Roundup: McCabe; Cohen
Lately there have been so many big news stories each day that there’s no way a single person can write about all of them. So I’m going to weasel out of this one (for now, anyway) and refer you to Ace on recent developments in the Andrew McCabe saga: see this. Another source is this, which contains a link to a copy of the IG’s report.
As far as the Michael Cohen affair goes, please see this, as well as this speculation by Andrew C. McCarthy on what might be behind the seizure of the attorney-client records. For 20 years McCarthy worked as a prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, which is the office involved here, and so he’s inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there probably was a serious crime they were investigating that would justify the search. I’m not at all convinced, but I respect McCarthy enough to point out his article.
I’m not at all convinced, but I respect McCarthy enough to point out his article.
neo: Likewise.
When I first read leaks from what turned out to be the now discredited Christopher Steele dossier, I thought, whoa, has the other shoe finally dropped on Trump? I mean, they couldn’t be just saying such stuff if there weren’t something to it.
Well, there wasn’t anything to it other than an overarching animus towards Trump, enabled partly by Trump’s persona and a not undeserved rep for shady dealings.
My problem with McCarthy’s speculation is that the Deep State really seems to be the Deep Swamp and capable of almost any deceit.
When Comey let off Hillary for her email server on a non-existent “motive” argument, my life as an American citizen changed.
Occasionally, in granting the benefit of the doubt, when overwhelming circumstantial evidence argues otherwise… McCarthy exhibits a remarkable naivete.
Of course the S. District Attorney in N.Y. is only interested in Cohen’s misdeeds with no interest in Trump & Cohen’s communications. Sarc/off
This is a fatal blow to attorney-client priviledge, a major pillar of our judicial system. It effectively ends protection from self-incrimination. Anything told to your attorney, the prosecutor is now privy to, if they decide it is needed to secure a conviction.
Anything whose exposure can be painted as hurtful to Trump will be leaked to the MSM between now and 2020.
Arguably, leftist politics has entered a new phase with a now weaponized legal system.
I might be inclined to believe McCarthy, who I usually believe, but the raid immediately leaked information that has nothing to do with Trump about a payoff to a blackmailing Playboy bunny by a GOP “donor” and member of the RNC.
There has been a leftist feeding frenzy on that front page story in the WSJ for two days. This is just malice.
Punish anyone with any connection to Trump.
I read Andy’s piece and was very disappointed. Talk about confirmation bias! He thinks SDNY has some super great fraud or extortion case on Cohen, but what is it?
Another new theory is that Cohen was doing something horribly illegal because he was cutting deals with these whores to keep them quiet and they had the same lawyer. News flash to Andy: some lawyers do that. If only Bill Clinton had settled with Paula Jones at a very early stage! And I’m sure it was Hillary and Web who told Bill not to concede an inch to that trailer park trash.
Trump should pardon everyone and end this. Bring on the impeachment. But watch the GOP hold the House and this thing is over by November. And then lock up Hillary.
And what about the RNC guy who paid $1.6m to keep some whore quiet after she had an abortion. How did that story get out? He’s now out of a job. Does he get his money back?
McCarthy spent months and months giving the DOJ and FBI the benefit of the doubt regarding the Carter Page FISA application.
Mueller had nothing on Cohen for his mandate or he would have raided Cohen himself. So he goes to the State guys, outlines the rather petty charges (bank fraud, campaign violations related to Stormy et al) which came to light a few months ago (and they are saying Cohen has been under investigation for a few months,) in the hope the State guys can turn up some info Mueller can use. Easy to find a Trump hating judge who would issue a warrant for jay-walking if it could bring down Trump.
Ultimate goal? Flip Cohen. Or find stuff Mueller couldn’t get legally. Or both.
This is the kind of business I feel my only possible response is to wait and see. There are just too many unknowns for any speculation on my part to be worthwhile. I know that I don’t know what’s going on.
I may have my suspicions, and maybe I could make some kind of a guess — and it might be a good guess — but right now it’s a case of: We’ll see.
We had a clear, unmistakable, warning that the Rule of Law was under attack by the Left. We ignored it at our peril.
“Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian whose short video ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ was initially faulted for sparking the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack at U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya, is now living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He has served time in prison, been shamed publicly by the White House and threatened with death.
“‘I don’t believe in democracy anymore,’ Nakoula told FoxNews.com. ‘I don’t think there is such a thing as freedom of speech.’”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/12/blamed-for-benghazi-filmmaker-jailed-after-attack-now-lives-in-poverty-fear.html
Slightly tangential but funny none the less
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2018/04/13/further-excerpts-from-james-comeys-book-if-the-existing-ones-are-anything-to-go-on/?utm_term=.b703388d2ef3
Comey gets the treatment deserved from a Washington Post columnist. Cited by Powerlineblog.com
It is a strange form of extortion where the extorter is the one writing the checks, not cashing them. On its face, the extortion seems to run the other way. As far as I know, it isn’t illegal to pay someone for silence about non-criminal and non-tort activities. The only part of the McCarthy’s descriptions that might be fraud is on the part of the lawyer for the women- it is possible he wasn’t treating them as clients, but Cohen himself was the client, but I don’t really believe that unless someone can show payments to the lawyer from Cohen that were not disclosed to the purported clients. If you can show that, you have fraud.
However, I think this is all a charade- the hope is to get Trump’s communications with Cohen and leak them to the press, or the Holy Grail of Russian Conspiracy. I am willing to bet right now that they don’t have any of those since none have yet seen print after a week- the only juicy details have now seen print- that is it, I am betting.
If one takes McCarthy’s (in my view, extraordinarily illuminating and sober) series of posts on the Mueller investigation, one knows that he’s been cautious, if relentless, in his assessments, which have been for the most part very, very accurate.
The reason for this may be that the subject is so fraught; but also that he wishes to be as objective as he (given his rare combination of background and experience—and integrity) can be.
So my view is, if he’s worried, then there’s a good reason.
At this point, McCarthy has to be read together with Dershowitz’s assessments of the shady practices of an investigation run amok, an investigation that has clearly become a political attack on an elected, sitting president so as to protect the criminality of those high up in the Democratic Party and the previous administration.
McCarthy is saying, albeit somewhat cryptically, that Keith Davidson…a lawyer who represented 3 of the women in question…was actually working on behalf of Cohen and Trump.
Therein lies the criminal scheme.
He’s a little long winded in making his point. But if you read him again with this in mind, he’ll make perfect sense.
McCarthy is smart and apparently plugged in. But he retains a kind of charity toward his fellow practitioners which is not justified. IMO, it taints his reporting.
Seems that Cohen is in for a long haul with very little, if any, legal protection.
Like others before him, his life is about to change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5615721/Mueller-evidence-Trump-attorney-Michael-Cohen-visited-Prague-2016.html
Mueller has claimed another victim; but that’s A-OK with a whole lotta people….
I don’t believe Mueller has any such evidence about a trip to Prague, and I doubt that story in McClatchey had any truthful source from the investigation team. The reason is quite simple- it was always a slam dunk to prove Cohen was lying, if Cohen was, indeed, lying about the trip. Cohen would have had to leave the US, a recorded event, enter the EU, another recorded event, leave the EU, a third recorded event, and reenter the US, a last recorded event. It would have taken a federal investigator exactly one call to to either the EU or US Customs to prove Cohen was lying. Cohen is not a complete moron, and would know this. Even worse for the McClatchey story is this- Cohen has shown the passport to reporters when he initially issued the first denial.
I am sorry, if Cohen is lying, it is the most idiotic lie ever told.
In addition, the discovery phase of the Buzzfeed/Cohen suit will contain Cohen’s phone and credit card records- if he was in Europe at any time in question in 2016, it will be simple to prove, and just as easy to disprove.
Here is what I predict- if the Mueller team really was the source of the McClatchey story, then I expect to see a followup story describing how Cohen smuggled himself out of the US and into the EU in some as yet discovered manner, and smuggled himself back. Of course, the story then is left with the problem of explaining out why Cohen would go to such trouble when it isn’t a crime to fly to Prague or any other place in the EU. In other words, if Cohen did travel to Prague to meet a Russian, why go to so much trouble to hide a trip to Prague, and even if you were worried about it being a former Communist Bloc capital, then how is it easier to smuggle yourself in than to just fly to Munich instead?
Nothing in this recent story makes in logical sense in any way.
“Nothing in this recent story makes in logical sense in any way.”
Not sure that it has to make any sense.
It’s just more mud that, after it is flung enough times, has to stick.
This is where the USA is at right now.
If Cohen is in fact lying, then it should be very easy to prove. But even if Mueller can’t prove that; or even if Cohen proves that he’s not lying—and never did—this won’t affect the larger picture, which is: Trump is in the crosshairs and will stay there until at least the mid-term elections.
That mud will be kept airborne and new mud will be dredged up and flung.
(Call it a “progressive” electoral strategy….)
Hey, OK so we were wrong.
No problem.
Don’t take it personally.
It’s Trump we’re after.
You just got in the way.
Better luck next time!
https://pjmedia.com/trending/michael-cohen-shoots-report-prague-trip-bad-reporting-bad-information-bad-story/
Michael Cohen’s passport. He was clearly in all the wrong places.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/trumps-lawyer-showed-you-the-cover-of-his-passport-heres?utm_term=.qox8om47A#.nyGjLyXnN
The thing that made me cry, and doubt that rule of law would ever prevail again was when Obama put the unions’ position ahead of the bond holders in the GM thing. That was very early in the reign of terror and no wonder the economy dragged after that. But he was our first black president, so all good. SMH.
Trum was elected to fight the Leftist alliance.
All I see so far is fake fighting, faking trying to put HRC in jail, faking talking about putting HRC in jail, and shooting up Syria hoping Hussein didn’t set a trap for the USA there vis a vis Russia.
Trum has killed more people in Syria than he has killed US traitors inside the District of Columbia.
Where is this so called mad orange frog that was going to fight for the USA at?
From the Legal Insurrection post, this portion of Cohen’s complaint sure sounds like “selective prosecution” to me.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/04/trump-attorney-michael-cohen-goes-to-court-to-get-back-seized-records/#more
“Cohen now seeks the extraordinary remedy of preventing the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”) from reviewing lawfully obtained evidence of Cohen’s alleged criminal conduct, and asks that, instead, defense counsel be permitted to review the materials in the first instance and produce to the USAO-SDNY what defense counsel deems to be “responsive, non-privileged items.” This request is unprecedented and is not supported by case law in this Circuit, which has repeatedly found that the government’s use of a filter team appropriately protects applicable privileges. ...He asks to also be the first to make the determination of whether a document is responsive to the search warrant. That request for relief, which bears no relation to the claimed justification, belies the true intent of his motion: To delay the case and deprive the USAO-SDNY of evidence to which it is entitled”
* * *
It was certainly okay with the DOJ & FBI to let Hillary and her team determine her own “responsive, non-privileged items.”
And all the agencies determine for themselves what is responsive to Congressional committee and FOIA requests.
But NOT YOU.
ken Says:
April 14th, 2018 at 8:07 pm
Ultimate goal? Flip Cohen. Or find stuff Mueller couldn’t get legally. Or both.
Yancey Ward Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 2:03 am
It is a strange form of extortion where the extorter is the one writing the checks, not cashing them. On its face, the extortion seems to run the other way.As far as I know, it isn’t illegal to pay someone for silence about non-criminal and non-tort activities. …
However, I think this is all a charade- the hope is to get Trump’s communications with Cohen and leak them to the press, or the Holy Grail of Russian Conspiracy. I am willing to bet right now that they don’t have any of those since none have yet seen print after a week- the only juicy details have now seen print- that is it, I am betting.
* * *
What is really obvious is that non-disclosure agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on, and the money you paid is non-refundable.
Isn’t that fraud?
Barry Meislin Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Hey, OK so we were wrong.
No problem.
Don’t take it personally.
It’s Trump we’re after.
You just got in the way.
Better luck next time!
Paul In Boston Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 6:34 pm
Michael Cohen’s passport. He was clearly in all the wrong places.
* * *
PJM is on Cohen’s side, not surprisingly, but I haven’t noticed BuzzFeed being a part of the VRWC, and if their people didn’t uncover anything, then Mueller’s alleged evidence must be something that only DOJ etc can get access to — or FB and Google, of course.
Cohen has to know that the Law can get his travel, phone and credit card information, or any suspected second passport; is he really in the LeCarre-spook leagues on hiding evidence?
Comment at BuzzFeed: “Anyone who travels internationally knows that passports are digitally scanned in and out of entry points for tracking your whereabouts. Stamps are more for nostalgia these days.”
om Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 12:58 am
Slightly tangential but funny none the less…
Comey gets the treatment deserved from a Washington Post columnist. Cited by Powerlineblog.com
* * *
Over / under on when the writer at WaPo leaves to spend more time with her family, or maybe Kevin Williamson?
I checked out a few of the 315+ comments to see if they would give me a lead on how to bet. Many were laughing along with her, but some were not.
freods:
My college buddy rose to some prominence in the Dept. of Labor before he retired, and I spent time in DC visiting with him and his DC friends when he was still working. I’ve been to their barbecues, golfed with them, and attended weddings. Unfortunately, people like Comey are not the exception in our bureaucracy. Even my friend would apologize for them when we were alone. This is funny stuff, but also tragic.
junkyardwillie:
Funny stuff, Alexandra. I mean truly laugh out loud funny. I don’t think making fun of St. Comey will go over well with your employer though.
jjew314:
Disappointing Ms. Petrie, not funny, not satire, just sad. When you have accomplished anything near what James Comey has accomplished you can attempt to make fun of him
marc%20jordan:
Yeah, I told Lorne Michaels that SNL shouldn’t make fun of people who have accomplished so much more than his comedians but he ignored me.
Barry Meislin Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 8:41 am
Seems that Cohen is in for a long haul with very little, if any, legal protection.
* * *
The Daily Mail post was not too biased, and had totally irrelevant pictures, plus some repetition, so it is just a filler article. However, it does make these points:
“Cohen was referring to a McClatchy report on Friday, which cited two sources claiming that Mueller’s investigators traced evidence that Cohen entered the Czech Republic through Germany in August or September of 2016.
British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier claimed the purpose of the trip was to meet with a prominent ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Konstantin Kosachev, but it is not clear whether Mueller has evidence of such a meeting.
…
The sources did not say whether Cohen took a commercial flight or private jet to Europe, and gave no explanation as to why no record of such a trip has surfaced.
If true, evidence of such a trip would confirm one of the most contentious parts of the Steele dossier, one which Cohen and the Trump Organization loudly denied after it was made public in January 2017.
‘I have never been to Prague in my life,’ tweeted Cohen with a picture of his passport after the dossier’s publication.
He later allowed Buzzfeed reporters to examine and photograph the inside of the passport, which does not show stamps indicating travel to Europe in August/September 2016. Cohen denies having a second passport.
Once in Germany, a traveler would not need a passport to travel to and from the Czech Republic, as both countries are within the Schengen Area with open transit.
…
* * *
If the alleged evidence is so good, why aren’t they sure which month he came into the EU?
If he wasn’t anywhere in Europe during the alleged dates, the Schengen thing isn’t relevant at all.
Manju Says:
April 15th, 2018 at 7:09 am
McCarthy is saying, albeit somewhat cryptically, that Keith Davidson…a lawyer who represented 3 of the women in question…was actually working on behalf of Cohen and Trump.
Therein lies the criminal scheme. [??]
He’s a little long winded in making his point. But if you read him again with this in mind, he’ll make perfect sense.
* *
I’m assuming Manju refers to the article Neo linked, so I am reading it again — and trying to find the dots that “make perfect sense”; how about doing that FOR US next time, Manju?
The sense is so “cryptic” it approaches “dog whistle” territory.
McCarthy himself never says that Cohen & Davidson are colluding, although it is open as a possibility.
Andy is usually not so wishy-washy about calling things by name, however.
The long-winded-ness is because McCarthy, as in any good legal brief, lays out all the facts and allegations for review. That doesn’t mean he accepts all the hearsay and speculation as probative evidence.
PS Arguing the case against collusion doesn’t mean I believe that either; arguing is a fun spectator sport, and right now we can’t tell where the truth lies.
That’s what lawsuits are for, if they don’t get settled out of court.
And, if you believe that judges and juries always find for the truth.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/michael-cohen-investigation-serious-peril-for-trump/
“But there are twists to the known NDAs – not least, the remarkable coincidence that the same Los Angeles—based lawyer, Keith Davidson, turns up representing each of the muzzled women.
…
Ms. Clifford recounts a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. The Wall Street Journal reports that she decided to explore selling her story in April 2011. Clifford worked through her manager, a former porn actress, Gina Rodriguez, whom she met through the latter’s husband, Greg Deuschle (a former porn actor known – of course – as “Randy Spears”). Rodriguez shopped Clifford’s Trump tale to Life & Style. After interviewing Clifford, the magazine called Trump’s representatives for comment. The magazine got an angry call back from Cohen, who threatened to sue. Cohen also allegedly called Rodriguez, whose husband, Deuschle, answered the phone. He recalls that Cohen warned him, “You tell Gina if she ever wants to work in this business again then she needs to call me immediately.”
[but she, and her husband, are former porn actors; why would this “threat” be relevant?]
Instead, Ms. Rodriguez called Davidson, a lawyer who frequently represents people claiming to have compromising information about celebrities. It is not known what, if any, contact Davidson had with Cohen at the time, but he apparently advised Rodriguez to back off Clifford’s story.
…
Five years later, with Trump having sewn up the Republican presidential nomination, Cohen apparently got wind that Clifford was again talking to media outlets about selling her story. The Journal recounts thatCohen took the initiative, reaching out to Davidson in September 2016 to discuss an NDA. They agreed to a payment of $130,000 for Clifford’s silence.
[this makes sense, because they had already worked together; if Cohen called Davidson from Prague, that might be Mueller’s alleged evidence. Hmmm]
…
Ms. McDougal maintains that she was duped by a “catch-and-kill” scheme in which Davidson, ostensibly her lawyer, colluded with Cohen and American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer. In such a scheme, a media company buys the exclusive rights to a story but then buries it, rather than publish it. AMI’s chief executive, David J. Pecker, is reputed to use the catch-and-kill tactic on behalf of allies, and is said to be a friend of Trump’s.
McDougal decided to tell her story in May 2016 – when Trump was plowing through the GOP primaries. Through a mutual friend, she found Davidson, who told her that a deal with AMI could result in a “seven-figure publishing contract” with an initial $500,000 payment in an escrow account. But after an AMI official interviewed her extensively, the company initially declined to buy the story and Davidson confessed that there was no escrow money. AMI explains that it chose not to publish the story because it could not be verified, but concedes discussing McDougal’s allegations with Cohen “as part of its reporting process.”
…
[Cohen is Trump’s man; Davidson knows he’s Trump’s man; so does AMI — no “collusion” is needed for them all to talk about the situation — it would be malpractice by somebody if they did not]
Weeks later, though, when McDougal was in negotiations with ABC News, Davidson informed her that AMI had a new proposal: AMI would buy her story but not publish it owing to Pecker’s relationship with Trump. The company would pay $150,000 (a sizable chunk of which went to Davidson).
…
[this is the only thing that sounds colludey to me, and in this case the lawyer did get something for his client — which she was NOT deceived about and chose over the offer from ABC, which was her privilege, although she might have a case of contract fraud because of the fitness columns etc — and taking a high percentage is what this kind of lawyer DOES ]
Interestingly, just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal broke news about another NDA cobbled together by Cohen and Davidson. Turns out that in late 2017, Cohen negotiated a $1.6 million hush-money pay-off by his client, Elliott Broidy, a top Republican fundraiser with close ties to Trump. Like Cohen, Broidy is a deputy finance chairman for the Republican National Committee – or at least he was until Friday, when he resigned after the NDA story surfaced. Broidy helped the Trump campaign’s joint fund with the GOP raise $108 million during the 2016 campaign.
The silenced beneficiary of the NDA is a different, currently unidentified former Playboy model, who became pregnant during an extramarital affair with Broidy. The model, who apparently terminated the pregnancy, was represented by Davidson. And here’s a coincidence for you: The NDA is rife with pseudonyms. Broidy and the model are referred to, respectively, as “David Dennison” and “Peggy Peterson,” the same names used in the Trump—Clifford NDA. If that’s not enough camouflage, the lawyers have phony names, too – Cohen is listed as “Dennis Donohue,” and Davidson as “Paul Patterson.” Cute, no?
[boilerplate isn’t collusion and correlation isn’t causation, and “cute” hardly qualifies as charging a criminal conspiracy]
…
It seems evident that prosecutors are investigating on the theory that Clifford, McDougal, and perhaps others were defrauded or extorted into silence. The fact that they accepted money does not foreclose the possibility that their agreement to remain silent was procured, in part, by trickery or threats.”
[this is true, but so far only one of the women is alleging threats IIRC, and Davidson could have been scammed by AMI into believing they intended to live up to their offer]
* **
All of this post is full of allegations, and I would like some answers to these questions:
What did Davidson have to gain in silencing his clients for good money over getting them a real deal to tell their stories?
What is the difference between negotiating a deal and colluding?
How big is the pool of lawyers who do this kind of sensitive negotiating?
Is it just a coincidence that these three women retained Davidson?
How many of Trump’s accusers did NOT use him as their lawyer?
Who are Davidson’s other clients, and what other lawyers did he negotiate with?
Is this kind of NDA deal representative or unusual in the trade?
Does, for instance, Gloria Allred also collude with some or all of the attorneys she interfaces with in the causes of her similarly-situated high-profile clients?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Important because of what’s written and who wrote it.
“Mark Penn served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, including during his impeachment.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/383166-comeys-last-stand-for-the-deep-state
“They were among the most powerful men of the last decade. They commanded armies of armed agents, had the ability to bug and wiretap almost anyone, and had virtually unlimited budgets. They were the leadership of the FBI, the CIA and the director of national intelligence under President Obama. Each day, it becomes clearer that they are the real abusers of power in this drama.
The book by former FBI Director James Comey and the daily hyperbolic John Brennan sound bites are perhaps the final reveal of just how much hubris and vitriol they had. Comey’s book, according to reports, contains nothing new of legal consequence to Trump (while suggesting that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has something to worry about), but it unmasks the hatred that Comey had for Donald Trump from the beginning. It impeaches Comey’s fitness to have ever held high, nonpartisan office.
Whether you are a Democrat who can’t stand Trump, a Hillary Clinton supporter who feels robbed by Comey, or a Trump supporter, any use of wiretapping and vast prosecutorial machinery against our political campaigns and sitting presidents always has to be viewed skeptically and should meet the highest standards of conduct and impartiality. The post-election actions of these former officials makes suspect their actions as officials.”
“All I see so far is fake…”
Patience, patience, saith the Lord…
(There’s a swamp bigger ‘n Okefenokee awaitin’ to be drained….)
AesopFan Says:
April 16th, 2018 at 1:06 am
If the alleged evidence is so good, why aren’t they sure which month he came into the EU?
* *
J. E. Dyer articulates in much better detail the point I made above.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/04/15/looks-like-michael-cohen-set-prague-thing/
“But let’s test that Michael-Cohen-in-Prague allegation to see if it can hold any of this together. The reason it can’t comes directly from the narrative itself. It doesn’t hold together because to have intelligence that Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen was in Prague talking to the cast of characters he was supposed to have spoken with — and then to gain evidence that he really was in Prague, in spite of the lack of evidence that he ever went to or from Prague — you would have to know the one thing no one seems to know.
You would have to know what day Cohen was in Prague.
…
There is no form of evidence Mueller’s investigators could have that does not include a time stamp of some kind on it. If they really knew the Michael Cohen was in Prague, they’d have to know what day he was there.
If they’re relying on the witness information of someone who knew about the meeting — such as an Eastern European intelligence source — they’d know what day the meeting took place. End of story. That’s all they would need to track down other forms of evidence, such as security camera footage.
Even if they somehow found Cohen on security cameras without any cueing, they’d know what day it was. At the very least, they’d have it down to a period of just a couple of days, based on other factors such footage can be narrowed down with. But the need for that probably would not have occurred.
If they had Cohen on a cell phone going through a microwave tower in the Prague area, they’d have a time stamp on that.
Credit card? ATM use? Time stamp.
If they had incidental eyewitness information, such as identification from a photo of Cohen, walked by local gumshoes around the streets of Prague, they would easily have tracked down information about the meeting that clarified which day it occurred on, even if they couldn’t place the identification of Cohen to that precise day.
If they had signals intelligence describing events or plans related to the meeting (including emails or other communications involving Cohen himself), they would have time stamps on those, and in any case would know dead to rights what day the meeting was.
If Cohen made an overnight stay in a hotel, they’d have his passport information from the hotel stay, available from Czech authorities. They’d know exactly when Cohen was there. (This, I suspect, is how the Czechs know for sure that some other Michael Cohen with a U.S. passport was there.)
The bottom line is that they cannot know Cohen was there, for a meeting, without knowing what day he was there.
Yet they keep talking about August or early September, in terms similar to those of the Steele dossier, as if they just can’t pin it down. There is no form of verifiable evidence that someone was in Prague for a meeting that does not clarify what day the person was in Prague.
…
It looks very much as if the Mueller leakers are trying to leave things vague in order to generate the impression of a coherent narrative, without actually building one. If they suggested a day on which the meeting was supposed to have occurred, the actual Michael Cohen in question probably has six different ways to prove that he was in the United States that day.”
Well, I hope he does.
“There is no form of verifiable evidence that [Cohen] was in Prague for a meeting that does not clarify what day [Cohen] was in Prague.”
Hey, maybe Vlad will reveal ALL about that alleged visit! (date, time, hour, minute).
(Just a little payback for last weekend’s festivities in Syria?…)
Trey Gowdy with some illuminating (and entertaining)—and perhaps surprising—views on “Fox News” Sunday interview:
“Trey Gowdy on latest developments in Mueller probe”
Cohen isn’t even up to Snowden’s covert ops and tradecraft standards, let alone the Deep State’s elite and pro agents.
Show me the man Cohen, and I will show you the crime.
Let’s assume Trum is the messiah people have been waiting for. After all the Russian Syrians die in Syria, and all the Mexicans die from the National Guard at the southern border, what about the internal US traitors in District of Columbia, in your families, relatives, lovers, nieces, nephews, and government employees?
Are we supposed to wait until they take power in a coup de tat, is that the Messiah savior we are waiting for. Well, I suppose if the Jews are waiting for a Jewish messiah and the Christians are waiting for a Christian messiah, the Americans are gonna wait for an American nationalist patriotic USA first messiah.
Some Jews are American as are some Christians. Most understand the “render unto ceasar…” concept IMO.
Who are you waiting for? Please don’t answer. It’s a rhetorical querry. Do you have a new point to make, or just more of the same old same old? Whatever.