Michael Cohen’s assertion that Donald Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow, as well as Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump’s lawyer Abbe Lowell, reviewed and edited his false 2017 testimony to Congress concerning the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is one of the most explosive revelations from his testimony. Sekulow quickly responded with a statement that on its face appears to be a refutation of Cohen’s sworn testimony, but upon close examination appears to be a carefully crafted misleading non-denial.
Indeed much has been made of the fact that either Cohen or Sekulow must be lying because their statements differ. A close examination of the actual text reveals that there is not necessarily conflict between the two, although both are intended to leave a different impression.
It should be noted that at this point all statements made in this matter are subject to severe scrutiny and anyone found to be lying is at enormous personal risk. This goes for both Sekulow and Cohen. If Cohen is found to be lying he risks further incarceration and losses any chance of a reduction in his current sentence. Also, Sekulow has to be very careful at risk of his practice and potential criminal false statements should he be called upon to back up his assertions with a sworn statement to Congress.
Plus, this is a simple matter of fact. Cohen’s original statement exists and the revised statement also exists. Whatever changes were made by Sekulow and Lowell are discoverable, so no one has any lasting benefit from lying now. But, misleading… that’s the name of the game for Team Trump.
First lets look at Cohen’s opening statement:
Cohen Statement: Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.”
Simple enough. Now let’s look at the subsequent testimony:
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.): You said you lied to Congress about Trump’s negotiations to build his Moscow tower because he’d made it clear to you that he wanted you to lie.
So this is a pretty breathtaking claim, and I just want to get to the facts here. Which specific lawyers reviewed and edited your statement to Congress on the Moscow tower negotiations, and did they make any changes to your statement?
Michael Cohen: There were changes made, additions. Jay Sekulow for one.
Raskin: Were there questions about the timing?
Cohen: There were several changes that were made, including how we were going to handle that message. Which was — the message, of course, being the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive.
Raskin: That was one of the changes?
Cohen: Yes.
...
Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.): Who at the White House reviewed your testimony?
Cohen: I don’t know the answer to that. The document was originally created by myself along with my attorney at the time. … There was a joint defense agreement, so the document circulated around. I believe it was also reviewed by Abbe Lowell, who represents Ivanka [Trump] and Jared Kushner.
Sarbanes: Why did you provide the testimony to the White House?
Cohen: It was pursuant to the joint defense agreement that we were all operating under.
Sarbanes: What were the edits that came back substantively?
Cohen: I don’t know, sir. I’d have to take a look at the document.
In response to a later question, Cohen suggested he would be happy to provide his original statement.
…
Sarbanes: Did you have a reaction to why there might not have been, in a sense, a protest to what was going to be false testimony that was going to be provided to the Intelligence Committee?
Cohen: No, sir, because the goal was to stay on message. It’s just limit the relationship whatsoever with Russia. It was short. There’s no Russian contacts. There’s no Russian collusion. There’s no Russian deals. That’s the message. That’s the message that existed well before my need to come and testify.
...
I toed the party line, and I’m now suffering, and I’m going to continue to suffer for a while along with my family, so, yes.
...
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) : Who were the attorneys who edited the document?
“Jay Sekulow,” Cohen replied. “I believe Abbe Lowell, as well.”
…
link: www.washingtonpost.com/...
And let’s review Sekulow’s kinda sorta denial tweet:
Today’s testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the President edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false.
OK, how can these both be true? That’s the question we need to be asking. So, let’s look at Cohen’s 2017 testimony:
I assume we will discuss the rejected proposal to build a Trump property in Moscow that was terminated in January of 2016; which occurred before the Iowa caucus and months before the very first primary. This was solely a real estate deal and nothing more. I was doing my job. I would ask that the two-page statement about the Moscow proposal that I sent to the Committee in August be incorporated into and attached to this transcript.
It’s pretty simple. Cohen never explicitly says that Sekulow and Lowell “alter[ed] the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations” from his original version. He says is that they “reviewed and edited” the statement. Further he says that they made changes that pertained to how they were going to, “handle that message. Which was — the message, of course, being the length of time that the Trump Tower Moscow project stayed and remained alive.”
Note that he explicitly does not say that they changed any duration, rather he says that they contributed edits pertaining to how they were going to handle the messaging. If, for instance, Sekulow and Lowell had contributed the phrase, “which occurred before the Iowa caucus and months before the very first primary,” they would be making edits pertaining to messaging without changing any duration.
Of course, both Cohen and Sekulow have an interest in misleading the public, as both statements do. Cohen wants the public to believe that his 2017 testimony on duration was dictated by Trump’s lawyers. Trump’s lawyers want to generate the impression that they had nothing to do with Cohen’s testimony. It is really somewhat immaterial however, since the facts will eventually come out. I suspect what we will eventually learn is that:
1. Cohen shared his 2017 testimony with the members of the Joint Defense Agreement. It would be interesting to find out who else in the JDA reviewed it!
2. His original statement conformed to the Trump message that the Trump Moscow Tower deal ended in January 2016. Cohen was being a good soldier.
3. Sekulow and maybe Lowell edited the statement to emphasize that this was before the campaign really got going. This establishes they had foreknowledge of Cohen’s testimony. It is interesting that this means that Sekulow and Lowell either knew that this was a lie and were suborning lying to Congress (as was anyone else in the JDA who knew the truth about the deal and reviewed the testimony), or they believed Cohen that the deal ended in January. If they believed Cohen, did Sekulow ask Trump if it was true? Did Abbe Lowell ask Jared and Ivanka?
In any case, I suspect that once you carefully parse these statements they will all be technically true, although designed to mislead.