Michael Cohen: Pardons discussed with a second Trump lawyer | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Michael Cohen: Pardons discussed with a second Trump lawyer

The Washington Post
Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, tells reporters as he departs that he will ‘continue to cooperate’ with the House Intelligence Committee as he prepares for a three-year prison sentence for lying to Congress and other charges, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, March 6, 2019.

WASHINGTON — Michael Cohen has claimed to the House Intelligence Committee that he discussed the subject of a pardon with President Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow, bringing another of Trump’s representatives into an ongoing dispute over precisely who opened discussions about the matter.

Under penalty of perjury, Cohen alleged to lawmakers that he discussed pardons with Sekulow in addition to Rudy Giuliani, another of Trump’s lawyers, according to four people familiar with Cohen’s testimony who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his interview. Cohen appeared before the committee for about eight hours Wednesday, concluding a closed-door interview that began last week.

In a terse statement to The Washington Post, Sekulow flatly denied Cohen’s allegation, calling it “not true” — and declining to elaborate further.

The people familiar with Cohen’s testimony declined to provide specifics, including the dates or substance of his alleged conversations with Sekulow and Giuliani.

Giuliani said this week, “I can’t confirm or deny whether I had a conversation with any of the attorneys because it’s attorney-client privilege, but what I can say is that I’ve said the same thing to everyone, privately and publicly, which is that the president is not considering pardons at this time.”

Cohen has privately claimed that Trump’s representatives dangled the notion of a pardon, according to people familiar with the discussions, while others say it was Cohen’s former representatives who broached the subject with Trump’s legal team.

The stakes are high for both sides. If Trump’s representatives sought a bargain with Cohen to gain assurances not to cooperate with prosecutors, it would raise questions about whether the intent was to obstruct justice. Were Cohen to intentionally mislead Congress, a crime to which he has already pleaded guilty, it could open him to additional prosecution and the prospect of a longer prison sentence.

It was not immediately clear whether Cohen claimed that Sekulow specifically was one of the people who had suggested the offer of a pardon in exchange for his continued defense of Trump. But the fact that Cohen named Sekulow could put the two in open conflict yet again.

In a public hearing before a separate House committee last week, Cohen accused Sekulow of making changes to statements Cohen planned to deliver to Congress in 2017 concerning how long into his presidential campaign Trump pursued a major real estate deal in Moscow. Cohen eventually pleaded guilty to lying to lawmakers about the project’s timeline, and he begins a three-year prison sentence for those and other financial crimes in May.

Sekulow denied making any changes to Cohen’s planned testimony about the timing of the Trump Tower Moscow project, calling Cohen’s allegation “completely false.”

On Wednesday, Cohen gave the House Intelligence Committee documents that purportedly illustrate how the president’s lawyers edited his 2017 statements to Congress, according to people familiar with the matter. The committee has not made those documents public.

According to people familiar with what’s contained in the documents, the changes were plentiful. But one of these people said that the changes were not substantive and that there had been no direct changes made to Cohen’s original claims about the timeline along which Trump pursued the real estate project in Russia.

The timeline reflected in Cohen’s testimony is significant because if Trump continued to pursue his Moscow tower project until at least June of 2016 instead of January of that year, as Cohen originally — and falsely — told lawmakers, it means he did so after it was clear he had won enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination for the presidency.

The documents accompanied Cohen’s return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for his fourth interview in recent days with congressional panels. The closed-door session follows another private interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee and a public hearing with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Together, these sessions have opened several avenues of inquiry for the six House panels looking into allegations of wrongdoing in Trump’s campaign and presidency. Those investigations are picking up steam as lawmakers brace for an expected report from special counsel Robert Mueller, who has spent nearly two years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and whether anyone associated with Trump’s campaign conspired with those efforts.

But Cohen’s revelations have also fueled a bitter political divide in Congress, between Democrats intrigued by his testimony and Republicans who are suspicious of Cohen’s intentions – and adamant that if he lied to Congress once, his testimony cannot be trusted now.

In a matter of months, Cohen has gone from being one of Trump’s staunchest protectors to the most vocal accuser to emerge from the president’s inner circle. On Wednesday, upon completion of his interview with the House Intelligence Committee, Cohen said he would continue to cooperate as needed.

In a statement, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, said his client “responded to all questions truthfully.” Cohen, Davis added, “also offered to answer additional questions from Republican members. He remains committed to telling the truth and cooperating with authorities.”

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told reporters that Cohen had been “fully cooperative” with the investigative process.

But in recent days, Republican leaders have questioned not only Cohen’s integrity but also Schiff’s.

This week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., suggested on Fox News that Schiff had coached Cohen through his testimony, asking whether he had tried to “tamper” or “direct” Cohen to answer certain questions in a certain way and urging Schiff to recuse himself from the investigation.

On Wednesday, intelligence panel member Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Cohen, asking him to disclose the number and nature of his contacts with Schiff, and saying that those contacts raised questions about “witness tampering, obstruction of justice, or collusion.”

Schiff has called McCarthy’s suggestions “frivolous.”

In response to Turner’s letter, a spokesman for Schiff also characterized the committee staff’s pre-interview contacts with Cohen as “proffer sessions,” deeming them “completely appropriate.”

A congressional aide also noted that Turner had not attended the intelligence panel’s first closed-door session with Cohen.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.