Now there is evidence Michael Cohen lied about trip to Prague during the election

He's also a self proclaimed expert on US history, evidently based on the claim that he "aced" his high school course.

 

It doesn't even come close to doing anything of the sort.

Who told you that?

I want to scold them for having treated you with such intellectually abusive disregard.

 

Most watched cable news network every month for 16 straight years.

/shrug

 

Cohen is indeed Trump's Butt Boy and he technically is an "attorney" but I understand that he has never argued a case in court.

His law degree is from Western Central Hootersville University in the state of confusion.

 

If you think trump's lawyers can bail on him and then start providing information to Mueller then you know absolutely nothing about investigations. That information is privileged and sharing it would get them disbarred.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention to current events.

You may be very good at your occupation (plumber, welder, retail clerk, or whatever) but you're an ignorant ass when it comes to politics and current events.

 

That's sort of what I meant. A lawyer who isn't.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html

 

The predictable trail of typical Republicans. When cornered to prove their point, they just cut and run with cowardly ad hominem attacks, which only serve to prove their lies in reporting, as their only escape.

You were caught lying so you took the route most taken.

 

You called me a liar. You drew first blood.

 

This is an explosive story and, if true, would be devastating to the Trump presidency even without knowing the details of the trip. According to the McClatchy piece, Mueller has evidence that Cohen was indeed in Prague around the timeline suggested in the 'dossier'. Since there are no leaks from Mueller's team, who would be the source for this? Usually the leaks come from a witness and/or their lawyer - someone who has been interviewed by Mueller's team. The dossier also claimed that Cohen was 'accompanied by 3 colleagues' when he visited Prague - is the leak from one of these and/or has Mueller interviewed one of these 3? Who really knows, we'll have to wait and see.....

 

I will repeat this here.

The desperation is showing by this fake news article trying to divert from the group that actively tried to sink Trump’s run for President. They all thought Hillary would win but when Trump won the insurance policy came into effect. Now that the IG is investigating them they are trying to steer the conversation.

Why is this fake news? Yes, Mueller has evidence that Michael Cohen was in Prague. Problem is it is still the wrong Michael Cohen. See how the fake news leads you to believe what you want to believe?

 

And you have nothing intelligent to debate, while using lies as a replacement for proof. You are what I call "overkill" for easy.

 

The desperation is in your inability to prove this article is fake news. And since you did not do that, then you simply lied in this post of yours. Prove your points with documentation, or it is simply more Right-wing lying. We'll be waiting.

 

I think it's safe to say he is already a target since they found probable cause to get the warrant. But, there is no urgency to charge him with a crime. They may want to investigate for more crimes.
Oh, and #3. Muller is not running this investigation so don't expect him to do anything - in fact quite the opposite.

 

The blind shall not see. The article is innuendo designed to fool the gullible. I see you have taken the bait.

The OIG report into the DOJ and FBI will be coming out in May. The release proving McCabe lied to investigators is out and the spin machine is trying to whitewash it with unsubstantiated claims that the useful idiots take as fact over the OIG report. More will be coming down but in the meantime, those involved are driving a scenario with reports like this to divert attention from the facts.

 

Actual sequence of events.

Based upon evidence of a criminal act, that may initially be circumstantial or hearsay evidence not admissible in a court of law, committed by a person (or persons) a law enforcement agency begins it's investigation. The investigation seeks to find admissible evidence of the actual crime and the person(s) responsible for the crime.

Law enforcement, in addressing the crime, will be addressing three different types of people. There are witnesses that can provide information on the criminal act and/or those responsible for the act. There are suspects that are under investigation because they may be responsible for the act. Finally there are targets that law enforcement is confident, based upon the evidence, are responsible for the criminal act. Law enforcement doesn't inform the person if they're considered a "witness, suspect, or target" except when it comes to interviews of the person and even then only if the person or more likely their lawyer, asks. If asked prior to an interview the law enforcement agency will inform the person (it makes a significant difference in whether the person will voluntarily provide information).

Once sufficient evidence is obtained a criminal indictment can also be obtained but the timing when the indictment is obtained can be delayed of other people are also being investigated related to the criminal activity. The indictment can also be sealed and not immediately executed by the law enforcement for law enforcement reasons.

The Mueller investigation may very well have evidence against Cohen and Trump that justifies indictments and may be sitting on it while it gathers additional evidence. We know that Mueller has a lot more evidence than has been revealed by court filings and by sources close to the investigation. We don't know what that evidence is because there have been literally no leaks directly from the Mueller investigation. The "leaked" information is coming from sources in the FBI (or CIA) that are aware of evidence that has been furnished to the Mueller team and not evidence that the Mueller team has uncovered on it's own.

It's also my understanding that, based upon DOJ policy, Trump will not be indicted for any criminal offense while he's president. There's an unanswered question of whether a sitting president can be indicted and prosecuted for a criminal act and the DOJ doesn't want to test that question that only the Supreme Court could answer. The DOJ will probably release the Special Counsel report documenting Trump's criminal activities to Congress for impeachment proceedings giving Congress the ability to impeach and remove Trump from office before the criminal charges would be filed against Trump.

If Congress refuses to impeach and remove Trump from office for criminal conduct so that he can be prosecuted the DOJ will still retain the option of filing those charges against Trump but, as noted, that would be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court that would have to decide if it's Constitutional to prosecute a sitting president.

 

The OIG report is not "proof" but instead is a claim by the OIG that McCabe may have lied or misrepresented the truth in his statements to the OIG. Please note that McCabe has claimed this was a misunderstanding of what he stated. McCabe has submitted an addendum to his testimony providing clarification of the statements he made and he's also submitted a comprehensive rebuttal to the allegations in the OIG report. McCabe is challenging the OIG report and the answer to whether it's true or not is still to be determined.

All said an OIG report is not proof, it's a summary of what the OIG believes based upon the evidence it's found. It's about evidence that could be equated to the evidence needed for indictment but it's not proof. Remember that an indictment is not a conviction.

Mueller has evidence putting Cohen in Prague that validates part of Steele's dossier (memo's to the FBI) that Cohen was there and proving that Trump and Cohen lied in stating that Cohen wasn't there. That doesn't confirm that Cohen met with top Russian officials that's also claimed in the Steele dossier. Mueller may also have evidence of Cohen meeting with the top Russian officials as well confirming another statement in the dossier. This is similar to Trump's alleged meeting with prostitutes in Moscow in 2013. It's been documented that he was registered at the hotel and stayed in the same room that Barrack and Michelle Obama stayed in previously confirming two parts of Steele's claim in the dossier but whether Trump was engaged with prostitutes that night hasn't been proven.

The problem is when you start out with a lie. Cohen could have admitted he went to Prague but didn't meet with Russians and Trump could have admitted he stayed in the hotel and even denied knowing that it was the same room the Obama's stayed in and obviously denied being with prostitutes. Why lie about "being there" if you're not trying to cover-up that the additional statements are true. Why not just deny the statements that are false?

 

Source that’s it’s still the wrong Cohen

 

Hoosier8 does have a point. Way back in January 2017 CNN (Jake Tapper) tweeted a government source that said the Michael Cohen in question was a different Michael Cohen - note that this is one source only. McClatchy's story claims two sources, so we will see.....

 

So evidence he lied is not proof he lied. LOL

 

Proof it isn’t?

 

Tell that to Sally Yates, she bailed before even trying in federal court.

 

What does Sally Yates have to do with anything I said? Or are you, like Trump, under the mistaken impression that the A.G. is the presidents personal lawyer?

 

Let's break this down in the simplest format possible: The President is in charge of the executive branch. The executive order is a FUNCTION of the executive branch. It was her *******n job to argue the merits of the President's case before the courts. There is no excuse or legal reason that justifies Yates running with her tail between her legs. She made a mockery of just about every defense attorney in the US practicing lol.

"If only it were that easy to escape these cases where the public obliges me."

Trust me`, any private law firm of hers wouldn't attract many or any clients at all. She showed me she isn't really a true attorney at law.