Cohen knows where a lot of bodies are buried

Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, met last month with federal prosecutors in Manhattan, offering information about possible irregularities within the president’s family business and about a donor to the inaugural committee [Imaad Zuberi, a California venture capitalist and political fund-raiser], according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Cohen, who worked at the Trump Organization for a decade, spoke with the prosecutors about insurance claims the company had filed over the years.

[...]

Around the time that Mr. Zuberi contributed $900,000 to the committee, he also tried to hire Mr. Cohen as a consultant and wrote him a substantial check, one of the people said.

Although Mr. Cohen did not go through with the arrangement, he was building a consulting business at the time with clients who sought to understand and have access to the Trump administration.

A spokesman for Mr. Zuberi, Steve Rabinowitz, confirmed the check on Friday, saying it was for $100,000 and never cashed. Mr. Zuberi, the only person directly referenced in a recent subpoena the prosecutors sent the inaugural committee, had previously denied having any dealings with Mr. Cohen beyond a few conversations.

[...]

The White House referred questions to the Trump Organization. A spokeswoman at the company did not respond to requests for comment.

[...]

The prosecutors recently sought to interview Trump Organization executives, according to a person briefed on the request, which was previously reported by CNN. The nature of the questions they were seeking to ask was not known.

So far, Mr. Cohen is the only person sentenced to significant prison time in various investigations connected to Mr. Trump.

  NYT

Manafort and Stone haven't yet been sentenced. Manafort is looking at the probability of a very long sentence.

Mr. Cohen declined to seek a formal cooperation deal with the Southern District, which would have required him to disclose any crimes he had committed or had been aware of, and would have delayed his sentencing. His decision to forgo such an agreement most likely contributed to the severity of his sentence; his lawyer had argued for no prison time.

I'd have to guess the severity of his sentence would have been worse had he disclosed any crimes he had committed or had been aware of.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Here we go again - Part 2

A judge in the United States has agreed to postpone the start of ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's prison sentence by two months to May 6.

New York Judge William Pauley approved the delay on Wednesday after Cohen's lawyers said he needed more time to recover from shoulder surgery and prepare for a congressional testimony. They noted prosecutors did not object.

[...]

He was originally scheduled to report to prison March 6.

  alJazeera

Well, his testimony is scheduled for February 27. But sure, add another two months for his shoulder. Maybe he can have the other one operated on and get a few more months.

Cohen’s lawyer said he was undergoing intensive post-surgery physical therapy and spending substantial time getting ready for testimony his attorneys say he will deliver to three congressional committees this month.

[...]

Cohen, 52, was spotted last month in New York City wearing a hospital ID bracelet and with his right arm in a sling. At the time, his lawyer said he’d undergone minor shoulder surgery.

  PBS

I wonder what minor shoulder surgery is.  And I wonder why no reporter seems to have pressed for some details.

January 18, 2019

President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, created a stir when he was photographed outside his New York City apartment with his arm in a sling and a hospital ID bracelet on his wrist.

  AP

Raise your hand everybody who's been hospitalized and worn their hospital bracelet home. OK, there are probably a few of you.



Yeah, these days they make slings for shoulder surgeries that have a bolster attached.  What hospital was that? 

It was a previously scheduled surgery according to Cohen's lawyer.  Coincidentally fortuitous timing.  Perhaps he'd been living with the pain for years that was exacerbated by the stress of an imminent prison date.

I'm not calling him a malingerer or a faker.  Just wondering about some things.  I'm sure my questions have reasonable answers.  I'd just like to have them.  I hate being left with unanswered questions.

And I don't blame him for not wanting to go to prison and doing everything he can to prevent it. 

What now?

Someone on Wednesday filed a document saying something in connection with a criminal case against President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

But who filed it and what it says are a mystery.

The document, which is sealed from public view, was "placed in vault" at U.S. District Court in Manhattan, according to a docket entry.

[...]

The sealed document was filed in a case brought against Cohen by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

In that case, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion, making false statements to a bank, and to campaign contribution crimes related to the payments of hush money to two women who claim they had affairs with Trump.

  CNBC

More brilliant analysis from the Fox

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Hatch finally forced to defend himself against his own comments

Asked earlier this week if he was concerned the filings from prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York implicated the president, [retiring GOP Senator Orrin] Hatch told CNN: "I don't care, all I can say is he's doing a good job as president."

[...]

"Earlier this week in an unplanned hallway interview with CNN, I made comments about allegations against the President that were irresponsible and a poor reflection on my lengthy record of dedication to the rule of law," Hatch, who is retiring in January, said in a statement on Friday.

He added that with Americans’ "faith in so many of our institutions is at an all-time low, I regret speaking imprudently."

"I don’t believe the President broke the law, but one of the core principles of our country is that no one is above the law. That means anyone who does break the law should face appropriate consequences," Hatch continued.

[...]

Hatch added in his statement on Friday that he does not believe Cohen is "any kind of reliable voice in this process" but that he has previously acknowledged that "the campaign finance allegations were 'some serious charges, and they can’t be ignored.'"

"While I believe the President has succeeded in a number of important policy areas, that success is separate from the validity of these investigations, which I believe should be allowed to run their course," Hatch added.

  The Hill

Still talking like the feds would be prosecuting on simply the word of Michael Cohen without corroborating evidence.

Video of his original comments is in the article.



"You can make anything a crime under current laws."

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

D'oh!

Seething somewhere

There's been not a twit of a tweet coming from His Lardship today.  Correction: for the past 7 hours of today.  He did post a couple tweets this morning around 8:30 Eastern.



I'd like to think it's because his head actually did explode when the AMI plea news came out right after Cohen's attorney's mention that Cohen would be telling everything he knows after Mueller finishes his case.

Seething somewhere so hard he can't tweet

There's been not a twit of a tweet coming from His Lardship today.  Correction: for the past 10 hours of today.  He did post a couple tweets this morning around 8:30 Eastern.



I'd like to think it's because his head actually did explode when the AMI plea news came out.

Devil in the details

According to the allegations in Information 18 Cr. 602 (WHP), filed by the United States States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “Office”), as well as previous court filings and statements in public court proceedings:

Between 2012 and 2016, COHEN concealed more than $4 million in personal income from the Internal Revenue Service, avoiding more than $1.3 million in income tax. COHEN also made false statements to a federally insured financial institution to obtain a $500,000 home equity loan. Finally, in 2016, COHEN made or caused two separate payments to women to ensure that they did not publicly disclose their alleged affairs with a presidential candidate in advance of the election. In one instance, COHEN caused American Media, Inc. (“AMI”), which was identified in previous court filings as “Corporation-1,” to make a $150,000 payment to one woman; in the other, COHEN made a $130,000 payment to another woman through an LLC he incorporated for the purpose of making the payment. COHEN was reimbursed for the latter payment in monthly installments disguised as payments for legal services performed pursuant to a retainer, when in fact no such retainer existed. COHEN made or caused both of these payments in order to influence the 2016 election and did so in coordination with one or more members of the campaign.

In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, Judge Pauley also ordered COHEN, 52, of New York, New York, to pay a fine of $50,000, to forfeit $500,000, to pay $1,393,858 in restitution to the IRS, and to pay a mandatory $800 special assessment. Separately, COHEN was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and to pay a $100 special assessment in the case brought by the SCO. COHEN was also sentenced to concurrent three-year terms of supervised release in both cases, to follow his term of imprisonment.

The Office also announced today that it has previously reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, in connection with AMI’s role in making the above-described $150,000 payment before the 2016 presidential election. As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

  Justice

Let me repeat that quote:

AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election. AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

It's not looking good for "the candidate", is it?

Assuming AMI’s continued compliance with the agreement, the Office has agreed not to prosecute AMI for its role in that payment. The agreement also acknowledges, among other things, AMI’s acceptance of responsibility, its substantial and important assistance in this investigation, and its agreement to provide cooperation in the future and implement specific improvements to its internal compliance to prevent future violations of the federal campaign finance laws. These improvements include distributing written standards regarding federal election laws to its employees and conducting annual training concerning these standards.

Cohen hasn't been getting much sleep lately.

Not that he deserved to.

Ah, the penitent

His what?!?

The judge ordered Cohen to surrender March 6 for a three year prison stay.  After having listened to his protestations of turning a page toward goodness.










That should be fun.


Then again, he's got three years in prison where some accident could befall him.  And suddenly, three years looks like a long time.



Yeah, better get what you can before he goes away to prison, just in case he doesn't make it out.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Three years

Doesn't sound like a lot to me, although I understand that's pretty much what some people who understand sentencing guidelines (in this case 51-63 months) were expecting.

I hope he provided them with everything necessary to clear up at least three other investigations.

President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after pleading guilty to tax fraud, campaign finance violations, and lying to Congress. Prosecutors said some of those crimes were done on Trump's behalf and others were directed by Trump himself.

At his hearing in lower Manhattan, an emotional Cohen told the judge that he covered up "dirty deeds" for Trump in acts of "blind loyalty."

"I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to," Cohen said, "the personal ones to me and those involving the President of the United States of America."

  Buzzfeed

Trump tweet soon: "Completely clears Trump, thank you!"

US District Judge William Pauley, however, made clear that Cohen's status as a lawyer meant that "should have known better." Despite his cooperation with the special counsel's investigation, Pauley found that a "significant" prison sentence was appropriate.

I don't think three years is "significant". Let's have a look at some people who went to prison for victimless crimes like merely having pot in their possession. Or maybe smocking it.



Well, for three years he will anyway.  Beginning in March.

Easy to understand legal discussion on what the Manafort and Cohen filings mean for Trump

The House wallopping has gone to Adam Schiff's head

"Little Adam Schitt" is getting the last laugh.

In depth assessment of Friday's filings: Big trouble for Trump cabal

1. SDNY Prosecutors named the President of the United States as a direct participant, if not the principal, in felonies

[...]

[T]he flagship U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York walked right up to the line of accusing Donald Trump (identified as “Individual 1”) in a federal court filing of complicity and conspiracy in Cohen’s felony campaign finance crimes related to the payment of hush money to women to squash sex stories.

[...]

Trump is no mere accomplice, but is alleged to have directed the criminal activity. And this is no minor crime. The SDNY submitted to the court that “the nature and seriousness of the offenses” should “weigh heavily in favor of a substantial term of imprisonment.” And as though they were speaking about Trump himself, the prosecutors state that the “two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency,” “deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election,” and should be met with a stiff penalty “to counter the public cynicism that may arise when individuals like Cohen act as if the political process belongs to the rich and powerful.”

[...]

All that said, there’s an important footnote: something is still missing [...] before being able to say the Justice Department actually crossed the line of accusing the President of committing a felony. That’s the element of a knowing violation of the law.

[...]

[P]rosecutors would have to demonstrate that someone in Trump’s shoes, like Cohen, knew what he was doing was illegal.

Notwithstanding the legal debate about a sitting president’s indictability, it won’t happen as a practical matter. Nonetheless, after these filings, Trump faces meaningful criminal exposure upon the end of his term in office.

[...]

2. Other Trump Campaign and Trump Organization officials may face criminal charges for the hush money scheme

The key allegation against the President also refers to “one or more members of the campaign,” which suggests more indictments for the hush money scheme may still be in the offing. This also raises the prospect that we may soon see the prosecution of the campaign itself as an organization — “United States vs. Trump Campaign” — even if a sitting president (United States vs. Donald J. Trump) cannot be indicted.

[...]

3. The Special Counsel ties Trump directly to possible Russia collusion

[...]

The Special Counsel’s memo says that it was Trump’s idea to initiate contact with the Kremlin in the early stages of the campaign, and that he tasked his fixer, Cohen, to begin that process as early as September 2015. This information should now inform how we think about other subsequent events in the Trump-Russia timeline. At least some Russian overtures should be seen as a potential second step (a receptive response) in the two side’s engagement, not the first step (an initial overture or invitation).

This is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Mueller specifically refers to “examples” of Cohen’s and Trump’s actions, indicating these instances are representative of a broader set of cases.

[...]

4. Russian contacts began during the GOP Primary

[...]

By September 2015, Cohen publicly suggested a meeting between Putin and Trump after having “conferred with Individual 1 about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting.” In November 2015, a Russian national who identified themselves as a “trusted person” in the Russian Federation reached out to Cohen proposing such a meeting with Putin and offering the campaign support in the form of “political synergy.” The only reason Cohen declined is because already by then he considered Felix Sater, with whom he was arrange the Moscow Trump Tower project, provided sufficient “connections to the Russian government.”

[...]

[W]hen senior campaign officials appeared to brush away some overtures by Russian agents (think: Kushner at the time of the NRA convention), it may have been because they considered other established connections with the Kremlin sufficient. Second, these earlier interactions with Trump and Cohen may also shed light on Rob Goldstone’s email to Donald Trump Jr. In the first email on June 3, 2016, Goldstone’s message appeared to pick up mid-conversation and assume Trump Jr. already knew about Kremlin efforts to help Trump get elected. “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote.

5. The Special Counsel targets many Manafort lies but is silent on the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russians

[...]

Did Manafort lie [...] about whether Trump had advance knowledge of the June 9 meeting with the Russians? The memo does not say.

Despite White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders boasting that the Manafort filing “says absolutely nothing about the President,” that may actually be quite worrisome for Trump. The president may need to be most concerned that Manafort was candid about what he knew of Russia-Trump Campaign activities. Put another way, Manafort may have testified before the grand jury that Trump did know about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting in real time.

That said, we do not read too much into the absence of allegations. Mueller may have decided to focus on a tidy set of slam dunk examples in which Manafort not only clearly lied, but even acknowledged the falsehood.

[...]

6. Some potential hints of obstruction and suborning perjury

[...]

Why was Manafort secretly in contact with Administration officials, and as late as May 26, 2018, long after his indictment and being confined to his home under court order? Why did, as the Special Counsel accuses “Manafort authorize[] a person to speak with an Administration official on Manafort’s behalf”? And why did Manafort deny all this to federal investigators after signing the plea agreement?

[...]

[In addition,] the Special Counsel’s brief added to that picture. It states, “Cohen provided relevant and useful information concerning his contacts with persons connected to the White House during the 2017–2018 time period” and “Cohen described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries, while continuing to accept responsibility for the false statements contained within it.” If indeed White House staff and any of Trump’s legal counsel were involved in preparing or encouraging Cohen’s false testimony to Congress, they should be worried about their personal liability. Mueller may well have the evidence to prove it.

7. Mueller’s M.O.: What he’ll do with lying to the public (and lies in writing)

[...]

In terms of perjury and false statements, Mueller seizes on fact that Cohen lies were in written testimony rather than arising “spontaneously from a line of examination or heated colloquy.” That’s a danger sign for people like Trump, who may have thought they had greater safety in written responses to Mueller, and people like Roger Stone, whose apparent lies to Congress are on the face of his written testimony.

[...]

Mueller’s theory of the case recognizes that public statements are methods of communication with other witnesses. That’s important for potential conspiracies to commit perjury or otherwise obstruct justice. This also increases the likelihood that Mueller will regard public statements by President Trump and his lawyers as signals to other witnesses–such as publicly dangling pardons and favoring the “strength” of uncooperative witnesses.

Second, Mueller considers lies to the public can be an attempt to undermine the investigation. The memo states, “By publicly presenting this false narrative, the defendant deliberately shifted the timeline of what had occurred in the hopes of limiting the investigations into possible Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” That sounds awfully similar to the creation of a cover story about the June 9 Trump Tower meeting, which the President himself reportedly directed from aboard Airforce One.

Third, Mueller considers Cohen’s false statements to be even more significant because he “amplified” them by “by releasing and repeating his lies to the public.” That approach spells trouble for several Trump campaign associates including Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Erik Prince, and Michael Caputo.

8. Why Cohen was more forthcoming with Mueller than SDNY, and SDNY wants him to serve a significant prison sentence

[...]

In this filing SDNY argues the prosecutors wanted Cohen to be a “traditional cooperating witness” but Cohen made an “affirmative decision not to become one.” Per SDNY, Cohen had valuable information: “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.”

In contrast, Cohen provided more fulsome information to the Special Counsel, which SDNY suggests deserves a variance from the normal sentencing guidelines range but not the kind of substantial assistance reduction Michael Flynn received. Unlike SDNY, Mueller describes Cohen’s assistance as “substantial.”

Why the discrepancy? One theory is that Mueller’s investigation is focused on the Trump orbit, whereas the SDNY is much more focused on Cohen’s. Cohen may be reticent to cooperate fully with SDNY because it might implicate his own family and non-Trump business associates.

[...]

***

[...]

Within the procedural rules of these criminal cases, the sequence and nature of the information they provide drip with intention. As Preet Bharara discussed Friday night, there was no apparent need for the SDNY to mention that Cohen acted “in coordination with and at the direction of” the President.” But the SDNY did, and speaks volumes. This week we have seen a tale of three witnesses: Michael Flynn received a no-sentence recommendation for substantial cooperation in several ongoing investigations; Cohen got an SDNY recommendation of a “substantial” period of incarceration for his half-hearted cooperation, and Manafort got not just the book, but the whole library, thrown at him by prosecutors for allegedly breaking his plea agreement. The message there is not subtle either. And other witnesses and potential targets of these wide-ranging investigations will surely hear it.

  Just Security

White Bronco time again.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It's not been a good day for His Lardship

A sentencing memo in federal court claiming Himself committed a felony, and a denial of dictatorship.



That nasty old 9th Circuit again.

A very bad day in a very bad fortnight.

Individual-1's liability in the Cohen case

From former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti:

[P]rosecutors concluded that Trump directed Cohen to commit the two campaign finance violations he pleaded guilty to. Those violations were felonies, and someone who directs a subordinate or agent to commit a crime is also guilty of that crime.

Those statements mean that in addition to Cohen's statement under oath, the evidence that prosecutors have in their possession is also consistent with the conclusion that Trump directed him to commit crimes. If prosecutors had contrary evidence, they would say so.

In addition, it is hard for me to believe that they would have made this statement if the *only* evidence they had was Cohen's say-so. If all they had was Cohen's assertion, they would have merely said that Cohen asserted that Trump directed him to commit those crimes.

That statement by prosecutors indicates that they have some level of corroborating evidence that convinces them by "a preponderance of the evidence" that Trump directed Cohen to commit those crimes. [...] Their citation to two paragraphs of the PSR (Presentence Investigation Report) indicates U.S. Probation agreed.

That is well below the standard in a criminal trial, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt." By any measure that is well above 51%. We don't know whether they could meet the higher burden. Another complicating factor is that Cohen is an attorney. Although it doesn't look like Cohen was acting as Trump's attorney in this context, I suspect that Trump's legal team would try to argue that Trump believed that this transaction was legal because an attorney was involved.

That's not a legal defense in itself, but it goes to Trump's state of mind, which the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (It would be a defense if Trump sought and obtained a legal opinion that this was legal, which it does not appear he did.)

By now you are aware that DOJ policy is that a sitting president can't be indicted while in office. But even if that was not DOJ policy, it is not clear that Trump would be indicted. What *is* clear is that federal prosecutors and Probation concluded he committed a felony.

[T]omorrow morning I'll record a new episode of my #OnTopic podcast with [Patti Vasquez] and guest [Neal Katyal], the former Acting Solicitor General who wrote the special counsel regulations.

Ed:  That bold emphasis is mine.  I think it's extremely important.

There's no question that the New York federal prosecutors are upset that Cohen did not want a full cooperation deal but yet wants credit for cooperating. There's no question that the New York federal prosecutors are upset that Cohen did not want a full cooperation deal but yet wants credit for cooperating.

The [earlier] filing by Mueller's team was much more positive about Cohen's cooperation with them. One question we didn't know the answer to before today [...] was *why* Mueller recently charged Cohen. Now it appears Cohen may have wanted to be charged so Mueller could file a sentencing memo.

Because Mueller made a separate filing, the judge can read Mueller's views in addition to the New York federal prosecutors when determining his sentence. I remain convinced Cohen will receive a sentence significantly below the 51-63 month guidelines range.

But the key takeaway from today remains the conclusion that Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime, which I discussed at length in the prior thread. There is no question in my mind that the federal prosecutors (including their leader Rob Khazami) wrote that very carefully.

What's a little tricky is to keep separate the cases against Cohen.  This sentencing memo today was for the case in the Southern District of New York for tax evasion and campaign finance violations.  The more recent case and previous sentencing memo was from the Special Prosecutor's charge of lying to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.

UPDATE:

Totally clears the president - Part 2: Cohen sentencing memo

The Government's Sentencing Memorandum in the case of USA v. Michael Cohen

Defendant Michael Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced on December 12, 2018.

Cohen, an attorney and businessman, committed four distinct federal crimes over a period of several years. He was motivated to do so by personal greed, and repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends. Now he seeks extraordinary leniency – a sentence of no jail time – based principally on his rose-colored view of the seriousness of the crimes; his claims to a sympathetic personal history; and his provision of certain information to law enforcement. But the crimes committed by Cohen were more serious than his submission allows and were marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life (and was evidently hidden from the friends and family members who wrote on his behalf).

 [...]


To be clear: Cohen does not have a cooperation agreement and is not receiving a Section 5K1.1 letter either from this Office or the SCO, and therefore is not properly described as a “cooperating witness,” as that term is commonly used in this District.

As set forth in the Probation Department’s Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range is 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment. This range reflects Cohen’s extensive, deliberate, and serious criminal conduct, and this Office submits that a substantial prison term is required to vindicate the purposes and principles of sentencing as set forth in Section 3553(a). And while the Office agrees that Cohen should receive credit for his assistance in the SCO investigation, that credit should not approximate the credit a traditional cooperating witness would receive, given, among other reasons, Cohen’s affirmative decision not to become one. For these reasons, the Office respectfully requests that this Court impose a substantial term of imprisonment, one that reflects a modest downward variance from the applicable Guidelines range. 1

 [...] 

While Cohen – as his own submission makes clear – already enjoyed a privileged life, his desire for even greater wealth and influence precipitated an extensive course of criminal conduct, described below.

[...]

1. Background

The board of directors of a condominium building in which Cohen lived was attempting to remove from the building the name of the owner (“Individual-1”) of a Manhattan-based real estate company (the “Company”). (PSR ¶ 155.) Cohen intervened, secured the backing of the residents of the building, and was able to remove the entire board of directors, thereby fixing the problem for Individual-1. (Id.) Not long after, Cohen was hired by the Company to the position of “Executive Vice President” and “Special Counsel” to Individual-1. (Id.) He earned approximately $500,000 per year in that position. (Id.) In January 2017, Cohen formally left the Company and began holding himself out as the “personal attorney” to Individual-1, who at that point had become the President of the United States. [...] Cohen also secured a substantial amount of consulting business for himself throughout 2017 by marketing to corporations what he claimed to be unique insights about and access to Individual-1. But while Cohen made millions of dollars from these consulting arrangements, his promises of insight and access proved essentially hollow.

[...]

2. Cohen’s Willful Tax Evasion

Between tax years 2012 and 2016, Cohen evaded taxes by failing to report more than $4 million in income to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which resulted in the avoidance of more than $1.4 million due to the United States Treasury Department.

[...]

Cohen did not inform his accountant of this arrangement or provide him with documentation in support of these loans and interest payments, and intentionally reported none of that income to the IRS in order to hide it and evade paying taxes.

[...]

Finally, Cohen hid several other sources of income from his accountant and the IRS. For example, in 2014, Cohen received $100,000 for brokering the sale of a piece of property in a private aviation community in Florida. In 2015, Cohen made approximately $30,000 in profit from the sale of a rare and highly valuable French handbag. In 2016, Cohen received more than $200,000 in consulting income from an assisted living company. Cohen reported none of this to the IRS or his accountant.

[...]

Cohen’s submission to the Probation Department asserted that “all relevant bank records were provided annually by Cohen to [his accountant] for the relevant years.” (PSR at 45). Cohen repeats these efforts to blame his accountant in his sentencing submission:

Michael’s case stands out for comparative purposes in that a failure to reasonably identify all income to a tax preparer who received all client-related bank statements is quite different in kind from the sophisticated and complex schemes typical of criminal tax evasion cases.

(Def. Mem. at 15) (emphasis added). Cohen’s assertions are simply false.

[...]

3. Cohen’s False Statements to Financial Institutions

In December 2015, Cohen contacted a bank (“Bank-3”) to apply for a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”). In his application for the HELOC, Cohen made false statements about his net worth and monthly expenses. Specifically, Cohen failed to disclose more than $20 million in debt he owed to another bank (“Bank-2”), and also materially understated his monthly expenses to Bank-3 by omitting at least $70,000 in monthly interest payments due to Bank-2 on that debt. (PSR ¶ 34). These statements were the latest in a series of false statements Cohen made to financial institutions in connection with credit applications.

[...]

In April 2016, Bank-3 approved Cohen for a $500,000 HELOC, which it would not have approved but for Cohen’s concealment of truthful information about his financial condition.

Notably, each of the foregoing false statements involved Cohen overstating his assets or understating his liabilities, as in these instances it served his purposes to appear to have a higher net worth. In contrast, when it served Cohen’s purposes to understate his net worth to financial institutions, he did so by concealing income and assets from his creditors.

[...]

4. Cohen’s Illegal Campaign Contributions

On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate and supporter of Individual-1.

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. [...] In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. [...] As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election.

[...]

After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2. Cohen presented an executive of the Company with a copy of a bank statement reflecting the $130,000 wire transfer. Cohen also requested reimbursement of an additional $50,000, which represented a claimed payment for campaignrelated “tech services.” Executives of the Company agreed to reimburse Cohen by adding $130,000 and $50,000, “grossing up” that amount to $360,000 for tax purposes, and adding a $60,000 bonus, such that Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total.

[...]

5. Cohen’s False Statements to Congress

Cohen also deliberately made false statements to the Congress.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

While Cohen’s provision of information to the SCO merits credit, his description of his actions as arising solely from some “personal resolve” – as opposed to arising from the pendency of criminal charges and the desire for leniency – ignores that Cohen first reached out to meet with the SCO at a time when he knew he was under imminent threat of indictment in this District. As such, any suggestion by Cohen that his meetings with law enforcement reflect a selfless and unprompted about-face are overstated.

[...]

He did provide what could have been useful information about matters relating to ongoing investigations being carried out by this Office. But as Cohen partially acknowledges, it was his decision not to pursue full cooperation, and his professed willingness to continue to provide 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.

[...]

Cohen further declined to meet with the Office about other areas of investigative interest. As the Court is undoubtedly aware, in order to successfully cooperate with this Office, witnesses must undergo full debriefings that encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others. This process permits the Office to fully assess the candor, culpability, and complications attendant to any potential cooperator, and results in cooperating witnesses who, having accepted full responsibility for any and all misconduct, are credible to law enforcement and, hopefully, to judges and juries. Cohen affirmatively chose not to pursue this process. Cohen’s efforts thus fell well short of cooperation, as that term is properly used in this District.

[...]

Within the confines of the SCO investigation itself, the Office does not dispute that Cohen’s assistance to the SCO was significant. But because Cohen elected not to pursue more fulsome cooperation with this Office, including on other subjects and on his own history, the Office cannot assess the overall level of Cohen’s cooperation to be significant.

[...]

Cohen managed to commit a panoply of serious crimes, all while holding himself out as a licensed attorney and upstanding member of the bar. His offenses strike at several pillars of our society and system of government: the payment of taxes; transparent and fair elections; and truthfulness before government and in business.

[...]

First, Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.

[...]

Cohen’s submission suggests that this was but a brief error in judgment. Not so. Cohen knew exactly where the line was, and he chose deliberately and repeatedly to cross it. [...] In fact, Cohen publicly and privately took credit for Individual-1’s political success, claiming – in a conversation that he secretly recorded – that he “started the whole thing . . . started the whole campaign” in 2012 when Individual-1 expressed an interest in running for President. Moreover, not only was Cohen well aware of what he was doing, but he used sophisticated tactics to conceal his misconduct.

[...]

Cohen was driven by a desire to further ingratiate himself with a potential future President—for whose political success Cohen himself claimed credit—and arranged for the payments in an attempt to increase his power and influence. Indeed, after Cohen caused the media company to make an illegal expenditure, in a secretly recorded meeting Cohen took credit for the payment and assured Individual-1 that he was “all over” the transaction.

[...]

Second, Cohen undertook similar acts of deception in his private life. He concealed significant amounts of income from the IRS, and lied about his financial status in his dealings with banks. These offenses warrant significant punishment.

[...]

Third, Cohen similarly flouted his obligation to be truthful in business when seeking financing.

[...]

Finally, Cohen has pled guilty to making false statements to Congress in connection with a congressional investigation.

[...]

Certainly, Cohen has no prior convictions, and is well-educated and professionally successful. Generally, such characteristics suggest that a defendant is unlikely to re-offend in the future. But where, as here, the nature, multitude, and temporal span of criminal behavior betray a man whose outlook on life was often to cheat – an outlook that succeeded for some time – his professional history and lack of prior convictions are not a significant mitigating factor.

For much the same reasons, the time-served sentence that Cohen seeks would send precisely the wrong message to the public. General deterrence is a significant factor here. Campaign finance crimes, because they are committed in secret and hidden from the victims, are difficult to identify and prosecute. Nonetheless, they have tremendous social cost, described above, as they erode faith in elections and perpetuate political corruption. [...] Particularly in light of the public interest in this case, the Court’s sentence may indeed have a cognizable impact on that problem by deterring future candidates, and their “fixers,” all of whom are sure to be aware of the Court’s sentence here, from violating campaign finance laws.

Additionally, a significant sentence of imprisonment would also generally deter tax evasion and other financial crimes by sending the important message that even powerful individuals cannot cheat on their taxes and lie to financial institutions with impunity, because they will be subject to serious federal penalties.

[...]

While Cohen has submitted letters describing his good nature, the evidence collected and witnesses interviewed in this investigation paint a decidedly different picture – a picture of someone who was threatening and abusive when he wanted to get his way. For instance, in 2015, Cohen threatened a journalist for investigating a negative story about Individual-1, telling him:

I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your [employer] and everybody else that you possibly know. . . . So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?

On another call – which Cohen secretly recorded – with bankers from Bank-2 with whom Cohen was seeking to renegotiate his medallion debt on terms more favorable to him, Cohen threatened:

I’m gonna teach [the bank and its government conservator] a lesson they’ve never seen before in their life. Because I’m gonna hit everybody up with a lawsuit that’s gonna spin everyone’s head. And I’m looking forward to that, by the way. And I’m not saying it as a threat. It’s a fact.

[...]

These are just a few of the many examples of Cohen’s abuse of both his standing as an attorney and his relationship to a powerful individual – examples of the type of conduct that is repugnant from anyone, let alone an attorney of the bar.

[...]

Finally, Cohen’s further assertion that he is deserving of leniency because he “could have fought the government and continued to hold the party line, positioning himself for a pardon or clemency” reflects a continuation of his mindset that, at his own option, he is above the laws reflected in his crimes of conviction.

[...]

For the reasons set forth above, the Office respectfully requests that this Court impose a substantial term of imprisonment, one that reflects a modest variance from the applicable Guidelines range. The Office also requests that the Court impose forfeiture in the amount of $500,000, and a fine.

Dated: December 7, 2018
New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT KHUZAMI
Acting United States Attorney

Ed: The secret tapes are my favorite part.  Trump should be shitting his pants.

Unless Whitaker steps in to stop it?

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors have told defense lawyers in recent weeks that they are “tying up loose ends” in their investigation, providing the clearest clues yet that the long-running probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election may be coming to its climax, potentially in the next few weeks, according to multiple sources close to the matter.

  Yahoo

Or, tying up loose ends could take a while.

The new information about the state of Mueller’s investigation comes during a pivotal week when the special counsel’s prosecutors are planning to file memos about three of their most high profile defendants — former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

That at least seems to indicate they're through getting whatever information they think they need from those three.

A Flynn sentencing memo is due Tuesday, and memos about Manafort and Cohen are slated for Friday. All three documents are expected to yield significant new details on what cooperation the three of them provided to the Russia investigation.

[...]

Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel, confirmed to Yahoo News on Monday that the Manafort memo “will be public,” although he added there could be some portions that are redacted or filed as a sealed addendum.

[...]

“What we were told is that the investigation has reached a mature enough stage that they’ve basically talked to everybody they want to talk to,” said a knowledgeable source who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Mueller’s office declined any public comment when asked to confirm that account, leaving open the possibility that there still could be a few witnesses yet to be questioned. Another source indicated that Mueller’s office is still asking congressional investigators to stay away from some other witnesses.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Cohen's sentencing memorandum

From Renato Mariotti, attorney and former federal prosecutor:

Late on Friday night, Michael Cohen's attorneys filed his sentencing submission.

A sentencing memorandum is a document that defense attorneys write and submit to a court before a client is sentenced so that the judge can consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding their client and his conduct when he is sentenced.

In many cases, there are disputes between the prosecutors and defense about what the defendant did, what sentencing guidelines apply to the defendant, or what the sentence should be. In the case of a cooperator like Cohen, I expect the only disagreement to be the sentence.

It's important to note that if a cooperator like Cohen made a false factual assertion about his cooperation or his criminal activity, the prosecutors would make that known to the judge. You can be confident that this document is consistent with Mueller's knowledge.

The most interesting thing in the document, by far, is Cohen's discussion of his false statements to Congress. His attorneys carefully discuss the false statements, his motivation to make the false statement, and the involvement of Trump's staff and attorneys.

Because the precision of their words is important, I'm going to type out their exact words here. They refer to Trump as "Client-1" throughout but I've changed that to "Trump" here for clarity:

"Michael's false statements to Congress likewise sprung regrettably from Michael's effort, as a loyal ally and then champion of Trump, to support and advance Trump's political messaging. At the time that he was requested to appear before the [House and Senate Intel Committees], Michael was serving as personal attorney to the President, and followed daily the political messages that both Trump and his staff and supporters repeatedly and forcefully broadcast. Furthermore, in the weeks during which his then-counsel prepared his written response to the Congressional Committees, Michael remained in close and regular contact with White House based-staff and legal counsel to Trump."

That last sentence is extremely important and interesting. It is also very carefully worded. The sentence strongly implies that White House staff and Trump's attorneys knew in advance that Cohen would lie to Congress and were involved in crafting his statements. But it does *not* come out and say that. It is important to note that Cohen's attorney does not allege that Cohen was *directed* to lie to Congress. Yet Cohen's lawyer has not been shy about having him say that Trump directed him to commit the campaign finance violations. If he could truthfully say that Cohen was *directed* to lie, I believe he would be obligated to do so because it would be a mitigating fact that the judge should consider. But Cohen's attorney suggests that Cohen felt pressure to lie and that Trump's staff and attorneys knew.

Essentially what Cohen's attorney is saying is that Cohen read Trump's anti-Mueller messaging (discussed at length in the memorandum), knew that he was supposed to be consistent with Trump's lies, and did so.

He was also in "close and regular contact" with White House staff and Trump's lawyers about what he would say. The implication is that they knew the testimony he was going to provide to Congress was false and let him go forward and lie, or at least didn't correct the record.

So do Trump's staff members and attorneys have any liability? Possibly, although it appears that they tried to be careful to mislead Congress and the public in a manner that would not create personal liability.

Depending on what Trump’s staff and attorneys knew, this could very well be a conspiracy to lie to Congress, which is a crime. (A conspiracy is just an agreement to commit a crime.) But it may be extremely difficult to prove based on what Cohen’s attorney said.

What it would take to prove a conspiracy of that nature is testimony from another co-conspirator (a Trump attorney or staffer) that their conversations with Cohen were a way for him to run his lies past them for approval, and they approved the lies. Emails or other documentation proving that point would also potentially prove a conspiracy along those lines. I suspect that Mueller and House Democrats will try to find out what evidence exists of knowledge, approval, or coordination of Cohen’s lies. [...] Their defense would be that Cohen testified about many matters and that they weren’t focused on these specific portions of his testimony, and/or that they didn’t even know those portions of his testimony were false at the time. Prosecutors would have to prove otherwise.

So what does the rest of the sentencing memorandum say? Quite a bit.

First, the sentencing memorandum repeats the statement Cohen made under oath that Trump directed Cohen to commit the campaign finance violations, and provides important context to help the judge understand those violations and Trump's involvement in them. Specifically, Cohen "kept his client [Trump] contemporaneously informed and acted on his client's instructions. This is not an excuse, and Michael accepts that he acted wrongfully [...] Nevertheless, we respectfully request that the Court consider that as personal counsel to Trump, Michael felt obligated to assist Trump, on Trump's instruction, to attempt to prevent Woman-1 and Woman-2 from disseminating narratives that would adversely affect the Campaign *and* cause personal embarrassment to Trump and his family."

That last line is an attempt by Cohen's attorney to suggest that the offense is less serious than if the payments were just meant to influence the election. That is *not* a legal defense. It's a crime nonetheless, and Cohen acknowledges that. His attorney minimizes the conduct because his job is to provide context that would reduce Cohen's sentence. He's doing his job. That's also why he is pointing to the extent to which Cohen kept Trump informed of his actions at the time--more detail on that is given in the memorandum--and acted on his orders. It's not an excuse but it helps provide context that explains why he committed the crimes.

The next interesting part of his memorandum is its description of Trump's legal and PR strategy. This is quite a statement to make on behalf of the president's former personal lawyer: Cohen was "personally aware of Trump's repeated disavowals of commercial and political ties between himself and Russia, as well as the strongly voiced mantra of Trump that investigations of such ties were politically motivated and without evidentiary support."

What Cohen's lawyer carefully does not say is whether those statements are true or false. But he immediately follows that statement by focusing on the specific falsehood at issue here and noting that it was also part of Trump's false messaging.

Part of what is going on here is that Cohen's attorney is explaining that Trump's extreme strategy of casting the entire investigation of him as false is a mitigating circumstance the judge should consider when taking into account his own crime of lying to Congress. But the description itself is quite an acknowledgement on his part.

The last part of Cohen's sentencing memorandum that is worth discussing here is his description of his cooperation. Cohen described in detail his cooperation with Mueller and other prosecutors.

Cohen said that he participated in seven separate interviews with Mueller and that he met with representatives of the New York Attorney General concerning their civil lawsuit against the Trump Foundation and provided documents to them.

Cohen also said that he met with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and has complied with numerous requests for information from them. Also, Cohen claims that the decision to push forward without a traditional cooperation deal was his own decision.

He claims he is eager not to delay his sentencing, and wants to be sentenced now before his cooperation is completed, even though he intends to cooperate further. This is a very unusual and risky strategy by Cohen. The judge can't be sure that he will continue cooperating.

And that brings me to the last point. After disputing how the sentencing guidelines are calculated--Cohen believes the guidelines range should be 46 to 57 months--he asks for time served. I don't believe he will receive a sentence of time served.

That said, based on my experience prosecuting and defending federal criminal tax and fraud violations, I expect Cohen to receive a sentence well below the guidelines range. He will get some prison time but it may be less than some uninformed or disingenuous observers predict.

Official document: Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Michael Cohen