How do you prove that someone asked you to lie?

[Lutherf]

Obviously, this goes back to the current Cohen claims.

Cohen, reportedly, says that Trump directed him to lie about the hotel project in Moscow. What type of evidence would be needed to prove such a claim?

Testimonial evidence, by itself, would certainly be insufficient. Therefore there must be some kind of documentary evidence behind the claim. What would that documentary evidence have to consist of and what's the likelihood it exists?

I really doubt that Cohen has an email that says, "Mike, when they ask you about the Moscow project tell them it ended in 2015. Thanks! Donald"

However, there certainly could be emails that discuss the project and also discuss minimizing disclosing the project. For example, there might be an email chain that says something to the effect of "They're investigating absolutely everything Russia related. We had that Moscow deal going a while back and, frankly, it wasn't going anywhere so we probably don't need to talk about it". Would an email like that constitute "directing" Cohen to lie?

How about if there's a phone record of a conversation there Cohen suggests that he tell Mueller "It was over in 2015" and Trump replies with "Sure, go with that". Is that sufficient to prove that Trump directed Cohen to lie?

Would a series of emails and phone call records which generally discuss the Mueller investigation and the Moscow project while suggesting that the project be "glossed over" constitute directing Cohen to lie?

I mean, we're talking about something that could be used to impeach a president so whatever documentation there is needs to really nail the charge, right?

 

[tecoyah]

Obviously, this goes back to the current Cohen claims.

Cohen, reportedly, says that Trump directed him to lie about the hotel project in Moscow. What type of evidence would be needed to prove such a claim?

Testimonial evidence, by itself, would certainly be insufficient. Therefore there must be some kind of documentary evidence behind the claim. What would that documentary evidence have to consist of and what's the likelihood it exists?

I really doubt that Cohen has an email that says, "Mike, when they ask you about the Moscow project tell them it ended in 2015. Thanks! Donald"

However, there certainly could be emails that discuss the project and also discuss minimizing disclosing the project. For example, there might be an email chain that says something to the effect of "They're investigating absolutely everything Russia related. We had that Moscow deal going a while back and, frankly, it wasn't going anywhere so we probably don't need to talk about it". Would an email like that constitute "directing" Cohen to lie?

How about if there's a phone record of a conversation there Cohen suggests that he tell Mueller "It was over in 2015" and Trump replies with "Sure, go with that". Is that sufficient to prove that Trump directed Cohen to lie?

Would a series of emails and phone call records which generally discuss the Mueller investigation and the Moscow project while suggesting that the project be "glossed over" constitute directing Cohen to lie?

I mean, we're talking about something that could be used to impeach a president so whatever documentation there is needs to really nail the charge, right?

As with any detailed investigation there will be multiple source confirmations of details up to and including financials (tax returns) laying out the lock tight case Mueller is famous for. This is pretty much mimicking the Nixon nightmare....even Billy Boy to an extent.

 

[Rexedgar]

I have learned more about law & government the last three years. The “he directed me to lie” defense is curious to me. Brings to mind the “I was only following orders” defense of last century.

 

[Praxas]

Obviously, this goes back to the current Cohen claims.

Cohen, reportedly, says that Trump directed him to lie about the hotel project in Moscow. What type of evidence would be needed to prove such a claim?

Testimonial evidence, by itself, would certainly be insufficient. Therefore there must be some kind of documentary evidence behind the claim. What would that documentary evidence have to consist of and what's the likelihood it exists?

I really doubt that Cohen has an email that says, "Mike, when they ask you about the Moscow project tell them it ended in 2015. Thanks! Donald"

However, there certainly could be emails that discuss the project and also discuss minimizing disclosing the project. For example, there might be an email chain that says something to the effect of "They're investigating absolutely everything Russia related. We had that Moscow deal going a while back and, frankly, it wasn't going anywhere so we probably don't need to talk about it". Would an email like that constitute "directing" Cohen to lie?

How about if there's a phone record of a conversation there Cohen suggests that he tell Mueller "It was over in 2015" and Trump replies with "Sure, go with that". Is that sufficient to prove that Trump directed Cohen to lie?

Would a series of emails and phone call records which generally discuss the Mueller investigation and the Moscow project while suggesting that the project be "glossed over" constitute directing Cohen to lie?

I mean, we're talking about something that could be used to impeach a president so whatever documentation there is needs to really nail the charge, right?

In reality the only way to really prove is either through many difference credible sources or tapes, texts, or physical proof. We know Cohen kept recordings, we don’t know if he has any on this. If he doesn’t it is going to be an uphill battle unless trump admits to it.

 

[DiAnna]

In reality the only way to really prove is either through many difference credible sources or tapes, texts, or physical proof. We know Cohen kept recordings, we don’t know if he has any on this. If he doesn’t it is going to be an uphill battle unless trump admits to it.

We cannot know what we do not know; however, we can speculate based upon what we do know. According to documents held by both SDNY AG and likely by Mueller, there are text messages, emails, and witnesses to several incidents of Trump coaching and directing Cohen to lie in his congressional testimony about the Trump Towers Moscow project. I dare say that despite the public's lack of ability to see the corroborating documents and witness statements, the authorities have all of that and more.

My speculation: Trump will eventually be charged with Obstruction of Justice and Suborning Perjury, and will cut a deal to save himself and his family members.

 

[Lutherf]

We cannot know what we do not know; however, we can speculate based upon what we do know. According to documents held by both SDNY AG and likely by Mueller, there are text messages, emails, and witnesses to several incidents of Trump coaching and directing Cohen to lie in his congressional testimony about the Trump Towers Moscow project. I dare say that despite the public's lack of ability to see the corroborating documents and witness statements, the authorities have all of that and more.

My speculation: Trump will eventually be charged with Obstruction of Justice and Suborning Perjury, and will cut a deal to save himself and his family members.

The only thing I really have to go on with this is the phone call tape between Trump and Cohen regarding the McDougal payment. In that call it was Cohen telling Trump what needed to be done and seeking approval. Granted, that's only one example and I have no way of knowing if that type of conversation was the norm or an anomaly but if it was the norm then it's going to be mighty hard to prove that Trump "directed" anyone to do anything. That being said, if there is some email chain with a bunch of suggestions on how to handle the matter AND the conversation includes something someone saying something along the lines of "if we tell them that the project ended in 2015 we'll be lying", AND Trump come in and says, "Enough! Just tell them it ended in 2015." then maybe there's a case.

Proving that someone told you lie is a mighty difficult hill to climb.

 

[Superfly]

The article by Buzzfeed is sourced by two federal law enforcement officials investigating the case. They are investigating based on documentation and witnesses, meaning yes, they have the receipts.

Doesn't matter if Cohen lied - this charge wouldn't be levied by LEO if not credible, and it's credible based on documentation. So I'm not sure why everyone is screaming about him lying and being untrustworthy.

If you are a farmer and you get bit by a snake, you are going to be more worried about snakes in the future, and be more mindful of their presence.

If you are in law enforcement and have been lied to by someone, you are not going to believe that they just automatically tell the truth. You are going to vet them, and their claims, with a fine-toothed comb before coming forward.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

We cannot know what we do not know; however, we can speculate based upon what we do know. According to documents held by both SDNY AG and likely by Mueller, there are text messages, emails, and witnesses to several incidents of Trump coaching and directing Cohen to lie in his congressional testimony about the Trump Towers Moscow project. I dare say that despite the public's lack of ability to see the corroborating documents and witness statements, the authorities have all of that and more.

My speculation: Trump will eventually be charged with Obstruction of Justice and Suborning Perjury, and will cut a deal to save himself and his family members.

Something else we know; Trump is impulsive and careless. I don't think he ever thought he would win, and thus was even less careful than normal.

 

[Mach]

Testimonial evidence, by itself, would certainly be insufficient.

If there were three witnesses to this, vs Trump, I don't think that would be entirely insufficient given the motive/intent evidence.

However, there certainly could be emails that discuss the project and also discuss minimizing disclosing the project. For example, there might be an email chain that says something to the effect of "They're investigating absolutely everything Russia related. We had that Moscow deal going a while back and, frankly, it wasn't going anywhere so we probably don't need to talk about it".

Surely you are aware that not talking about something, is not perjury.
Similarly, refusing to talk about something, is not perjury.
Our legal system affords a number of ways someone can avoid testimony, incriminating or otherwise. Lying to Congress or Federal agents on material maters as part of an inquiry/investigation, is not one of them.

Would an email like that constitute "directing" Cohen to lie?

If they directed him to present false, material information, that was known by the originator to be false information, that's all it would take. In Trump's case, since he's slippery and avoids email/records of his crimes, it would have to be something indirect. Like "boss told us to do xyz. "Boss prefers we say this." Or whatever.
Similarly, they can show probably a hundred examples of how Trump micromanages certain things, and build a case that of all the things that Trump managed, this one oddball is suddenly one he "doesn't know about", being absurd. Even harder, but still used.

The other counterpart to proving this sort of thing is intent and knowledge of it being a lie. The problem for Trump is that he's given everyone more circumstantial evidence of guilt than anyone could have imagined.
There is a mountain of evidence surrounding his inexplicable behavior towards, during, obstructing, etc., the Russia investigation AND the flip side...inexplicable love of Putin and all of Putin's national interests.
Cohen has engaged in what... a decade of work at Trump's direction, plenty of it is likely to be shown to involve Donald having Cohen lie.

Reminds of the Manafort lied argument by Mueller recently, when Manafort violated his plea deal. Mueller's team sent like 400+ pages of evidence to back it up ( I think redacted it was like 150 pages). If they have similar evidence here, it's gonna be a rough ride to get out of it.

But really, given Trump's 2 years of behavior, the idea that he "probably didn't do this" seems absurd. I mean, if you're being honest.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

As I believe it was reported Cohen recorded a lot of his phone calls and communications he might have Trump on tape

 

[Mr Person]

Obviously, this goes back to the current Cohen claims.

Cohen, reportedly, says that Trump directed him to lie about the hotel project in Moscow. What type of evidence would be needed to prove such a claim?

Testimonial evidence, by itself, would certainly be insufficient. Therefore there must be some kind of documentary evidence behind the claim. What would that documentary evidence have to consist of and what's the likelihood it exists?

I really doubt that Cohen has an email that says, "Mike, when they ask you about the Moscow project tell them it ended in 2015. Thanks! Donald"

However, there certainly could be emails that discuss the project and also discuss minimizing disclosing the project. For example, there might be an email chain that says something to the effect of "They're investigating absolutely everything Russia related. We had that Moscow deal going a while back and, frankly, it wasn't going anywhere so we probably don't need to talk about it". Would an email like that constitute "directing" Cohen to lie?

How about if there's a phone record of a conversation there Cohen suggests that he tell Mueller "It was over in 2015" and Trump replies with "Sure, go with that". Is that sufficient to prove that Trump directed Cohen to lie?

Would a series of emails and phone call records which generally discuss the Mueller investigation and the Moscow project while suggesting that the project be "glossed over" constitute directing Cohen to lie?

I mean, we're talking about something that could be used to impeach a president so whatever documentation there is needs to really nail the charge, right?

Exhibit A:

Buzzfeed unequivocal on Cohen story.

The exchange

Buzzfeed says they cannot or do not understand what Mueller is talking about. The Buzzfeed guys say they are sticking with the story, and that there is a TRANSCRIPT of the alleged conversation

BuzzFeed reporter: "I'm confident" our sources are correct on Trump-Cohen


Perhaps Mueller was only disputing emails/texts?

Exhibit B: Testimony under oath.

Some people here feel it necessary to defend things at all cost, and so we have seen them pretend that witness testimony under oath does not qualify as "evidence." This is completely untrue, of course, and as usual is also loaded with stupid hypocrisy because the people saying it to defend people on the right (say, Kavanaugh) have not, are not, and will never engage in a campaign to amend the constitution to prohibit the conviction of a person at criminal trial based on witness testimony alone. (Indeed, the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convict of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt).

Even Cohen's testimony could suffice. But don't worry, I know the routine: say we can't trust Cohen because he admitted to lying, while again completely failing to do things like launch national campaigns to end the use by police of criminal informants to take down upper-level criminals. As with the ever-shifting standard of "evidence", the objection to using a snitch is made solely to defend Trump.
0

I mean, we're talking about something that could be used to impeach a president so whatever documentation there is needs to really nail the charge, right?

See, I can smell it from here. You're already trying to set up groundwork for an invented standard of what will be enough "evidence" so that you can later say you objectively considered it and found it not to be enough evidence, or that you didn't consider something evidence at all.

That's absurd, especially since there IS no standard for impeachment. The constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" after listing a few, but there is no judicial review of the process. The only standard is what congress feels like doing.


There's no "really needs" requirement. There's no requirement about just how specific an email has to be or that even an email would be required. And don't worry: your GOP won't be convicting Trump in the senate no matter what Mueller's report says. They will be using the move you're setting up: retroactively invent a standard for "evidence" after they have an opportunity to see what evidence there is, then announce that the evidence there is didn't meet the standard they invented for that very purpose.

 

[bongsaway]

I have learned more about law & government the last three years. The “he directed me to lie” defense is curious to me. Brings to mind the “I was only following orders” defense of last century.

Oddly enough that defense left millions of people dead. Who could have ever imagined?

 

[bongsaway]

Exhibit A:






Exhibit B: Testimony under oath.

Some people here feel it necessary to defend things at all cost, and so we have seen them pretend that witness testimony under oath does not qualify as "evidence." This is completely untrue, of course, and as usual is also loaded with stupid hypocrisy because the people saying it to defend people on the right (say, Kavanaugh) have not, are not, and will never engage in a campaign to amend the constitution to prohibit the conviction of a person at criminal trial based on witness testimony alone. (Indeed, the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convict of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt).

Even Cohen's testimony could suffice. But don't worry, I know the routine: say we can't trust Cohen because he admitted to lying, while again completely failing to do things like launch national campaigns to end the use by police of criminal informants to take down upper-level criminals. As with the ever-shifting standard of "evidence", the objection to using a snitch is made solely to defend Trump.
0



See, I can smell it from here. You're already trying to set up groundwork for an invented standard of what will be enough "evidence" so that you can later say you objectively considered it and found it not to be enough evidence, or that you didn't consider something evidence at all.

That's absurd, especially since there IS no standard for impeachment. The constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" after listing a few, but there is no judicial review of the process. The only standard is what congress feels like doing.


There's no "really needs" requirement. There's no requirement about just how specific an email has to be or that even an email would be required. And don't worry: your GOP won't be convicting Trump in the senate no matter what Mueller's report says. They will be using the move you're setting up: retroactively invent a standard for "evidence" after they have an opportunity to see what evidence there is, then announce that the evidence there is didn't meet the standard they invented for that very purpose.

Look at Barr as a perfect example. He was asked if the ethics committee says you should recuse yourself from the russia thing would you? He said he would think it over and if he didn't agree, he wouldn't recuse himself. So very typical.