Cohen case

Democrats seek Justice Department briefing on Cohen

By KYLE CHENEY

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee pleaded with Republicans on Friday to establish a line of communication with the Justice Department regarding President Donald Trump’s potential legal exposure to his former personal lawyer’s campaign finance crimes.

In a letter to committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the committee’s Democrats wrote that they would like Goodlatte and the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, to receive a meeting akin to those they’ve gotten from Justice Department and FBI officials about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“As a result of Michael Cohen’s guilty plea in the Southern District of New York, President Trump has for the first time been directly and publicly implicated in a criminal conspiracy under oath and in federal court,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, adding, “[W]e would ask that you join us in reaching out to leaders at the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York so that we may understand the nature and process by which this investigation is proceeding.”

The Democrats are also demanding that the Judiciary Committee immediately reconvene to hold hearings on presidential pardon authority and work to officially put Congress on record against any pardons the president might issue for one of his associates implicated in various criminal investigations. They also reissued calls to pass legislation insulating Mueller’s probe from unilateral interference by the president, as well as additional hearings on Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department and the FBI.

The House has been out for the month on its annual August recess, but committee staff have been conducting hearings as part of the GOP’s investigation into allegations of anti-Trump bias by top FBI and Justice Department officials, allegations that the president has seized on to suggest he’s being targeted by a partisan “witch hunt.” Democrats, though, contend that the accusations are part of a broader effort to undermine Mueller’s ongoing investigation and protect the president as he faces increasing legal jeopardy.

On Friday, the panel interviewed Jonathan Moffa, a longtime high-ranking FBI official, and it’s expected to interview Justice Department official Bruce Ohr next week.

Republicans are unlikely to acquiesce to any of the Democrats’ demands. But with the midterm elections just 10 weeks away, their demands suggest a potential course of action should they retake the House. Democrats on the committee have been cautious about appearing overly eager to seek the president’s impeachment — a process that begins in the Judiciary Committee — but Cohen’s allegation that Trump directed him to break campaign finance laws has raised questions about Trump’s legal exposure.

Nadler and other House Democrats had previously sought details about the issue that Cohen has since pleaded guilty to paying hush money to women who alleged they had affairs with Trump in order to shield Trump from their stories during the election. In March, they wrote a letter to Cohen and American Media Inc. Chairman David Pecker — who runs the National Enquirer — asking about those payments.

Cohen, allegedly, worked at times with Pecker to steer stories to the National Enquirer, which would deploy a “catch-and-kill” strategy of obtaining exclusive rights to explosive stories only to sit on them and contractually obligate the source to remain silent.

In response to the Democrats’ March letter, American Media Inc.’s attorney, Cameron Stracher, said the company would refuse to participate in the inquiry.

“AMI states unequivocally that any suggestion it would seek to ‘extort’ the President of the United states through the exercise of its editorial discretion is outrageous, offensive and wholly without merit,” Stracher wrote.

After extolling the “free press rights of journalists against government criticism,” he added, “we hope you will honor AMI’s choice to decline, respectfully, to participate in a governmental inquiry into its editorial decisions.”