Michael Cohen’s lawyer has done real damage to the case against Trump By Aaron Blake Senior reporter August 27 at 2:38 PM One of the most bizarre aspects of the investigations engulfing the Trump administration is the lawyers involved. Here we have a presidency on the line, and this is Trump’s team? The top legal spokesmen for each side are … Rudolph W. Giuliani and Lanny Davis!? Up until this point, though, Giuliani was the Great Contradictor and Davis was merely a colorful character. Now that has changed in a big way. In a new interview with The Washington Post’s Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Davis is backing off two massive claims he made in recent weeks, including that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has told people he witnessed President Trump being informed of Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer before it happened. “I should have been more clear — including with you — that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis said, adding: “I regret my error.” Davis also backed off his claim that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails in 2016. “I am not sure,” Davis said. “There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.” The first of these claims was put forward anonymously, initially in a report that CNN is standing by. The Post also reported it — though unlike CNN it didn’t report Cohen as saying Trump knew the information was coming from Russians — and cited Davis as an unnamed source. The second claim was made publicly by Davis on TV. So what on earth is going on here? Davis, for his part, suggests that he was just speculating. Witness this amazing pair of paragraphs at the end of Hamburger’s and Helderman’s story: 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.” “A strong feeling.” That just doesn’t make much sense. Davis is a lawyer for his client, not a pundit. He can speak to Cohen about sensitive matters. His job is literally to speak publicly for Cohen, and getting their story straight is Job No. 1. The idea that Davis was simply freelancing with a narrative he hadn’t run by his client just doesn’t ring true. And if he was, how has Cohen not fired him for so clearly botching his defense? It’s also pretty remarkable that, despite the first of these claims having been in the public domain for several weeks now — CNN’s story broke exactly one month ago, on July 27 — Davis began reining it in only last week. Why wait that long if it was erroneous? Did Cohen not notice he was being put forward as the guy who might be able to prove Trump’s collusion with Russia — a claim that, if true, could end an American presidency? The most obvious answer would seem to be that Cohen may be the one contradicting himself. Ever since the CNN story broke, the question has been whether Cohen told congressional investigators the same story when he testified behind closed doors at a time when he was more loyal to Trump. There were indications that this new version of events wasn’t exactly compatible with that testimony, which could open Cohen up to more legal problems. When Cohen reached a plea deal last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Republican and Democrat made a rare joint, public statement saying they wanted Cohen to continue cooperating with their Russia investigation. They also said they had contacted Cohen’s lawyers after the CNN story broke and asked whether he wanted to amend his testimony. Cohen has declined to do so. But you also have to think that possible contradiction would be something Davis and Cohen (who is also a lawyer by trade) would have sorted out before Davis went public with these claims. However this came about, though, it’s damaging to Cohen’s credibility. Davis is his lawyer and spokesman, after all, which means these claims effectively came from Cohen himself. Davis is now trying to take ownership of them and take the blame himself, but the explanations he offers are really difficult to accept, especially given the gravity of the claims. And that has bearing on both the Russia investigation and whatever problems Trump may encounter from the Southern District of New York’s plea deal with Cohen on a campaign-finance violation (in which Cohen also implicated Trump). Cohen was supposed to be the guy flipping on Trump and telling investigators everything he knows about the skeletons in Trump’s closet. This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they’re made out to be. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it’s best to base a case around people who won’t undermine it. Cohen wasn’t a fantastic witness before; he’s a worse one now. It’s been true from the start that these investigations attract a certain grade and style of lawyer, and those lawyers often find themselves struggling with their public statements on behalf of an untrustworthy client. Nobody leaves this situation without being at least a little Trump-ified. And as the latest from Cohen and Davis shows, that’s not just the case with Trump and his legal team. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...t-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a13cefa4d8f3
That is big damage. Could it be Cohen has perjured himself in front of Congress or the Court. That is going to make overcoming reasonable doubt, difficult. Mueller going to have to get more people to roll. I was hoping they would have Trump by the end of the year (if they were going to get him). Now... its not looking likely.
I have not kept up with this thread. Have Piezo and Lanny Davis gotten a room together yet or has that love gone bad?
The guy is a joke. Throws liberal tag lines around the forum, has one of the most raging cases of TDS around here, and has the hilarity to claim he isn't a democrat. Then tries to fall back on some classic definition of libertarian to claim that's actually what he is, ignoring the whole "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck." Tell me one time you saw someone take umbrage at being called a conservative who was genuinely a conservative. They don't. Because "conservative" isn't a dirty word. Liberals will always try to tell you they're something else, or not as progressive, or middle road. Very few of them stand up and proudly declare they are progressive or liberal. Only the most rabid. Wonder why that is.
Because they dont want to get lumped in with the group of pussies who currently have control of their party, and quite frankly their ideology. The fact that people are embarassed to call themselves liberals, or democrats, should be a warning sign to them, but instead, you just see them sliding deeper and deeper into "TDS" (Trump derangement syndrome) No one wants to say that they stand for OcCasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders, because their ideology has just been decimated, so they try to pretend that they arent in that camp while they espouse all the common values. Its hard times for socialists these days.......
You're right, what do these silly Lawyers from Cornell know compared to you! I guess it wasn't that at all that made me think Trump is a felon. It must have been his being identified as a felon in the Cohen Indictment I gave you a nice link to. But hay, it's only an indictment by the U.S. Attorney in New York. And Trump's name doesn't appear anywhere. Only some "candidate for public office" Can't imagine who that could be, can you?
That's never been of any interest to me. I'm only interested in the truth, not some lie Cohen may have told the house. But lying to Congress could get him in additional hot water. If you had to make a wild guess, would you think he is more likely to be telling the truth before or after he made a deal with the prosecutor in the Southern District? I know it's a hard question, but think about it overnight at least. You probably can come up with a reasonable answer. You can read the entire Plea deal at the link I gave. Then decide whether it is limited in scope and doesn't include the Trump- Campaign-Russian Stuff, or is it an all encompassing agreement that requires that from now on throughout the rest of his life Cohen will tell the SDNY prosecutor the truth about everything he knows about anything?.