quote:

While no treasonous collusion between Russia and Trump has been unveiled despite two years of thorough investigation, the special counsel has rung up Trump associates for lying to the FBI

I think this should be a national sport - when is the last time the FBI ever told the truth to the people?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:

quote:

While no treasonous collusion between Russia and Trump has been unveiled despite two years of thorough investigation, the special counsel has rung up Trump associates for lying to the FBI

I think this should be a national sport - when is the last time the FBI ever told the truth to the people?

Kind of makes one wonder about all those bad things they used to say about the Mafia families, separating all those Godfathers from their cappos and consiglieri.

Whst about the commies, too? Maybe they were such bad guys after all.

So Cohen failed to pay taxes on his taxi medallions to the state of NY. He was charged on federal charges - as he would likely owe federal taxes on that income as well. Is Cohen still subject to state level charges? If so maybe he is taking a deal to avoid additional state charges.

By the way, what became of the $3M in taxes owed by Al Sharpton??

Cohen now has Clinton sycophant Lanny Davis as spokesman / lawyer.

Lanny Davis has put up a gofundme page for "Cohen" so Cohen can pay his legal fees.

https://hotair.com/archives/20...lp-us-michael-cohen/

Attorney for Michael Cohen backs away from confidence that Cohen has information about Trump’s knowledge on Russian efforts

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b70fce81e62c

August 26 at 5:59 PM

An attorney for Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, is backing away from confident assertions he made that Cohen has information to share with investigators that shows Trump knew in 2016 of Russian efforts to undermine Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Lanny Davis, a spokesman and attorney for Cohen, said in an interview this weekend that he is no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump’s awareness of the Russian efforts.

Davis did not rule out that his claims were correct but expressed regret that he did not explain that he could not independently corroborate them, saying that he now believes he “should have been more clear.”

Neither Cohen nor his lead defense attorney, Guy Petrillo, responded to requests for comment.

The prospect that Cohen could be a potential witness against the president in the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has dominated the news, particularly since Cohen pleaded guilty Tuesday to tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance crimes.

[After fast turn against Trump, Michael Cohen threatens to leverage secrets against the president]

Michael Cohen leaves a federal courthouse in Manhattan on Tuesday after pleading guilty to eight felonies. (Mary Altaffer/AP)

Davis’s latest comments cast doubt on what Cohen may know, including about a June 2016 meeting in New York’s Trump Tower attended by Trump’s eldest son and a Russian lawyer.

Trump and his allies seized on the erosion of those claims.

“Michaels Cohen’s attorney clarified the record, saying his client does not know if President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting (out of which came nothing!),” Trump tweeted Saturday. “The answer is that I did NOT know about the meeting. Just another phony story by the Fake News Media!”

Davis told The Washington Post that he cannot confirm media reports that Cohen is prepared to tell special counsel Robert S. Mueller III that Trump had advance knowledge of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, where Donald Trump Jr. expected to receive damaging information about Clinton from a Russian lawyer.

CNN reported last month that Cohen was claiming to have witnessed Trump being informed of the Russians’ offer by Trump Jr. and that the then-candidate approved the meeting.

The following day, The Post reported that Cohen had told associates that he witnessed an exchange in which Trump Jr. told his father about an upcoming gathering in which he expected to get information about Clinton. The Post did not report that Trump Jr. told his father that the information was coming from Russians.

The information in the Post story, which was attributed to one person familiar with discussions among Cohen’s friends, came from Davis, who is now acknowledging his role on the record.

Davis said he should not have expressed such confidence in his information.

“I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis said, adding: “I regret my error.”

In the past week, when asked directly by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether there was information that Trump knew about his son’s meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya beforehand, Davis said, “No, there’s not.”

In a statement Saturday, a CNN spokeswoman said, “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.”

People familiar with Cohen’s testimony to the House and Senate Intelligence committees said Cohen was interviewed extensively about the Russian interference campaign but did not provide any information to suggest Trump had advance knowledge.

Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), leaders of the Senate committee, said in recent days that Cohen had sent word to the committee that he had no desire to amend that testimony.

[Lanny Davis, the ultimate Clinton loyalist, is now Michael Cohen’s lawyer.]

In his interview with The Post, Davis also hedged on an idea he widely promoted after Cohen’s guilty plea: that the longtime Trump loyalist had information that Trump knew of the Russian hacking of Democratic emails ahead of time.

Davis floated that idea in numerous broadcast interviews in recent days, repeatedly touting his client’s potential value to Mueller.

“I believe that Mr. Cohen has direct knowledge that would be of interest to Mr. Mueller that suggests — I’m not sure it proves — that Mr. Trump was aware of Russian government agents hacking illegally, committing computer crimes, to the detriment of the candidate who he was running against, Hillary Clinton,” Davis told PBS’s “NewsHour” on Wednesday.

But asked Saturday how confident he was that Trump knew about the hacking before it became public, Davis said: “I am not sure. There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.”

Davis said that in discussing the hacking allegations last week, he should have emphasized his lack of certainty. He said he raised the idea that Cohen might have information about Trump’s knowledge because he had a strong feeling that might be the case.

“I was giving an instinct that he might have something to say of interest to the special counsel” about hacking, Davis said. In retrospect, he said, “I am just not sure.”

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I think the idea is that Michael Cohen copped to having either made the payment or facilitated it "with the intention of influencing the election". That's apparently sufficient to meet the technical definition of some federal crime or another.

Look, I voted against Hillary *and* for Trump, and I'm happy with the job he's done so far (court appointments, regulation reductions, whipping the Left up in a frenzy, etc), but the payment was most certainly made with some degree of a deliberate attempt to not negatively influence the election for Trump, it's ridiculous to think it wasn't on their minds and for those reasons.

But at the end of the day I don't care who did that, nor that he fooled around with a high dollar hooker, but I definitely don't like the leveraged-quasi-admission on the part of Mueller/Cohen. That sort of "fucking someone over on a razor thin and questionable technicality" tactic pisses me off, as does politically charged shit like this in any court case, no matter who is the fuck-er or the fuck-ee. It's too much, too Government-gone-wild, IMO.

Only superficially *not* a kangaroo court, and I've no patience nor love for that bullshit.

I'd be right there to say it if there was some meaningful attempt by someone to screw with the election in a meaningful way, especially a foreign government, but this isn't that, at all. It's maybe two steps short of the Salem Witch Trials or some similar insane nonsense, as are almost all of these Special Prosecutor type things. They need to ratchet that shit back.

Hey, I'm with you. I was describing the mechanics of how this turned into a kangaroo court session and nothing more. What Cohen copped to wasn't a crime, and Mueller obviously had him cop to it because there was no way to prove it in court. Someone else asked how it happened, and that's the nuts and bolts of how it happened. That's also the point - this whole thing is made up out of hot air and nothing.

Now, how effective that will be in the future remains to be seen. It's so freakin' contrived that I'm still not sure what, if anything, Mueller actually thought there was to be gained by this exercise. Mueller can claim that Cohen "confessed" to a "crime", but I can't see how any court would take that seriously as evidence of anything except Mueller's creativity and Cohen's desperation.

If Trump's payments to Stormy can be considered being made with the intention to influence voters, how about the payments Congress directed to be paid to staffers to cover up sexual harassment claims? Those payments were made to cover up sexual harassment claims that would certainly have impacted their ability to be re-elected.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
If Trump's payments to Stormy can be considered being made with the intention to influence voters, how about the payments Congress directed to be paid to staffers to cover up sexual harassment claims? Those payments were made to cover up sexual harassment claims that would certainly have impacted their ability to be re-elected.

Were the payments made at a time which the campaigner was a candidate for federal office? Not a mere future candidate but an actual candidate, filed papers, etc.?

Remember, one man's exception is another man’s loophole.

quote:

If Trump's payments to Stormy can be considered being made with the intention to influence voters, how about the payments Congress directed to be paid to staffers to cover up sexual harassment claims?

quote:

Were the payments made at a time which the campaigner was a candidate for federal office? Not a mere future candidate but an actual candidate, filed papers, etc.?

OK. How about the payments to Fusion GPS? Their work was clearly intended to "influence" an election and was paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

Sure seems to be a one way street.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

If Trump's payments to Stormy can be considered being made with the intention to influence voters, how about the payments Congress directed to be paid to staffers to cover up sexual harassment claims?

quote:

Were the payments made at a time which the campaigner was a candidate for federal office? Not a mere future candidate but an actual candidate, filed papers, etc.?

OK. How about the payments to Fusion GPS? Their work was clearly intended to "influence" an election and was paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

Sure seems to be a one way street.

Presumably, the payments to the law firm were reported. How far down it goes past the original provider isn’t clear to me.

I pay XYZ sign Co. for some campaign signs. XYZ pays a graphics person to design the layout, buys the materials, the paint, etc. and has them shipped to campaign volunteers. I get the bill for the whole thing and pay XYZ. Need I report the graphics, materials, shipping separately?

It's a very common, very old, practice, paying people off to silence them in some way. It should be legal or not, in all circumstances, for all people. Not some convoluted mess. So many exceptions, someone is always getting screwed, someone else is always benefiting.

We've created a legal system so complex it's all but impossible to not be breaking some law every damn day. Such-and-such such is OK on Tuesdays in Florida but not Wednesdays in Montana, and only if you're wearing plaid in Washington, or for puppies in Iowa, and if it's during the equinox you have to hop on one foot and toss coins into the Grand Canyon.

I'd really like to take a big red marker to 50+% of the laws of every state and our federal govt, and I think we're crazy not to. It should almost be our highest priority as a nation. Stop the madness. Quit it with the loopholes. Put the tax code on a single piece of paper, in a 12pt font. Close down numerous departments at all levels. Something... it's crazy, nowadays.

quote:

Presumably, the payments to the law firm were reported.

So when is the FBI going to start raiding offices?

quote:

According To The Hill, The Clinton Campaign And The DNC Disclosed Paying Perkins Coie For Legal Services, But None For Opposition Research. "The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign funded some of the research by the firm Fusion GPS, but routed the monies through a law firm. Their campaign reports listed no payments to Fusion GPS and the expenses attributed to the law firm Perkins Cole are described as legal work, not opposition research, the paper noted."

Mueller should investigate more than just the 2016 Trump campaign

National Review
Cleta Mitchell

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s proxy prosecutor in New York City has obtained a plea agreement with Michael Cohen on some pretty slimy personal-business issues, and in the process, obtained pleas to two federal campaign-finance-law violations . . . that, from my experience as an attorney in the field, do not appear to violate federal campaign-finance law. That aside, maybe this means that Mueller might step out of his snipe hunt of an investigation of Russian “collusion” in 2016 to take an actual interest in whether there was compliance with federal campaign-finance law by both 2016 presidential campaigns, not just President Trump’s. If Mueller is actually concerned, as his designated prosecutor in the Cohen case apparently is, about compliance with the federal statutes setting limits on contributions and reporting of expenditures by campaigns, parties, and candidates, his interest is long overdue. There are several serious enforcement and prosecutorial undertakings awaiting his attention — none involving President Trump or his campaign.

Let’s start with the payments from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to Fusion GPS for the infamous dossier that triggered the entire Mueller investigation of “Russian collusion.” It is still not known how much the Democrats paid to Fusion GPS because that information has not been released, even though it was revealed almost a year ago that the source of payment was the Democrats. We should know the exact amount paid to Fusion GPS by the DNC and the Clinton campaign because all expenditures over $200 by parties and campaigns are required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). However, the Democrats’ payments for the discredited dossier were falsely reported as “legal fees” paid to Perkins Coie, and not disclosed as to the actual vendor, amount, or purpose — as required by federal law. It is a federal offense to falsify an FEC report, which was obviously done in this case. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest for Mueller to investigate this matter, since it involves several of his own agents as potential witnesses, thus suggesting that the investigation of the Fusion GPS payments from Perkins Coie should be referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, in the same manner that Mueller transferred the Cohen case to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

It is a federal crime to make false statements to a federal agent, and Mueller has charged at least two persons associated with President Trump with that crime: Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Fusion GPS and its founder, Glenn Simpson, should also be investigated and charged with making false statements to the FBI and congressional investigators, both in their Clinton-paid research paper that was served up to the FISA Court and in Simpson’s meetings with Bruce Ohr and others. As someone on the receiving end of Glenn Simpson’s lies, I’ll be happy to assist in the investigation of Glenn Simpson when Mueller decides to pursue him in the same way he has pursued others.

And now that we have the precedent in the Cohen case for federal intrusion into the heretofore sacrosanct attorney–client privilege, we are waiting for Mueller to swoop into the Perkins Coie law firm and seize the records of the Clinton/DNC attorney, Marc Elias. The firm was paid $9 million during the 2016 election by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and the payments to Fusion GPS flowed through Elias and were falsely reported to the FEC as “legal fees.” We are waiting for Mueller to confiscate the Elias records just as he did Michael Cohen’s, so there can be a thorough federal investigation into the role Elias and his firm played in the dossier scandal. And once he gets into those records and files, who knows what other offenses might be uncovered? What’s good for the Michael Cohen goose surely is just as good for the Marc Elias gander.

Cohen’s guilty plea stated he violated federal contribution limits and reporting requirements with his payments of $25,000 during the 2016 calendar year to “silence” two women making accusations against then-candidate Trump (the plea agreement states that Cohen paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, but only $25,000 during 2016). The plea agreement does not once indicate or state that “Individual-1” (candidate Trump) was in any way involved in or aware of Cohen’s activities. That is an issue for another discussion.

The point here is that if Mueller is interested in unreported and excessive contributions to a 2016 presidential campaign, he can certainly accomplish that objective on a much grander scale in both the amounts involved and the scope of the conspiracy by turning his attention to the $84 million that flowed through the DNC in their massive scheme to completely evade the legal contribution limits to the Clinton campaign. Their misconduct is laid out quite specifically in a federal civil suit filed in May 2018 (Committee to Defend the President v. Federal Election Commission), making Mueller’s job fairly straightforward. Mueller and his agents could spend 30 minutes reading the complaint in that lawsuit and the memorandum of understanding prepared by Marc Elias for and signed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign (Elias represented them both) that gave Clinton control of the DNC’s finances, activities, and expenditures, as well as the millions of dollars in proceeds of joint fundraising by the DNC, state Democratic parties, and the Clinton campaign. These co-conspirators collectively engaged in the greatest campaign-finance scandal in history. Mueller has the opportunity to prove that his investigation is not a partisan witch hunt, as millions of Americans now believe. It will be interesting to see if he applies the same fervor to the Democrats’ 2016 campaign-finance violations and activities that he has applied to those of President Trump and his associates.

Link