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

Nope, I’m just suggesting seeing a passport (which I haven’t seen) doesn’t prove he didn’t.

 

The fixer ... lol... Oh you guys ... is that your attempt to say Cohen is not a lawyer and has no client privilege? Scoundrels , every one .

 

~~~~
The State Department Issues Passports to American Citizens. The State Department is facing vexing questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat over Paul Manafort’s possession of multiple U.S. passports. Who within the Obama/Clinton State Dept. issued those valid passports and why?

Paul Manafort Teamed Up With Obama's Lawyer to Help Putin Ally
https://www.thedailybeast.com/paul-manafort-teamed-up-with-obamas-lawyer-to-help...
Aug 29, 2017 - It wasn't just Republicans. When Paul Manafort needed a powerful D.C. law firm to bless an alarming act by his clients in Kiev's pro-Kremlin regime in Kiev, Donald Trump's future campaign chairman turned to attorneys with significant ties to Barack Obama's administration. In exchange, a team led by Obama’s former White House counsel Greg Craig at the firm of Skadden Arps produced a report that whitewashed the pro-Putin government of Viktor Yanukovych for jailing Yanukovych’s anti-Kremlin predecessor. Manafort consulted for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. And they did it all for roughly $13,000—a conspicuously small amount for top lawyers at a prestigious law firm. (Prosecutors in Ukraine have reportedly alleged a million dollars more in secret payments.)

 

I just noticed during the Comey interview on MSNBC the Boente's notes indicate Trump spoke of suing Buzzfeed or Steel - I can't remember which. This could fit in with the President using Cohen to sue someone. Is that illegal? Maybe not, but it would explain why Cohen dropped it.
Edit:
Great interview.
Edit II
Handy to have the interview when the memos have just been made public.

 

Therefore ... what? He did it? Or you don't know?

If you dont know, why insinuate that he did?

 

I can't prove that Hillary does not have a stash of child porn in her house, but I sure wouldn't insinuate that she did.

 

I really worry about the citizenry's grasp of civics these days. Not even the FBI would ever claim that information sufficient to get a warrant is sufficient to get an indictment, never mind a conviction. It's of a piece with young uni students belief that there is no First Amendment right to speech that they consider hate speech.

And the REALLY scary part is that they will soon be in positions of power. No more free speech, and "probable cause = guilt".

 

Is what legal? And what does "using Cohen to sue someone" mean?

 

*THINKS*. A ruling wasn't issued. She had the moral duty to argue the case. Again, Eric Holder argued cases in which Obama lost, sometimes 9-0. But he was STILL AG. I don't understand why you want to argue the morality of a lawyer, who has none. As far as I'm concerned, the justice department is better off without the wailing screaming lunatic over the Logan Act.

 

Actually, the real reasons 'sources' aren't revealed(when there are none) is to give the impression of credibility to false stories(see: Rolling stone tragedy on the nonexistent rape case.)

And the same thing, Mueller utterly refuting(through his secretary) this 'report'. Left wing fake news isn't any more honorable than right wing fake news. We should demand and expect more from journalists in this country.

 

Unfortunately that all changed about 30 years ago when accountants and lawyers started running the media; profit margin is all that means anything to them. Ratings = money. That's their mindset.

 

Nope, I want you to stop pretending you HAVE proved it

 

Reports are that he did. That is all.

 

She doesn’t have to be right. Although she was, the version she refused to defend ended up being changed because it wasn’t constitutional .

 

She doesn't have to be right or wrong in her opinion, she still has to do her freaking job. It's just like any other job where insubordination shouldn't be tolerated. She doesn't get browny points for being right. Especially in this case where her whining "I quit" just looks bad on the entire law attorney industry.

 

Not 'reports'. One dude's report, regurgitated amongst the entire news sphere, refuted by Mueller's spokesperson effectively saying there are "no sources" close to the investigation.

 

He job is to uphold the constitution. If he told her to arrest anyone with blue eyes should she do it?

 

Steele’s report and mcclachy

 

Neither of which are confirmed, or even close to confirmed. For the past two years, you've clung to your pearls on a conspiracy theory. One that took yet another hit today from Rosenstein.

It's time for the nation to move beyond conspiracy theories, the russian conspiracy theory will go the way of the grassy knoll on JFK's assassination.

 

That would be an obvious violation of civil rights(also: Godwin's law activated. I didn't miss it.). However, here, she wouldn't know the legality of the order or not until such a decision would be rendered by a judge. And even though she was right, she had the LAWFUL OBLIGATION to act as the attorney general of the US.

She doesn't have the leeway to 'quit'. She acted unprofessionally and was thus fired. She should've been fired when she was screaming about the Logan Act. In the conspiracy theory of the DOJ, we're noticing that several unsavory characters found their way inside of prestigious and esteemed parts of our government.

 

Actually that was you. That was some seriously weak projection.

 

How did it take a hit?

 

Lol! I did a google search.

 

Sorry, can't lower the bar down to their level. Your president and his butt boy brigade of Republican criminals have had an ongoing campaign of undermining this investigation by covering for Trump by obstructing justice in the name of damning the truth. Democrats have not been an active participant in that event.

 

Well, these wild claims didn't age well.

BYRON YORK: Remember Prague? In Michael Cohen plea deal, Mueller says nothing about key collusion allegation.

When news broke that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about his 2016 meetings concerning the failed Trump Tower Moscow project, the chattering class instantly began talking about the failed Trump Tower Moscow project.

Of course that was news. But it turns out the Cohen plea agreement also made news in what it did not cover. Specifically, it spoke volumes — without saying a word — about a key allegation of the Trump dossier, the charge that Cohen traveled to Prague to arrange secret payments to Russian hackers attacking the Clinton campaign. The accusation is the heart of the collusion allegation, and Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller’s deal with Cohen strongly suggests that prosecutors have not found evidence to support it. . . .

This is why Cohen’s Trump Tower Moscow plea agreement with Mueller is important for the dossier: The plea shows that Mueller closely scrutinized everything Cohen told Congress. And it has long been clear that Mueller and his team are not shy about charging Trump-Russia figures with making false statements. It’s also clear that Mueller found evidence that specific assertions in Cohen’s statements to Congress were false — the ones concerning Trump Tower Moscow — and that he charged Cohen with lying. So if Mueller had evidence that Cohen’s definitive denial of the Prague story, in the same document, was false, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mueller would have charged Cohen for it. Yet in the charges against Cohen, Mueller said absolutely nothing about Prague.

Last April, McClatchy published a blockbuster story with the headline “Sources: Mueller has evidence Cohen was in Prague in 2016, confirming part of dossier.” The story was the subject of a lot of talk among Resistance types. But one notable thing about the McClatchy scoop was that other news organizations never duplicated it, as is common when one outlet breaks a big story. Now Mueller, with vastly more resources and investigative power than any news organization, hasn’t either.

For more than a year, a number of Trump-Russia investigators on Capitol Hill have maintained that none of the dossier’s substantive allegations are true. The new plea deal between Cohen and Mueller is more evidence to support that.
​

But the dossier’s only purpose was to get a special counsel appointed to go after Trump, and they got that.

For those interested in going deeper regarding special counsels and lying to Congress, see Peter W. Morgan’s The Undefined Crime of Lying to Congress: Ethics Reform and the Rule of Law, 86 Northwestern U. L. Rev. 177 (1992).

And here’s a New Yorker piece by Jeffrey Rosen. Excerpt:

“Perjury traps have become a popular tactic among independent counsels: if they can’t prove the alleged crime they were appointed to investigate, they indict suspects for lying to investigators. But the traps are effective only because independent counsels have succeeded over the past few decades in expanding the lying laws far beyond their historical roots.”​