LANNY DAVIS: COHEN NEVER WENT TO PRAGUE AS STEELE DOSSIER CLAIMS-DOSSIER IS FALSE

He may be worse than Rudy:

In Stunning Reversal, Michael Cohen's Attorney Backpedals On Trump-Russia Claims

Lanny Davis - the attorney for Michael Cohen, has massively backpedaled on "confident assertions" that Cohen would share information with investigators that President Trump knew of Russian efforts to undermine Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton - a lifelong friend of Davis'.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Davis said in an interview 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." ​

So he was certain,and now he's uncertain.

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 -WaPo​

Davis also walked back an idea he widely circulated after Cohen's guilty plea that Trump knew about Russian hacking of Democratic emails in advance - which he has mentioned numerous times in recent interviews, "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 said in a Wednesday interview with PBS NewsHour.

Four days later and Davis is taking it all back.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...ohens-attorney-backpedals-trump-russia-claims

 

The State's 'witnesses'(if it ever got that far with Trump) are showing exactly why they wouldn't be credible witnesses. A jury would have an incredibly hard time parsing truth from fiction, especially if evidence isn't damning.

 

If you dont' see that as a straight answer, then no answer will ever suffice for you.

I can take a position on the acts, and they were evil. To hate someone on a personal level requires me to know them on a personal level. Otherwise I 'nothing' them. I don't have any emotional connection to them in any way beyond the abhorrence of what they did. Like I said, actively hating someone requires more mental and emotional capital that I'm unwilling to waste.

I can point to multiple possibilities. Just because there has been no indictment doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed. Take the blinders off for once and look at the smoke. Nearly every person around Trump has had to either resign or is currently in the legal system in one form or another. Wake up.

Yes I understand that.

Wasn't the point I was making, but continue to focus on something irrelevant to the matter at hand.

… Yes he was. He was convicted of the crime of campaign finance violations. His statement was that he made the payments at the direction of the candidate. The crime was campaign finance violation. The crime was the amount of money paid, the statement was related to the money paid.
It's the same situation John Edwards was in. They only difference is that as POTUS, Trump can't be indicted. That doesn't mean he didn't break the law, it just means he is in the one spot in all the land that can't be indicted.

And your making absolute claims about things not decided yet. His statement was tied to a crime he was a part of.

Yes it is. It's evidence of a crime. Just because no charges have been filed doesn't make that basic fact null and void. Here is a law. Here is testimony that that law was violated. That's the simple fact.

Nobody has claimed that Trump was indicted. And as I'm not the prosecutor, I don't need any evidence to do anything. Once again, you fail to realize that I'm just a name on a message board. Not Mueller. I don't have the evidence, I'm not crafting and serving the indictments. I'm a guy on a message board (just like you) offering opinions on a matter that I have no direct connection with (just like you).

 

He might be worse, I don't know. My point with Bluesguy was the Lanny Davis is providing the same kind of PR service for Cohen that Giuliani is providing for Trump, while Guy Petrillo is doing the actual legal work, quietly behind the scenes.

Lanny Davis may have misspoken, or he may have been telling the truth, but did so too soon, since there isn't any agreement between Cohen and Mueller yet. Cohen has previously testified to Congress that Trump didn't know beforehand, so Davis's statement may have admitted Cohen perjured himself, and thus walked it back. Davis has said that Cohen has information that Mueller would want, so I think we may have to wait to see if there is actually any proof, beyond he said/she said, that Cohen can provide proving Trump knew about Russian involvement with his campaign, and the Trump Tower meeting beforehand. There is either evidence or not.

 

You should follow the guy more. I think democrats stopped listening to the guy who voted for hillary and is a democrat when he would not join your gang, given he is a constitutional law prof and could not honestly join in the madness. He is concerned with the law and facts whereas some of us are not. It is an emotion driven thing, or so it appears.

 

Another non answer. But to your point, even really good lawyers can be wrong at times. He was trying to thread a needle with his arguments about Trump that get shredded in reality.

 

Cohen is facing decades in prison, or he can sell Mueller that he has something Mueller can use to hang Trump.

Desperate men do desperate things. Sounds like Cohen is frantically churning out enough crap that he has everyone including himself completely confused.

 

You may be right. If Cohen did things for Trump that will put him in prison, why shouldn't he help himself, if he can? Most would. We just don't know what Cohen has, or doesn't have right now, but he has implicated Trump legally. Avenatti has not moved away from his statement that Trump will be forced to resign, so only time will tell what actually happens.

Gates was told his testimony wasn't necessary to convict Manafort, and the results of the first trial seems to show that was true. However, Gates has other information valuable to Mueller, so he was offered a plea deal. We don't know who Gates has information on, but it won't be a low level campaign person. It will be someone above Gates, and he was the Deputy Campaign Manager, and the Campaign Manager has already been found guilty.

Mueller undoubtedly knows what Cohen has, when it comes to hard evidence- documents, recording, etc. Now that Cohen has said he's willing to cooperate and wants to talk to Mueller, we'll see what Mueller does. Cohen has already gotten a much lower sentence than he otherwise would have from SDNY, so there's that. By naming Trump in Cohen's charge, as Individual-1, that makes Trump an un-indicted co-conspirator, and as such, can't pardon Cohen. I suspect we'll see more of that kind of thing, or the use of state charges to prevent pardons.

 

He's not going to prison for decades for things "he did for Trump". Where do you come up with this crap?

No he hasn't.

Your big source is the Porn Star Lawyer?

Blithering nonsense. Trump is not an "unindicted co-conspirator" and there is no such limitation on the pardon Power, although after illegally recording him, I'm doubt Trump has any intention of pardoning him.

 

Report? To who?

There used to be a law allowing disclosure of grand jury reports to Congress in the case of special counsel investigations, but that law expired in 1999. The existing rules for appointing a special counsel contain no such provision allowing for a report or the breaking of the secrecy of the grand jury.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/27/60-year-old-case-torpedo-muellers-report/

 

So what was so bad in them that cost her the election and no I do not recall this corollation you claim.

BTW his attorney Davis just admitted he was one if the unnamed sources that got you guys all riled up and that what he told the press was total nonsense.

 

There was NOTHING bad enough in the emails to cost Clinton the election. The issue is that the emails were the only thing contrasted against repeated outrageous behavior by Trump, as if they were comparable. They weren't comparable. Trump would do or say something outrageous, that in any other election would have been disqualifying, and then would diffuse the coverage with a release of DNC/Podesta emails. Trump makes a speech asking Russia to find the emails, and later that day, they begin the hack. Podesta's emails were released 30 minutes after the Access Hollywood "grab 'em" video was released. Do you honestly think those things were mere coincidence? Release of the emails was intended to foil any bad press on Trump, by giving the press something else to report. The same thing has happened repeatedly. He wanted to change the narrative on Russia and came out against kneeling at NFL games. Then he proved he didn't care about respecting the flag or the military by disrespecting McCain's service by flying the flag at full staff. The emails provided a shift in narrative for Trump, just like the NFL kneeling did. There was very little damaging information in the emails, but that didn't stop people from creating other conspiracy narratives from them, like pizza-gate, that hurt Clinton's campaign.

I'm going to wait on a reputable news source (not FOX, Breitbart, zerohedge) to report Lanny Davis was the unnamed source for CNN. CNN is standing behind their story and say they had multiple sources, not just Davis. He might have misspoken, but I don't trust the outlets reporting it, and others like the NYT, WaPo, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc aren't reporting it, at all.

Davis and Giuliani seem to be two peas in a pod, as far as making strange statements to benefit their client. To me, this is a legal issue, not a public relations issue. Attorneys don't need to go on TV to sell a narrative.

 

I saw it differently, Trump would say something that the MSM would flip their lids on and then Hill would call people deplorables, Trump would say something else then Hill would get dragged into a black van. Trump would say something else and Hill's entourage would dump feces in the sewer. Trump would say another thing and then we find out she's got home brewed server.

 

Then what is the big deal about them.

No he didn't and he wasn't even talking about those emails.

We don't impeach and remove presidents because you don't like them andnlost the election so throwing as much crap on the wall as you can does not your case make. I personally cant stand the guy either. That doesn't mean charge him with somemade up crime and remove him. I repspect the Constitution and our way of government far more than you.

He admitted it and issued an apology.........

Geeez

Davis and Cohen are two peas in a pod, liars and "fixers"

 

Cohen has pleaded guilty to paying off Stormy Daniels, to help the Trump campaign deflect more bad publicity, following the release of the Access Hollywood tape. The Trump campaign was trying to control the narrative. They've done it repeatedly, and continue to do so. The issue is that Russia releasing emails to deflect attention is illegal. So is paying off people to stay quiet about damaging information, when not reported as a campaign expenditure.

 

My point was Hill lost because of many factors not just the emails.

 

The United States D.O.J. is so corrupt at the top. It's disgusting.

At least we are now getting confirmation of what intelligent people suspected all this time.

 

I agree. Trump is a vile, disgusting individual.

 

Who do you think the 20 pages of redactions contained?
Dossier written 20k Times?

 

If it was information which proved the veracity of the dossier why did they redact it? Again Schiff is a bald face liar. He claimed early on he had conclusive evidence that collusion occurred and when press began to weave and dodge and has NEVER produced it and never gives a straight answer about it.

 

Why did the protect intel that hasn’t been revealed publicly? Why do they ever?
If the redactions were about the dossier they wouldn’t be redactions, that’s all public now.

 

That may be but, unlike high ranking members of the DOJ and FBI, he hasn't broken any laws.

 

Its your claim not mine prove it. The fact is its full of phony claims including the lead one, that Cohen traveled to Prague to set up a deal on the DNC emails.

 

Which had nothing to do with the Page warrant.
And we still don’t know if Cohen did or not.

 

What is this wack-a-mole time. The charges that Cohen traveled to Prague to set up the "collusion" and get emails released to harm the Clinton campaign, one of the key points of the dossier is FALSE.