Anonymous wrote:"Cohen provided relevant and useful information concerning his contacts with persons" connected to WH during 2017–2018 and "described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries"

"Circulating" = lots of folks suborning perjury in the White House.

First, the defendant
provided information about his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign and
discussions with others in the course of making those contacts. For example, and as described
above, the defendant provided a detailed account of his involvement and the involvement of others
in the Moscow Project, and also corrected the record concerning his outreach to the Russian
government during the week of the United Nations General Assembly. The defendant also
provided information about attempts by other Russian nationals to reach the campaign. For
Case 1:18-cr-00850-WHP Document 15 Filed 12/07/18 Page 5 of 7
6
example, in or around November 2015, Cohen received the contact information for, and spoke
with, a Russian national who claimed to be a “trusted person” in the Russian Federation who could
offer the campaign “political synergy” and “synergy on a government level.” The defendant
recalled that this person repeatedly proposed a meeting between Individual 1 and the President of
Russia. The person told Cohen that such a meeting could have a “phenomenal” impact “not only
in political but in a business dimension as well,” referring to the Moscow Project, because there is
“no bigger warranty in any project than consent of [the President of Russia].” Cohen, however,
did not follow up on this invitation.3

Second, Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete
Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact
with Company executives during the campaign.

Third, Cohen provided relevant and useful information concerning his contacts with
persons connected to the White House during the 2017–2018 time period.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Cohen getting jail time while Flynn is not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last three paragraphs before conclusion are damning.

To Trump, not Cohen. Russian government synergy? Sounds like COLLUSION to me.

+1. “Company Executives” and “persons connected to the White House”. Plus a strong implication that Individual 1 told Cohen to lie to Congress.

Sounds like a lot of people with the last name Trump (and Kushner) are headed to jail.

The defendant, without prompting by the SCO, also corrected other false and misleading
statements that he had made concerning his outreach to and contacts with Russian officials during
the course of the campaign. For example, in a radio interview in September 2015, the defendant
suggested that Individual 1 meet with the President of Russia in New York City during his visit
for the United Nations General Assembly. When asked previously about these events, the
defendant claimed his public comments had been spontaneous and had not been discussed within
the campaign or the Company. During his proffer sessions, the defendant admitted that this
account was false and that he had in fact conferred with Individual 1 about contacting the Russian
government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting. The meeting
ultimately did not take place.

Anonymous wrote:What is the deadline for the ManaF*cked Memo?

Anonymous wrote:What is the deadline for the ManaF*cked Memo?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flynn must have lots of goods to get recommended no prison time, if Cohen with all the recordings/email etc is recommended substantial prison time! Whoa!

Yeah, I'd like to understand that logic. Cohen seems like more of a hapless idiot who got stuck into Trump's nefarious intentions, while Flynn seems like he knew what he was doing...

The defendant’s assistance has been useful in four significant respects. First, the defendant
provided information about his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign and
discussions with others in the course of making those contacts. For example, and as described
above, the defendant provided a detailed account of his involvement and the involvement of others
in the Moscow Project, and also corrected the record concerning his outreach to the Russian
government during the week of the United Nations General Assembly. The defendant also
provided information about attempts by other Russian nationals to reach the campaign.

For example, in or around November 2015, Cohen received the contact information for, and spoke
with, a Russian national who claimed to be a “trusted person” in the Russian Federation who could
offer the campaign “political synergy” and “synergy on a government level.” The defendant
recalled that this person repeatedly proposed a meeting between Individual 1 and the President of
Russia. The person told Cohen that such a meeting could have a “phenomenal” impact “not only
in political but in a business dimension as well,” referring to the Moscow Project, because there is
“no bigger warranty in any project than consent of [the President of Russia].” Cohen, however,
did not follow up on this invitation.

Second, Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete
Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact
with Company executives during the campaign.

Third, Cohen provided relevant and useful information concerning his contacts with
persons connected to the White House during the 2017–2018 time period.

Fourth, Cohen described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the
congressional inquiries, while continuing to accept responsibility for the false statements contained
within it.