hearing. mike cohen provided with this new investigation. what are you learning about the changes that were revealed in these documents? we ll hear from him momentarily. his attorneys just left this closed door session. we expected to make comments. we ll see how much detail he provides. we learned from multiple sources that cohen provided this committee with documents showing that the statement made back in 2017 had that and it came after he alleged in a public setting last week that the president s attorneys had changed his statements that he made to congress that turned out to be false. he pleaded guilty to lying about the pursuit back there 2017. he said that at the time that the discussion ended in january 2016 and that he made them knowledge to june 2016 that
whether or not he actually broke the law by encouraging michael cohen to lie to congress or doing any other thing there could be this perception that is put out there by all of these questions being raised that the president is involved in an elaborate scheme of sdeception. i think it is gris p for that process as it goes forward in the next few years. the justice department guidelines are that you can t indict a sitting president but there s no such guidelines for the house of representatives to begin impeachment proceedings. you could begin for a sitting president. right. exactly. the flame of tname of the game congress doesn t unless they believe and they try to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. they are trying to determine
has this information congress would deget it. it is not sure what is going to happen from the public schooler report with regard to how it is written but also all of the materials that went into it. they believed it is not just their right but obligation. mueller would submit the report to the new attorney general and it s up to bill bar to decide what to make public from that report. the difference between the impeachment lane and the mueller lane is very important because the white house and the president s lawyers have been making an argument that the president didn t break the law technically. he didn t do anything wrong according to the sort of ink on the paper, the letter of the law. that may or may not be true. i think that s not going to be adjudicated in congress. what is whether the president is believable. i think there s a lot of evidence that he is not and that even if people don t flow
and whether or not they believe those changes were substantial and helped michael cohen tell a lie to congress which michael cohen has admitted to. he says he knew it was a lie when he made those statements. he was honoring his kplicommitm to donald trump. he keeps talking about lawyers. he keeps mentioning lawyers. could they be in trouble if they knew what they were editing and changing was false? yeah. if you know someone is lying and you helped them knowingly helped them tell that lie to congress then you could be in trouble. i think this is where it is going to fall, whether or not you believe michael cohen, whether or not there s any way to prove who made the clanhangeo the documents. i assume they have documentation to show who play have made the
perjury, it doesn t require that direct kplacommand, right? if he was aware he was preparing a falts statement and if he did anything to submit that to congress that is perjury and precisely the type of obstruction of justice. i have to assume that robert mueller, the special counsel on this team, they know everything that s going on right now behind closed doors. yes. there s a couple basic questions you have here that i wish i knew that they flow already. we are trying to judge what s going ochblt let me give you one. we have multiple checks here signed by the president of the united states. he didn t cult those checks. i assume it is the cfo cut those checks. if you re doing an investigation let me give you one question. why are there repeated checks for $35,000? he will tell you, those checks are or are not to pay off a porn star to keep her quiet. we can speculate about this.