The House to investigate claims that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress

[*bfine32*]

Well this is something:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michael-cohen-postpones-congressional-testimony-claims-threats-from-president-trump-and-rudy-giuliani/ar-BBSE7pe?ocid=ientp

Quote:Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer and longtime fixer, announced through a spokesman Wednesday that he wouldn't testify before Congress on Feb. 7 because of "threats" from the president.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2019, 04:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well this is something:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michael-cohen-postpones-congressional-testimony-claims-threats-from-president-trump-and-rudy-giuliani/ar-BBSE7pe?ocid=ientp

Trump and his minions doing what he does best...intimidate and hope the other guy cracks.

Sad.

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2019, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump and his minions doing what he does best...intimidate and hope the other guy cracks.

Sad.

If we are to take Cohen at his word.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2019, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If we are to take Cohen at his word.

Or Tump and Giulani's??

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/426218-giuliani-defends-trump-going-after-cohens-father-in-law

Quote:Rudy Giuliani on Sunday said President Trump is "defending" himself by pointing fingers at Michael Cohen's family, not trying to intimidate his former attorney ahead of scheduled congressional testimony.


Democrats and Cohen's attorney have suggested Trump is trying to intimidate Cohen by suggesting investigators should look at alleged illegal activity by Cohen's father-in-law.


"No, it's defending yourself," Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"Of course it is if the father-in-law is a criminal in the Southern District of New York," he charged. "He may have ties to something called organized crime."


In 1993, Cohen's father-in-law, Fima Shusterman, pleaded guilty to federal income-tax fraud relating to his taxicab business in New York, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Shusterman also has ties to Chicago's taxi cab industry. Cohen got involved in the taxicab industry through Shusterman, according to The New York Times.
Trump has tweeted about Cohen's father-in-law several times, most recently on Friday when he suggested 
Cohen was "lying to reduce his jail time."


"Watch father-in-law!" Trump added.


Trump on Fox News earlier this month said he isn't worried about Cohen's upcoming testimony, but suggested "he should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at."


He also said Cohen was in trouble on "loans and frauds and taxi cabs."


"Because where does that money — that’s the money in the family. And I guess he didn’t want to talk about his father-in-law — he’s trying to get his sentence reduced. So it’s pretty sad. It’s weak and it’s very sad to watch a thing like that. I couldn’t care less," Trump added.


Cohen is scheduled to give testimony next month before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.


But his attorney said he is "considering whether to go forward in light of the concerns about his family" following Trump's comments.


“There is genuine fear and it has caused Michael Cohen to consider whether he should go forward or not and he’s not yet made a final decision,” Davis said on MSNBC last week.


Top House Democrats also raised questions about whether Trump was trying to intimidate Cohen with his comments.



"Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress," Reps. Elijah Cummings (Md.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.) warned in a statement.

Those two keep running their mouths and don't seem to care.

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2019, 05:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or Tump and Giulani's??

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/426218-giuliani-defends-trump-going-after-cohens-father-in-law



Those two keep running their mouths and don't seem to care.

Unlike you I'm not taking either side at their word. it's why I posed the link; however, you have already assigned yourself judge and juror.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2019, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unlike you I'm not taking either side at their word. it's why I posed the link; however, you have already assigned yourself judge and juror.

Cohen's spokesman said it was because of the threats from DJT and Rudy.  What do you call what they said?  Suggestions? Hints?  

I mean maybe my opinion is wrong...I'm not the final arbiter on this.  

(01-23-2019, 01:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: if I had a nickel for every time I've been told what I meant in this forum............

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Unlike you I'm not taking either side at their word.

I don't understand.  Both sides said the same thing.  How can you believe one side and not the other.  


Guliani admitted that Trump was "defending himself" by making allegations about Cohen's Father-in-law.  Cohen admitted that the tactic was working.

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2019, 05:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand.  Both sides said the same thing.  How can you believe one side and not the other.  


Guliani admitted that Trump was "defending himself" by making allegations about Cohen's Father-in-law.  Cohen admitted that the tactic was working.

Which side did I believe? I'm sure you'll let me know.

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which side did I believe? I'm sure you'll let me know.

I am not asking which side you believe.

I am asking how you could believe one side and not the other when they said the same thing.

Guliani admits the Donald was defending himself when he brought up the allegations about Cohen's father-in-law, and Cohen admits the tactic is working.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-23-2019, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump and his minions doing what he does best...intimidate and hope the other guy cracks.

Sad.

I guess he didn't record it this time. Would've been all he needed.

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2019, 06:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess he didn't record it this time. Would've been all he needed.

He did not need to record anything.  Guliani admitted to everything they said.

[6andcounting]

(01-23-2019, 12:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: We have had legit breaking news come from tabloid type websites, and even tabloids, in the past so this really wouldn't be anything new. 

(01-23-2019, 12:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Very true, some people just still view internet media as a completely different beast. 

I'd accept legitimate journalism from a tabloid or clickbait centered site. An article based on verifiable and creditable evidence is such regardless of the source. Buzzfeed's problem is that it's news division is indistinguishable from its fake news clickbait division. 

[GMDino]

(01-23-2019, 06:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I guess he didn't record it this time. Would've been all he needed.

(01-23-2019, 06:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He did not need to record anything.  Guliani admitted to everything they said.

Yeah, I mean its on twitter...and there's a record of all the things Trump said about him.


Rudy said that the only way a POTUS could be charged with obstruction is if he did something like threaten to investigate someone's wife.   Then said DJT suggesting they investigate Cohen's father wasn't the same at all.  

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1901/20/sotu.01.html

Quote:TAPPER: Are you saying it's not possible for the president to have obstructed justice, that that's an impossibility? 



GIULIANI: No, of course not. The president can obstruct justice. 


He can't obstruct exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, if that's what he is doing. And that's what he did. That's the point of Bill Barr's memo, which Bill Barr's memo -- the simplistic analysis of this is, again, designed just to go after Donald Trump. 

Here's the point that Bill Barr makes, which I think 75 percent of lawyers and 90 percent of constitutional lawyers would agree with. The president of the United States today fires one of his Cabinet members, he cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. 

He would have to -- he would have to do a corrupt act, in addition to that. If he goes up to his Cabinet member and says, if you don't do this, I'm going to break your legs... 



TAPPER: Right. 



GIULIANI: ... or I'm going to take money away from you, or I'm going to have your wife put under investigation, now we have obstruction of justice. 


TAPPER: But let me ask you a question.

GIULIANI: All he did with Mueller is -- wait, wait. All he did with Mueller (sic) is fire him, with the support of Rod

Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who advised it, who was in charge of the investigation. 

TAPPER: Right. So...

GIULIANI: If that were a crime, how could he be in charge of the investigation? 

TAPPER: OK. So you say the obstruction of justice...

GIULIANI: It would be a complete, absolute, unbelievable conflict of interest. 

TAPPER: You -- OK.

GIULIANI: The analysis of this is so stupid and simplistic. And you have lawyers that come on this television show or this network and other networks and support it. They should hand in their law degree. 

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: OK. But let me ask you a question. 

You're talking about these threats that the president did not commit, and as to why that would be inappropriate, but the president has not done that. 

The president is repeatedly calling publicly, on Judge Jeanine's show, on Twitter, he is repeatedly calling for an investigation into Michael Cohen's father-in-law ahead of Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress.



By your own definition, isn't that obstruction...



GIULIANI: No, it's defending himself. 



TAPPER: ... or attempting to intimidate a witness?



GIULIANI: No. No.



Now, if you -- if you made that obstruction, I can't defend anybody. 

TAPPER: To say...

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: You're telling me...

TAPPER: ... this guy is testifying against me, his father-in-law should be...

(CROSSTALK) GIULIANI: No, wait, now. Wait, wait. Jake, Jake, we are so -- we are so distorting the system of justice just to get Donald Trump, it's going to hurt us so much. 

TAPPER: So, it's OK to go after the father-in-law? 

GIULIANI: Now -- now, of course it is, if the father-in-law is a criminal.

[*Nately120*]

Oy, I remember when I wanted Rudy to be president. Lordy, what we've all become.

[Belsnickel]

So here's what's interesting. This article came from the team that broke the whole Trump Tower/Moscow story, which for the longest time wasn't corroborated. Then, sentencing memos came out and all of a sudden they were vindicated. The journalists that broke this story are Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. This isn't to say they are completely accurate, but dismissing BuzzFeed, especially these particular journos, would be a mistake. Their sourcing has born out in the past, and it may here.