Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to Charge in Mueller Inquiry Related to Russia Business Deal

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

"Follow the evidence where it leads you." I'm not surprised that makes so many people sad.

You don't get it, do you? We don't need Mueller digging up decade old dirt on people as special counsel. His job is to stick to Russian influence and/or connections tied to the 2016 election. Everything else should be passed off to the DOJ to do the job we pay them to do. We don't need any more trivial lying charges like those thrown on Cohen by Meuller that don't even change the results of anything related to the investigation.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Lol, you guys are awesome.

Now we're at the point of "trump likely never even knew" and "mueller is making people lie by threatening them."
...

LOL, you guys are forgetting that Mueller is a corrupt politician who has put innocent people behind bars and then knowingly buried evidence that would exonerate people...

If you are citing the FBI's relationship with Whitey Bulger, I have examined that case thoroughly and Robert Mueller's involvement was virtually non-existent. I would be interested if you believed you had factual evidence to support your claim?

Rather my impression is that facts were omitted and other facts invented to create a story of Robert Mueller being corrupt for the purposes of discrediting his current investigation.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

"Follow the evidence where it leads you." I'm not surprised that makes so many people sad.

His job is to stick to Russian influence and/or connections tied to the 2016 election.

We don't need any more trivial lying charges like those thrown on Cohen by Meuller that don't even change the results of anything related to the investigation.

Michael Cohen lied about a potential business deal involving the approval of the Prime Minister of Russia. It included offers of meeting with either the PM or Vladimir Putin or both. He admitted to lying about those conversations for the express purpose of protecting Candidate/President Trump during the Presidential election. He lied under oath to the congressional committee tasked with investigating Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.

Is that not relevant?

originally posted by: Extorris

If you are citing the FBI's relationship with Whitey Bulger, I have examined that case thoroughly and Robert Mueller's involvement was virtually non-existent. I would be interested if you believed you had factual evidence to support your claim?

Rather my impression is that facts were omitted and other facts invented to create a story of Robert Mueller being corrupt for the purposes of discrediting his current investigation.

I'm assuming this is your definition of "Robert Mueller's involvement was virtually non-existent"...

Mueller was acting US attorney in Boston in 1986-87. According to multiple sources, Mueller himself wrote letters to the Parole Board demanding that the innocent men not be released, despite the overwhelming evidence of their innocence.

Here is a link to a 2011 story from the Boston Globe laying out the case against Mueller.

howiecarrshow.com...

a reply to: Extorris

Michael Cohen lied about a potential business deal involving the approval of the Prime Minister of Russia. It included offers of meeting with either the PM or Vladimir Putin or both. He admitted to lying about those conversations for the express purpose of protecting Candidate/President Trump during the Presidential election. He lied under oath to the congressional committee tasked with investigating Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.

Is that not relevant?

He lied about a conversation on a deal that never happened and a meeting that never took place or was planned to take place. Not only that, it was a conversation that took place before Trump even knew he was definitely going to be the next Republican candidate for President.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Extorris

If you are citing the FBI's relationship with Whitey Bulger, I have examined that case thoroughly and Robert Mueller's involvement was virtually non-existent. I would be interested if you believed you had factual evidence to support your claim?

Rather my impression is that facts were omitted and other facts invented to create a story of Robert Mueller being corrupt for the purposes of discrediting his current investigation.

I'm assuming this is your definition of "Robert Mueller's involvement was virtually non-existent"...

Mueller was acting US attorney in Boston in 1986-87. According to multiple sources, Mueller himself wrote letters to the Parole Board demanding that the innocent men not be released, despite the overwhelming evidence of their innocence.

Here is a link to a 2011 story from the Boston Globe laying out the case against Mueller.

howiecarrshow.com...

Your source is an example of an invented narrative for the purposes of discrediting the Special Counsel.

What involvement did Mueller have with Bulger?

None.

Mueller served in the US attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988,

as chief of the criminal division, first assistant US attorney, and as acting US attorney for more than a year. During that time, Bulger ran a sprawling criminal enterprise and got away with murders because he was a longtime FBI informant who corrupted his handlers. The FBI and the New England Organized Crime Strike Force, a prosecutorial unit that worked independently of the US attorney’s office and reported directly to the Justice Department, used Bulger to build cases against the Mafia and gave him a pass on his own crimes. The FBI’s corrupt relationship with Bulger was exposed after he was indicted on federal racketeering charges in 1995 and became a fugitive. He was captured 16 years later .

Were four men framed by an FBI informant and wrongfully imprisoned for years, while two died in prison?

Yes, but that informant was not Bulger.

[read more in link]

Did Mueller know the four men had been wrongly convicted and look the other way?

There’s nothing linking Mueller to that case, according to several attorneys for the men, voluminous court records, and a former federal judge who presided over their wrongful imprisonment trial.

[read more in link]

Was Mueller among the prosecutors who wrote letters to the Massachusetts parole board opposing the release of the four before evidence emerged that they had been framed?

No, according to Gertner and Limone’s attorney, Juliane Balliro, who scoured copies of the parole board records for the four men. There were no letters from Mueller in the files and his signature “never appeared on anything I ever saw or can recall,’’ Balliro said.

[read more in link]

www.bostonglobe.com...

Robert Mueller's US Attorney's office was not involved in the Whitey Bulger informant case in Boston.
That was a well know Special Task Force run by and reporting directly yo the FBI out in DC.

Robert Mueller never wrote any letters to the parole board with regards to the prisoners, who were framed by another mobster, not Whitey Bulger.

a reply to: Extorris

If you want to compare stories on Boston Globe regarding Mueller's history, here's more...

October 2011...

FBI stonewalling makes the need for congressional intervention beyond Boston and New England imperative, which is why Senator Chuck Grassley’s intervention is so welcome. Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He comes from Iowa and is a plain-speaking, get-to-the-point kind of guy.

Yesterday, he sent a letter to Robert Mueller, the FBI’s director, asking some very reasonable questions: When did Rossetti become an informant? How much was he paid? When did the FBI become aware of Rossetti’s criminal activity? What crimes were the FBI aware of? Was murder one of them? Did the FBI or the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility conduct a review? If the FBI lied to the State Police about Rossetti being an informant, were any agents disciplined?

www.bostonglobe.com...

The problem is that all of these people like Mueller and Comey think that they don't have to answer to anyone and it's time for it to end. The FBI and CIA have become so dirty over the years, they need to be investigated and held accountable. They are not above the law.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

Michael Cohen lied about a potential business deal involving the approval of the Prime Minister of Russia. It included offers of meeting with either the PM or Vladimir Putin or both. He admitted to lying about those conversations for the express purpose of protecting Candidate/President Trump during the Presidential election. He lied under oath to the congressional committee tasked with investigating Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.

Is that not relevant?

He lied about a conversation on a deal that never happened and a meeting that never took place or was planned to take place.

Correct. Why did he lie about it?
The more interesting question is, if the President of the United States was aware that a witness lied under oath to a US Congressional investigative committee, why didn't the President inform the Congress or the DOJ?

Not only that, it was a conversation that took place before Trump even knew he was definitely going to be the next Republican candidate for President.

President Trump won the necessary primaries and became the Presumptive Republican Nominee for Presdient in May of 2016. As of early June 2016 Cohen was moving forward with plans to travel to Mosow with an offer of meeting either the PM of Russia or Vladimir Putin or both. He was also negotiating plans for then Candidate Trump to meet with them as well.

It wasn't until June 14th, 3-4 weeks after Candidate Trump had become the Presumptive Nominee, that Cohen reversed course and communicated the deal was off. That was the same day it was widely reported that the Russian FSB was responsible for hacking the DNC and serious questions were starting to be asked about Russian involvement in the election.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

If you want to compare stories on Boston Globe regarding Mueller's history, here's more...

I prefer to compare facts and evidence than stories.

There are no facts or evidence that Robert Mueller, as US attorney in Boston from 1982 to 1988, had any knowledge or involvement in the Whitey Bulger case.

a reply to: Sillyolme

This is something I find interesting:
(1)
Cohen claims 'regular contact' with Trump legal team when crafting false statement to Congress

Cohen’s attorneys say his false statement to Congress — which Cohen pleaded guilty to on Thursday — was based on Trump and his team’s efforts to “portray contact with Russian representatives” by Trump, his campaign or his company “as having effectively terminated before the Iowa caucuses of February 1, 2016.”

“Seeking to stay in line with this message, Michael told Congress that his communications and efforts to finalize a building project in Moscow on behalf of the Trump Organization, which he began pursuing in 2015, had come to an end in January 2016, when a general inquiry he made to the Kremlin went unanswered,”

www.politico.com...

(2)
– Aug. 28, 2017: Cohen’s legal team sends a two-page statement to the House and Senate committees making false claims about the termination of the Moscow project.

In this false statement Cohen said he never heard back from Dimitry Peskov's office, Press Secretery for Vladimir Putin, when in fact conversations continued into June and travel arrangements were being made.

(3)
- Aug 30, 2017: Dimitry Peskov ALSO falsely claims his office never responded to Mr. Cohen's request.

"This email said that a certain Russian company, together with a certain individual, is pursuing the goal of building a skyscraper in the Moscow City district, but things aren't going well, and they asked for help with some advice on moving this project forward," Peskov told reporters. "But since, I repeat again, we do not react to such business topics — this is not our work — we left it unanswered."

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

How did the Press Secretary for Vladimir Putin get on the same page and lie in coordination with the false story Michael Cohen provided congress, purportedly at the behest of Trump's legal team?

BTW Peskov has now changed his story: twitter.com...

Cohen claims 'regular contact' with Trump legal team when crafting false statement to Congress

www.politico.com...


An attorney who encourages a witness to give false testimony is suborning perjury, a crime punished either with formal disciplinary action, disbarment, jail or a combination thereof.

If this can be proven it's possible that President Trump's legal team will face consequences.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Propagandalf
Another victim of the fishing expedition, pleading guilty to lying, and not anything to do with what they were tasked with investigating.

Lol. Plead guilty to lying about Russian collusion into the 2018 election (you know, the thing the investigation was tasked with looking into). Sometimes I feel like people think if they deliberately remove the part of their brains responsible for logic that logic just ceases to exist.

Is this Russian collusion to alter the outcome of the election, or is this a real estate deal that actually never went through.

The only thing left in your brain is simple word association.

Every time you try a silly underhanded insult it just makes you look stupid (and you have made plenty of good and worthwhile posts even in an argumentative fashion so I know you're capable of better).

Despite your 'himming and hawwing' that it's not germane, it is in fact well within Mueller's purview. That's why your sitting here on ATS in the lunatic fringe caterwauling over the unfairness or the illegality of it while the rest of the legal community supports it.

At least mine are underhanded, whereas yours...

So your telling me that if it were anyone else, Mueller making someone undergo "memory therapy" would be a bad thing? Is that within his purview? Just how much power is a special council given if he can force people to undergo that? And how is that admissible evidence, when a polygraph is not? No sir, Mueller is a dirty cop.

You may consider it "himming and hawwing", but that just indicates to me that you care very little for Jurisprudence, in favor of some jacked up notion of justice for your bruised sensibilities after 2016.

Its not me who apparently 'care's very little for Jurisprudence', but really the overwhelming majority of legally trained professionals (which neither you nor I are). In an absence of specialized training in Law, the logical thing is to assume that the vast majority of legal professionals know more than you and are likely right.

And uh, boy howdy what the heck is this 'memory therapy' thing you speak of?

And an equal number are claiming what his purview is and isn't.

"Regressive memory therapy techniques"

Woa wait a second, can you show me where its an 'equal number'? Every data-point I have seen up till now shows an overwhelming support from the legal community for Mueller's work.

And Re: Regressive memory therapy techniques (I'm still uneducated as to what this is exactly, and Google search didn't yield anything directly related to Mueller), could you walk me through how I assume Mueller is using this for ill gotten gains?

Not including the myriad lawyers like Ken Starr arguing the issue, Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson thinks so.

And I don't use google, since they curate their results. You can find the gist of it and the relevant legal ramifications on wikipedia if you want an outline of it.

a reply to: headorheart

You know, this headline is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, it's a lie. He plead guilty to lying. Not to a business deal. Its really just sad and irritating that there a people out there like the OP who are going to buy the innuendo of the mueller report.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Ehhh...I think you'd better investigate the difference between partisan and politician. Not that I believe either applies in this case. Meanwhile, why not wait until all the facts are in before wetting one's trow?

You mean to wait for Mueller and the demonrats in his team to frame more innocent people such as Gen. Flynn, the Papadapulous, Carter Page, etc?...

You mean wait for Mueller to once again bury exonerating evidence and put more innocent people in jail?...

You forget that in order for an investigation to actually be legit there has to be evidence of the main argument, or as it is that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election, meanwhile Mueller's team ignore the real attempts of HIllary and the DNC to steal the elections from Bernie Sanders, and then from Trump... And now Mueller is simply going along with Hillary/the DNC's plans to use a fake dossier to go after the dully elected POTUS...

a reply to: Extorris

Keep reaching. It will never be proven because it's probably false. As for how the guy lying to congress and the guy in russia whom he was lying about got on the same page... NM it's pretty self explanatory.

A more interesting question is why didn't his story align with donald trump jr's story. Weird how he can coordinate false statements with a russian guy but not with the people he was working for...

a reply to: Extorris

*sigh* your short memories are the reason you're so easily led astray. Don't you remember the many many calls for a contested convention and for delegates to not vote for trump even though they were obligated to? Don't you remember many of the delegates publicly saying they would do just that? This is where the never-trumper's got their names. They wanted to break all of the rules and defy the primary election results (hmmmmm who does that?).

Here let me refresh your memory with this link about the coup attempt AT THE CONVENTION. IN LATE JULY.
LINK

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Extorris

Keep reaching.

What do you consider a reach?

a reply to: Extorris

Attempts to drag trump or his legal team into these side scandals (eg. lying to congress). What reason could there be for the legal team to advise jr to testify one thing and cohen to testify another? It makes no sense at all.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Extorris

Attempts to drag trump or his legal team into these side scandals (eg. lying to congress). What reason could there be for the legal team to advise jr to testify one thing and cohen to testify another? It makes no sense at all.

I would agree if we knew what Trump Jr. actually testified to.

We would need to review transcripts.

The footnote does not provide the question or any context.

Cohen has risked severe consequences and a lengthy jail sentence in his plea agreement claim that he was consulting with President Trump's legal team about his testimony.

There is nothing "reaching" about that fact.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

Ehhh...I think you'd better investigate the difference between partisan and politician. Not that I believe either applies in this case. Meanwhile, why not wait until all the facts are in before wetting one's trow?

You mean to wait for Mueller and the demonrats in his team to frame more innocent people such as Gen. Flynn, the Papadapulous, Carter Page, etc?...

You mean wait for Mueller to once again bury exonerating evidence and put more innocent people in jail?...

You forget that in order for an investigation to actually be legit there has to be evidence of the main argument, or as it is that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election, meanwhile Mueller's team ignore the real attempts of HIllary and the DNC to steal the elections from Bernie Sanders, and then from Trump... And now Mueller is simply going along with Hillary/the DNC's plans to use a fake dossier to go after the dully elected POTUS...

Well, if nothing else, I admire the ability of Trump's supporters to dismiss evidence which has not even been made public, and conclusions that have not yet been reached. Personally, I'd wait for the final report to be submitted, but that's just me.