of categories. michael cohen. he s coming back. what do you believe the main value that remains with michael cohen is? well, i mean, i think michael cohen shared very important information about a number of things. the operation of the trump organization, potential crimes relating to tax fraud, wire fraud, suborning perjury, maybe defrauding the united states because of the conversation he overheard between the president and roger stone. i think there s a lot more we need to know. we have the responsibility at the judiciary committee to engage in robust oversight, and we have a responsibility to collect all the evidence that we can from all of the sources we can to conduct our oversight. but, you know, what you were saying before the break, chris, is a really important point. we have the responsibility to do oversight, to hold this administration accountable. at the same time, democrats ran on an agenda for the people of this country, a commitment to drive down health care costs, dri
not evidence that standing alone proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt but i think he actually may have said he didn t see eany direct evidence of collusion but he sure saw circumstantial evidence of collusion. paul butler on this issue of suborning perjury. the idea of incouraging others. the accusation. he says trump did not directly tell him to lie before congress about the mosque oo edeal but that trump communicated to him in a language a code that michael cohen, as a decade long employee understood. that line between he didn t directly say it but i inferred it from the way he speaks. legally where did that larnd? experienced criminals and it s starting to sound like donald trump might boo in that group, don t talk about their crimes explicitly.
they talked about it in code the way michael cohen suggested. he also suggested trump s lawyers change his testimony. if that s true, then those lawyers would not be protected by attorney client privilege. gutsy prosecutor could well hall trump s lawyers into the grand jury. there would be a legal fight but if they prevail they could be asked why did you change muccal michael cohen s truthful testimony? if they say the president, our client, directed us to, then the president is guilty of suborning perjury and not just a federal crime but an impeachable offense. we saw the president s public reaction to this. what is your sense of the folks around trump? the foebs inside the white
obstruction evidence. hmm. and i think that the trump white house and mr. trump himself doesn t seem to have read the definition of obstruction of justice or of suborning perjury. that s about the best i can tell you, but it s pretty explosive. on issue of potentially suborning perjury. yes. i just played that short segment where mr. cohen had the back and forth with jackie speier. she asked him if he was going to be able to provide essentially the first draft of that letter he wrote to the intelligence committee in 2017 that ultimately was the basis of his guilty plea that he had provided false information to congress. how should we understand the importance of that and what mr. cohen was offering? thank you for asking, because if congresswoman speier hadn t ask that question yesterday, i couldn t respond because of the ground rules of an intelligence committee briefing. yes, there will be an additional
was but you know the law. you know the law. i see why you say obstruction of justice and not suborning perjury, because if you don t have the talismanic phrase of, you need to go lie. michael cohen was very clear today, you won t get him for suborning perjury, you might get him for obstructing, but many think he can t on instruct as president. he can t the indicted, but his attorneys crafted the message they sent michael cohen back, so there s greater complicit complicity than others. what needs to be gone back over after today? we were given documents, not just president trump s personal check and the trump foundation check, but also financials that michael cohen delivered, so we think that mr. neal of the ways and means committee will have to look at that. if those are inconsistent with