Somewhere along the way, Mueller figured out that Cohen was lying. Then he discovered that Cohen’s lawyers were talking to Trump’s lawyers, but nothing was said about this until Trump returned his answers on paper. Then he (Mueller) let it be known that Cohen had lied and the plea bargain was invalidated. Somewhere along the way, it was revealed that the lawyers had been talking.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think there’s anything illegal about this. A bit sneaky and underhanded, perhaps, but not illegal. And a perjury trap is not illegal, either!
ETA: ThelmaLou’s link explains this much better than I just did!
Here’s a pretty good article that concisely explains the significance of Cohen’s plea today. Some snippets that really helped me understand why this is a bigger deal than a typical run-of-the-mill Trump clusterfuck development. It makes a clear and easily understood case that Trump sold us out for the sake of buildiong one of his tacky hotels in Moscow.
In the midst of the increasingly labyrinthine set of scandals, cons, and crimes in this administration, it’s refreshing to have nice, direct explanation of at least some of it. Trump wanted a hotel in Moscow. Putin wanted a nincompoop in the White House. Mueller can prove it.
Here’s another good article, this one from former Federal Prosecutor Ken White. White says the plea itself isn’t that significant to Cohen, but it’s a Big Fucking Deal because it “lays a marker”
(my bold)
White goes on to argue that Mueller is making his results public in court filings. Mueller has to deliver his final report to the AG, who gets to decide whether or not to make it public. Whitaker is likely to hold on to the report, but Mueller’s court filings don’t go through Whitaker. Mueller is “making his report” in stages. Similarly:
Both those articles are fascinating and not very long.
While that certainly could be true, it’s an overstatement.
Really, all it means is that Team Trump lied about their Russian contacts.
That Trump wanted to build in Russia doesn’t mean that he did anything nefarious with the Russians, it just means that he wanted to make some money as a real estate developer. We would need to show that he did something for Russia in return for the real estate deal, to accuse him of criminal activity beyond lying.
The Deutsche Bank raid supposedly had to do with the Panama Papers fallout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they, ahem, discover suspicious activity related to the Trumps. What would worry me more is the health of a major European bank that seems to be willing to turn a blind eye to blatant corruption. Makes you wonder about their transparency - makes me wonder about the transparency of EU banks.
Really? You don’t understand that Trump’s business dealings are the basis for kompromat? The minute Trump lied to the American people saying that he had no dealings with Russia during the campaign, the Russians had him. They knew he was lying. That subjects Trump, and any of his family members who were also aware, to blackmail. That’s how kompromat works.
The big picture here is that Trump abandoned his oath to protect the American people in favor of furthering his own personal financial interests, and put himself in a position to be blackmailed by Russia in the process. Did it factor in to the change in the Republican platform to soften the American position toward the Russian invasion in Ukraine? The country shouldn’t have to even wonder if it did.
Don’t misunderstand me; I see nothing wrong with laying a perjury trap for somebody who commits perjury every time he opens his mouth. Hell, I’d be perfectly happy if he fell into a Burmese Tiger Trap or a Venus Fly Trap.
First, how many of them lied to congress? Don Jr.? Hope Hicks? I’m guessing there’s a bunch of nervous folks out there.
Second, the part about Russian business ties is amazing. I thought people close to Trump knew he was lying and didn’t care, but some of them actually believe him. That’s just crazy.
It’s not incontrovertible proof, but it’s a strong inference. What Trump likely promised was to take a conciliatory stance on Russia, one example of that being the removal of support for Ukraine in the Republican platform. He may also have promised to weaken US commitment to NATO. We have no documentary evidence of a direct quid pro quo yet, but I’m starting to smell gun smoke.
Yes, that was a great article. The New Yorker is always a superb source of information, and usually way ahead of everyone else. Thanks for the reminder.
Let’s also not forget Jared Kushner’s efforts to set up a back channel line of communication with the Russians within the Russian embassy in Washington, or Erick Prince’s efforts to set up yet another back channel with Russia at his meeting in the Seychelles.
I mean, it’s possible these people were setting up back channel lines of communication solely on behalf of themselves… but it sure is curious how they all seem to have one person in common. Along with so many others who were cavorting with Russians during the campaign and after.
It was all so innocent and routine that no one in the Trump camp could honestly speak of it for 2 years, despite constant questions about his relationship with Russians and Putin during the campaign and after.
