WTF Community

Day 482

Updated 5/16/2018 2:33 PM PDT

1/ Trump "fully reimbursed" Michael Cohen between $100,001 and $250,000 in 2017 for an unspecified payment to a third-party in 2016, according to Trump's financial disclosure report. The disclosure corroborates Rudy Giuliani's claim that Trump personally reimbursed Cohen between $460,000 or $470,000 for "incidental expenses" that he had incurred on Trump's behalf. Trump reported assets of at least $1.4 billion and income of at least $593.3 million for the 2016 calendar year and the early months of 2017. Trump owes at least $310 million to various financial institutions, including $130 million to Deutsche Bank. (CNBC / New York Times)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

So the influence peddling from Michael Cohen just keeps getting larger and larger. Qatar is being solicited bigly like for $1 million.

Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney, solicited a payment of at least $1 million from the government of Qatar in late 2016, in exchange for access to and advice about the then-incoming administration, according to several people with knowledge of the episode.

The offer, which Qatar declined, came on the margins of a Dec. 12 meeting that year at Trump Tower between the Persian Gulf state’s foreign minister and Michael Flynn, who became Trump’s first national security adviser. Stephen K. Bannon, who became chief White House strategist, also attended, the people said.


More on Michael Cohen related documents…and how some Treasury files (on Trump) went missing.

Ronan Farrow is on a tear. (He’s being interviewed on Maddow tonight)

“But, according to the official who leaked the report, these SARs were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN.”

Whatever the explanation for the missing reports, the appearance that some, but not all, had been removed or restricted troubled the official who released the report last week. “Why just those two missing?” the official, who feared that the contents of those two reports might be permanently withheld, said. “That’s what alarms me the most.”


Okay so where are we if he can’t be indicted? Or since it’s just a guideline, might Mueller do it anyway? I’m not really sure what the law actually says on this, it sounds like it could actually be taken to court and allowed anyway?


That was an amazing thread, thanks for putting that together! :clap: He didn’t thread properly on Twitter but here’s a link to the start of his comments for anyone who’s following along at home. :point_down:


What a cluter#@k. Would Trump pardon himsself? Would his supporters care? Is this like Trump standing in the middle of Times Square having shot someone?

That’s the question on everyone’s mind. There’s no precedent for indicting a sitting president so I don’t think there’s a clear answer. We won’t know until it happens. My understanding is that the Mueller Team will write investigative reports that will be handed over to the Justice Department and the Justice Department will decide how to proceed.

The New York Times did run this article last year, citing that Kenneth Starr, at one point, did write a draft indictment for then President Bill Clinton. Personally I hope they can indict a sitting president, no one should be above the law. Hope that helps. :woman_shrugging:t2:


I agree.

And Ken Starr agrees from your NYT article

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,

I had been hearing that this question posed about indictments as being unsettled law…

It is further described here via Neal Katyal @neal_katyal - Lawyer who has had many supreme court cases and former Principal Deputy Solicitor General under Obama - wiki Neal Katyal - Wikipedia)

He’s stating (and sorry if this falls out of the only credentialed journalists are preferred here, but I would rely on his opinion, given his background.)


  1. Don’t forget the context: it’s pretty incredible that we are having a conversation involving law enforcement officials about whether Trump can be indicted. That’s astounding.

  2. And don’t forget the source: Giuliani. He’s not exactly a stickler for details.

  3. Context may really matter here. Why did Mueller say this? Is it because Trump’s lawyers said they were thinking of taking 5th Am priv against self incrimination, and Mueller said there can be no “incrimination”?

  4. If so, the DOJ policy against indictment of a sitting President may actually hurt Trump, and be an argument against his ability to stay silent. It might be a way to ferret out truth.

  5. The reporting is clearly incomplete. The Special Counsel regs, which I drafted, do NOT say DOJ policy must always be followed. They say that a Special Counsel can ask Acting AG (Rod Rosenstein) for permission to depart from DOJ policy and rules.

  6. If Mueller has the goods on Trump, as I’ve said before, I think he will ask Acting AG to indict. The regs put a thumb on the scale in favor of Mueller doing so. If Rosenstein says no, it triggers a report to Congress-both majority and minority parties.

  7. Otherwise, there is not necessarily such a report about these matters. The Special Counsel regulations dispensed with the “final report” requirement in the Independent Counsel Act. Reports are permissible, but not mandatory (but they are when Special Counsel overruled).

  8. So I do not see this story as good for President Trump, in any way. END