- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
同情特朗普
- 主题发起人 ccc
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
(CNN) One idea considered for the proposed Trump Tower in Moscow was to offer Russian President Vladimir Putin the penthouse, according to Felix Sater, who was working on the project with Michael Cohen.
Sater, a Russian-born onetime business associate of Trump's, described the concept as a "marketing ploy" and explained that the idea was to try to enhance the value and attraction for buyers by having Putin in the building.
BuzzFeed, which first reported on the plan, reported that Cohen, who was then-candidate Donald Trump's attorney, had discussed the idea with a representative of Putin's press secretary, citing two law enforcement sources. The penthouse was planned to be valued at $50 million but gifted to Putin, BuzzFeed reported.
It was not clear if Trump was informed of the idea.
Cohen would not provide a comment for the story.
Asked about the reporting on the idea of giving Putin the penthouse, Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani dismissed the idea that Trump was involved.
"The story is a story. The President never heard of this and the concept never got anywhere beyond an unfunded letter of intent and never even a proposal or draft contract," the former New York mayor said.
Earlier Thursday, Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge from special counsel Robert Mueller of lying to Congress when he testified about the proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow.
Cohen had previously said that talks on the project had ended in January 2016, but it was revealed Thursday that he had been discussing the project with Sater later into the 2016 presidential campaign.
As late as June 2016, according to prosecutors, Cohen and another man, identified in filings as "Individual-2," discussed efforts to gain Russian government approval for the project. Individual-2 is Sater, according to people familiar with the matter.
Cohen said Thursday that he had made the original statements "out of loyalty" to Trump.
"I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1's political messaging and out of loyalty to Individual-1," Cohen said, identifying the President as Individual-1 in court Thursday.
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Washington (CNN) If Donald Trump thought he could end this week with a high note at the G20 summit, Robert Mueller's investigation certainly scuttled those plans.
Hours before Trump boarded his plane to Argentina, a bombshell landed in Trumpworld with the news Michael Cohen had pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about -- and a sign Cohen is talking Trump's business deals with Mueller -- a previously stated "red line" for Trump.
Trump fired back -- from the air -- tweeting that the investigation is an "illegal Joseph McCarthy style Witch Hunt" and should be called off.
He also defended his actions on the campaign trail: "Even if he was right, it doesn't matter, because I was allowed to do whatever I wanted during the campaign."
Meanwhile, the field of would-be challengers to Trump is crystallizing, with more and more Democrats inching closer to announcing their intentions to run.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/politics/donald-trump-robert-mueller-week-in-review/index.html
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,903
- 荣誉分数
- 37,364
- 声望点数
- 1,393
Trump’s latest tweets cross clear lines, experts say: Obstruction of justice and witness tampering
December 3 at 7:29 PM
President Trump took to Twitter Monday morning, haranguing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and witnesses to his ongoing Russia investigation. His tweets have become a common morning occurrence, particularly in recent weeks. But legal experts are calling Monday’s missives a newsworthy development that amounts to evidence of obstructing justice.
Trump’s first statement went out after Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney who pleaded guilty last week for lying to Congress about the president’s real estate project in Russia. In his tweet, Trump alleged that Cohen lied to Mueller and called for a severe penalty, demanding that his former fixer “serve a full and complete sentence.”
After the overt attack on Cohen came a tweet encouraging Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, not to become a witness against him:
“’I will never testify against Trump.’ This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about ‘President Trump.’ Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’”
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that the most striking thing about Monday was that there were two statements in proximity.
“It comes very close to the statutory definition of witness tampering,” he said. “It’s a mirror image of the first tweet, only he’s praising a witness for not cooperating with the implication of reward,” he said, adding that Trump has pardon power over Stone.
“We’re so used to President Trump transgressing norms in his public declarations,” Eisen said, “but he may have crossed the legal line.”
Respected figures across party lines also responded to Trump’s tweets on the social media platform.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) called it “serious,” adding that “the President of the United States should not be using his platform to influence potential witnesses in a federal investigation involving his campaign.”
Attorney George Conway, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, referenced the federal statute most likely to create legal liability for Trump: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, which outlines the crime of witness tampering.
What is the law?
Tampering with a witness is obstruction of justice.
It’s a federal crime for an individual to intimidate, threaten or “corruptly persuade” another person with the goal of influencing or preventing his or her testimony.
Did Trump break it?
Historically, there are plenty of cases where similar statements were used as part of an obstruction-of-justice prosecution, according to former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal.
Even if Mueller could technically satisfy the statute, few prosecutors would make a congressional referral based on tweets from the president alone.
Instead, Monday’s slew of tweets probably will be used to evaluate whether Trump’s intent was “corrupt.” They will also be used to show a pattern by Trump to interfere with law enforcement to serve his personal end, Katyal said.
“[The tweets] are just like firing FBI Director [James B.] Comey for investigating the Russia scandal, or firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions because he wasn’t recused from the Russia scandal,” he said. “It’s the same attitude that led President Trump to try to direct [the Department of Justice] to seek the indictments of his political opponents (Hillary Clinton and Jim Comey).”
In his tweet, Trump claimed that Cohen pleaded guilty to charges “unrelated” to him — a statement that’s patently untrue.
Cohen’s initial plea implicated the president in potential campaign finance violations. The August guilty plea prompted Trump to tweet, “nlike Michael Cohen, [Paul Manafort] refused to ‘break’ — make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’ Such respect for a brave man!” Manafort is Trump’s former campaign manager.
Last week’s plea also made specific reference to Trump.
Katyal said of Monday’s tweets: “The difference with the prior episodes is that you’ve got the whole enchilada in one tweet — you don’t need to refer to other extrinsic evidence. Trump is directly praising one individual for not flipping and attacking another for doing so.”
There is a certain amount of ambiguity in Trump’s statements, leaving wiggle room for his defenders to say he was not making threats but blowing off steam.
As the chief executive, the president oversees criminal prosecution of all federal cases. Unlike firing federal officials, directly encouraging a potential witness not to cooperate in an investigation involving his own conduct is significant.
“When you look at the tweets about Stone and Cohen, Trump is sending a very strong message to others that those who cooperate will be punished, and those who keep his secrets will be rewarded,” white-collar defense attorney Barry Berke said.
On Jan. 3, Democrats take control of the House, and a new congressional session will begin.
“The tweets could be the basis for the House to determine if the president engaged in an abuse of power or worse,” said Berke, referencing the articles of impeachment against past presidents — Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton — for abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mpering/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79c6178596a9
December 3 at 7:29 PM
President Trump took to Twitter Monday morning, haranguing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and witnesses to his ongoing Russia investigation. His tweets have become a common morning occurrence, particularly in recent weeks. But legal experts are calling Monday’s missives a newsworthy development that amounts to evidence of obstructing justice.
Trump’s first statement went out after Michael Cohen, his former personal attorney who pleaded guilty last week for lying to Congress about the president’s real estate project in Russia. In his tweet, Trump alleged that Cohen lied to Mueller and called for a severe penalty, demanding that his former fixer “serve a full and complete sentence.”
After the overt attack on Cohen came a tweet encouraging Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, not to become a witness against him:
“’I will never testify against Trump.’ This statement was recently made by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about ‘President Trump.’ Nice to know that some people still have ‘guts!’”
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that the most striking thing about Monday was that there were two statements in proximity.
“It comes very close to the statutory definition of witness tampering,” he said. “It’s a mirror image of the first tweet, only he’s praising a witness for not cooperating with the implication of reward,” he said, adding that Trump has pardon power over Stone.
“We’re so used to President Trump transgressing norms in his public declarations,” Eisen said, “but he may have crossed the legal line.”
Respected figures across party lines also responded to Trump’s tweets on the social media platform.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) called it “serious,” adding that “the President of the United States should not be using his platform to influence potential witnesses in a federal investigation involving his campaign.”
Attorney George Conway, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, referenced the federal statute most likely to create legal liability for Trump: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, which outlines the crime of witness tampering.
What is the law?
Tampering with a witness is obstruction of justice.
It’s a federal crime for an individual to intimidate, threaten or “corruptly persuade” another person with the goal of influencing or preventing his or her testimony.
Did Trump break it?
Historically, there are plenty of cases where similar statements were used as part of an obstruction-of-justice prosecution, according to former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal.
Even if Mueller could technically satisfy the statute, few prosecutors would make a congressional referral based on tweets from the president alone.
Instead, Monday’s slew of tweets probably will be used to evaluate whether Trump’s intent was “corrupt.” They will also be used to show a pattern by Trump to interfere with law enforcement to serve his personal end, Katyal said.
“[The tweets] are just like firing FBI Director [James B.] Comey for investigating the Russia scandal, or firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions because he wasn’t recused from the Russia scandal,” he said. “It’s the same attitude that led President Trump to try to direct [the Department of Justice] to seek the indictments of his political opponents (Hillary Clinton and Jim Comey).”
In his tweet, Trump claimed that Cohen pleaded guilty to charges “unrelated” to him — a statement that’s patently untrue.
Cohen’s initial plea implicated the president in potential campaign finance violations. The August guilty plea prompted Trump to tweet, “nlike Michael Cohen, [Paul Manafort] refused to ‘break’ — make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’ Such respect for a brave man!” Manafort is Trump’s former campaign manager.
Last week’s plea also made specific reference to Trump.
Katyal said of Monday’s tweets: “The difference with the prior episodes is that you’ve got the whole enchilada in one tweet — you don’t need to refer to other extrinsic evidence. Trump is directly praising one individual for not flipping and attacking another for doing so.”
There is a certain amount of ambiguity in Trump’s statements, leaving wiggle room for his defenders to say he was not making threats but blowing off steam.
As the chief executive, the president oversees criminal prosecution of all federal cases. Unlike firing federal officials, directly encouraging a potential witness not to cooperate in an investigation involving his own conduct is significant.
“When you look at the tweets about Stone and Cohen, Trump is sending a very strong message to others that those who cooperate will be punished, and those who keep his secrets will be rewarded,” white-collar defense attorney Barry Berke said.
On Jan. 3, Democrats take control of the House, and a new congressional session will begin.
“The tweets could be the basis for the House to determine if the president engaged in an abuse of power or worse,” said Berke, referencing the articles of impeachment against past presidents — Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton — for abuse of power and obstruction of justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...mpering/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79c6178596a9
ottawa_tj
不知名会员
- 注册
- 2015-02-22
- 消息
- 13,564
- 荣誉分数
- 4,161
- 声望点数
- 273
Muller检察官向法庭表示，Michael Flynn全面配合特别检察官关于trump竞选团队的通俄调查，交待了“第一手”证据，包括19次面谈。。。
鉴于有立功赎罪表现，建议法庭轻判，甚至不需要坐监狱（no jail time）。。。
这在trump看来就是weak，not tough的表现，应该“重判”！估计半夜三更又要发起Twitter风暴了。。。
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/rob...o-for-former-trump-advisor-michael-flynn.html
鉴于有立功赎罪表现，建议法庭轻判，甚至不需要坐监狱（no jail time）。。。
这在trump看来就是weak，not tough的表现，应该“重判”！估计半夜三更又要发起Twitter风暴了。。。
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/rob...o-for-former-trump-advisor-michael-flynn.html
