Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, claims that then-candidate Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which
Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton, sources with knowledge tell CNN. Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller, the sources said.
Cohen's claim would contradict repeated denials by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., their lawyers and other administration officials who have said that the President knew nothing about the Trump Tower meeting until he was approached about it by The New York Times in July 2017.
Cohen alleges that he was present, along with several others, when Trump was informed of the Russians' offer by Trump Jr. By Cohen's account, Trump approved going ahead with the meeting with the Russians, according to sources.
To be clear, these sources said Cohen does not have evidence, such as audio recordings, to corroborate his claim, but he is willing to attest to his account.
Cohen privately testified last year to two Congressional committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. A source familiar with Cohen's House testimony said he did not testify that Trump had advance knowledge. Cohen's claims weren't mentioned in separate reports issued by Republicans and Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
Contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment.
"He's been lying all week, he's been lying for years," said Rudy Giuliani, the President's attorney, to Chris Cuomo on CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" on Thursday night.
He added, "I don't see how he's got any credibility."
Giuliani also said Cohen is "the kind of witness that can really destroy your whole case" and called Cohen, who was a top Trump Organization attorney for a decade, a "pathological liar."
When FBI counterintelligence agents plowed through the emails of alleged Russian agent Maria Butina’s networking around Washington, they discovered her plan to arrange “friendship and dialogue dinners" with influential Americans.
At one dinner, ABC News has learned, in February 2017 at the tony French eaterie, Bistro Bis, one guest who dined with the then-28-year-old Russian was a California Republican congressman on the House Foreign Relations committee, Dana Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher’s office confirmed he attended.
It wasn’t their first meeting.
Two years earlier, Butina had helped arrange a meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia that included Rohrabacher and her mentor, Kremlin-connected banker Alexander Torshin, federal officials have confirmed.
Algorithms employed by Twitter to limit the reach of hateful content are preventing the accounts of prominent Republicans, such as RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, from appearing in search results.
The phenomenon known as “shadow banning” has affected several conservative Republican lawmakers, including Representatives Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, as well as Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian. It has not extended to their counterparts on the left, whose accounts continue to auto-populate in Twitter search results.
When contacted for comment, a Twitter spokesman told Vice that the shadow bans were the result of algorithms that analyze “account behavior” in order to reduce the visibility of accounts that routinely spew hateful and bigoted content.
The stated goal of the shadow-banning algorithms, according to a May 15 blog post, is to elevate the visibility of accounts that are “contributing to the healthy conversation” in searches and conversation.
“We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this,” the spokesman told Vice.
During two Capitol Hill hearings conducted in recent months, Republican lawmakers have argued that the content-filtering systems employed by Facebook and Twitter to elevate the discourse on their platforms have disproportionately silenced conservative voices.
A spokesman for Representative Gaetz suggested the shadow ban may be related to the lawmakers’ aggressive questioning of Twitter executives in a hearing last week. During the hearing, Gaetz argued that platforms like Twitter, which claim to be “neutral publishers” under federal law, should not privilege certain forms of content over others.
“It is curious that these allegations would arise the week following Congressman Gaetz’s heated exchange with Twitter senior executives before the House Judiciary Committee,” the spokesman for Gaetz told Vice.
McDaniel, whose counterpart, DNC chair Tom Perez, has not been affected by shadow banning, demanded an explanation in a statement provided to Vice.
“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel said. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”
Twitter did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to slap “large sanctions” on Turkey unless it freed an American pastor, prompting an angry response from Ankara and further escalating tensions between the two NATO allies.
spokesman for Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan called Washington’s threats unacceptable and damaging to the U.S.-Turkey alliance.
“The United States must reconsider its approach and adopt a constructive position before inflicting further damage to its own interests and its alliance with Turkey,” Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, said in a written statement.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu called U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to discuss the threat of sanctions, Turkish and State Department officials said, without elaborating.
do you always have trouble answering simple questions which get down to core principles?Did this terrorist waive his client attorney privilege?.
I said in the post you first quoted, I assumed it is unethical. Not sure why you felt the need to ask again?do you always have trouble answering simple questions which get down to core principles?
Okay so now what? Wait I’m not seeing special report president impeached. Okay so what now? Ok so he knew and what. What do you think is going to happen? What do you want to happen, and what point are you trying to prove? Lol. You guys are sick. You are on some stupid ass crusade that if only you applied half of this energy to working you guys might have some money. It’s like non stop haha.
you assumed, but weren't sure, a lawyer taping their client was unethical?I said in the post you first quoted, I assumed it is unethical. Not sure why you felt the need to ask again?
Tell us how you realllly feel?Okay so now what? Wait I’m not seeing special report president impeached. Okay so what now? Ok so he knew and what. What do you think is going to happen? What do you want to happen, and what point are you trying to prove? Lol. You guys are sick. You are on some stupid ass crusade that if only you applied half of this energy to working you guys might have some money. It’s like non stop haha.
For the 3rd time. Yes.you assumed, but weren't sure, a lawyer taping their client was unethical?
I guess after all these pages those are my questions. What is the ending you are all hoping for?Tell us how you realllly feel?
I am not hoping for anything specific.I guess after all these pages those are my questions. What is the ending you are all hoping for?
1st. It's always with qualifiers, it's a very simple question based on core prnciplesFor the 3rd time. Yes.
Has Trump or his legal team claimed it violated legal ethics?
For the 4th time, I would assume it was unethical.1st. It's always with qualifiers, it's a very simple question based on core prnciples
2nd. for the 2nd time "If an accused terrorist had his conversations with his lawyers recorded by his lawyers & leaked to the media, would you just assume it was unethical or would you be sure of it?"
it's a yes or no question, but there's not a chance in hell you'll answer it
Was taping his client unethical, I would assume so
I said in the post you first quoted, I assumed it is unethical.
For the 3rd time. Yes.
Do you want to ask for a 5th time?For the 4th time, I would assume it was unethical.
I am not hoping for anything specific.
I am just enjoying the shit show.