Michael Cohen ready for his closeup

Andrew Weissman (at the New York Times), and Joyce Vance (in her Substack article), previewed what they're expecting today in Trump's Manhattan case.

Before the trial started, some observers thought Mr. Cohen would be an indispensable star witness. They said that without Mr. Cohen, the district attorney could not establish the elements of the charged criminal offenses. But having seen the proof laid out meticulously and methodically by the prosecution these past three weeks, I find myself wondering: Do prosecutors even need Michael Cohen as a witness? Does the jury need to hear from him?

[...]

Mr. Cohen can provide a detailed insider account of the charged scheme and Mr. Trump’s alleged role in it. And because the trial has already established that there is simply no alternative narrative that is consistent with all the trial proof, Mr. Cohen is far less important to its outcome than initially thought.

  Weissman

Whether they need him or not, I wish we had video, because Cohen and Trump in the same room while Cohen directs venom at him and Trump can't (or can he?) return fire will be priceless. Trump will, of course, have lots to say on breaks.

To be sure, the case would not exist but for Mr. Cohen. It is he who first revealed to prosecutors in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s office (I was one of the special counsel prosecutors) and in New York the hush-money scheme to buy Stormy Daniels’s silence in the aftermath of the “Access Hollywood” tape’s disclosure.

[...]

It is a sign of the unusual political dimension of this trial that Ms. Daniels, and not the far more legally damaging witnesses Mr. Pecker and Ms. Hicks, was subject to the far more intense cross-examination.

[...]

To call Mr. Cohen as a witness carries with it not only the reward of adding further critical evidence to the prosecution’s case, but also the risk of undermining the case with issues related to Mr. Cohen’s personal baggage.

[...]

A key remaining issue — and one that Mr. Cohen can address — is whether Mr. Trump was aware of the alleged cover-up scheme involving reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen disguised as legal payments.

[...]

Witness after witness — as well as Mr. Trump’s own words read to the jury — attest to his being both a micromanager and a penny-pincher. And Mr. Trump signed check after check reimbursing Mr. Cohen for what he paid Ms. Daniels plus much more.

[...]

[H]andwritten notes from Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization chief financial officer [...] reveal that he must have been aware of the hush-money scheme and its alleged cover-up. [...] The idea that Mr. Weisselberg, a Trump Organization veteran who has apparently been willing to serve time in jail rather than turn against Mr. Trump and remained on the Trump payroll even after his guilty pleas, would have approved these payments on his own is far-fetched. Trial evidence establishes that he could not approve expenses over $10,000, and here he would be approving not just the payment of $130,000 to Mr. Cohen, but doubling it to make him whole.

[...]

Mr. Bragg and his prosecutors believe they must call Mr. Cohen to testify. Still, calling Mr. Cohen as a witness does carry significant risk for Mr. Bragg. He brings baggage: He recently claimed under oath in a New York civil fraud trial against Mr. Trump (where the court found him credible and ruled against Mr. Trump) that he lied to a federal judge when he pleaded guilty to one of several crimes. By way of explanation, he seemed to contend he was pressured to plead guilty by the federal prosecutors.

My recollection is Cohen said they threatened to drag his wife into the mess.

Even accepting Mr. Cohen’s story, it means he lied to a federal judge after taking an oath to tell the truth — the same oath he will take at the criminal trial of Mr. Trump. And his story would support an anticipated defense claim that the federal prosecutors were so intent on making a case against Mr. Trump that they were willing to trample on Mr. Cohen’s rights — and that ugly federal muck will splatter on the state prosecutors.

The other option is that Mr. Cohen is lying about not being guilty of the charge — which may be a very distinct possibility given the proof against him. If that is the case, it would mean he lied in the recent state court fraud case. As a federal judge in New York recently concluded in denying Mr. Cohen’s motion for early termination of his criminal sentence, he lied in one forum or the other.

Cross-examination by defense lawyers should be a real rodeo.

Jurors often want to hear someone recount what they already know occurred, but that has not been said directly.

[...]

I have repeatedly observed an interesting phenomenon in cases in which the prosecution has a mountain of independent evidence of guilt, but still calls a flawed insider to provide unique detailed and direct evidence to the jury of the defendant’s guilt.

History will tell us that the country should never have elected him and that it’s a terrible mistake to even consider doing it again. This is not a joyful moment for our country.

[...]

We’re also about to reach the complicated part of the case, where it’s not just about the personal history witnesses like Stormy Daniels are sharing on the witness stand. Soon, it will be about each of the 34 counts charged by the prosecution. In a business records case like this, it can be hard to keep everything straight. So, the District Attorney’s office put together a chart for the jurors to use. The 34 false records Trump is charged with are divided into invoices, vouchers (entries recording payments into the books), and checks and set forth in chronological order.

[...]

This chart, along with Exhibit 35, the invoice with Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes on it that documents the “grossed up” payment to Cohen to account for his taxes and other questionable expenses, and Exhibit 36, Controller Jeffrey McConney’s handwritten notes of Weisselberg’s directo to him about handling the payments, will be important for us to keep in mind as the government winds down its case. They form the core allegations of fraudulent records combined with the prosecution’s proof that Trump was a part of the scheme. That part of the case will be based largely on amalgamated circumstantial evidence from a number of witnesses that establishes no one from Weisselberg on down would have spent $420,000 of Trump’s money without his explicit approval.

  Vance

If you want to see the documents she's talking about, copies of them are included in her article.

Prosecutors still have to establish, in order to convert the misdemeanor fraudulent business records crime into a felony, that the records were created to conceal or aid in the commission of another crime. We haven’t heard a lot about that.

[...]

It’s likely that we’ll hear more about Trump’s culpability for campaign finance violations before the case ends, either in the form of exhibits or perhaps an expert witness or both, to establish that what Cohen did for the campaign was also an illegal contribution, in violation of federal and/or New York state law.

Cohen pled guilty to those charges in his federal case.

[...]

The defense will try to have a field day on cross-examination with the man who once said he’d take a bullet for Trump. The prosecution, which has meticulously pre-corroborated Cohen’s testimony knowing this was coming, will tell the jury they don’t have to approve of Michael Cohen to believe his testimony, which is substantiated by documents and other witnesses.

Trump is already preparing his base for a conviction. Just like he prepared them for a loss at the polls, he’s arguing that if he's convicted, it will be the result of corruption in the process—fraud.

[...]

[I]t’s important to understand that no matter what the verdict is in Manhattan, Trump still won’t be held accountable for his abuses as president. This is a case about very discreet charges: 34 counts of creating false business records in the state of New York. The prosecution has to prove every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury for each count in order for them to convict. [...] [A]nd it’s frustrating watching the delay in other prosecutions against Trump. It is where we are.

[...]

The prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving every element of the charged crimes to the jury’s satisfaction. Some of the elements in this case, including Trump’s knowledge of the criminal scheme and the intent to commit/conceal other crimes, are complex issues of circumstantial proof. We leave those decisions in the hands of the jury, as we must if we are committed to the rule of law.

[...]

Trump, as we’ve discussed recently, wants to take us to a place where the criminal justice system is a tool to be wielded by a president against his enemies. So, in the end, we may agree with the jury's verdict or not, but we must abide by it.

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

UPDATE 07:57 am:  Add Norm Eisen...

Michael Cohen, the erstwhile lawyer and fixer of former President Donald Trump, was one of the first witnesses I interviewed as part of the first Trump impeachment.

[...]

I expected someone very different from the person I met, who was candid, remorseful and funny, if profane and possessed of a hatred of Trump. Cohen has never wavered since in the key details he provided me about the election scheme and its cover-up that will also be at the center of his testimony in Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial starting Monday. As we approach his keenly anticipated appearance, I think he, like Daniels did last week, will exceed expectations in how he presents to the jury.

[...]

Cohen will undoubtedly be the subject of a vigorous cross-examination that will likely include the many lies he now admits having told when he was associated with Trump, as well as Cohen’s guilty plea for perjury. But the prosecution’s effective strategy [methodically bolster(ing) Cohen’s upcoming testimony with a series of credible witnesses and corroborating documents] has significantly shortened the leap of faith the jury will have to take to believe him.

[...]

Cohen will likely testify about a [...] meeting at Trump’s office that took place between October 10 and October 28, 2016, with former Trump Organization finance chief Allen Weisselberg in attendance, where Trump agreed to pay Daniels the $130,000. According to Cohen, Trump said “it is not a lot of money, and we should just do it, so go ahead and do it.” Trump then allegedly directed Cohen and Weisselberg to “figure this all out.” The two allegedly met again in early January in Trump Tower to do that, and then confirmed it with Trump.

[...]

[B]ecause Cohen is so strongly corroborated, believing him will not require a leap of faith for the jury — more like a short hop. When that is combined with the brutally unfiltered, heart-on-his-sleeve person I first met back in 2019, you get a witness who may surprise us all, and certainly the jury, by exceeding expectations.

  CNN

Harry Litman, another former federal prosecutor, has also become a fan/friend of Michael Cohen and has been a guest multiple times on Cohen's podcast "Mea Culpa".

Sounds right to me.

Why SEAL Gallagher won't be on Trump's final pardon list Memorial Day

This is from Michael Cohen's testimony:



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

UPDATE:  He doesn't have to have that pardon after all...

An excerpt from Cohen's testimony

I can think of another descriptor...

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

Cohen's closed door testimony released

 If anyone's interested, links are embedded in Griffin's tweet, which is accessible by clicking the graphic above, or here.

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

UPDATE:

Jay Sekulow's non-denial regarding Cohen's testimony

So that's a yes, then.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Impeach

For all the many reasons he's unfit and criminal.  Including this well-documented one:






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

"Not fully clear"

An attorney for Michael Cohen on Tuesday sent a letter to House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) seeking to clarify Cohen’s testimony before the committee about a potential presidential pardon.

Cohen’s attorney Michael Monico acknowledged in the letter that his client's testimony before the panel was not fully clear.

  The Hill

Beginning to sound like Roger Stone's lawyers.

Questions about whether Cohen may have perjured himself during his public testimony last month have emerged over his testimony that he “never asked for, nor would I accept a pardon from President Trump.”

[...]

But [Monico] maintained that his client was telling the panel the truth when Cohen said he had not sought a pardon, because he was referring to the time since a joint-defense agreement ended with President Trump last June.

Monico said that Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer and "fixer," had told his lawyers to explore the possibility of a pardon when it was offered by the president's legal representatives following the FBI raids on Cohen's home and office.

Maybe he could have mentioned that caveat when he testified.

“In retrospect, while the sentence could have been clearer regarding the time frames, the sentence is true, and Mr. Cohen stands by his statement,” the letter reads.

Actually, no, it wasn't true.

Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis said in a statement shortly after the testimony that the prospect of a pardon was raised by legal representatives for Trump after the FBI raids on Cohen's home and office, but that nothing came of it.

In other words, he got turned down.

“At no time did Mr. Cohen personally ask President Trump for a pardon or did the president offer Mr. Cohen the same,” the letter reads.

There's the key. Cohen was playing the technicality angle. Which he shouldn't have done. Asking through your lawyer is legally asking. He knew that.

Trump alleged last week that Cohen directly asked him for a pardon, a claim that Cohen immediately disputed.

And that, I can believe. While they're both liars, Trump will still be lying when he's put on the stand, when he's arraigned, and when he goes to his grave. If there are two different versions of a story, and Trump is telling one, count on his version to be the lie.

Cummings had promised to “be the first” to refer Cohen for prosecution if he made further false statements.

And Cohen has put him in a pickle.

Cohen will report to federal prison in May to serve three years on several federal charges, including making false statements to lawmakers.

[...]

Cummings said last week that he wants to examine the transcript from Cohen’s closed-door testimony with the House Intelligence Committee before deciding whether the president’s ex-fixer committed perjury.

I think he should go ahead and refer him. Cohen knew what was at stake.  He was so careful about his answers that it seems unlikely he didn't intentionally shade that one.  And why?  Stupid.  His lawyers should have nudged him.

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

Did Cohen perjure himself at his public hearing?

He said he never asked for, nor would he accept, a pardon.

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, told The Wall Street Journal late Wednesday that Cohen had asked his former attorney, Stephen Ryan, last spring to inquire about a possible pardon.

Davis added that Cohen had been open to a presidential pardon in the weeks after the FBI raided his home, hotel room and office.

“During that time period, he directed his attorney to explore possibilities of a pardon at one point with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani as well as other lawyers advising President Trump,” Davis told the Journal, while calling the talks an “ongoing ‘dangling’ of a possible pardon.”

[...]

The Journal had previously reported that Ryan allegedly discussed the possibility of a pardon with Trump's attorneys Jay Sekulow, Rudy Giuliani and Joanna Hendon, following the FBI raid.

According to the Journal, Giuliani left open the possibility that Trump could grant Cohen a future pardon, Trump's lawyers said.

  The Hill

And that's a criminal act on Trump's part, but you won't be able to pin it on him unless Giuliani flips. And Giuliani is too complicit in Trump's world of crime and sleze to flip.

Giuliani told The New York Times late Wednesday that multiple people facing scrutiny from the Justice Department in connection with Robert Mueller's special counsel probe have reached out to him about a possible presidential pardon.

“I always gave one answer, and they always left disappointed,” the former New York City mayor told the Times.

Giuliani declined to comment to either outlet about whose lawyers had been in contact with him, but he told the Journal, "I would assume ones representing Cohen" were among those lawyers.

Well, that's just more Giuliani bullshit. He knows full well who did and who didn't. He doesn't have to assume.

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

Cohen produced the edited docs

Michael Cohen on Wednesday provided the House Intelligence Committee with new documents showing edits to the false written statement he delivered to Congress in 2017 about the Trump Organization's pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow project into the 2016 campaign season, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

The documents Cohen provided are intended to further explain his public testimony last week, in which Cohen said that President Donald Trump's then-personal lawyer Jay Sekulow made changes to his statement to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and that it was reviewed ahead of time by lawyers like Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the President's daughter and son-in-law who are both White House advisers.

It's unclear what Cohen's documents show was specifically changed in the statement. Cohen is testifying Wednesday behind closed doors at the House Intelligence Committee.

[...]

As CNN previously reported, according to two of the sources familiar with the preparation, including one close to the Trump Organization and one close to the President's legal team, the lawyers had no indication that any of the information in the testimony of Trump's now-former longtime attorney and fixer was inaccurate.

  CNN

Which makes me wonder what the changes they made were.







I guess we would need to know even before that, what changes were made.  If they made a change to his statement, then that implies 1) they believed it was false, 2) they knew it was true and they changed it to something false, or 3) they changed it so that it was vauge, but not false.

Two of the people familiar with the documents, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the closed-door session, said that at least some of the changes appeared to play down the knowledge of the president’s eldest daughter, Ivanka Trump, about the project.

  NYT

They really want to protect Ivanka.

Cohen currently is scheduled to report to prison on May 6.  That extension from today's original date was in part to allow him to prepare for testimony.  Now that his testimony is complete, it seems like he ought to be able to get started.  Maybe he's being given some extra time for cooperating.  And maybe he's going to have to produce more documents.

But it looks like we might be able to move on from Michael Cohen for a while.  Just in time for Paul Manafort to get sentenced in Virginia tomorrow for bank and tax fraud.

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

UPDATE:



UPDATE 3/7:

Looking back at the Buzzfeed bombshell

Recall that Buzzfeed published an article saying Trump directed Cohen to lie about the Moscow project, and immediately got hit by an unprecedented public statement from Mueller's spokesman calling the story inaccurate.  And also, the news media and pundits then jumped all over Buzzfeed.

Now, after Cohen testified to what seems to be vidication of the Buzzfeed article, the New Yorker has just published an interview with Buzzfeed's Jason Leopold about the whole controversy.

[NY:] In his opening statement, Cohen claimed that “Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no Russian business and then go on to lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.” The strong language that BuzzFeed used—which described Cohen’s earlier testimony as “the first known example of Trump telling a subordinate to lie directly about his own dealings with Russia”—appeared to conflict with Cohen’s account. At the same time, Cohen confirmed other aspects of BuzzFeed’s reporting, including that he briefed Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump on the deal, and that, as BuzzFeed wrote, “attorneys close to the administration helped Cohen prepare his testimony and draft his statement to the Senate panel.” On Wednesday, Cohen said that “Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.”

[...]

Leopold, who was previously at Vice News, is considered an expert at using Freedom of Information Act requests and was part of a team of BuzzFeed reporters who were Pulitzer Prize finalists in 2018. He has also been the subject of controversy. In 2002, Salon removed an article from its Web site after Leopold was accused of inaccuracy and plagiarism. Four years later, he incorrectly reported that Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, had been indicted in the investigation into the outing of the C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame. (Leopold was open about past substance abuse and mental health issues in a 2006 memoir, “News Junkie.”)

[...]

[JL:] I will say that I have evidence that what he said to Congress as it pertains to the story that Anthony Cormier and I wrote was correct.

[...]

Cohen confirmed the central thesis of our report. The President met with him before his false testimony, White House lawyers edited his false testimony before he gave it, and Cohen understood that the President was directing him to lie to Congress. [Cohen claimed that the changes were made by Trump’s personal lawyers, not White House lawyers.]

[NY:] In the piece, you wrote, in what was the central thesis of your story, that this was “the first known example of Trump explicitly telling a subordinate to lie directly about his own dealings with Russia.” Was that language accurate?

[JL:] Cohen totally understood that he was being directed by Trump to lie to Congress. He did not mention how many meetings or explicit words that the President may have spoken that led him to lie. And, you know, more may come out, but Cohen himself made it clear in his testimony that he and Trump both understood this to be explicit, that he should lie to Congress. And he made it clear that it was an explicit command.

[NY:] Do you think him saying “He did not directly tell me to lie” contradicts at all you writing that this was “the first known example of Trump explicitly telling a subordinate to lie?”

[JL:] Those people are seizing onto Cohen’s use of the word “directly.” The President didn’t “directly tell me to lie.” That’s an adverb that characterizes the underlying instruction to lie. And Cohen says almost immediately after that that the President was telling him to lie “in his way.” So there is no longer any question about the direction Trump gave Cohen. The debate is now about how the direction was given, and a lot of people don’t want to admit that they were wrong.

[...]

Anthony and I and, obviously, BuzzFeed are standing by what our sources told us, which is not contradicted by Cohen’s testimony, and what he said is that he knew a hundred per cent what the President was telling him to do. You know, Isaac, if that is not an explicit instruction, then everything short of “Michael, please lie for me” isn’t, either. Cohen understood it to be an order, a direction, an instruction.

[...]

Cohen testified that there were ten discussions he had with Trump, or the Trump family. Our story states, based on these two law-enforcement sources, that they had ten discussions, that Don, Jr., and Ivanka Trump were involved, that Trump was very eager to go to Russia. So our story fleshes out further what [Mueller’s] sentencing memo essentially implied.

[...]

[P]eople are twisting themselves into pretzels to justify their earlier reporting that doubted the central claims in our story rather than trying to get at the truth of what Trump actually said to Cohen to make him lie, which Cohen acknowledged multiple times in the hearing.

[...]

Judicial Watch recently sent a letter to the Inspector General calling for a leak investigation into the two law-enforcement sources who have been leaking for us. So, when it came down to what ["internal company emails, text messages, and other documents" as noted in our story] may or may not say, I don’t even want to discuss that because of those issues.

[...]

I am not going to discuss what [we] may or may not have seen.

[...]

[NY note: [Co-writer Anthony] Cormier said in an interview that [they] were briefed on the documents, but neither of [them] had seen them. ... In an e-mail the day after our conversation, Leopold noted that Cormier only spoke for himself when he said that he had not seen the documents. Leopold added, “When we reported this story out, I was in LA and DC and Anthony was in NYC.”]

[...]

[JL:] Michael Cohen discussed [the idea of selling Putin a $50M penthouse in the proposed Moscow Tower] with an assistant to [Putin’s spokesman] Dmitry Peskov. I understand that there has been commentary by one of the other individuals involved in that who said it was just a marketing plan. But we made it clear in the story that this was not just an idea that these two people were spitballing. This was a plan that was discussed with Dmitry Peskov’s assistant. Michael Cohen, in his own testimony, called it a marketing plan or marketing idea—I don’t have the exact wording. And in addition to that, he noted that the reason they were discussing it was to hopefully attract buyers. [When questioned about this during the hearing, Cohen named Felix Sater as the originator of this idea, saying, “It was a marketing stunt.”]

[...]

I want to make clear that this story, the penthouse story, as well as the story we wrote a month ago, and all the other stories, are subject to the highest level of scrutiny. As is all of our high-profile articles. It was vetted by multiple editors and lawyers, and we did not publish it until everyone was satisfied that the reporting was rock-solid.

[NY:] Do you have a larger sense now of why you think Mueller’s office disputed aspects of your reporting?

[JL:] I do not. And in fact, we are obviously very eager to learn why they made those comments, what led them to make those comments. I filed several FOIA requests with the Department of Justice, the office of the special counsel, with the hopes of prying loose a wide range of records that would lay bare what took place behind the scenes, that could shed light on that decision-making process on the decision to release that unprecedented statement. As it stands right now, as we are speaking, I do not have any additional insight into why they issued that statement.

[...]

[M]y reaction to it was, “This is a carefully-worded legal statement that is also somewhat ambiguous.” I was unable to determine what they were referring to. So first it was confusion, then it was simply a matter of trying to figure out within our story, going through each paragraph, what they were referring to. Because it was not a wholesale “This story isn’t correct.” They seem to have spent quite a bit of time targeting something in the story. I did not think of it as “they are disputing a word” [or] “they are disputing a certain paragraph.” I simply could not figure out what they were trying to say about the story itself.

[...]

I’ll say this: Cohen totally understood he was being directed to lie. And my understanding, sticking to and standing behind what my sources said, is that Cohen was directed to lie. And I also expect that more information will come out that will make it even clearer that this was in fact a directive. And, again, Cohen used the word “directly.”

[...]

“He did not directly tell me to lie.” And he said he was directed, and he made that clear in his testimony that he was directed to lie. I feel like I have to go back again to state it was an adverb, and it characterizes the underlying instruction to lie. I am comfortable with the use of our word “directed” and I am confident more will be revealed about what exactly was said to Cohen, or what additional words were said to him.

[...]

[A]t the end of the day, we are simply just reporting the facts about what is taking place, and in terms of individuals we are writing about, when it is time to inform people about who they are, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

[...]

I am obviously aware of my past. I know that it’s there and I know it can be weaponized.

[...]

I did make mistakes, O.K., but that was decades ago, and since then I have learned from those mistakes. And I am in a unique position of knowing how not to repeat those mistakes. I think the series of stories that Anthony and I wrote is evidence we have been way ahead of the investigation time and again. My work has stood up to the highest forms of scrutiny, and I welcome this scrutiny. My past is my past and I have to have a thick skin, and that is, essentially, people are going to say what they are going to say.

  New Yorker

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

What did Cohen tell the closed door hearing committees?

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, declined to comment on the closed-door testimony, though he said on MSNBC on Thursday night that “new information was developed that could be game changing,” and it was about “lying and obstruction evidence.”

“It’s pretty explosive,” he said.

[...]

Privately, lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees pressed Cohen this week on whether he had had any discussions about a possible pardon, and if so, when and with whom those conversations took place, [people familiar with the matter] said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the testimony was not public.

[...]

Legal analysts said Cohen’s testimony, while noteworthy, probably offered more new details to lawmakers and the public than it did to law enforcement. Cohen has said he would continue to cooperate with the special counsel and federal prosecutors, and he revealed during his testimony that he was in “constant” contact with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

[...]

Cohen also hinted at an investigation involving the president, asserting that federal prosecutors in Manhattan had asked him not to discuss his communication with Trump after the FBI raided his home and office in April.

[...]

Perhaps most notable in the area of obstruction, Cohen said that in May 2017, he met with Trump and Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers, to discuss testimony Cohen was to give to the House Intelligence Committee. Trump, Cohen said, “wanted me to cooperate.” But he said Trump also repeated a refrain that is now familiar to those on Twitter.

“He goes, ‘It’s all a witch hunt,’ and he goes, ‘This stuff has to end,’ ” Cohen said.

“Did you take those comments to be suggestive of what might flavor your testimony?” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) asked.

“Sir, he’s been saying that to me for many, many months, and at the end of the day, I knew exactly what he wanted me to say,” Cohen responded.

[...]

Cohen conceded that Trump had not asked him to lie, though he noted that [attorney Jay] Sekulow, as well as attorney Abbe Lowell — who represents Ivanka Trump, Trump’s daughter, and her husband, Jared Kushner — reviewed his written testimony before it was submitted.

At one point, Cohen suggested that Sekulow was involved in a change about “the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive.” And Davis, Cohen’s lawyer, said of the statement on MSNBC on Thursday night, “Everybody knew it was a lie” — effectively accusing Sekulow or others of knowingly passing on Cohen’s false statement.

But Davis corrected the statement and apologized Friday, saying, he had meant to say “the president and many of his advisers must have known” Cohen’s statement was false.

“I should not have used the words that ‘everyone knew’ the statement was false,” Davis said. “My only excuse for the error is sleep deprivation. Apologies.”

A person familiar with Cohen’s account said he cannot say with certainty whether Sekulow, Lowell or other White House advisers knew the discussions about the Trump Tower project extended well into 2016, and thus knew Cohen’s statement was false. Sekulow said in a statement that Cohen’s assertion that “attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.”

A person familiar with the matter said Lowell did not edit Cohen’s statement but did voice a concern about the accuracy of some mention of Ivanka Trump’s dealings with Russian athlete Dmitry Klokov. Cohen ultimately did not address Klokov in the statement. Lowell declined to comment.

Cohen’s team is working to find drafts of Cohen’s statement that would reflect who edited what, and turn them over to lawmakers, people familiar with the matter said. Even that, though, might not implicate lawyers in knowingly passing along a lie — if their clients had not been truthful with them.

[...]

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) wrote Thursday to Attorney General William P. Barr asking him to investigate whether Cohen had perjured himself when he insisted to the House Oversight Committee he had not wanted a job in the Trump administration and was content to serve as Trump’s personal lawyer.

  WaPo

That was a ridiculous point made by ridiculous and desperate people. What Cohen wanted can only be known by Cohen, no matter what he ever said to anyone.

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

Remembering the Buzzfeed story

Remember when Buzzfeed put out a story saying Trump directed Cohen to lie about the Moscow Project?  Remember that the Special Counsel broke protocol to say their story was "inaccurate"?  Remember how all the Trumanzees dumped on Buzzfeed for being Fake News?  And Buzzfeed stood by their story?

That story's looking more accurate than ever now that Cohen testified he submitted his proposed testimony to Trump's team (including Jay Sekulow and Abbe Lowell) for edits before he went before Congress (and lied).

Maybe some day we'll find out why Mueller's team put out that rare statement, and exactly what they meant by it.



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

UPDATE:









In my experience, always go with Buzzfeed.  They've been doing some incredible investigative reporting.

Cohen to testify again

We don't get to hear these.

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

Vice

By the time Cohen’s televised session before Congress wrapped up Wednesday, he’d provided testimony and evidence suggesting Trump may have been involved in at least 11 different felonies, according to a VICE News review of the testimony and conversations with former prosecutors.

Now the question will be how many of Cohen’s claims can be backed up by documentary evidence or by testimony from other witnesses.

  Vice News

My guess would be all of them. I think that's why he was willing to say what he did.

“We have unambiguous evidence that the president has committed a crime at this point, I think,” Rep Jerrold Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times. “Do we have unambiguous evidence he has done impeachable offenses? We’ve got a ways to go yet.”

Jerrold, I think you know very well you have unambiguous evidence. You don't have to prove he committed a crime.

[H]ere’s an incomplete list of the criminal activity Trump’s former personal attorney dropped at the feet of the president.

[...]

Cohen introduced new information linking Trump and his campaign to a possible criminal conspiracy relating to the hacked Democratic emails that were stolen by Russian spies and released by WikiLeaks before the 2016 election.

[...]

Russian agents have already been charged with a conspiracy to hack into Democratic computers by special counsel Robert Mueller. If anyone from the Trump campaign can be shown to have helped out with that operation, or to have coordinated the release of the emails, they could be added to Mueller’s existing list of defendants as co-conspirators.

Cohen’s assertion supplies new evidence that Trump knew about, and made encouraging statements about, the release of the pilfered documents.

[...]

Cohen’s story about Trump’s conversation with Stone also contradicts what Trump reportedly told Mueller in writing. Trump’s legal team reportedly rejected Mueller’s request for an interview with the president, and instead responded to the Special Counsel’s questions in a letter.

Trump told Mueller’s team in written answers that Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, CNN has reported, citing two sources “familiar with the matter.”

That stark contrast should concern Trump, because lying to a federal investigator is a crime.

[...]

Cohen said Wednesday that Trump implicitly told him to lie to Congress under oath about attempts to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow in the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign — a move that could potentially constitute the crime of suborning perjury.

[...]

Cohen said his former boss directed him to organize hush-money payments during the campaign to women who claimed that they’d slept with Trump. This accusation isn’t new, and has been backed up by prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, which wrote in a sentencing memo that Cohen committed crimes “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen added fresh evidence on Wednesday in the form of a check signed by Trump that reimbursed Cohen for the payout to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

[...]

Cohen said Trump knew exactly what he was giving Cohen money for: to silence the women and keep voters from finding out about Trump’s affairs. If so, then aside from the campaign finance violation, Trump may have also entered into a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. — by thwarting the administration of a fair election [-- election fraud].

[...]

Cohen also alleged that Trump made false claims to insurance companies by inflating the size of his assets, a move that Cohen said would have allowed him to reduce his premiums [-- insurance fraud].

[...]

Cohen and Democrats in Congress have accused Trump of attempting to intimidate him out of testifying against Trump by making threats against Cohen’s family [-- witness tampering].

[...]

Cohen said Trump inflated his wealth while seeking to borrow money from Deutsche Bank in a failed attempt to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014.

Lying to a financial institution to get a loan would be bank fraud, which carries a maximum 30 year sentence.

[...]

Cohen also said Trump “deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes [-- tax fraud].”

[...]

Trump may have broken the law by failing to disclose the money he owed Cohen for making the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels.

[...]

“There could be a conspiracy to cause false entries in the accounting of the Trump Organization by disguising hush-money payments as legal fees, and that could be the basis for separate charges in New York State.”

[...]

Cohen said Trump used his charity’s money to buy a painting of himself — a potentially improper misuse of charitable funds.

[...]

The New York attorney general is already suing the Trump Foundation, arguing that the charity engaged in a “shocking pattern of illegality.”

“This one might fall into the civil category under the New York AG’s office,” Levin said. “But if it can be determined that money was funneled into, or out of, the foundation in order to evade taxes, it could also be the basis of tax crimes.”

If you need this reference, there'll be a link to it always in the right sidebar.

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

UPDATE:

I haven't had TIME to get excited, Joyce

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

The desperate need to discount Michael Cohen's testimony

This article was written by Larry Beinhart, author of Wag the Dog.

This short exchange with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is a preview of the next season of Trump's House of Cards.

"AOC: Did the president ever provide inflated assets to an insurance company?

Cohen: Yes.

AOC: Who else knows that the president did this?

Cohen: Allen Weisselberg [chief financial officer of the Trump Organization], Ron Lieberman [its executive vice president], and Matthew Calamari [its chief operating officer].

AOC: […] Do you think we need to review his financial statements and his tax returns in order to compare them?

Cohen: Yes. And you'd find it at the Trump Org.

AOC: […] The president may have improperly deflated the value of his assets to avoid paying taxes. […] Would it help for the committee to obtain federal and state tax returns?

Cohen: I believe so."

Quicker than preparing an instant desert, Ocasio-Cortez established the House Oversight and Reform Committee's right and necessity to subpoena Trump's tax filings with the federal government, various states, and municipalities. It is very likely these will reveal documentary proof of tax fraud, insurance fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes.

[...]

The Republicans went after Cohen viciously, relentlessly, and often nonsensically. One of them tried to say that Trump was not a racist. None of them tried to prove he was not really a conman and a cheat. Among the list of names that Cohen said had participated in the various deceptions and manipulations were the Trump progeny: Don Jr, Eric, and even Ivanka.

[...]

The allegations will turn into testimony under penalty of perjury. Charges will turn into convictions. The president will become, at least, an unindicted co-conspirator.

  alJazeera

And Trump's hoped for distraction fell through.

Trump had galivanted off to Hanoi to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, with whom he was going to make a deal. They would denuclearise. Sanctions would end. They would re-enter the family of nations. Donald would build a golf course and a hotel on one of their fabulous beaches (I guess, based on no particular evidence.)

That would far outweigh the trash-talking testimony back in DC and - he desired, dreamed, plotted - would get him the Nobel Peace Prize - one that would be more deserved than Obama's!

Instead, there was no deal. It collapsed. Trump dropped the pre-planned signing ceremony and headed back to the US, having accomplished nothing.

It didn't even take the heat off the burning Cohen testimony, and Trump himself didn't help matters any by rage tweeting about the hearing the morning after he returned. Sad!

Does Trump think he's in greater trouble than a week ago. If so, how much, and what will his impulses move him to do about it? Will it prompt a Wag the Dog moment?

Well, we hope not, but we can't count that out.

An excellent movie was made of Wag the Dog in 1997 starring Dustin Hoffman, Ann Heche and Robert DeNiro. If you haven't seen it, see if you can find it somewhere. 

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

Sometimes I think he believes his own shit; sometimes I don't

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

UPDATE:



The Republicans tried to nail Cohen to the cross with this same bullshit during his testimony, and he informed them that he hadn't gone through with the deal.  

NO COLLUSION

Never mind that he did provide evidence that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen with payments made to look like something else.  Or that he provided evidence that Trump falsely reported values of his properties to avoid taxes on them and to get larger insurance payments.  (Not mentioned was the $17 million fraud claiming damage to Mar-A-Lago that never happened.  I wish someone had asked about that.)

The GOP/Trump message is that he never colluded with Russia while ignoring the many crimes he did commit.  The legitimacy of Trump's election is more important than the fact that a criminal is the president.

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

Cohen's testimony

[The Republicans] provided Cohen with one slow pitch up the middle after another, letting him repeat the cooperating witness’s go-to explanation like a mantra: I did these bad things so often and so long because that’s what it took to work for your guy. I have seldom seen a cross-examination go worse.

If the hearing’s participants needed trial lawyers, its absent subject needs them even more. Whether the danger is looming impeachment hearings or the Special Counsel’s investigation, the president of the United States is in the soup.

Cohen put Donald Trump squarely at the middle of the harebrained scheme to hide hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. He corroborated that tale with checks from Trump and from the Trump organization. The odd and haphazard way Trump reimbursed Cohen helps make the case that Trump knew the entire ruse breached campaign finance laws—if not clearly enough for a federal jury, at least enough for a House Committee on Impeachment. Cohen offered enough specific examples of Trump Organization financial skullduggery to launch a thousand subpoenas.

  Ken White

Looking forward to it.

He confirmed that Trump’s lawyers knew about, and even edited, Cohen’s prior false statements to Congress, suggesting a possible conspiracy to obstruct justice and lie to Congress. He also claimed that Trump talked to Roger Stone about Wikileaks in advance of the release of hacked DNC emails. That’s not itself illegal or “collusion”—it’s not against the law to receive dirt, even eagerly—but it probably contradicts the statements Trump has given under oath to the Special Counsel, leading to more danger for the president.

I hope we one day, before we get too old to recall what it was all about, get to see Trump's answers and how he might have lied in them.

Finally, Cohen confirmed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is still investigating Trump for unspecified crimes. Nothing good has come out of the Southern District for this administration.

Team Trump should be worried. Republicans did not successfully destroy Cohen’s credibility. Cohen, while characteristically squirrelly on some subjects, did not exude his customary arrogance.In fact, he probably gained credibility by limiting his accusations—he passed up numerous opportunities to make expansive claims about collusion or salacious ones.

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

UPDATE:



If they are not in some way complicit or ensnared in the Russian collusion aspect of Trump's crimes, then they are indeed fools.



UPDATE:



UPDATE:

The full hearing (video from USA Today)

The Cohen hearing closes

Chair Cummings opens the second half of the hearing publicly refuting Mark Meadows' rage about Cohen's statement on the foreign representative form. Meadows tries to recoup by insisting the Committee require Cohen to tell them what money he received from any foreign entity.

Ro Khanna calls the checks wrote to Cohen for payments to Stormy Daniels the "smoking gun" you provided this committee.  In the SDNY campaign finance fraud case, Executive-1 is Weisselberg, Executive-2 is Junior.  A criminal conspiracy to commit financial fraud.



Jimmy Gomez, who is also on the Ways & Means Committee, asks about Trump's taxes and financials, leading to the probability that Trump is lying when he says under tax audit.

I was waiting for someone to ask about the New York Times exposé on Trump's finances that hardly made a blip in the news.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the rescue.  That's all she asked about, after following up on some things that were asked earlier.



A few of the Democrats did that.  Actually asked for names and places to look for more information.  Which, really, is proper investigation.

Rashida Tlaib is bent on becoming the bane of the Democratic party.  She implied that Meadows is a racist and started a huge dustup that Cummings managed to smooth over.

Cohen made a closing statement in which he said that he fears if Trump wins the 2020 election there won't be a peaceful transfer of power.

Elijah Cummings is preaching a closing.  Emotional, righteous and real.  I'll post it when I can get a video clip.

Meanwhile...




Earlier, a black Democratic Congresswoman called it an insult, but didn't outright call it racist.  Tlaib was forced to walk it back when...







A lighter view:







UPDATE:  Here are some clips of Cummings' closing statement, thanks to Aaron Rupar.





Jim Jordan sat there beside Cummings and repeatedly tried to shame him for holding this "sham", this "circus" as the first hearing.  Cummings never interrupted or corrected him in place.  I think that was a mistake, but glad to have him at least bring it up in his closing speech.

UPDATE:



I thought Meadows' behavior throughout the whole thing was disgraceful.  And I was surprised when Cummings said they're good friends.

UPDATE:

The full hearing (video from USA Today)

UPDATE:



Ha!