,
17 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
EITHER
(1) McClatchy DC is correct (as it has often been in its Trump-Russia reporting) and Cohen is lying;
OR
(2) people are misreading the McClatchy DC report, which only intimates that Cohen's *phone* was in Prague on the given date (thus linking up with the Steele Dossier)
(1) McClatchy DC is correct (as it has often been in its Trump-Russia reporting) and Cohen is lying;
OR
(2) people are misreading the McClatchy DC report, which only intimates that Cohen's *phone* was in Prague on the given date (thus linking up with the Steele Dossier)
1/ McClatchy also cited *surveillance* info in which a Russian "remarked that Cohen was in Prague." As to *that*, it's *entirely possible a Russian said this* (as McClatchy DC reported) and was either (1) wrong, or (2) being misleading because s/he knew they were being overheard.
2/ But neither @brianstelter nor anyone else could responsibly say that either McClatchy is correct or Cohen is; it's entirely possible that Cohen has never been to Prague—except in '01, as he told WSJ—and that McClatchy is correct about *both* the phone and surveillance records.
3/ We're dealing with the most dire, complex federal criminal investigation of our lifetimes. Any journalist, attorney or news analyst who can't be discerning enough about facts, statements, and the law to see that Cohen and McClatchy aren't necessarily in conflict has a problem.
4/ The question is whether Cohen (or McClatchy) disagree with the Steele Dossier, which is a thornier issue. It's possible that the same Russian who—potentially—*legitimately* thought Cohen was in Prague said as much to Steele's source. Remember that the Dossier was *raw intel*.
5/ So journalists, lawyers and news analysts must be perspicacious enough to always discuss the Steele dossier as raw intel; to acknowledge that a Steele source could *honestly* say what they were told or believed and be *wrong*; and that Cohen and McClatchy *aren't* in conflict.
6/ I'd also say, as a former criminal defense lawyer—and current attorney and member of the NHBA and Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire—that when you are *losing* a case you focus on *one* fact in dispute. And notice that that's exactly what Trump supporters are doing.
7/ My concern about Cohen's testimony on Prague is zero—and that's because Trump-Russia collusion in no way hinges on it, the claim Cohen was there comes from raw intel, and nothing that's come out makes impossible that Cohen's cell phone—in other hands—was in Prague in mid-2016.
8/ I'd also note the obvious irony of those who've spent months saying that not a word Cohen says can be believed now saying that we can *definitely* believe him on Prague. Note the difference in what *I'm* saying—I'm *consistently* saying that Cohen is *now* telling the truth.
9/ I'll make an exception to that statement: Cohen *has* previously been to Prague—and told Corn that—but in answering the question today focused on whether he went there *during the campaign*. Unlike Trump supporters I'm consistently saying I think Cohen's telling the truth now.
10/ Anyone asked about Cohen's testimony has to decide if they think Cohen is telling the truth now or not. I'd be suspicious of any person whose analysis of Cohen's testimony depends on thinking he told the truth in some answers and lied in other answers—watch out for that. /end
PS/ (Proof of Collusion takes no view on Cohen and Prague. The book focuses instead on Cohen's pre-RNC trip to Italy (in 2016) and the *fact* that he lied about where he was (and with whom) during that trip, which is suspicious. That's all. I've never been obsessed with Prague.)
PS2/ What readers of this feed will know is that I *have* been very interested in the Steele dossier—which I've estimated at somewhere around 70% accurate (because much of it is "raw intel," as Steele himself said from the outset). If Cohen-in-Prague is part of the 30%, so be it.
PS3/ Here's what I said on Cohen and Prague six months ago: "I'm not convinced Cohen was in Prague." I then said we could "bank on" Cohen meeting with at least one Kremlin agent in Italy. I have no worries giving that a *slight* amendment (see next tweet).
PS4/ The pre-RNC Cohen-Sater chat on traveling abroad to meet Russians focused on meeting Kremlin agents who could help Trump get Trump Tower Moscow. Cohen declined to go to Moscow and went to Italy instead. It's entirely possible any Russian he met there was not a Kremlin agent.
PS5/ That is, there are many people Cohen could've met in Italy who could've assisted Mr. Trump with Trump Tower Moscow and explain Cohen's fake alibi *and* his other lies told about the vacation *and* him "going on vacation" during the 10 days pre-RNC that Trump needed him most.
NOTE/ A full discussion of the lies Cohen told about Italy—which strongly suggest he was engaged in clandestine activity for Trump in the days immediately preceding the 2016 RNC—can be found in PROOF OF COLLUSION. And PROOF OF COLLUSION can be found here: amazon.com/Proof-Collusio…
