Congress Should Subpoena Cohen

Congressional Seal

President Donald Trump’s former lawyer fixer, Michael Cohen, has declined to appear at this scheduled hearing on February 7th, citing
“ongoing threats” against his family by President Donald Trump and his current counsel Rudy Giuliani. I have previously criticized Trump for his highly inappropriate references to Cohen’s father-in-law and the warning Cohen that his family could be investigated. The comments looked like an obvious threat and an effort to intimidate a witness who has accused Trump of knowing violations of federal law. However, Cohen’s explanation is hardly convincing, though it is highly ironic. Cohen made his living as a legal thug who threatened anyone who presented a risk to Trump. However, the more likely reason is that recently new stories implicated Cohen in additional criminal conduct and Cohen was afraid that he might be asked about possible criminal conduct by his family, including his father-in-law.

Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis previously admitted that he pushed Cohen into the testimony. He now has said that, due to the threats of the President and his counsel, “This is a time where Mr. Cohen had to put his family and their safety first.” As always, it is far more likely that Michael Cohen is putting his own interests first.

Recently new details arose concerning Cohen’s extensive unethical and unlawful practices. In the latest story, Cohen hired an IT company to influence online polls for Trump (as well as poll for himself). This included the creation of the @WomenForCohen Twitter account. The account tweeted praise for Cohen and is for “Women who love and support Michael Cohen. Strong, pit bull, sex symbol, no nonsense, business oriented, and ready to make a difference!”

Cohen then billed the Trump organization but allegedly pocketed much of the money himself, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

John Gauger, owner of IT firm RedFinch Solutions LLC, was reportedly retained to rig the polls. Gauger is an officer with Liberty University, but neither he nor the religious university see any problem in his side business dishonestly rigging polls. Cohen charged the Trump organization $50,000 and then sent  him a blue Walmart bag containing $12,000 to $13,000 in cash, and, “randomly, a boxing glove that Mr. Cohen said had been worn by a Brazilian mixed-martial arts fighter.”

Cohen was likely leery of being asked about such new revelations. Moreover, as we previously discussed, Giuliani recently said that the father-in-law’s criminal conduct is the reason that the Southern District of New York was critical of Cohen’s lack of cooperation. He stressed “the Southern District of New York, in the plea, wanted him (Cohen) to go to jail and said he’s lying. They don’t buy the special counsel’s approach. They say he’s lying because he’s holding back information that is far more damaging than the lies that he is sharing with them now. Now, what is that information about? It’s about his father-in-law.” Giuliani went on to note that Shusterman is from the Ukraine and suggested that he was not only involved in criminal conduct but may “have ties to organized crime.”

Shusterman ran taxicab businesses in both New York City and Chicago and reportedly may have pleaded guilty to federal income tax fraud related to his New York business. Cohen got involved in the taxicab business through his father-in-law.

If Cohen is withholding evidence of criminal acts by himself or his family, it has direct bearing on his credibility as a witness. He should now be subpoenaed but there should be no limitations on the questions from members. It is finally the time to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth from Michael Cohen.

72 thoughts on “Congress Should Subpoena Cohen”

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      That is, in pleading guilty to SDNY prosecutors, Cohen said Trump “instructed” him to take action. But in pleading guilty to Mueller’s prosecutors, Cohen said he was following the messaging of Trump’s advisers, without claiming to have been instructed to do so. In both cases, however, Cohen said loyalty to Trump led him to commit crimes to sustain Trump’s desired message.

  1. Congress and the media should forget all this phony stuff about Trump and the Russians. Cohen is a goof but he does not need to take up Congress’ time. Congress needs to fund the Wall and stop the shutdown. My canine group is mad as can be.

  2. Ignoring facts or truth seems to be a forte of yours. The nation had to go with years of lies that this time HRC has had it. Remind me again how many guilty pleas and convictions there were on HRC. And you can’t take two years of watching whether Trump is a Putin asset. Because his top and “best” people were.

    1. I specifically answered all of your moronic questions and then some, Fishbrain.
      You reply with the same generalized garbage.You are consistent; I’ll give you that.

  3. What did Mueller know and when did he know it?

    What did Obama know and when did he know it?

    What did Christopher Wray know and when did he know it?

    What did the FISA judge know and when did he know it?

    What did Sessions know and when did he know it?

    What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

    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.”

  4. Professor Turley, which lies, spoken by a liar, should we not consider lies but truth, in order to get at the truth among all the lies told by people we expect to tell the truth but end up telling us lies?

    I know. Let’s ask BuzzFeed! Or the MSM. Or 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.

    American Twilight Zone!

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey, CIA Director

    1. So the subpoena is from the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the House Oversight Committee.

      Michael Avenatti tweeted:

      “This is a ploy by the Repubs to have Cohen testify behind closed doors in secret. They can then claim: “Cohen has already testified and we already heard everything he has to say.” They are trying to protect Trump from public disclosure and it’s outrageous.”

      1. If one believes in Avenatti’s credibilty☺😁😂, there’s not much point in any further discussion.
        Maybe he can resurrect the Julie Swetnick allegations and get more time on the air waves; once a contender, he’s now fallen way behind the marathon appearances of Rep. Schiff.

      2. Michael Avenatti tweeted:

        “Once again and to be clear – Michael Cohen does not need a public congressional hearing to do the right thing. If he has info important to America about Trump’s crimes, he should publicly disclose it immediately in writing or via an interview or press conf. No more games!”


    I agree with Professor Turley. However credible or dubious Michael Cohen might be, Congress needs to put him on display so the public can gauge his true character.

    Trump supporters, however, should be careful what they wish for. If indeed Cohen comes across as the shameless liar Trump has cast him as, that could backfire on Trump. People might look at Cohen and think, “My God, ‘this sleaze ball was the president’s lawyer’..??”

    The possibility that Cohen ‘is’ completely jaded could present a dilemma for Republicans at the hearing. Hard questions to discredit Cohen could open issues damaging to Trump. Republicans might be better off playing a somewhat passive role.

    1. That sleaze ball lawyer represented the king of all sleaze balls, and from what is known he was a very good one at that, until Trump thought he could fool all the people all the time.

  6. There was a phrase bandied about in years past: “Liar, liar, you’re pants are on fire!”
    I think we need to watch the pants of Trump, Cohen, Guiliani and others for smoke or fire. Where there is smoke there is fire. A fart is not true smoke.

    1. I did not finish this paragraph when the machine posted it. The final sentence to be added: “A farter is not necessarily a liar and yet a smoker lies to himself if he thinks smoking won’t kill him.”

  7. The walls are closing in on the Trump presidency. It’s the beginning of the end.

      1. For two years we have been hearing this garbage that the walls are closing on Trump and that the end is near. Every week there has been a new reason and every week the evidence of the day has disappeared while evidence has collected on the maleficence of the DOJ and the Hillary Clinton supporters. It must take tremendous stamina and fortitude to keep repeating such ephemeral claims.

        1. It does not take much out of Trump and his supporters with his claims, off course he is in a different league. On the flat earth side.

          1. FishWings, I don’t mind the insulting comments you make all the time, but interspersed between the comments should a bit of fact or intellectual prowess. It seems you lack the ability to provide either of them.

  8. It appears that justice has become unilateral. Prosecutions seem only to go one way, in the direction of Trump, leaving out a lot of misconduct that should be prosecuted and likely never will be. We can match up the people involved such as Flynn and Podesta clearly seeing this is a one way prosecution and a hit job. Trump didn’t threaten Cohens familiy, at least not in a violent way. I haven’t read enough of what Trump said to be able to comment in detail but if they are looking for criminals maybe Cohens father in law is involved as well. However, Cohen’s family aren’t part of the anti Trump attack so people seem to get annoyed. Hypocricy makes a lot of peole angry.

    1. Hypocrisy makes a lot of people angry……Then you must be pissed off 24-7. Because you had no problem with the one way prosecution and hit job of HRC, but Putin’s buddy, well that’s different.

      1. Who was the hard-charging Special Counsel prosecutor who conducted a swat-style raid on a Hillary associate?
        Or raided her “lawyer’s” office?
        Or who even had the gall to originally consider her “grossly negligent”?
        Anyone who tries to draw a comparison between the so-called “prosecution😁” of Hillary and this 2 1/2 year fishing expedition has not been paying attention.

        1. I forgot, maybe you can enlighten me, how many guilty pleas and convictions did they get with the HRC case? How many years did the fishing expedition last with HRC? As far as I can remember the republicans tried to connect her from the Lindbergh kidnapping to robberies at gas stations and stolen candy. And how many again?

          1. If a person does not understand the difference between the tactics and outcome of a kid gloves investigation vs. a brass knuckle prosecution, I won’t bother trying to explain it.
            I doubt very much that I, or anyone else, “can enlighten you”, Fishbrain.
            If anyone else is interested, numerous people closely connected with the Clintons were convicted, and served time, as a result of the Whitewater investigation.
            The MacDougals and Webb Hubbell were probably the best known, but there were about a dozen other guilty pleas or convictions.
            There is something of a parallel in that a lot of people connected with the Clintons went down, just as a lot of people connected with Trump have gone down.
            Since there was nothing at all suspicious about a novice commodities investor making a $100,000 on a $1,000 investment, that wasn’t really worth investigating.
            Only a cynic would be suspicious of the relationship between the Rose Law Firm, the McDougal projects, and the fact that a lawyer with that firm was married to the Governor of the state who had influence over a state-chartered bank.
            And the FBI files that
            that miraculously showed up in the Clinton White House was, of course, just a “bureaucratic snafu”.
            So in the “HRC case”, I mentioned some of the issues, and convictions, that might refresh some people’s memories.
            Or it might be news to those too young or too oblivious to know that these things ever happened.
            If the question about the “HRC case” was about about how many times HRC has been indicted or convicted, the answer is zero.
            For those who want to play that game, how many times has Trump been indicted or convicted?

      2. What are you talking about FishWings. If there were a hit job on HRC she would have been wearing orange for a long time. You make a lot of nonsense comments. Trump has been rougher on Putin than any other President and most recently recognized the alternative to Maduro as the legal President. That is a direct attack on Russian interests. He also placed our forces and weapons against Putin in Syria and the Ukraine, stopped the baltic pipeline into Europe that would provide more power to Putin,and used stiff sanctions agains the Russian oligarchs. You don’t recognize these things because your mind is closed and foolish.

        I probably dislike the Russians more than you and wouldn’t have permitted them the sale of Uranium and a whole host of other deals but when Trump became President he was prevented from dealing with him which could have reduced the temperature between Russia and the West. I agreed with Trump. There is no evidence that he has played nice with Putin for self benefit.

    2. Flynn’s cooperation with investigators was sure to do him in.
      Then I think it was Papadoupolous who was to be the key to Trump’s downfall.
      Certainly when Gates flipped, the end was near, and the Mamafort cooperative deal with Mueller removed all doubt.
      Cohen’s Feb. 7 Congressional testimony was going to be the final nail in the coffin, or handful of dirt on Trump’s political coffin.
      Usually the circus moves on after a while; this farce is more like a permanent fixture DC carnival.

      1. Tom, to this day I don’t know the crime Papadopoulos committed. So far my big complaint against Papadopoulos is that he didn’t shorten his name to make it easier to spell. I think you have the u in the wrong place.

        1. He pled guilty to lying to investigators about some of the specifics of his conversation with Prof. Mifsud, or whatever his name was.
          He was the guy who told Papadopoulos in April? 2016 about the Russians possessing email that could be damaging to Clinton; I don’t remember if Papadopoulos denied having the conversation, or lied about elements of that conversation.

          1. The question is was he really “lying”? I’m not sure that he “lied”. Professor Mifsud and the others surrounding this case were lying. I don’t know how this would have played out in court if he had the resources available. He was given a very short sentence, but I would have preferrred a fight and that might have been the reason behind the very short sentence.

  9. “It is finally the time to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth from Michael Cohen.”
    What’s the point in subpoenaing admitted perjurer Cohen? Does anyone really think he’ll give anyone the “whole truth and nothing but the truth”? It’s rather like asking Benedict Arnold to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Oh, he’d likely do it under coercion, but does anyone really think he means it?

      1. YNOT, Obama was a liar as was Bill Clinton and you probably voted for both. Both Presidents were loved by the left. Lying is part of being on the left so that shouldn’t be a problem for you.

        Trump is actually filling his campaign promises to an extent neither of them came close to. Appraently Trump keeps his promises better. He is imprecise and that drives your craziness.

        1. Alan, Trump’s campaign promises don’t mean anything if the public doesn’t support them. Show me ‘one’ poll; just ‘one’ that says a majority of the people support Trump’s wall.

          You won’t find any such poll. Every poll that came out this month shows that support for the wall is only 40% or less. Support ain’t there! So even if its a campaign promise, no one cares anymore. The wall is a loser and we need to move on.

          1. Peter, let me help educate you. The response to polls is based on the way questions are asked, alternatives provided, selection, education from the media and a whole host of othre things. I don’t think you have a scientific background based on your comments so perhaps you should read a bit about statistics and polls and the problems they create with people that are unaware.

            One of the most revealing things for the wall and other things was that Trump ,a total outsider, without the media or Hollywood, without significant support from his own party,and with his history that offends many he won the election. His win probably had more to do with security of the southern border than anything else. The public supports a lot of his campaign promises and he has fulfilled many of them, more than his predecessors.

            Apparently our politicians agreed with the wall since those not supporting it today while Trump is President did so before he was President and significant building of a wall occurred under both Clinton and Obama. I don’t think the answers to this type of question reflect one issue. Some claim a 30 foot steel fence is not a wall. Some think that the wall will be identical and run across the entire southern border which would be ridiculous. Most Americans want security and a border wall or fence offers that type of security. The mainstream news media when debating the wall don’t discuss that Israel has more than one wall. One is designed against terrorism. The other is against illegal crossing from Africa. I don’t know if there has been an illegal crossing since that wall in Israel was secured.

            Perhaps you wish to tell me why that Israeli wall (not against terrorists rather illegal immigration from Africa) doesn’t work when it has been proven to work. let’s use a little bit of our intellectual abilities to cut through the nonsense and actually discuss the issue at hand. Certainly there is a limited need for constructing some type of barrier on portions of the southern border. If you disagree, say so and tell us why. Take note that where we built a wall such as the place where Acosta was when he stupidly said everthing is quiet and no one crossing the border, things are quiet. One can look at the worst places that no longer have such a problem any longer because of the wall

            1. The day glo bozo’s win has little to do with any cockamamie wall and more to do with the fallibilities of the various collections of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make who screwed up. A healthy slice of each cohort has now figured out the con, so such a dangerous error is unlikely to occur next year.

              this is to “ya, he’s likely a traitor, but his friend Putin is pretty cool in hannity’s book” allan / allen

              1. Mark, it sounds as if you need a bit of education yourself. You sound like the gullible rube you keep accusing others of being.

      2. Mr Trump may occasionally know that he is lying, but most of the time he doesn’t know if what he says is true or not. He believes he is a “stable genius” and therefore is probably speaking the truth. He is completely unaware that those with functional brains know when their statements are based on solid information and when they are lying.

      3. YNOT:
        The point you radicals always miss is that we support Trump’s ideas of government and not necessarily the man. You despise Trump the man for his ideas and it’s non-stop hate.

        1. At least it’s a relief that 38% support the used horse-food master and 57% do not support. (Gallup) Amazingly the line above about “supporting President Chaos for his ideas” was not intended as irony…

  10. The “squishy” thing here is how you interpret Trump’s statement. Is it witness tampering? I don’t think so, but it is damaging to Trump either way. Big surprise. His words, and Guiliani’s, don’t add up to a “threat” of an investigation if Cohen testifies. Trump is pointing out the actual record from the Southern District in terms of Cohen’s credibility. He is publicly attacking Cohen. A direct public attack is no threat. Nobody would talk of witness tampering if an average citizen publicly attacked an enemy. Trump’s words imply no official punishment of Cohen.

  11. Interesting. Apparently Trump‘s threats are ok because its Michael Cohen! I think Congress should subpoena Trump! Put him under oath and have the tweets and videos at the ready to prove what a liar he is.

    As to Michael Cohen, subpoena him but Congress should not allow itself to be used by Trump & Co. to bully a witness in an attempt to mold his testimony. The issue on the table is Trump not Cohen‘s Father in law..

    1. J. Holmes,….
      It’s not a “one or the other issue” in most cases.
      There are a LOT of unanswered questions “on the table” due to a deliberate lack of transparency.
      Possibly, in a year, or maybe in another 2 1/2 years, the some answers to key questions will be provided.
      I’m not sure what percentage of the public will care by then, depending on what else might be going on at the time.

      1. Cohen’s decisions months ago made it clear that he feared prosecutors and prison far more then he feared Trump or Ragin’ Rudy.
        This “fear of Trump threats” seems to be a convenient smokescreen for Cohen’s desire to dodge Congressional testimony.

  12. I read them. They were there. Briefly. The first one was comment on a previous one that was not there. Wasn’t it?

    1. The neighbors in The Book of Job claimed that Job must’ve done something to deserve God’s punishment. But The Book of Job also says that those neighbors were wrong about that.

      1. That makes it five comments from Dr. David B. Benson that were sent to the bit bucket this morning.

  13. Giuliani said, “They [SDNY] say [Cohen’s] lying because he’s holding back information that is far more damaging than the lies that he is sharing with them now.”

    Turley concluded, “It is finally the time to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth from Michael Cohen.”

    So The House Republicans are going to pry the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth out of a big fat lying liar who pled guilty to lying to The Senate Republicans about the Trump Tower Moscow deal so as to be consistent with the “messaging” of Individual 1 as furnished to the big fat lying liar by lawyers and White House the employ of Individual 1.

    This utterly fascinating theory further holds that Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress on behalf of Trump so that Cohen could lie to Mueller about Trump. But not so that Cohen could tell the truth to Mueller about Trump. IOW, lying for Trump proves that Cohen is lying about Trump. And the lie Cohen is telling about Trump is that Cohen lied for Trump. That is about as close as Giuliani is willing to get to the theory espoused by Dr. Jerome Corsi that Mueller is the one suborning perjury–not Trump. No.

    BTW, has anyone from SDNY actually said what Giuliani said that SDNY is supposedly saying? Also, is there some reason that SDNY can’t charge Cohen with obstruction of justice for withholding information from the investigation of Cohen’s father-in-law? Or would SDNY first have to declare Cohen in breach of the plea agreement Cohen entered into with SDNY? D’oh! Cohen has already been sentenced. Hasn’t he? So much for declaring Cohen in breach of his plea agreement with SDNY. Ha-ha!

    P. S. They say that one can tell that a liar is lying because the liar’s lips are moving. So whose lips are moving here? Cohen’s lips? Or Giuliani’s lips? Looks to me like Cohen decided to stop moving his lips. But Giuliani just can’t stop moving his. We’re going to need a new saying. You can also tell that a liar is lying when his lips aren’t moving, too. And that exhausts the possibilities. Doesn’t it. Ha-ha!

    1. I don’t know the potential number of half-assed pet theories that are actually out there, but I can recommend a good source that consistently covers many of them, virtually every early morning.

      1. The SDNY sentencing memo on Cohen did not say what Giuliani said that it says. Quite the contrary, the section on Cohen’s lies to Congress concedes that Cohen gave credible and truthful information to SCO. However, SDNY wanted a harsher sentence for Cohen despite Cohen’s credible and truthful cooperation with SCO about Cohen lies to Congress. Ha-ha!

          1. What SDNY actually said in the memo linked above:

            As set forth in the submission being filed by the SCO in 18 Cr. 850 (WHP), this Office understands that the information provided by Cohen to the SCO was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation. To be clear, neither the SCO nor this Office is making a motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. No such motion is being made because, as detailed herein, Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged
            or had knowledge. However, this Office acknowledges and agrees that Cohen’s provision of information to the SCO in connection with its investigation is a mitigating factor that the Court should consider in imposing sentence. Indeed, Cohen’s provision of information to the SCO is the reason that this Office is not seeking a Guidelines sentence here, but rather is acknowledging that a modest variance is appropriate.

            Repeated for emphasis: the information provided by Cohen to the SCO was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation.

            1. Repeated for comparison:

              Giuliani said, “They [SDNY] say [Cohen’s] lying because he’s holding back information that is far more damaging than the lies that he is sharing with them now.”

              SDNY memo: Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged
              or had knowledge. However, this Office acknowledges and agrees that Cohen’s provision of information to the SCO in connection with its investigation is a mitigating factor . . . the information provided by Cohen to the SCO was ultimately credible and useful to its ongoing investigation.

            2. More from the SDNY memo linked above:

              With respect to Cohen’s provision of information to this Office, in its two meetings with him, this Office assessed Cohen to be forthright and credible, and the information he provided was largely consistent with other evidence gathered. Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have been fruitful: He did provide what could have been useful information about matters relating to ongoing investigations being carried out by this Office.

              1. “Had Cohen actually cooperated, it would have been fruitful”.
                For most people, those words would be self-explanatory.
                For most people, that is.

            3. Two more excerpts due to a page break from the SDNY memo linked above:

              But as Cohen partially acknowledges, it was his decision not to pursue full cooperation, and his professed willingness to continue to provide . . .

              1. The conclusion to the previous sentence:

                . . . information at some later unspecified time is of limited value to this Office, both because he is under no obligation to do so, and because the Office’s inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness.

                [end excerpt]

                That’s as close as SDNY came to saying what Giuliani claims that they said.

            4. “Cohen repeatedly declined to provide full information about the scope of any additional criminal conduct in which he may have engaged or had knowledge”.
              That at least partially confirms Guiliani’s claim that Cohen is holding back information.
              Repeated for emphasis; that at least partially confirms Guiliani’s claim that Cohen held back information.
              Repeated and amended for clarification; that at least partially confirms Guiliani’s claim that Cohen held back infornation from the SDNY.

              It also corfirms widely published reports that the SDNY held a far less positive view of leniency for Cohen than Mueller, who was evidently satisfied with what he got oit of Cohen.

              1. Giuliani said, “They [SDNY] say [Cohen’s] lying because he’s holding back information that is far more damaging than the lies that he is sharing with them now.”

                SDNY did not assert hat Cohen is lying. SDNY did not assert that the information that Cohen is holding back is far more damaging than the supposed lies that Cohen is sharing with [Mueller] now. SDNY asserted that Cohen’s was forthright and credible and that Cohen’s information was useful and consistent with other evidence gathered.

                Therefore, Giuliani is lying about what SDNY said. And you can tell that Giuliani lied about SDNY because Rudy’s lips were moving while SDNY’s lips were not moving and because Giuliani is neither clairvoyant nor a Vulcan, even though he is playing the role of Spox [spokesperson] for Trump.

      2. Wait a second. There’s still one more possibility that has not been eliminated. I’m not sure whether it’s telepathy or clairvoyance. Let’s call it mind-reading, instead. So the new saying says that you can that a liar is lying when the liar’s lips move, when the liar’s lips don’t move, and when you read the liar’s mind even without the Vulcan mind-meld.

    2. Correction: SDNY never had a cooperation agreement with Cohen. SDNY held plea negotiations with Cohen but rejected Cohen’s proffers to SDNY. However, Cohen was sentenced for the charges to which he pled guilty in SDNY. I think that means that Cohen cannot be tried again for those crimes. SDNY will have to uncover new crimes.

    3. As much as I enjoy plowing through 50+ words of Dianese sentences, with the multiple questions thrown in from the Wise One who knows the answers, I think I’ll take a pass on those bull**** games for the time being.
      In the meantime, let the Troller Derby continue, and I’ll try not to interrupt the conversations she’s having with herself.☺😊

  14. Maybe Ruby threatened to never again ride in a Cohen Cab again.
    There seemed to be a disagreement between the Special Counsel people and the SDNY people about just how cooperative and forthcoming Cohen was.
    Mueller and co. seemed satisfied that Cohen had, at least for their purposes, been cooperative.
    The SDNY pressed a longer prison sentence, and the tone of their input was far more skeptical about Cohen’s actual degree of cooperation, and whether he’d truly been held accountable for a range of alleged criminal activity totally unrelated to Stormy Daniels or any other “Trump issue”.
    Also, none of the accounts that I’ve read mention potential State charges.
    It’s unclear if NY State was “on board” with the plea agreement and will not pursue any State-related charges, or if they will go after Cohen on that State level.
    Also, if completely new evidence emerges re potential criminal behavior that was not addressed ( or even known) before the plea bargain agreement, is the plea deal off?
    And/ or did the plea deal protect Cohen from additional prosecution if ( now) unknown criminal acts are uncovered?

      There are multiple sources available that shed light on why the SDNY prosecutors pressed for a tougher sentence for Cohen.
      Anyone is free to check out those sources to see if the repeated attempts above by our AM Propagandist to paint the SDNY as satisfied with Cohen’s level of cooperation are believable.
      I think when you ” incur the wrath of prosecutors” with your level cooperation in a plea deal, that may be an indication that the SDNY was pissed at Cohen.
      Whether presented in English, or recycled and respun into Dianese, it’s pretty difficult to to make a convincing case that the SDNY prosecutors viewed Cohen as “forthright and credible”.
      Cohen in fact drew a line as to the subject matter he’d be “forthright” about, and refused cooperate in other areas that might implicate him in those other areas.
      The technicalities of the plea agreement; i.e., the question of whether Cohen can be prosecuted if he violates the plea agreedment, or if he’s vulnerable to separate charges that might not be covered in the plea agreement…….do not change the fact the the view of Cohen’s cooperation by the SDNY was far less positive that Mueller’s view.

  15. What good would it do? Other than maybe contempt of congress charges. I don’t think any congress member is smart enough to trick Cohen into telling the truth. Oh, and I’m sure Trump and Rudy are picking up the phone and making threatening calls to Cohen, LOL!

      -I’ve never actually heard Cohen speak, but he doesn’t appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.
      I don’t think he was ever eager from the get-go to testify before Congress, and the alleged threats gave him some cover to bail out on the Congressional testimony.
      It would be a benefit to the public to have figures like Cohen testify, but keeping things under wraps and behind the veil has been the standard now for 2 1/2 years.
      Ultimately, if there are enough plea deals, there may even be no need for Secret State Trials to “protect the investigation”.

      1. I could be wrong, but . . . I’m pretty sure that you can’t charge someone for lying to Congress after that person had already pled guilty, allocuted to and been sentenced for lying to Congress. Unless that person tells fresh lies to Congress. Maybe that’s why Cohen declined the invitation to testify to Congress on February 7th. Or not. Either way, Cohen’s allocution statement for his guilty plea for lying to Congress was, in fact, a sworn statement. So, if Giuliani can prove that Cohen lied in Cohen’s allocution statement for lying to Congress, then . . . well, Cohen would have perjured himself by means of a false confession to lying to Congress. Who would do such a thing?

Comments are closed.