Freedom of Speech is Non-Negotiable!


Michael Cohen’s Obvious Perjury…

Cohen'S Testimony Is Contradicted By What He Told His Attorney And Others
Cohen’S Testimony Contradicts What He Has Told Others.obvious Perjury
The lawyer’s unexpected appearance Destroys Michael Cohen’s testament, making a big impact.
By John Livingston
May 16, 2024

An attorney who chooses to offer statement versus a previous clieny, implicating them of numerous misconduct, may find themselves in a circumstance where their own previous lawyer testifies versus them. The outcome of this circumstance is yet to be revealed.

On Wednesday, while the trial of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan was on its routine break, Robert Costello, the lawyer who previously represented Michael Cohen (who himself previously represented Trump), testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Government:

“Cohen decided that while he didn’t think the claims (of the Stormy Daniels story), that he thought the story would be humiliating for Trump and particularly for Melania, so he chose he would look after it himself.”

Costello, the former deputy chief of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office’ prestigious criminal division, declares in his prepared statement acquired by Just the News that Cohen consistently insisted that Trump had not done anything wrong when he was debriefed in 2018 while federal prosecutors were examining whether Trump broke any election laws in 2016. Ultimately, federal district attorneys chose not to bring charges.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) quoted from Costello’s ready remarks during a reading.

Costello had this to say in action: “Absolutely. And that is contrary to what this guy testified to in court in New York yesterday.”

In the offered video, Costello asserts that Cohen’s recent statements under oath are at odds with his statements from three years prior, highlighting a plain disparity.

Their conversation continued:

Michael Cohen is always working for things that benefit him. And that’s what he was doing here. That’s different from what he stated that he told the grand jury; that’s different from what he’s testifying to in New York. Nobody has heard this side of the testimony. Cohen is lying an flying big time.

After speaking with him for several days following that incident, it became apparent that he continually mentioned the sensation of being betrayed for not being welcomed to Washington, D.C. He believed he deserved the position of chief law officer or a minimum of the president’s chief assistant. Regardless of how outrageous this idea was, he was determined about it and harbored strong feelings of anger. He figured out how to regain a location in Donald Trump’s close circle, which motivated him to take matters into his own hands.

Steube: Well, and what’s not being talked about is your next paragraph, like, the reason and his motivation for that. So, if you could simply kind of walk through that for the committee?

He claimed that he never talked about the Stormy Daniels problem with us, but in reality, he did. I directly inquired about it when he repeatedly revealed the issue over facing legal effects for the non-disc. I asked him to describe the scenario with the NDA and Stormy Daniels, and he revealed that a legal representative for Stormy Daniels had contacted him alleging that she would testify about having had an affair with Donald. Regardless of his skepticism of the claim, Michael Cohen acknowledged the prospective embarrassment such an accusation might trigger, particularly to Melania Trump. He highlighted his desire to protect her from humiliation as the factor for dealing with the matter personally.

At our initial conference at the Regency Hotel, we began discussing non-disclosure arrangements. Notably, Rudy Giuliani was not yet part of Donald Trump’s legal group at that point. Cohen later on claimed that Giuliani and I were currently colluding since that date, but that’s entirely false.

I repeatedly returned to that: “You did this by yourself?” “On my own.” “Did Donald Trump have anything to do with it?” “No.” “Did you get the cash from Donald Trump?” “No.” “From any of his organizations?” “No.” “From any person connected to Donald Trump?” “No.” “Where did you get the cash?” “I got a HELOC loan against my residential or commercial property.” I said, “Why would you do that?” He stated, “I didn’t desire anybody to know where I got this money. I didn’t desire Melania to know; I didn’t desire my own better half to know because she’s in charge,” he stated, “of the Cohen family finances.” He said, “If she saw cash coming out of my account, she ‘d ask me a hundred concerns, and I didn’t wish to address any of them.”

We had, perhaps, some glimmers that Costello may contradict Cohen, as Cohen tried to preemptively reject Costello on the stand Tuesday by declaring that he wasn’t straight with Costello at the time because he didn’t trust him:

In the spring of 2018, Michael Cohen encountered Robert Costello, a criminal defense attorney with ties to Rudy Giuliani. Cohen revealed issues about Costello, explaining him as suspicious and untrustworthy.

Bottom Line from Testimony Regarding Costello:

The backchannel is born: Cohen said Costello used a “back-channel interaction” to the former president to make confident Cohen was still safe and secure. “The back channel was Bob Costello to Rudy, Rudy to President Trump,” Cohen described. Here’s how it worked:

Rudy Giuliani became a member of the Trump legal group concentrating on election matters at the White House in April 2018. Cohen expressed for initiating deceptive communication channels. Cohen stated exchanging hidden emails that mentioned a “friend,” who turned out to be President Trump. References to the “potential of pre-pardons” were made in the emails Cohen likened the clandestine interaction with Costello to a game of espionage. Describing it as a “pressure campaign,” Cohen declared that Costello’s emails were aimed at ensuring his to Trump, in the middle of concerns that he might seek legal representation other than Trump’s in the examination by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Cohen exposed that he kept information from Costello concerning Trump’s function in the American Media Inc. handle of former Playboy model Karen McDougal, as well as his own payment to Stormy Daniels. “I didn’t trust him,” Cohen discussed, mentioning his lack of trust as the reason for his secrecy.

Based on our conversations, I thought he would immediately return to Mr. Giuliani and share the details with President Trump.

And, naturally, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who came under his own examination Tuesday after pointing out that he had consulted with and ready Cohen for affirming (though it appears Goldman may have been referring to previous congressional testimony, not the present court proceedings), gave vent to his own caterwauling over Costello’s testimony, defining it as “jury tampering”:

Goldman advised Costello, “Showing up in Washington, D.C., outside the courtroom while a witness is affirming, solely to undermine their trustworthiness and statement, is a clear case of jury tampering. It’s an outright breach of principles, and you’re mindful that your actions are aimed at discrediting a witness currently providing testimony in an ongoing trial.”

The above short article asserts, by the way, that Costello never really represented Cohen:

Even though Costello supplied counsel to Cohen and tried to act as his legal agent during the investigation into project finance violations, he was not as Cohen’s lawyer.

Observing whether the defense puts Costello on the stand will be interesting. If they do, it’s most likely that his courtroom testimony will mirror his congressional testament, which raises the question of how supplying consistent testament under oath might sway the jury’s opinion – specifically considering they’ve been directed to avoid all media protection of the case during the trial. Furthermore, applying Goldman’s standard would suggest that both Cohen and Daniels are similarly guilty.

There are several possibilities to contemplate here:

Costello could be lying– presuming he’s ready to lie under oath to Congress (which hasn’t exercised so well for others, especially those with favorable things to say regarding Trump).
He could be telling the truth but Cohen could have been lying to him in 2018– which is what Cohen now asserts. (Of course, this needs weighing the many faces of Michael Cohen and his evolving narratives against one another … and his well-known fondness for perjury.).
He could be telling the truth and Cohen could be lying now.

No matter how you slice it, the jury, in their deliberations, will have to decide which Michael Cohen to think. Best of luck with that.