What's Up With Cohen?

[tosca1]

The prosecutors aren't that happy with him!


Cohen - according to prosecutors - "did not fully cooperate."
I guess that means they didn't hear what they wanna hear from him.

But the question is:

What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?


Could it be.....he has nothing more to give?


If he's supposed to be making a plea bargain to avoid any prison sentence or at least, to minimize it - why would he not lay it all out BEFORE any conviction and sentencing is done........ if he's got something prosecutors are dying to know?

Cohen surely knows what the prosecutors want to know, and who they really wanna get.
They want to hear about collusion!

That the prosecutors are complaining, and now accusing him of not fully cooperating, beats the purpose of the plea deal! Why make the prosecutors unhappy and angry with you?

I think, he's given everything. This well is now dry. :lol:

 

[Kal'Stang]

Personally I think that they haven't been able to find anything on collusion. Which is why all that we're hearing about is "obstruction" and "campaign finance violations". If there really was collusion something about it would have been leaked already. As it is everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors.

The campaign finance violation is debatable and I don't think that any congress critter wants to base an impeachment case off of it as ignoring it would allow them to continue doing the same. And anyone that thinks that no congress critter does this is naive to say the least. Everyone has skeletons in their closets and everyone wants to keep them in the closet. This is especially true of anyone in power. This is also why fines are often levied instead of jail/prison.

As for obstruction, if there is no collusion, how can there be obstruction? There has to be something "there" in order for someone to obstruct that something.

 

[haymarket]

To fully cooperate with the Southern District of NY, one must tell everything they know about all the crimes they know about going back to day one and that includes everyone they know about. That is what full cooperation means.

Cohen was willing to tell everything he knows about Trump. There are apparently people and things in his experience that he does not want to spill the beans on. I suspect that fear for his own safety and that of his family is what is preventing this as he could know a bit about some very unsavory criminal types who would not hesitate to pay him back if it were known that he blew the whistle on him.

Cohen is a New Yorker through and through and I cannot see him in a witness protection program working under an assumed name as a claims process or for an insurance agency in Fargo.

 

[haymarket]

Personally I think that they haven't been able to find anything on collusion. Which is why all that we're hearing about is "obstruction" and "campaign finance violations". If there really was collusion something about it would have been leaked already. As it is everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors.

The campaign finance violation is debatable and I don't think that any congress critter wants to base an impeachment case off of it as ignoring it would allow them to continue doing the same. And anyone that thinks that no congress critter does this is naive to say the least. Everyone has skeletons in their closets and everyone wants to keep them in the closet. This is especially true of anyone in power. This is also why fines are often levied instead of jail/prison.

As for obstruction, if there is no collusion, how can there be obstruction? There has to be something "there" in order for someone to obstruct that something.

Collusion has already been established with the Trump Tower meeting. Now the question of conspiracy resulting from that collusion or as part that collusion is being established. The "there" is already there.

 

[OrphanSlug]

But the question is:

What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?

It is all speculation at this point.

But the going premise is if Cohen was willing to commit at least two campaign / election related crimes during the 2016 Presidential campaign, then what else could he have been involved in to help out Trump in other areas. Namely Russia.

Trying to silence women who claimed to have affairs with Trump is one thing, trying to silence others who may know more about Trump and Russia is another. So obviously we are talking about Cohen being involved in the idea of collusion with Russia *then* obstruction to cover that up. From real estate advantages for Trump to potentially items impacting the 2016 campaign the bigger prize was putting Cohen in the middle of Trump and Russia, all they really got was paying off Trump's sexual conquests.

In Cohen pleading guilty for these federal crimes (tax fraud, making false statements, campaign finance, what have you) what was not involved in that plea was anything related to trying to cover up Trump's dealings with Russia directly. The real estate deal being argumentative. But Democrats have been waiting for the Russian part for some time now on the assumption it helps their idea of impeachment, and of course 2020. "Synergy on a government level" was the key part of the desire for Mueller and his team to show active engagement between Trump and Russia as at least a motivation to influence 2016.

Speculation aside, this has become a giant mess and is more subject to political desires and ambitions than anything else. No matter what ends up happening to Cohen, his importance to Democrats just came to an end. Whatever ends up in Mueller's final report will impact how hard Democrats play the next Congress and ultimately strategy for 2020.

As far as the public is concerned and Trump's die hard supports aside, it goes to show how far Trump will go in advantage for himself. The whole thing backs up the idea that Trump is really in this for himself and what he can capitalize on, and puts into question just about everything he claims he is doing for this nation.

In all fairness those in power engage people all over the world all the time. The Clintons are a prime example, arguably so is the Bush family. None of it is ideal, but the difference is Trump seems to make a habit out of harming just about anyone to get to an ends. The means in this case was Cohen (and probably others) who in some regard helped Trump get elected by doing all they could to hide things that would impact public opinion. Even if those actions were not legal.

 

[hanger4]

Collusion has already been established with the Trump Tower meeting. Now the question of conspiracy resulting from that collusion or as part that collusion is being established. The "there" is already there.

We've been through this haymarket, there was no crime committed, before, during or because of the meeting.

 

[haymarket]

We've been through this haymarket, there was no crime committed, before, during or because of the meeting.

Willful denial of proven reality is not a rational argument.

Here is the law

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)
Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2, The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Prior Provisions
A prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title.

Another prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2, The Congress, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–187.

Amendments
2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–155 effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of Pub. L. 107–155, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title.

 

[tosca1]

As far as the public is concerned and Trump's die hard supports aside, it goes to show how far Trump will go in advantage for himself. The whole thing backs up the idea that Trump is really in this for himself and what he can capitalize on, and puts into question just about everything he claims he is doing for this nation.

In all fairness those in power engage people all over the world all the time. The Clintons are a prime example, arguably so is the Bush family. None of it is ideal, but the difference is Trump seems to make a habit out of harming just about anyone to get to an ends. The means in this case was Cohen (and probably others) who in some regard helped Trump get elected by doing all they could to hide things that would impact public opinion. Even if those actions were not legal.

In all fairness.......let's not just single out Trump. Most politicians are in it for themselves!

 

[Kal'Stang]

Collusion has already been established with the Trump Tower meeting. Now the question of conspiracy resulting from that collusion or as part that collusion is being established. The "there" is already there.

Willful denial of proven reality is not a rational argument.

Here is the law

Now prove that any of that happened. Do you know what was said at the meeting? What was promised? What was offered? Was any of that kept and done? What has Mueller said on it? Why is Mueller or anyone on his team talking about campaign finance violations and not collusion/conspiracy?

Like I said, "everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors."

 

[haymarket]

Now prove that any of that happened. Do you know what was said at the meeting? What was promised? What was offered? Was any of that kept and done? What has Mueller said on it? Why is Mueller or anyone on his team talking about campaign finance violations and not collusion/conspiracy?

Like I said, "everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors."

The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.

Here is the offer

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone

Here is the acceptance

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don

Those components satisfy the language in the law.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.

No, its not enough. For all you know rain was talked about.

 

[hanger4]

Willful denial of proven reality is not a rational argument.

Here is the law

You've posted the law ad nauseum, nothing was received haymarket and the Trump Campaign did not solicit, the Ruskies did.

 

[hanger4]

The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.

Here is the offer



Here is the acceptance


Those components satisfy the language in the law.

Meetings aren't illegal haymarket.

 

[haymarket]

Meetings aren't illegal haymarket.

Of course not. But offers of illegal help from foreigners and acceptance of that help is illegal and I provided the law which makes it so.

 

[Airyaman]

Cohen probably had many people he did business with in NYC. It is very possible he was trying to protect them because thus far they had not tossed him under the bus. Trump did.

Cohen spent at least 10 years with Trump and family. He probably saw Trump turn on people dozens of times. He probably recognized that Trump was turning on him so there was no reason to protect him anymore.

 

[haymarket]

You've posted the law ad nauseum, nothing was received haymarket and the Trump Campaign did not solicit, the Ruskies did.

The law does not say anything has to be actually acted upon. The offer and the acceptance is enough to violate the law.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

 

[haymarket]

No, its not enough. For all you know rain was talked about.

The law was broken because foreign assistance was offered and accepted and the email chain establishes that fact.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The law was broken because foreign assistance was offered and accepted and the email chain establishes that fact.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

Again, you don't know what was discussed. You have no clue if assistance was offered/accepted. You can repeat the law as much as you want. Simply setting up a meeting is not offering assistance or accepting it. And without knowing if assistance was offered/accepted then the law is worthless.

 

[jnug]

The prosecutors aren't that happy with him!


Cohen - according to prosecutors - "did not fully cooperate."
I guess that means they didn't hear what they wanna hear from him.

But the question is:

What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?


Could it be.....he has nothing more to give?


If he's supposed to be making a plea bargain to avoid any prison sentence or at least, to minimize it - why would he not lay it all out BEFORE any conviction and sentencing is done........ if he's got something prosecutors are dying to know?

Cohen surely knows what the prosecutors want to know, and who they really wanna get.
They want to hear about collusion!

That the prosecutors are complaining, and now accusing him of not fully cooperating, beats the purpose of the plea deal! Why make the prosecutors unhappy and angry with you?

I think, he's given everything. This well is now dry. :lol:

I don't think Cohen's lack of cooperation is specific to Trump or Trump Org in anything other than in a tangental manner. I expect based on the comments that he has not "agreed" to cooperate fully with regard to his other failings most specifically in the area of Taxi Cab Medallions and his involvement in the NYC cab business generally. That business much infested by various and sundry NY mobs over the years is in Cohen's case infested with the Russian Mafia.

Worth noting that Guy Petrillo said yesterday in court that Cohen is willing to answer any additional questions SDNY has on anything. SDNY does not consider that as part and parcel of a Cooperation Agreement.

However, from Cohen's perspective, making himself a fully "Cooperating Witness" in terms that satisfy SDNY sets him and his family up for a lifetime of being measured for cement overshoes. The Russian Mafia is if anything less averse to killing than the Italian Mafia and they will have no interest in Cohen giving up everything he knows and STILL being available to SDNY to tap on the shoulder to testify for the rest of his life. There interest will end up being to curtail that whatever it takes.

On the other hand, Cohen is really not in a position to take his entire family into a witness protection program. He is too much a public figure and his family is simply not at the right ages and demographic for that.

 

[jnug]

Personally I think that they haven't been able to find anything on collusion. Which is why all that we're hearing about is "obstruction" and "campaign finance violations". If there really was collusion something about it would have been leaked already. As it is everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors.

The campaign finance violation is debatable and I don't think that any congress critter wants to base an impeachment case off of it as ignoring it would allow them to continue doing the same. And anyone that thinks that no congress critter does this is naive to say the least. Everyone has skeletons in their closets and everyone wants to keep them in the closet. This is especially true of anyone in power. This is also why fines are often levied instead of jail/prison.

As for obstruction, if there is no collusion, how can there be obstruction? There has to be something "there" in order for someone to obstruct that something.

Mueller has not completed the "conspiracy" case yet and we will not find out anything about that from him until he does, until he has every link in the chain identified.

As for an Obstruction case, one does not have to establish a "Conspiracy" case or a Collusion case in order to make an Obstruction case. If a Prosecutor can make a case for somebody having Obstructed an Investigation the issue of what was uncovered in the actual Investigation in question has nothing to do with anything. It is akin to lying to the FBI. If you lie to the FBI during an FBI Interview the ultimate result of the FBI's complete Investigation matters not one whit. You are still on the hook for having lied to them.

Now as to whether an Individual would be prosecuted for Obstruction relating to an Investigation that was ultimately determined to be fruitless, that is a matter of Prosecutorial Discretion.

 

[hanger4]

The law does not say anything has to be actually acted upon. The offer and the acceptance is enough to violate the law.

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

But it does haymarket,

*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation*

There was nothing solicited, accepted or received by the Trump Campaign.

 

[haymarket]

Again, you don't know what was discussed. You have no clue if assistance was offered/accepted. You can repeat the law as much as you want. Simply setting up a meeting is not offering assistance or accepting it. And without knowing if assistance was offered/accepted then the law is worthless.

The emails alone show that a offer was made and accepted. I provided them and the law.

 

[haymarket]

But it does haymarket,

*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation*

There was nothing solicited, accepted or received by the Trump Campaign.

Why did you cut off half the sentence which went on to say "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."?

That language covers an implied promise which was present in the offer made in the emails.

 

[jnug]

One thing sort of funny about the tape that Cohen has presented that has Cohen and Trump talking about securing all the dirt that Pecker has been collecting including from the McDougal "catch and kill" efforts by Pecker is when Donald says "[Pecker] might get hit by a truck".

That might sound like a comment that does not include a veiled threat from Donald. When somebody from NY with Trump's criminal background says "he might get hit by a truck" there is a dual meaning. Yea sure, a truck might happen by and hit Pecker. On the other hand once Cohen had secured all the dirt, then it stands to reason that Pecker would have been the only actual party that could have testified to the catch and kill operation and the dirt that had been secured over the years. Hence, it might not at all be a truck that happened by but a truck that purposely ran him down.

 

[hanger4]

Why did you cut off half the sentence which went on to say "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."?

That language covers an implied promise which was present in the offer made in the emails.

Because it is describing what's illegal concerning a "foreign national" and doesn't apply to the Trump Campaign.

Meetings are still not illegal haymarket.