Trump's lawyers are not representing Cohen. Therefore any conversations between them and Cohen are discoverable, unless one of their clients was present during the conversation, which seems unlikely. Cohen has physical evidence of the lawyers suborning perjury. These lawyers also offered deals to Manafort. Bar Association actions should follow.
18
Defense lawyers regularly present false alibis, perjuring witnesses, and false polygraphs and encourage material witnesses not to testify. It all passes for legitimate defense provided they can claim that they didn’t knowingly falsify evidence. Their strategy is not to ask questions that would reveal the obvious. Dubious but remotely possible claims of ignorance get them off the hook.
The line between a legitimate defense and contemptuous conduct is very fine indeed. This inquiry will deter aggressive defenses by alleging that they constitute contemptuous conduct. Defense lawyers are a critical part of the justice system. Holding them in contempt for borderline conduct is a bd idea. Trump is the one to focus on. Absent flagrant criminal conduct, his attorneys are doing a difficult job that constantly requires them to walk a thin line.
Aggressive pursuit of Trump’s attorneys combined with tepid pursuit of Trump is a terrible and unjust strategy. Yet
That seems to be what is going on.
3
@michjas
Any lawyer who knowingly and deliberately shapes testimony to misrepresent what occurred should be disciplined. For example, arranging as part of a Joint Defense Agreement that Cohen would counterfactually state (in his written statement and in his testimony) that the Trump Tower Moscow discussions ended in January 2016 when in fact they went on for additional months, and to suggest that he informed no one when Trump and his children were all given updates as the discussions went on, would satisfy suborning perjury before Congress.
So throw the book at the lawyers. Show lawyers that if you do such things, you lose your professional standing, and get disbarred.
In addition, go after the principals for whom these lawyers were stupid enough to risk their licenses.
But start with the obvious case that you can win, because there is plenty of proof that these lawyers actually did acts that amount to deliberate and knowing legal misconduct before a tribunal, Congress.
Then you use that record to call the principals to account under oath, knowing what the truth is, so they either 'fess up, or take the Fifth, or flat out lie. Their choice.
After that, we could talk about ... IMPEACHMENT, based on a record with LOTS of supporting evidence.
33
@michjas
When the president surrounds himself with these lawyers, who could say, "No" but take the job knowing the the president demands loyalty above anything because he is a narcissist and a sociopath, then do things they should know they are not supposed to do since they are licensed attorneys, pursuing them is as legitimate as pursuing an ordinary person, who is expected to adhere to the law. The problem is the Justice Department's policy to avoid charging a sitting president with a crime. I've not heard that the Justice Department also has a policy to avoid charging a sitting president's private attorney's or the U.S.A.'s Attorney General acting as the sitting president's private attorney with a crime when they commit it. This one needs a good high school civics course, to understand his constitutional limitations, as most past presidents have, but he would need to read to learn from such a course. Fingers crossed in hope.
15
The claim about congressional inquiries needing a legislative purpose has some history. During McCarthyism, from the late 1940s to the early 60s, there were a not of congressional inquiries into activities that were protected by the First Amendment, and it was common for those subpoenaed to claim that the inquiries had no legitimate legislative purpose. Most people also declined to testify based on the Fifth Amendment, which has legally safe but reputationally expensive. For a test case, Frank Wilikinson declined to testify before the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, solely on the ground that because of the First Amendment, the hearing had no legitimate legislative purpose. He lost the argument at the Supreme Court, and spent a year in jail.
12
Who amongst us would have believed we might reach a point in history when our Constitution lies in tatters, where the rule of law is rapidly disappearing and scoundrels, thieves and aggrandizers profit from privilege and position untouched by the principles that guide our morality.
We are in the midst of a desperate battle to save our democracy from a want to be dictator, his acolytes and the most powerful economic elite that we have ever encountered-that threaten our core values and have no regard for the majority of decent citizens who are now completely without empowerment of any kind.
Subpoena the lawyers, compel them, punish them if possible and appropriate. Stop the rot!
160
@Stewart Rein
drain The Trump Swamp - that Trump and his family created along with all of their Republican enablers with their corrupt and criminal behavior in the White House.
Time to hold them accountable for their crimes.
18
So when "the honorable" Devin Nunez requests information regarding an ongoing investigation it is perfectly acceptable, but now that the shoe is on the other foot it "serves no legislative purpose?" As Mr. Schiff writes in his letter to the attorneys dated 5/10, this is "almost absurd."
221
@Leanne
In the same way that the earth is "almost" round.
1
Lawyers are NOT supposed to be part of crimes of their clients- client/attorney privilege ends there. That includes perjury.
18
Just show us his taxes and all will be clear
11
Only a matter of time before the lawyers lawyers have lawyers.
13
Investigation of the lawyers that told people going before a congressional committee to lie seems like a reasonable reason to investigate. Especially when the person is suppose to tell the “ whole truth” . Obstruction is the name of the game in Trumpland. It’s been clear from the beginning.
19
@David DeFilippo. Seems Mueller found no problems worth pursuing.
1
@Jaydid you read the report, or did you have a friend just tell you what it said?
it is obvious that trump did not have someone read it to him.
10
Not true! Mueller thought that the issue was a problem, but it did not fall under his purview. He was leaving it to the Congress to settle in their oversight duties.
18
When I first heard about this during the Cohen hearing, I thought the wrong person was going to jail. Mr. Cohen is now there and if the Times is available and he is reading this article, he must be wondering the same thing. On this subject he was prepared to tell the truth. The Trump lawyers edited his testimony and he was charged with lying to Congress. Not fair. When this whole mess is finally resolved, I suspect there will be many Trump associates who went along to get along and wound up in a jail cell.
10
@Elinor.... or get good government jobs
3
You never know what a witness will say until you ask him. You don't really know the truth, even when he talks. You just know what he says.
The witness statement in question was not the entire testimony, it was the direct testimony. Then there is cross exam.
Lawyers always shape the direct testimony. You're supposed to do that.
Then you practice how to deal with anticipated cross exam -- deal with it without lying, but without making things any worse than necessary either.
It is called "preparing the witness." Failure to do that is malpractice.
While the Democrats may be right, what can the really do? Subpoena anyone and they will ignore. Or at best, show up and plead the fifth. Ask for info, and WH will ignore. Demand a legal right for anything needed and the DOJ will tell congress to get lost.
So while I agree the WH, DOJ, the senate and the GOP must be called to task, nothing will be done. Nothing.
1
The democrats have to concentrate their efforts into areas where they can get quick and meaningful results. An endless series of investigations producing no effective outcomes leave Trump only stronger, in addition to producing investigation-fatigue among the voters.
1
As a fan of Hollywood drama, movies about the fictional New York mob characters are among my favorites.
I can't help but draw lines of comparison to the drama that is being played out in the real world of Washington political power struggles.
Don Trump and his real life history of casinos, real estate deals, powerful attorneys, mysterious liaisons with foreigners and corrupt influence of political process is the stuff that Academy Award movies are made of.
As James Comey exclaimed during a Congressional testimony, "Lordy, I hope there are tapes!"
What is unfolding here, however, is not a movie. The future path of our country is at a crossroads. We must have the strength and persistence to not only get to the bottom of these investigations but also to deliver a resounding mandate in November 2020 to restore the United States as a leader on the world stage.
29
@David
Emphasis on restoring. Then, leading on the world stage? Be that as it may.
1
When I was in Yale Law School over 50 years ago, we were given examples of the kind of unethical conduct that could result in disbarment. The gang mentioned in this article as well as Rudy Gooliani should be investigated by their state licensing boards as well.
46
@george eliot I’m not an attorney, but don’t conspiracy laws come into effect in this issue?
8
Commenter Barry C writes:
"I'll give odds on Giuilani's eventual disbarment."
Can you tell us what those odds are? Can you also tell us who might disbar Giuilani, and for what?
Thanks.
2
@Commenter
Well, I don't know if he should be disbarred, but he should be in prison for insisting on locating NYC's emergency response center in the WTC, against all advice, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of people on 9/11, including if my memory serves me correctly, 343 NYC firefighters.
16
@Commenter NY's bar could disbar him. I'm not sure if he is licensed anywhere else (e.g., NJ, DC...) Inethical behavior, witness tampering, and encouraging perjury seem to be on the table for the why.
5
A commenter asks:
"So, where does this 'proper legislative purpose' stuff come from?"
Nobody -- Congress included -- may issue a subpoena just because it feels like it. And nobody -- Congress included --gets to decide whether it has authority to issue a subpoena. Somebody else -- a court -- gets to decide that. If the challenge is frivolous, the court might not only rule against the challenger but may also impose additional penalties on the challenger -- costs, fines, whatever.
Here, though, Trump's lawyers may be warranted in arguing that Congress has overstepped its authority by demanding that Barr show up to testify with certain documents in hand. And so Trump's lawyers have argued that there is no "proper legislative purpose" supporting Congress' subpoena. Frankly, it wouldn't be difficult for Congress to cite some "proper legislative purpose" if a court asks it to do so, and Congress could instead say it's enforcing its Constitutional power to impeach. Either will do, and either power can easily be found in the Constitution.
What CANNOT be found in the Constitution, however, is some sort of general "oversight" power that various commenters have insisted that Congress has. I sure don't see that anywhere in the Constitution. Maybe it SHOULD be there, but it's not. The Constitution authorized Congress to (1) pass laws; and (2) impeach officials in other branches. It does NOT grant Congress any general "oversight" power, however. Maybe it should but it doesn't.
4
@Commenter You have it backwards. Under law and precedent Congress has the right to issue subpoenas. They are not obligated to justify them. On the contrary the person receiving the subpoena, should he or she refuse to obey, must go to court and say why they refuse. ,which reason the judge may agree with or not. There is no precedent for an argument of "no legislative purpose."
17
@Commenter Can't legislate without facts. Can't get the facts without hearings. Pretty simple.
Then-Senator Harry Truman first made a name for himself investigating military procurement. Back in the seventies the Church committee conducted wide-ranging hearings on the conduct of our intelligence agencies.
According to you those hearings were un-Constitutional. You're full of beans.
4
@Commenter Hmmm.... did you apply that to Benghazi, Fast & Furious, Whitewater, the IRS non-scandal, and every other GOP investigation from the Obama and Clinton administrations?
4
I can imagine that:
"Can one imagine any ordinary citizen defying a subpoena?"
Most people would assume that the agency or individual issuing the subpoena has authority to do so, and so they wouldn't challenge that authority. But that doesn't mean the agency or individual issuing the subpoena actually has authority to do so.
One aspect of the "rule of law" is that a person asserting his or her authority doesn't get to decide whether he or she is overstepping that authority. Somebody else gets to decide that -- usually that "somebody else" is a court.
Most people can't afford to pay to challenge the authority of an agency or individual that issues a subpoena, and so they just comply with it. In addition, sometimes the authority of the agency or individual issuing the subpoena is indisputable, so that a challenge would be a waste of time and money.
Sometimes, though, the agency or individual issuing the subpoena IS overstepping its bounds, and the target of the subpoena can afford to challenge that agency or individual. I don't know whether that's the case here, but I sure can't blame Trump for trying. It strikes me as a question that ought to be decided by a court, NOT by the agency that sends out the subpoena.
@Commenter But doesn' the subpoena have to be determined not to be frivolous by a court before being issued anyway?
1
@Commenter -- One can always go to the court that issued it, and make a motion for a protective order. I've done it often, and they are often granted.
5
Frankly, I can't understand why the FBI couldn't investigate the Trump campaign if -- if -- the FBI had grounds to believe the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians. Aren't MOST of the FBI's investigative targets American citizens?
7
@Commenter. You use a low standard of “had grounds to believe”, sort of like China practices surveillance. In America, probable cause that a named crime has been committed is the standard for a warrant to surveil, and it’s limited to the specifics in the warrant. Bob Kraft just got tapes at a massage parlor thrown out because attempts to tape illegal acts violated the rights of every customer getting a message. They’re all suing now. BYW, the FBI is not permitted to spy in foreign countries. That would be the CIA. The fact that any government agency could use “had grounds” to spy on people or political parties should scare every American. The days of stopping black drivers with nice cars because a cop had reason to believe it was probably stolen are long gone.
Nope, but Trump's people would have done the same thing:
"Will this witch hunt never end?"
If Mueller HAD found evidence of collusion, Trump still would have denied it. Mueller took so long to report that I'd guessed he'd found nothing, but I wasn't sure until he explicitly admitted it. (I keep thinking of the New Yorker cartoon I saw recently, which showed roughly 10 men following a bloodhound, who had his nose to the ground. A "thought bubble" rising from the bloodhound's head read: "I don't smell a dang thing." That probably describes Mueller, though he just kept looking.
Bottom line: Mueller didn't find any evidence of collusion. But if he had, Trump would have challenged his findings -- just as Trump's critics are now challenging Mueller's "no evidence" finding.
@Commenter Mueller wasn't looking for collusion, he was looking for evidence of a criminal conspiracy. What he did find was that the Russian government and the Trump campaign shared a goal and reacted to each other's moves so as to achieve that goal but he couldn't establish that they had entered into a conspiracy.
Did the obstruction which he did find help to hide an actual conspiracy? Good question which we cannot answer at this point.
The important point is that what the Russians and Trumpers did do is collude. Mueller found ample evidence of collusion.
8
@Commenter Your statement that Mueller didn't find evidence of collusion is a lie. You obviously haven't read the report. Muller did not discuss his findings in terms of collusion. Rather conspiracy and collaboration. Even there he merely stated that he had not found enough evidence to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with the crime of conspiracy against the United States. Not that there was no evidence. Mueller details the evidence. The definition of collusion is soft...I'd say, many would say, that Manafort giving confidential campaign polling data to a Russian oligarch close to Putin was collusion. There are numerous such examples in the report, part I.
4
@Commenter "No collusion" is not an accurate portrayal of the report conclusions. Consider this secton:
"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. ... Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. " - Mueller Report, page 10
In other words, for various reasons they couldn't use some of the evidence, and some individuals refused to provide evidence the team believe existed.
Let's also note here the inaccuracy of the term "collusion." A term with legal basis is "conspiracy against the United States."
The evidence they could use did not exonerate Trump or his associates, nor did it show no conspiracy. It was merely insufficient to establish the conspiracy against the U.S. beyond a reasonable doubt.
7
does anybody know whatever happened to the case a couple of months ago about a country that had a company somehow involved in all this? the name of the country was kept top secret. was that ever disclosed publicly?
5
I don't object to the FBI investigating the Trump campaign, or anyone else, if they have grounds to do so (or, to use Barr's preferred term, a "predicate"). The question is whether they HAD a "predicate." It seems to me that they did.
4
@Commenter Talking to known spies, failing to disclose those contacts after the FBI warned the campaign about Russians trying to worm their way in, and repeatedly lying about the contacts definitely seems to be a predicate.
2
A government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful, for the rich and powerful.
Can one imagine any ordinary citizen defying a subpoena?.
All the weak points of America have been exposed by the behaviour of this administration and those who enable its actions.
28
Mr Trump has a long history of questionable conduct in real estate and the casino business, and was forced to pay thousands of victims of his Trump University fraud.
Sadly, it is not surprising that Trump has surrounded himself with attorneys who are similarly pugnacious, devious and deceptive.
I don't see any positive outcome if Congress chooses to capitulate before the antics of spoiled brat in his 70s.
33
I am grappling with the word dictatorship. I am inferring, hinting er dunno really. Actually I do know. President Admirable Crichton is aspiring to be a dictator. I also know he is an obvious sociopath. His lawyers are saying that Congress cannot investigate a President. Huh! Why isn't everybody freaking out?
In non political scenarios, this is exactly what sociopaths do. One group of people loathe a sociopath and another group swear exactly the same sociopath is wonderful. Look at Hare's psychopath checklist. Trump checks every box. Bannon got his way. He openly said he wanted to dismantle the administrative state. It is happening
32
There is no respect for Mob and Mob Lawyers.. who loves TV.. and likes to lie and spread FAKE news..
4
When lawyers hire other lawyers to represent them, it's like the situation with a mirror in front and back of you — the image repeats. When that second level of lawyers hires a third level, we will have reached terminal velocity.
11
" ... investigating whether lawyers tied to President Trump and his family helped obstruct the panel’s inquiry ... "
Yes. Yes, they did. Neither Trump nor his family are smart enough to do it by themselves.
I'll give odds on Giuilani's eventual disbarment, for one.
23
Meanwhile, in case you were relying on the NY Times to print something other than more than this usual all things bad Trump, no mention in the ... ahem (clearing throat) ... Newspaper of Record that a prosecutor has just been formally appointed to finally begin the investigation into the origin of the grand Trump-Putin Conspiracy Hoax touted by the NYT and fellow Trump-hate outlets these last two years, the leaking of classified materials to the media, the circumstances behind the spread of the DNC-financed bogus Steele Dossier that the FBI used to justify FISA warrants while failing to disclose to the FISA judges that the dossier was unverified.
Oh, and Mike Pompeo gave a joint news conference this afternoon with the Russian foreign minister Lavrov after meeting for hours to discuss major issues dividing the two countries. In case you missed it ... and reading the NYT you surely did (I had to watch the full news conference on RT's site) Mike Pompeo specifically brought up the issue of Russian hacking and social media meddling during political campaigns and announced that the US was determined to make sure this does not happen again contrary to the usual mainstream media claims the Trump Administration is ignoring the issue for presumably conspiratorial reasons. Now why oh why would the Newspaper of Record miss that one? It's a sad say when I have to rely on RT to get any news that isn't purposely sanitized to paint Trump in the worst light possible at all times.
1
@JW
Some people are amazingly gullible. And don't pay enough attention to what is actually published in the Newspaper of Record.
22
@JW Oh stop. If you really believe that the entire investigation was conjured from thin air, my guess is that you'll believe and repeat anything Trump and the broader GOP--including its propaganda arm--will say. You, sir, are the problem. What's most important to you that your party notches wins, isn't it? Actually, I should probably say, "team" right? It's your team. No matter the issue, no matter how badly you have to contradict yourself from one year to the next, all you care about is "owning the libs." Sound about right? A few years ago, the sky was falling for you because of the debt, right? And before that, I'll bet it was terrorism. Now, it's everything that's against your team is fake news and you're the lone person in this world that really knows what's going on.
Do the civilized world a favor and take an interest in pro wrestling. Leave running the world to serous people.
39
@JW
NYT is the first one to report the appointment of a prosecutor to investigate the investigators. It was published yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/russia-investigation-justice-department-review.html
Pompeo new is in the World section of this paper. Not sure if we are reading the same paper, but please keep up.
29
Become a lawyer for President Trump and do what you are told or you won't get paid. Oops big mistake Trump has a long record of not paying his bills
16
One major weakness of this "general oversight" argument -- which we've been hearing a lot about lately, is that there's nothing in the Constitution to support it:
"But Democrats say the House’s legitimate oversight role extends far beyond its legislative responsibilities."
The Constitution grants Congress two powers, period:
1. The power to make laws.
2. The power to impeach officials of other branches.
There is no "general" oversight authority. That's a fabrication. If Congress can't key its exercise of authority to one or both of those two Constitutional grants (which, frankly, shouldn't be all that difficult), then Congress doesn't have that authority.
Maybe I've overlooked something in the Constitution, but I doubt it, having just reread it for the umpteenth time last week. I can't understand where people are finding this general oversight authority. Maybe Congress SHOULD have it, but it doesn't.
@Commenter
Re-read it, because you missed a few ...
Section. 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Oh, and the other 16 or so in Section 8.
Be helpful if you understood the concept of "implied oversight" as well as enumerated.
This just looks foolish of you.
11
@ Barry C
Doesn't your reference to Section 7 make my point?
You didn't specify any of "the other 16 or so in Section 8," and I can't find any. Can you name one for us?
I don't understand the "concept of 'implied powers'." Can you explain that to us, ideally after you've reread the Tenth Amendment.
Thanks, Barry C.
2
@Barry C
re your reference to "Bills for raising revenue"
NEWSFLASH- bills are what become laws, which is what Commenter said.
I would like to know the oranges of this new obstruction inquiry.
9
Will this witch hunt never end? Schiff is just trying to deflect attention from the AG's report which will surely show the activities of the bad actors who illegally and without predicate spied on the Trump campaign.
1
@Bob Baloney. They had a properly obtained FISA warrant. They even told the judge that the Steele report had a history as opposition research.
4
@phil AND the FISA warrant was renewed multiple times, meaning it was productive (i.e., new info was found to support the renewal).
2
The lawyer the Democrats should be going after is named Barr. He knowingly lied more than once. He obstructed justice. And now he is persecuting FBI agents and others within the Justice Department.
Why does the man still have a license?
Other Trump lawyers should also be disbarred.
30
Share your indictment with us.
Sad to say, I think the coast is clear to finally eradicate the phrase "the loyal opposition" from the lexicon.
6
@Skeexix
It ended when President Obama was denied a Supreme Court justice appointment.
7
This article has changed my mind about the cruelty of fox hunting. Now I realize the fox being chased deserves to die and should due to the obstruction of justice it engages in when using crossing a stream as a means to get the hounds chasing it to lose its scent. It’s new awareness like this that makes me glad I voted for Adam Schiff.
8
It’s no longer about guilt, but about ability to convict.
14
So, where does this “proper legislative purpose” stuff come from?
It's too newly, too frequently used & too ideological sounding not to have come from one specific person.
5
"Raising the possibility of legal exposure for lawyers in the case is certain to further inflame tensions between the president’s team and Democrats who control the House."
Why are we worrying about inflaming tenions? We need to do the right thing! Not worry about whether it will be popular. I hate the undermining, worried tone of the headlines on the front page. Just strongly state what is happening, don't make forecasts about the fallout from courageous pursuit of justice.
13
Yes indeed. Inflame on!
5
It's pretty rich when Trump's lawyers argue that Congress should focus on more important intelligence issues, while Cheeto is adamant that Russia didn't interfere with the 2016 election and doesn't appear to be doing anything to keep it from happening again in 2020. Let's hope that others in the government are doing something, even if they have to keep their efforts hidden from Cheeto.
28
There’s no question in my mind that the lawyers did exactly as Cohen claims. The question that remains is whether they covered their tracks well enough.
26
@Steve Cohen Apparently not, considering Cohen brought the emails.
2
I want my representatives to investigate this matter. An understanding of these conversations will help the people to decide how to best govern ourselves, including whether to make new law and what that law must attempt to achieve.
This is definitely within the proper realm of Congressional responsibility. We are not governed entirely by the President or his wholly owned party. As free people our access to information should not be abridged. No one should be allowed to suborn false testimony before Congress.
42
@Alan
Nor should we be governed by the likes of Jerry Nadler or Nancy Pelosi. While we're at it, I want my representatives to also investigate the origins of the Trump-Putin Treason Conspiracy Hoax and how a bogus op-research hit political hit job paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton's lawyers (that even James Comey described as unverified and salacious) ended up being used to obtain a FISA warrant on American citizens who subsequently were never charged with anything, but which resulting hoax has thrown the country into a level of mistrust and political chaos not seen since the Vietnam War days.
1
@JW
Amazing. Every single one of your facts and opinions is wrong (one partial exception noted below). (1) We are governed by the people who were elected. That is a fact. (2) Trump behaves like he owes something to Putin. It's a fact noted by many but you choose not to notice. (3) There is no "bogus op-research hit job paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton's lawyers". The Steele memorandum may be partly or mostly (but not entirely) wrong but it was paid for by Republicans initially. I'm not sure what you mean by "bogus"; I agree about "hit job" but (repeat) it was Republicans that initiated it. (4) It was not used to obtain the FISA warrant; this has been reported over and over. (5) Not being charged means anything from no wrong-doing to total corruption but not enough evidence to go to trial to evidence is still being gathered. (6) It's Trump and his people's constant lying and abuse that has "thrown the country into a level of mistrust and political chaos". Anyone with mind open to fact knows that.
22
@JW Did you even read the Mueller report or the FISA warrant?
1
We can expect trump and his lawyers to obstruct the inquiry into their obstruction.
59
@Steve
And we can expect even more House hearings if it's revealed Donald Trump once took balalaika lessons when he was a teenager and has a fondness for Russian classical music.
1
@JW
Thanks for substituting humor for blindness and fact-free conspiracy theorizing. I think Trump knows nothing about balalaikas or classical music, but it's a nice try.
14
I am thinking critics forgot two Benghazi hearings lasting years producing zero. Not all inquiries are as fruitless as those hearings.
31
@texsun
Well said.
Many of us remember watching John Dean testifying at a congressional hearing. And you all know what that led to.
Sooner or later the truth will catch up with Trump. Perhaps in the same manner it caught up with Dick Nixon.
25
@texsun
Doesn't matter. Democrats need the dopamine fix. Anything to prevent the emotional vacuum that would result if they finally face the reality they swallowed a big hoax and have a lot of egg on their faces that needs to be cleaned off real soon if they want any chance in 2020.
@JW No, we just want the truth, and we want our government to be free of corruption.
You apparently didn't read the Mueller report. You should.
3
Time to quit stalling around. Time to impeach. Here's why I think so.
Two weeks after I was elected mayor of a small Oregon town in 2004, I attended a League of Oregon Cities conference. One of the speakers, former Gov. Vic Attiyeh (R), said something that offered me guidance while I served and has stuck with me through the years: "Do what you think is right. If the people agree, they will re-elect you; if they don't, they won't."
Regarding the current occupant of the White House. More important than his repeated offenses of obstructing justice, he has betrayed everything that our constitution and America stands for. Surely, there is no highter crime than that.
What I think is the right thing to do in this situation, is to begin impeachment hearings sooner rather than later. It is more important to do the right thing, than to calculate what impact impeachment hearings will have on the 2020 election.
Gov. Attiyeh was correct. During my first term as mayor I made several unpopular decisions. Nevertheless, I was re-elected because, I believe, people trusted me and they knew I didn't play politics.
Finally, contrary to what some people are saying, I think that, if the House fails to begin impeachment hearings, the electorate will punish the Dems in the 2020 election. Why? Because failing to do the right thing in the face of opposition is a cowardly act. Americans hate cowards.
74
Forget trying to get these hacks to testify to the House, turn the evidence over to the Bar association along with a complaint. Get them all disbarred, or at least reprimanded. That will cause more pain than anything the House does.
39
It is abundantly clear that no ethical lawyer can work for Trump. In addition to Trump’s personal lawyers Sekulow et al. and Giuliani the White House jester. We now have Barr and Rosenstein who have sold their souls to the devil to put in the mix.
The best is yet to come. I predict that Trump notorious for stiffing lawyers will not pay them so the only ones who will have gotten paid for services rendered will be Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
30
"Mr. Giuliani said at the time that the president was then unwilling to discuss pardons."
That's statement is a screenplay in itself.
"Look, ya know... The President is unwilling to discuss pardons ya know... at this time if you know what I mean... If you rat on the joint defense agreement though? Well, you won't need to worry about pardons. Capisce?"
16
The Trump men are a bunch of whimps. Or perhaps they are guilty. Donald Trump Sr. didn’t testified in the Mueller probe because he has told so many lies on the record, that he can’t keep the truth and his time lines straight. Thus he was ripe for a perjury charge.
Just announced, Donald Trump Jr. will testify in front of the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee, but only for a few selected topics and a time limit of 2-4 hours. Perhaps even exercising his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination depending on the questions.
In comparison, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the umpteenth Benghazi hearing with no limits to questions for eleven grueling hours and in the final analysis, they couldn’t lay a finger on her truthful testimony. She wore them out! See the difference? I rest my case to public opinion.
73
@Woosa09 - It must be nice to be so rich that one can tell Congress what you will and will not agree to talk about when they subpoena you.
16
Lawyers' lawyers' lawyers lawyers.... When will the charades end? We need to bring back decency to the government.
13
The only certain consequence of this continuing charade by Congressional Democrats is a heightened and more thoroughly concreted sense America gets daily of their clownish idiocy. In attempts to forego revelation of the actual 2016 crooks, they’re stopping at nothing. The piper is calling soon though, and payment is way past due.
2
@JBC. This is wrong on so many levels...how can you not see? Hopefully, piper coming soon...but not for the democrats.
14
@JBC
You mean like the payment your party extracted in the midterms, you know the one where the Democratic Party flipped 40 seats from red to blue, and with an extra 10 million votes just for good measure. Is that the kind of whooping you're squawking about?
17
@Jennifer AND got rid of the GOP supermajority in the PA legislature, and had similar results in other states.
1
Lannie Davis comes across as a Hillary hack and Mr. Cohen is in prison for lying to Congress. The Democrats need to reassess what they are doing. Our country is more intelligent than they think.
2
Seriously hank. Look who they elected president.
11
@Vivien Hessel
Seriously, lowest unemployment and best economy in my lifetime.
Oh. but what about the national debt?
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
1
It’s amusing that they believe a convicted liar and not Mueller.
11
News Flash...Senate wins Don Jr. testimony battle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-intelligence-committee.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Next s/b Don McGahn, we just can't have a runaway president, that what oversight means, even if they agree on some kind of limited testimony, but considering all their collective lies, the Senate is extremely indulgent.
But what else can you expect GOP being protectively complicit with two of their Mafia Dons.
At least Don McGahn stood up to his client on few important occasions.
7
The real crime is that we are in open warfare, with ourselves. A "House" divided against itself cannot stand. The taxpayers / voters of this country are quite fed up with the infighting. Over two-thirds of the country consistently disapproves of the job congress is doing according to all polls, and only about one in five actually approves. For folks that hate violence and are for gun control, a little self control would be in order.
9
@NYer
So I guess what you are saying is that the investigators should drop the investigation into criminal behaviour because the investigation is divisive.
And the criminal behaviour itself? You are fine with that?
(What criminal behaviour, you may ask. There is perhaps no crystal-clear proof of criminal behaviour, but there are certainly boatloads of hints of it left, right, and centre, for all those with eyes to see. Easily enough to warrant an investigation -- on my side of the looking glass at least.)
24
@RickyDick
And so now the Attorney General will be investigating how the investigations you reference began, how appropriate they were and whether the process was weaponized to specifically hurt Trump. Should that investigation with as you say so far "no crystal clear proof of criminal behaviour" be dropped as well? Given what has been revealed so far, it is likely there was significant shenanigans in getting that FISA warrant. We are a litigious society, but in my opinion, enough is enough. We all stand to lose if we continue in our current hyper partisan direction spiraling downward.
@NYer
It must be comfortable to be unable to tell the difference between right and wrong.
11
Trump claims that the Special Counsel and Congressional investigations into Russia’s subterfuge in the 2012 US elections is actually an attempted coup against his presidency. The reality is that he’s subverting the US intelligence and oversight apparatus from investigating the covert activity of a hostile foreign nation on US soil. According to FBI Director Wray (a Trump appointee) and the FBI’s former general counsel, Baker, there was “no attempted coup,” thus contradicting Trump’s claim. Thus Trump is attempting not only to subvert US intelligence agencies and Congressional oversight, but the course of American democracy.
83
@smokeandmirrors
All the anti-Trump platitudes you can muster won’t stop real justice from a real DOJ from showing us all who the real crooks were in 2016. If you’re still wearing blinders then, you’ll still be missing the truth.
4
@JBC. You mean the ones that hacked the dnc? That will hack again because trump wants them to? A case of pot calling kettle black...
12
JBC, have at it. The investigation into the investigation will only make Trump look worse.
13
Mr. Cohen talked about secret tapes. Was that only in his office?
8
“Instead of addressing important intelligence needs, the House Intelligence Committee appears to seek a truly needless dispute — this one with private attorneys — that would force them to violate privileges and ethical rules,” Mr. Strawbridge said. “As committed defense lawyers, we will respect the constitution and defend the attorney-client privilege — one of the oldest and most sacred privileges in the law.”
Except when a crime, a fraud or other misconduct is being hatched. Here, the issue is at least Cohen's perjured Statement and testimony in 2017 to Congress.
See In re Grand Jury, 475 F.3d 1299, 1305 (D.c. Cir. 2007) ("Attorney-client communications are not privileged if they 'are made in furtherance of a crime, fraud , or other misconduct.'" (quoting In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
If you read Schiff's letter to Strawbridge, you will see a well crafted legal brief that shoots down every one of Strawbridge's arguments. The evidence is in Cohen's testimony, in the Mueller report, and in additional material that the Committee already has in its possession.
I expect when this is adjudicated, which will happen quickly, is over, the lawyers Jay Sekulow, Alan Futerfas, Alan Garten and Abbe Lowell are going to find themselves standing before the Committee with their right hands in the air.
I will watch the ensuing hearings (which I think are going to be most informative) with great anticipation, and a very large bag of popcorn.
71
@Joe From Boston we know that Cohen was a toady for Trump and we know he was a sleaze ball. Maybe he committed contempt, too. If he did it will prove that he was a toady and a sleaze ball, which we already know. The committee should be aggressively investigating Trump rather than wasting its time.
3
@michjas
Would not the investigation of Trump’s lawyers be an investigation of Trump, the boss, as well?
6
With the House conducting an investigation based on what Michael Cohen says, it is no wonder the Department of Justice is conducting an investigation on how the Russia collusion investigation got started. Tit for tat. You investigate me, I'll investigate you. Politics 101. No surprises.
1
Such an enormous amount of effort from an " innocent " man and his cadre of lawyers to push back on information requests, ignore subpoenas, and continue to badmouth those involved in investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
One wonders what a guilty man and his lawyers could possibly do to obstruct an inquiry any more than this bunch?
64
You only get one reputation. So many previously well respected people lose their way when they enter Donald Trump’s world. Why do men and women toss overboard reputations that took decades to build, knowing Trump casts aside and denigrates those no longer useful? The abundance of lies, racist and misogynistic statements Trump made during the campaign means none can claim ignorance of the orbit they entered. These lawyers probably won’t go to jail, but history will remember them as the defenders of mendacity who shaded their ethics at a time when their country needed them most.
42
Can't the NY Times PLEASE do an investigation into whether or not trump and his family are profiting from the Stock Market severe swings caused by trump's loud mouth? trump and his family are like Teflon Don, ably abetted by the GOP senators - nothing is going to bring them down - not obstruction, not collusion with the Russians. But if there is proof that the trump family has been manipulating the stock market for their own gain, that would surely make some of his supporters, especially the ones who have been boasting that their pension funds are getting fatter because of the stock market (not so much recently, though) START to think about the conman in the White House. Maybe, just maybe, his support would erode.
Every day there is something else that comes up that raises my hopes that this nightmare will soon be over, and then nothing comes of it.
Stock market manipulation/insider information is a federal crime, is it not, punishable by jail time, same as for Martha Stewart?
34
“The Democrats are abusing their power in order to humiliate the president “???? It seems to me that the only person responsible for “humiliating” this president is he himself, by his words and actions both in the past and present! If he had not done things that needed all this covering up, he would not have cause to be “humiliated”. People with a clean conscience do not act this way.
188
@A Bird In The Hand
Trump humiliates himself daily on Twitter.
25
He just doesn't know it.
13
Clear case of obstruction: On 6-9-16 Trump Jr., Kushner, Manafort and Russians met secretly in Trump Tower so the Russians could ask that the sanctions that were put on by Obama could be killed off. We don't know the outcome of the meeting but in December 2018 Trump DID remove some of the sanctions. So Russia got what it wanted.
53
@Barb the Lib
That is not obstruction. It's collusion, which is not a recognized crime, and it is probably getting foreign interference in the election, which can be a crime.
3
I just hope they will be all disbarred.
No decent, dignified lawyer will work for this client and this whole criminal enterprise.
No wonder they all liars...so much for legal profession inundated with questionable characters.
36
This administration and it's departments in the Executive Branch is looking more and more like a full season of House of Cards.
With each new episode I used to think " Can't happen here ".
Not so much any more. Not with Trump running things.
74
"The claim that cooperation should come only on an inquiry with “proper legislative purpose” has been made repeatedly by the Trump administration as it denies House Democrats documents and access to witnesses for nearly a dozen continuing investigations."
This is really a "rich" claim. Were the nonstop investigations (inquisitions, in many cases) of Hillary Clinton's role in the Benghazi affair for a "proper legislative purpose"?
As for "humiliating" this president, he's beyond humiliation or even shame. House oversight is precisely what the words mean: making sure that the administration is on the up and up, not obstructing justice, not dangling pardons, etc. etc.
The selective way the president and all his men reframe the debate about what's legitimate to oversee is the height of hypocrisy, given what we now know are recently launched investigations into the investigators themselves.
In other words, anything from the fevered imagination of Donald Trump and his allies is fair game to investigate, but their behavior--normally the purview of Congress--is not.
210
It’s my hope that the House Committees will persevere despite the Trump administrations efforts to “Fox News” us all into giving up. Deny, deny, deny and attack, attack, attack are right out of the Fox News/Rodger Stone “conservative” playbook and the confusion they are creating can be overwhelming. Unfortunately “conservative” has become synonymous with unfounded conspiracy theories, craven lying and criminal behavior and we can not let them succeed in their quest to destroy our faith in democracy.
44
“Mr. Trump and his allies have accused Democrats of abusing their own congressional powers to humiliate the president.”
They’ve got to come up with a better defense than this — Trump humiliates himself daily through strangely slurred speech, outrageous statements, constant lying, etc.
93
@Peter ERIKSON
Humiliation requires humility. This president lacks that.
31
I don't see the separation of powers problem here being the presidency nor the legislature, but the courts. If deciding the legitimacy of these requests through our courts is too onerous and impractical for our legislative body to seek relief, what use are they?
This should be a simple question for the courts. Does our legislature have oversight over the presidency or do they not? Given that the exhaustive Mueller report itself refused to draw conclusions over obstruction, that should make it clear that the legislature is making legitimate requests regarding that matter. Kind of a no-brainer, no?
46
I no longer have confidence anything will be done honestly or legally as long as the Trump Republicans are in control. The rigging is in full swing. The innocent will be found guilty and the guilty will go free. The law is in jeopardy and America's fate hangs in the balance.
90
@JimmySerious - I gave up on anything being done honestly or legally in D.C. way back in the '60's.
3
@JimmySerious ...and the rigging is in full view, too. They no longer even try and cover up or obfuscate. They - meaning Trump, Pence, his family members, some close aides, his lawyers, and his Republican handmaidens - just jump from one attempt to hide the truth to the next hateful scheme to deny the American public of the checks and balances promised to us in our Constitution.
11
First, HRC destroyed 30,000 emails after she was subpoenaed. This was investigated by James Comey who was the director of our intelligences services. We accepted his decision that there were no criminal charges even though he concluded HRC had displayed "reckless disregard for national security."
Second, the Trump campaign, all the people in the campaign, and all of their personal business transactions were investigated by Robert Mueller the former head of the intelligence services. He concluded there was no collusion even though he didn't reach a conclusion on obstruction.
If a further investigation is necessary, and it could be argued after 2 years, 15 million documents, $30 million, and the full time attention of 30 career FBI officers there is nothing left to investigate, shouldn't the head of the FBI Christopher Wray be in charge of the investigation? After all, he was in charge of the investigation into whether the Obama FBI "spied on" on the Trump campaign. Isn't a Congressional investigation during an election campaign fraught with conflicts of interest?
Agreed? Well, Wray has already said there were no criminal charges to be brought. Why was it acceptable for FBI heads to make decisions in the previous investigations but not now?
Let's end these constant investigations and have the Democrats win an election based on ideas. Investigations can't be done fairly during an election by a Congress with a vested interest in the outcome.
No one should cooperate.
4
@jkemp
Accepted Comey's findings? Is that why we are still hearing chants of "Lock her up"?
16
@JS
Has she been locked up? OK then.
@jkemp
Mueller did not find that there was no collusion because that isn't a criminal charge and his was a criminal investigation. He did find that there wasn't sufficient proof of a conspiracy to file charges but Congress' remit is broader and has grounds to investigate regardless of Mueller's findings and may investigate things beyond just if a crime can be proven in court. That's why Congress is investigating instead of the FBI.
"We accepted his decision..."
You did nothing of the sort.
"Investigations can't be done fairly during an election by a Congress with a vested interest in the outcome."
I don't doubt for a minute that you had a different position during the many Benghazi investigations despite McCarthy's admission as to their political purpose.
"win an election based on ideas"
The House majority and the Democratic candidates have been proposing ideas--your fault if you missed them.
4
If for no other reason the American people need to hear from Mueller why he did not pursue several threads of this investigation and did not commit himself further in whether Trump abused his presidential powers. Mueller's not committing to testify to Congress is unsettling to say the least.
25
The Trump family believes they’re all above the law, following the lead of Mr. Trump.
It is apparent that they are all profiting off the Presidency. Let’s them produce the documents subpoenaed by House of Representatives to prove otherwise. What a sad group of characters ever assembled in the White House to lead our nation. The reason JR. needs to return for more testimony before the Senate Intel Committee is not due to harassment, it’s because he lied regarding the Russian-Clinton dirt meeting and the Moscow Trump Tower fiasco.
He may even have to exercise his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination.
Like father, like son!
49
There is only one solution, Subpoena them and if
they refuse commence actions to have them disbarred
also there is no attorney client privilege due to crime/fraud
exception
112
Oversight of the Executive branch is an inherently legitimate legislative purpose. IMO, this is just another lame attempt by Trump to escape any responsibility or accountability for the events that transpired. SMH
26
@Duane Rewriting ethics laws to have some teeth is a legitimate purpose, I'd say.
1
All the subpoenas (including this one) and contempt charges seem toothless unless the House committees fast-track the disputes to the judicial system — pronto. Otherwise it’s an exercise in futility for the next 18 months.
27
IMO, the contempt citations will aid the House when they file their lawsuits. It's just a part of their legal strategy
6
@Cheeseman Forever
See this just released AP account of the house subpoena to Mazars Accounting, USA.:
" A federal judge suggested Tuesday he is skeptical of President Donald Trump's efforts to block Congress from obtaining some of his financial records.
Judge Amit Mehta held a hearing on Trump's effort to keep financial records from Congress. Mehta did not rule on whether the House's subpoena of Trump financial records is a valid exercise of legislative power, but he said he would do so "promptly."
The lawsuit comes amid a widespread effort by the White House and the president's attorneys to refuse to cooperate with congressional requests for information and records.
Mehta suggested Congress has broad power to investigate. He at one point said that there isn't a case since 1880 where the Supreme Court or an appeals court found that Congress overstepped its boundaries in issuing a subpoena."
The judge seems to agree with most of the comments here.
17
@Cheeseman Forever
See this just released AP account of the house subpoena to Mazars Accounting, USA.:
"A federal judge in Washington is set to hold a hearing Tuesday on President Donald Trump's attempt to block a House subpoena seeking his financial records.
Trump and his business organization sued the Democratic chairman of the House oversight committee to block the subpoena. The lawsuit says the subpoena from congressman Elijah Cummings "has no legitimate legislative purpose" and accuses Democrats of harassing Trump and wielding their new majority in Congress to try to stain the president's standing.
Cummings issued the subpoena in April to an accountant for the president and Trump Organization, Mazars USA.
Judge Amit Mehta will decide whether the House's subpoena is a valid exercise of legislative power. It is not clear when the judge will rule, but he has put the case on a fast track."
The judge seems to agree with most of the comments here.
3
Good. More likely obstruction crimes.
16
Unlike the unredacted Mueller report that they've yet to see, this is one House Intelligence Committee inquiry that shouldn't take too much time.
15
There's no privilege when an attorney is assisting a crime. Long past time that the veil be pierced and that those who help the real culprits go down too.
258
I was about to post the same thing. Trump's lawyers must believe that the House is unaware of the limits of attorney-client privilege. SMH
35
@Bassman
Time for a bunch of these lawyers to get disBARRed for knowingly and deliberately assisting in the obstruction of justice. (Couldn't resist the obvious pun.)
That only takes a referral to the local Bar Overseers in the jurisdictions (states or DC) where these guys are admitted to practice.
31
Excellent! Obviously Trump is the godfather here, but those who conspire with him to disrupt our democracy need to know that they are risking jail time.
98
The Trump administration is a target rich environment. There chief strategy of attack is a frontal assault under cover of broad daylight.
6
Again, if the Trump organization, campaign, and administration have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong, why are there so many complaints, delays, obstructing of activities to get to the truth? Our rule of law can’t just be for us, anyone other than rich folks. If Cohen lied about this, just show how the drafts of his testimony were NOT changed in substance or vital content and then the case can be closed. The stonewalling in everything gives credence to there being crimes covered up and we cannot allow obstruction of justice to continue, whether it is Trump or any advisor or official, including the Attorney General Barr. The day of reckoning will come. Justice will be meted out. No one is above the law, or we don’t have a democratic republic, but an authoritarian regime. Trump folk like to say that we don’t have a country if we don’t have secure borders. The real border for our country is the rule of law, and that is what secures this nation, ‘with freedom and justice for all.
115
@GraceNeeded: Why? Trump was born with a spirit of opposition. DNA? Bad parenting? Bad seed? Who knows the why.
Fred, Don's brother who died of alcoholism, said that Don found a way to ruin every birthday party when they were kids.
He's always been a horrible person. If it's not about him, he makes sure it always is.
30
Oh for god’s sake, Strawbridge has got to be joking when he accuses Schiff of putting Sekulow et al in a position that “ forces them to violate ethical rules.”
They have spent the last few years of their careers violating ethical rules on behalf of their clients Donald, Ivanka, Jared et al. and quite willingly.
These guys are gussied up mob lawyers and that’s about it.
287
@Njlatelifemom They’ve all waived the privilege constantly by talking about attorney client communications on TV and now want to assert it? That’s not how the privilege is supposed to work.
44
@Michael Lieberman
It is even worse than you suggest.
Schiff's letter makes clear that they have no privilege claim at all, because of the crime-fraud exception.
See In re Grand Jury, 475 F.3d 1299, 1305 (D.c. Cir. 2007) ("Attorney-client communications are not privileged if they 'are made in furtherance of a crime, fraud , or other misconduct.'" (quoting In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).
48
@Joe From Boston
absolutely.
19
"Mr. Cohen also said that Mr. Sekulow told him that the details of an effort to set up a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia were “not relevant and should not be included in his statement to Congress,” the report said. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sekulow spoke frequently before Mr. Cohen submitted his false statement, and Mr. Cohen said Mr. Sekulow told him he should not elaborate because the Moscow project had not progressed."
By instructing Michael Cohen not to disclose relevant information in order to hide it from Congress, Jay Sekulow may have crossed the line.
Trump and his family have lied to the American people about
their agreement with the Kremlin to build the Trump Tower Moscow. This at the same time that the Russian government was helping Trump to win the presidency.
Mueller couldn't prove criminal conspiracy, but there was definitely some kind of deal between the two parties, and that's not acceptable.
76