Conduct involving Michael Cohen.
The President' s conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project,...
I did not know Michael Cohen was an executive of the Trump Company. I thought he had an independent legal office. That changes things a bit. All of Michael Cohen's activity was sanctioned by the Trump Company. It also explains how Cohen was somewhat unable to simply strike out on his own. At least it raises questions as to his ability to leave the Trump Company and remove himself from it's activities. So, this really cozy. Trump probably used the office space Cohen occupied as part of his compensation as an attorney. It is taxable to Cohen as well. I am sure the building where this office resided was used as a tax reduction for the Trump Company, but, we don't know that yet because Congress is being obstructed from tax records they are legally entitled.
I find the idea that Michael Cohen, as an executive to the Trump Company, interesting from the point of view Trump's personal woes were handled by a company executive. That is a complication to these issues. There was no separation between Trump's personal interests and that of the Trump Company.
I have to wonder if Trump accepted assignment of costs for his personal business in separate accounting. In other words, did Donald Trump keep personal records that would reflect the costs of the company attorney for his personal uses? Did Trump take Cohen's cost for his personal business off his taxes at the same time those same costs were taken off the company's taxes as well? Was there any accounting anywhere within the company of Trump's personal use of Cohen's time?
That would be tax fraud. I am sure Trump would simply point fingers at accounts or other company employees as the trouble makers.
There is always the chance that Trump's personal use of the company never appears in any accounting of the Trump Company. That would also be tax fraud as Cohen's costs to the company was not entirely the company's alone.
Additionally, if Trump was using company executives for his own personal use, what else besides Cohen's time was used inappropriately without discerning a company credit for those personal uses followed by an invoice to Trump for those personal costs on the company's ledger.
...to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia....
There was a party line to adhere to? The RNC is in on this lie as well? Where is that in any proceedings? The Chairperson of the RNC and all the staff directly involved in RNC policy and procedure regarding Trump's IMAGE would have to be subpoenaed to testify under oath for Congress. I don't recall that happening. With all the neglected oversight, it served the presiding Republicans to look the other way when it came to Trump's lies. The people of the USA were not only deceived about Trump's Russian involvement AND CONTINUED INTEREST but, they were actively deceived by the RNC and it's campaign mechanism.
Was the RNC ever approached or had any contact with any of the Russians mentioned in this report or any court proceedings? We know Congressmen had contact with Butina. How far of the Russian operations in the USA was being conducted with RNC involvement? Butina never hid the fact she was from the Russian Federation. Trump was enamored with Putin. How much of Trump's involvement with Russia was allowed with knowledge of the RNC?
We know Republican candidates for federal office benefitted by NRA monies. How much did they know and allow that was criminal?
...While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family members had committed crimes....
Among other things, there was an extensive reach of Trump's corruption of the truth. Got that? The passive personality of Lewandowski in regard to accepting Trump's bidding was Trump's personal web that reached well beyond Trump himself.
In the case of Michael Cohen, a Trump Company executive, the "Trump Organization" (not the non-profit) dictated Cohen's behavior and the very words Cohen would use when testifying to Congress. That is not ordinary at all. That is a vast internal corruption that seems to attach itself to every person within Trump's "realm." This is far more troubling than I thought. This is taking place in the West Wing of the White House of the Executive Branch of the USA. This has to be extracted at any cost. Trump is not to be running his "organization" within the USA government.
The use of "Trump Organization" indicates the invisible authority of Trump that extends to the PERFORMANCE of all those within his influence and others that answer to those affiliated with Trump. That is called a definition. It won't be found in any dictionary.
This is criminal simply because Trump's Organization causes and endorses criminal activity. There is definitely obstruction of justice, however, this degree of Trump's Organization reaches goes beyond the definition of obstruction. I resist to call this organized crime as it is not engaged in other crimes such as prostitution, drug trafficking or other aspects of crimes normally affiliated with such organizations, but, there is sincere criminal intent within "Trump's Organization." Michael Cohen was expected to carry out crimes, such as perjury which is how lying to Congress is legally stated. The Special Council calls the crime "Lying to the Special Prosecutor or Lying to Congress" but, it is perjury. That is why it has it's status as a crime. Michael Cohen was coached to commit perjury. Perjury is telling of an untruth after taking an oath otherwise. This coaching came from within the staff at the White House. Trump's personal attorneys are paid for by the RNC. They are staffed in the White House and not another facility that I am aware of, not to say a person like Guilliani would have a separate office as well. The perjury committed by Michael Cohen was authorized from within the USA government.
Under the brevity of that reality, Michael Cohen, a Trump Company executive, was coached in perjury with the authority and weight of the Oval Office. Michael Cohen, while he broke the law, was also a victim to power he didn't necessarily understand or control. He stated openly in testimony before the US House he was scared for his personal safety and that of his family. We know for a fact, Rudy Giuliani and Donald J. Trump were tweeting highly inflammatory statements that directed the fear Michael Cohen and his family were feeling. Where is Guiliani's indictment? This is more than an abuse of power. Guiliani willing participated in a fear campaign against Cohen, while an attorney and a member of the RNC. Guilliani is a very important member of the RNC. The web that Trump wheels have vast reaches. That has to stop. A candidate is not a mob boss.
Overarching factual issues.
We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct.
The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, stated this in yesterday's exit statement. He stated clearly he was obligated to follow DOJ policy which prohibited the prosecution of Donald J. Trump. In investigating the Russian invasion into the USA's election of 2016, there are facts that manifested which normally would indict the president if he were a civilian and not the president and all the responsibilities of that office. In lieu of any criminal indictments or prosecution of Trump, the Special Counsel wrote the FINDINGS he calls "general statements."
Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts...
Facial is an interesting word. Facial indicates the acts were constitutional. There is a term called, "a facial challenge."
Definiton: A facial challenge (click here) contends that a government law, rule, regulation, or policy is unconstitutional as written — that is, on its face. This challenge differs from an as-applied challenge in that it invalidates a law for everyone — not just as that law is applied to the particular litigant challenging it.
So, the way facially is used in this context is to indicate the actions by Trump were constitutional. The Special Counsel will discuss the implications of the constitutional acts later, but, when it comes to the firing of James Comey, it was nefarious in it intended to stop the investigation. The firing wasn't about James Comey's performance as the Director of the FBI. The firing of James Comey had an alternative purpose. Then Director Comey's downfall was because he would not carry out Trump's loyalty pledge and would not end the Russian investigation. The firing of Director James Comey was a wrongful act by any definition and it carries with it the very real definition of obstruction of justice. This is why the idea of a "Deep State" plays to Trump's coverup. There had to be a reason to rant on about Director Comey from the campaign stump and then to fire him when in office. The reason according to Trump was because the Director was a member of the "Deep State," however, there is nothing to indicate the Director was committing any crime against the state or Trump as a person or as president. Quite the contrary, as president Donald J. Trump was carrying out nefarious directives to protect Russia.
What is also of concern at this point is the realization that "Trump's Organization" also includes the Russian Federation and all it's entanglements with intelligence agents within the USA and those committing cyber attacks. Basically, "Trump's Organization" is a real problem for the USA, allies and international dynamics.
...within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis....
Trump is using his powers as president to carry out crimes. While, facially/on the surface, his actions appear to be a constitutional act under the powers granted the president, the context of the act is unlawful.
...Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference....
Donald J. Trump did not carry out a conspiracy with Russia and there was no evidence tying Trump to any actions by the Russian Federation intelligence activities in the USA; Trump benefited from those activities. BUT, the actual crime of carrying out those activities fell within the Russian persons and not any Americans. So, in traditional obstruction cases, the plaintiff is normally carrying out the crime while obstructing justice. That is not the case here, yet there is clear attempts at obstruction of justice.
...Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.
Here again, is the facially constitutional acts carried out by Trump, yet having a completely different context than it's constitutional intention.
Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.
There is a lot here to digest, so I think I will pause for now.
To be noted:
In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.
2:00 PM - May 20, 2019
