago. stop with the old news

            3. Marco said, ” . . .’blind faith’ (great group, btw) . . . ”

              Welcome back Marco. I hope you enjoyed your vacation. I hope you are not adversely impacted by the “lockout” (I mean the government shutdown).

              Did you know that Trump and McConnell are wasted and they can’t find their way home?

        3. Marco,
          Always nice to see you write more than the same four words.
          Mueller deserves, and gets, credit for his bravery and leadership in combat over 50 years ago.
          I would argue that John Mitchell and Ollie North, both of whom were more more heavily decorated than Mueller, deserve the medals that they got.
          Mitchell never played up his WWII record, nor had others brag on it for him.
          What someone did a generation or two previously has no real bearing on assessing their performance in a completely different role decades later.
          So I don’t see a valid connection between your experience with Marines, Mueller’s record in combat, and evaluating Mueller’s performance today.
          I would just add that all Navy veterans don’t share your opinion of the Marines……it probably depends on what kind of interaction, if any, that had with Marines.
          I worked with a half dozen or so Marine veterans…. at least 3 of them saw heavy combat in Vietnam.
          All good guys, good employees.
          But some of the Navy veterans, while not at odds with these guys, didn’t have the highest opinion of the Marine Corp.

          .

          2. Ollie Morth? He violated his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States. The “house” he belongs is the Military Disciplinary Barracks at Gort Leavenworth, KS.

            2. North took an illegal gratuity and conspired to frustrate the will of an officious Congress. Pretty penny ante compared to Mueller’s abuses.

              1. You mean Mueller the bona fide, authentic American patriot? Not only for his military service, but his long career dedicated to law enforcement and safeguarding the rule of law. Outside of the mewling shrills on Pravda Faux News from which you cretins are issued thoughts, Mueller is rock-solid, A+ and incredibly well-respected by persons of all political persuasions. Such a circumstance reflects that you can judge the caliber of the man by the enemies he has. Another win for Mueller, America, and the rule of law. Finally, Mueller knows what that ticking sound is.

            3. So in the Ollie “Morth” case, being a heavily decorated combat Marine veteran, + your own positive experience with Marine officers, does not make him immune to criticism.
              Works the same way with Mueller or anyone else.

              1. Marco is doing the worst thing possible. He is politicizing the records of veterans and by doing so demeaning all of them.

          1. For Trump Troupers everywhere, one and all:

            Come down off your throne and leave your body alone – somebody must change
            You are the reason I’ve been waiting so long – somebody holds the key
            Well, I’m near the end and I just ain’t got the time
            And I’m wasted and I can’t find my way home

            Come down on your own and leave your body alone – somebody must change
            You are the reason I’ve been waiting all these years – somebody holds the key
            Well, I’m near the end and I just ain’t got the time
            And I’m wasted and I can’t find my way home

    5. That much trust is unjustified. Don’t get home too early or you might find something UnExpected in your bedroom.

  15. This story is built on foundation laid by Rat Michael Cohen and FBI Leakers/Saboteurs. Enough said.

  16. Cohen telling the truth? His record of lying surpasses anything that should be considered anyway trustworthy. He knows he is facing hard time, and he will say anything to soften his time behind bars. But you can bet money that he is being twisted by the lawyers on the special council’s staff.

    1. Bob

      If Trump and Cohen are both liars, would you agree that if there’s electronic evidence that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress, that we are now at a point where impeachment should begin?

      1. Marco, this is not a question to pose for trolls who delight in snarky and pathetic personal denigrations of those people here fully aware of the utterly dismal and irreversibly bad character of the Man in the White House.

        1. What question did Marco pose?
          Also, no one has forced you to denigrate yourself, so stop whining about it.

          1. Marco did not pose any question nor share any original thought. He just blindly put faith in false god Muler just like millions of lefty loons. The Left used to pretend to be about civil liberties, due process, probable cause and all that good stuff. Nowadays they cheer-lead abuses of legal processes when it suits their political preferences. Acromion, I hope that clears that up for you. You seem to need a lot of explaining of simple stuff. Or maybe you just conveniently pretend to be ignorant. Good Day Ma’am/Sir.

    2. Bob Miller:

      anything to soften his time behind bars

      Cohen has already been sentenced.

      https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5549667-Transcript-of-Michael-Cohen-sentencing.html

      Exactly how will this latest revelation soften his prison time?

      BTW: your spelling error, did you mean Special Counsel?

      counsel: noun, (1) : a lawyer engaged in the trial or management of a case in court
      (2) : a lawyer appointed to advise and represent in legal matters an individual client or a corporate and especially a public body

      council: noun, an assembly or meeting for consultation, advice, or discussion
      the Second Vatican Council
      2 : a group elected or appointed as an advisory or legislative body
      a governor’s council
      a city council
      3a : a usually administrative body
      a council on housing
      b : an executive body whose members are equal in power and authority
      c : a governing body of delegates from local units of a federation
      4 : deliberation in a council
      5a : a federation of or a central body uniting a group of organizations
      the National Council of Teachers of English
      b : a local chapter of an organization
      c : CLUB, SOCIETY

      1. let me explain this to you. when a jailbird sings, it has to keep singing, to hold up its end of the deal, or prosecutors walk in and cancel the deal. so the fact of his sentencing is irrelevant

        although it does illustrate that you are ignorant of how such things work.

        best to stick to spelling bees.

  18. Turley wrote, “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.

    But it is not plausible for a developer who is running for President while playing footsie under the table with The Russians. The Russians made it clear that the financing for the proposed Trump Tower Moscow had to come from one of the Russian banks listed under one the several US sanctions regimes. That means that the deal could only go through if A) the sanctions were rescinded or B) if the banks at issue were delisted from the sanctions. Both A and B require the official acts of a public official; namely, The POTUS. Possibility B also requires ongoing official acts from the Treasurer of the United States. Therefore, Trump’s excuse that he could have pursued the deal had Trump lost the election requires Trump to be ignorant of ether or both 1) the several US sanctions regimes against Russia or 2) the Russian insistence upon using sanctioned banks to finance the proposed Trump Tower Moscow. And that is not plausible for a developer who is running for President while playing footsie under the table with The Russians.

    Hillary Clinton was not going to rescind the sanctions against Russia. Hillary Clinton was not going to delist the Russian banks that Trump needed to finance the Trump Tower Moscow in the event that Trump had lost the election. Trump winning the election was the only way that the Trump Tower Moscow deal was going to go through. If Trump didn’t know that, then Trump is dumb as dirt. Given that Trump is not dumb as dirt, it follows that Trump knew that he had to win the election in order to get the Trump Tower Moscow.

    Here’s the “real” problem. Had the deal gone through, the very minute the first ruble of Russian money would have been traced back to Trump’s pocket, Trump would have been impeached and removed from office for Bribery. It’s highly likely that Trump knew that going in as well. If so, then Trump may have intentionally left The Russians in the lurch for the election interference that Trump solicited from The Russians.

    Something tells me that it’s a really bad idea to run a confidence game against Vladimir Putin of The Russian Federation. Trump’s best way out is to enter a plea agreement with Robert Swan Mueller III to testify against The Russians in exchange for lifetime Secret Service protection for Trump’s children and grandchildren even after Trump will have eventually died at a ripe old age from natural causes.

        2. Well, since the oath of office includes defending the constitution, then of course he should never rest with so many attacking it.

      2. Mespo727272 said, “I see the Soros email went out early today.”

        The only other way out is for Trump to convince The US Senate to provide significant sanctions relief for Russia prior to early January in 2021.

        Trump can’t leave Putin in the lurch without securing lifetime Secret Service protection for his children and grandchildren long after Trump will have passed away.

        1. L4D:
          So the previous sanctions, new Aegis Ashore missiles in Poland pointed at Moscow, arms to the Ukrainians, dead Russian “advisers” in Syria at our hands and US military build up in Europe aren’t enough for you. What do you warmongers want? Defcon 4?

          1. they have a mentality that nothing and nobody can bite back at them
            not all their targets in america nor the targets overseas
            well, maybe they have just been lucky

          2. Mespo727272 asked, “What do you warmongers want?”

            I’m not looking for a war with anybody–least all with Russia.

            You don’t seem to understand Trump’s predicament. If Trump can’t find a way to deliver upon the promises that Putin either thinks, or knows, that Trump and Trump’s children made to Putin, then surrendering into the custody of Robert Swan Mueller III will be the least worse way out for Trump and Trump’s children.

            That, too, is the ticking sound that Mr. M keeps asking you all about. Putin is the “tick” and Mueller is the “tock” in the old ditty “tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock . . . [whimper].

            1. More precisely, L4B thinks that Putin thinks that Putin had an explicit or tacit agreement with Trump for Trump to deliver a quid pro quo return of favors because L4D thinks that Putin got Trump elected.
              There are a number of contortions needed to “create and fit” a set of assumptions which need to become facts to end up as something L4D badly wants and needs to believe.
              Among those beliefs is the repeated insinuation that Trump and family will need permanent Secret Service protection because L4D believes that Putin believes that Trump reneged on some kind of a deal between them, and Putin will therefore retailiate against Trump and his family.

              1. I could be wrong. But I don’t think so. It’s not an accident that Peskov’s assistant took detailed notes of her phone call with Cohen about the Trump Tower Moscow deal. Nor is it an accident that the very next day Felix Sater told Cohen that Putin wanted to meet Trump or Ivanka or at least Cohen to hash out the details on the deal.

                (BTW, How does Mueller know all of that stuff?)

                P. S. It’s possible that Trump thought that he could solicit a bribe from Putin so long as Trump never became a public official capable of committing an official act who could thereby be charged with solicitation of a bribe. Unfortunately, Trump won the election and Putin wants his sanctions relief. And that may well entail that Trump has put the lives of his own children, Don Jr. and Ivanka, at risk of Russian retaliation.

                They say that there’s no shortage of Russian mobsters on the streets of New York City.

              2. Come to think of it, they also say that some of those Russian mobsters used to live in the Trump Tower, New York.

            2. “I’m not looking for a war with anybody–least all with Russia.”

              If Diane could falsely get Trump convicted for something he didn’t do while causing a war with Russia she would gleefully jump on the lie. As our soldiers returned in body bags she would chant “I did it for the common good”

    2. At 74, Mueller is a couple of years older than Trump.
      There is the possibility that Mueller will die “at a ripe old age from natural causes” before he wraps this thing up.
      There may or may not be a contingency plan if that happens, but Trump could eventually be dealing with a successor to Mueller, who would presumably usher in a
      2nd Generation Fishing Expedition.

      1. Trump can’t get re-elected in 2020 without Putin’s help any more than Trump could’ve gotten elected in 2016 without Putin’s help. Why else would Trump have been playing footsie under the table with Putin while running for President? Trump always intended to stiff Putin the same way Trump stiffs most of his contractors.

        1. I thought it was Comey, not Putin, who got Trump elected in 2016.
          Or it was “internalized misogyny”, or a host of other reasons.
          In any case, there is no evidence……video or otherwise……that Trump ever ” played footsie under the table Putin while running for President”.
          I don’t think they even sat at the same table during the 2015-2016 campaign.

          1. “Playing footsie under the table with Putin” is a metaphor for “pursuing a real-estate deal with The Russians.”

            Ordinarily I don’t reveal the secret to textual analysis. But since you’re still so confused on the topic, I figured you’d appreciate a free sample involving the difference between the literal meaning of a text versus the figurative meaning of the same.

            1. Thank you for the explanation.
              I thought it might be some kind of ritual performed in your coven.

                1. The idea that Trump would be both crazy enough and stupid enough to think that he could get actually away with giving sanctions relief to Russia in exchange for a real-estate deal worth an estimated three hundred million dollars does not strike me as particularly funny.

                  What’s even less funny, but far more likely, is that Trump is exactly arrogant enough to think that he could promise sanctions relief to Russia in exchange for election interference from Russia and then renege on the promised sanctions relief without putting the lives of his children and grandchildren at risk of retaliation from Putin.

                  Heaven forfend that that should ever come to pass. There would be no more laughing emojis from The Trump Troupe ever after if it did.

                  1. Far be it for me to disabuse L4B of what she wants and needs to believe.
                    Whenever the facts don’t support those beliefs, she merely jostles them around until they behave.

    3. i thought your english spook said he had russian prostitutes peeing on him.
      now you say he only played footsie with them?
      sicker and sicker your imagination all the time!

      1. Mr Kurtz,…
        L4B spent a great deal of time writing that Putin had gathered “kompromat” to be used against Trump, basically to have leverage over him and making him do Putin’s bidding.
        Given her belief that the Steele Russian Dossier was mostly accurate, she “knew” Trump was essentially being blackmailed by Putin to do his bidding.
        ( She did say that if the pee tape allegation was false, then that must have been an attempt by some source to discredit the entire Russian Dossier)
        Now that Trump is not acting like a Putin delivery man, she”s on a different kick; Trump needs to fear retaliation from Putin, and Trump and family will be especially vulnerable to the threat of Putin’s retaliation once he leaves office.
        That’s why she’s now promoting her story that lifelong Secret Service protection for Trump and family has to be a high priority for Trump.
        So since the “kompromat theory ” lectures she delivered again and again didn’t pan out, now her story is that Trump needs to fear a physical threat from Putin.
        Her beliefs and conspiracy theories have gone from merely being farfetched into being truly delusional.

        1. You may be right
          I may be crazy
          But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for
          Turn out the light
          Don’t try to save me
          You may be wrong for all I know
          But you may be right

  19. Has Cohen ever testified in front of a congressional committee before, or been scheduled to do so?

    1. Yes. In the fall of 2017.
      I don’t know if there are transcripts of that testimony available, or if it was closed testimony.

  20. Cohen obviously is untrustworthy. But he’s no worse than his former employer who bought Cohen (and numerous others) simply to execute threats and to serve as a legal buffer for shady deals and outright illegalities.

    Is it really wild to think that such sloppy, arrogant, and rather unpatriotic activity would continue into the orange Swamp-Thing’s (“When they call, I give”; “I used to be a donor”) political career?

    Of course, we can’t take Cohen at his word — so I guess it’s too bad that his documents weren’t seized and that he doesn’t have any audio recordings…

    1. If the Special Counsel does have verifiable evidence to support the claim that Buzzfeed alleges, it is his duty to flesh out the details and deliver that to the House immediately.
      He can still continue with his original investigation, whatever that is but he is duty-bound to prioritize this and deliver it to the House.
      He has not been shy about handing off criminal referrals or in obtaining indictments. I suspect this story is baseless as so many have been.

Comments are closed.