Benjamin Weiser and William K. Rashbaum

Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed the decision, and an appeals court temporarily blocked the ruling. So for now, the president can keep his financial information secret.

But the case raises sweeping constitutional issues that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump argued that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations, a position that has not been tested in a court.

In a 75-page decision, Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court called that argument an “extraordinary claim” that was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.”

— Presidents are not immune from criminal inquiries, the judge says.

The legal showdown started in late August, when the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm for his personal and corporate tax returns dating to 2011.

Vance has been investigating whether any New York state laws were broken when Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Trump. The president denies the affair.

In their lawsuit seeking to block the subpoena, Trump’s lawyers argued that the investigation itself is unconstitutional. They asserted that presidents cannot be subject to the burden of investigations, especially from local prosecutors who may use the criminal process for political gain.

Marrero rejected that argument wholesale. “Neither the Constitution nor the history surrounding the founding support as broad an interpretation of presidential immunity as the one now espoused by the President,” the judge wrote.

— Presidents might not even be immune from criminal charges.

Federal prosecutors are barred from charging a sitting president with a crime because the Justice Department has decided that presidents have temporary immunity while they are in office. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, was following that direction when he said in May that presidents could not be charged.

That position is outlined in two Justice Department memos written during the Nixon and Clinton administrations, citing the burden that a barrage of investigations would put on the president. But Marrero called it into question. He said the memos rely on “suppositions, practicalities and public policy” as well as dire pictures of hypothetical scenarios — and not on an actual case.

Either way, those memos — themselves interpretations of the Constitution — do not bind the hands of a local prosecutor such as Vance. Still, the question of whether a president can face state criminal charges also has never been tested, the judge noted.

— The question could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump’s lawyers quickly appealed Marrero’s decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Depending on what happens there, the losing side ultimately could try to take the case up to the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice said Monday that it planned to weigh in on the case as well.

That does not mean the high court would agree to take the case. But if it does, it could set a sweeping new constitutional precedent about presidential immunity. Did the framers intend for impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to be the only vehicle for handling any wrongdoing by the president? Should prosecutors with possible political bias have the unfettered ability to disrupt a presidency? Is no American above the law?

— Even if the district attorney wins, the president’s tax returns would not be made public.

The president has fought multiple attempts to obtain copies of his tax returns, which he said during the 2016 campaign that he would make public but has since refused to disclose.

Trump’s lawyers have sued to block attempts by congressional Democrats to access his tax returns and financial records, and by New York lawmakers to release state tax returns to congressional committees. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.

But even if Vance prevails and obtains Trump’s tax returns, they would not automatically become public. The documents would be protected by the rules governing grand jury secrecy unless they became part of a criminal case.

— Time is running out for Vance.

Aside from the constitutional question, the practicalities of the investigation are at stake. Vance has accused the president of trying to delay the subpoena until the statute of limitations on any possible crimes run out. The president’s lawyers have denied this.

Vance’s office has been investigating whether the Trump Organization falsely accounted for the reimbursements to Cohen as a legal expense. It was unclear why the office has attempted to obtain Trump’s personal financial records as part of that inquiry.

This article originally appeared in

Ruling on Trump's Tax Returns: Five Takeaways

On Monday, a federal judge issued a ruling that effectively ordered President Donald Trump’s accountants to turn over eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns to the Manhattan district attorney.

The district attorney’s office used the pointed language in court papers, asking that a lawsuit filed by Trump last week be dismissed. Trump sued in federal court to block a subpoena issued by the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., to the president’s accounting firm that seeks his tax returns dating to 2011.

Citing constitutional grounds, lawyers for Trump argued in their lawsuit that a sitting president could not be criminally investigated and said that forcing him to comply with the subpoena would cause him “irreparable harm.”

In its response, the district attorney’s office noted that Trump did not go to court to stop two recent criminal investigations that focused on him or his family business, one by special counsel Robert Mueller, and the other by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

The only difference, Vance’s office argued, was that its criminal investigation involved securing the president’s tax returns.

The president “is, in fact, seeking to invent and enforce a new presidential ‘tax return privilege,’ on the theory that disclosing information in a tax return will necessarily reveal information that will somehow impede the functioning of a president,” Vance’s office wrote.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the investigation by the office of Vance, a Democrat, is politically motivated. Lawyers for Trump and his company declined to comment Monday.

Prosecutors in Vance’s office are examining the role that Trump and the family business, the Trump Organization, played in hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Both Trump and his company reimbursed Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer and fixer, for money that Cohen paid to buy the silence of Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who said she had an affair with Trump. The president has denied the affair. Although federal prosecutors have said that their inquiry is “effectively concluded,” Vance’s office is exploring whether any state laws were broken.

Cohen, who last year pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws, is serving a three-year sentence for his role in the scheme.

In an effort to rebut the claim by Trump that turning over his tax returns would cause him “irreparable harm,” the district attorney’s office said that “every president since Jimmy Carter has voluntarily released his tax returns before or upon taking office, which has to date never impeded a president’s ability to serve.”

Vance’s office also said Trump’s lawsuit belonged in state court, not before a federal judge.

Trump said during the 2016 campaign that he would make his tax returns public but has since refused to disclose them. His lawyers have gone to great lengths to keep his personal financial information under wraps. They have sued to block attempts by congressional Democrats and New York lawmakers to gain access to his tax returns and financial records. They also successfully challenged a California law requiring presidential primary candidates to release their tax returns.

Judge Victor Marrero is scheduled to hear arguments in the latest case in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.

Vance’s office issued the subpoena to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, on Aug. 29, seeking a wide range of business documents, including eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns. A spokeswoman for Mazars did not respond to a request for comment.

In their court papers, Trump’s lawyers asked Marrero to declare the subpoena invalid until the president leaves office and to prevent Mazars from disclosing the information.

Justice Department memos written during the Nixon and Clinton administrations bar federal prosecutors from charging a sitting president with a crime. Trump’s lawyers went further in their lawsuit, arguing that a sitting president cannot be “investigated, indicted or otherwise subjected to criminal process.”

“Criminal investigations impose severe burdens on the president and distract him from his constitutional duties,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

They said the subpoena was “a bad-faith effort to harass the president by obtaining and exposing his confidential financial information, not a legitimate attempt to enforce New York law.”

The district attorney’s office said Trump’s claim that the office intended to expose the president’s personal financial information was “purely speculative — and, frankly, outrageous.”

The prosecutors also sought to rebut Trump’s argument that if Marrero did not intervene and the president’s accounting firm was forced to turn over his returns, even if a court later reversed that decision, “there will be no way to unring the bell.”

In such a case, the prosecutors argued, “that bell could absolutely be ‘unrung,’ so to speak,” saying that they would have a legal and ethical obligation to keep Trump’s materials confidential, by not using them in any investigation and by returning or destroying them.

Trump Is Accused of Inventing Tax Return 'Privilege' to Block Subpoena

The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday accused President Donald Trump and his lawyers of trying to invent a “new presidential ‘tax return’ privilege” by arguing that Trump should not have to comply with a subpoena seeking eight years of his personal and corporate returns.

Federal prosecutors and FBI agents who built the case against Epstein will turn their attention to people whom his accusers have said participated in a scheme that dates back more than a decade and involved the sexual exploitation of dozens of underage girls.

That could include a circle of close associates whom accusers said helped recruit, train and coerce them into catering to Epstein, a wealthy financier.

Soon after Epstein was found dead of an apparent suicide in a federal jail Saturday, Geoffrey S. Berman, the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said his office’s investigation would continue, and pointedly mentioned that the government’s indictment against Epstein included a conspiracy charge.

Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan who now teaches criminal law at Columbia University, said that meant the government already had identified additional targets despite the death of Epstein.

“Its use of conspiracy charges suggests it already has some living people in its sights,” Richman said.

Manhattan federal prosecutors have not charged or named anyone as a co-conspirator. But in 2007, a nonprosecution agreement between Epstein and federal officials in Florida said that prosecutors would not charge four women it identified as “potential co-conspirators.”

Berman’s office has maintained that it is not bound by the Florida agreement.

The stunning news of Epstein’s death prompted a swirl of new questions about its circumstances, including why jail officials removed Epstein, 66, from a suicide watch program that included daily psychiatric evaluations just days after he was found injured in his cell in what appeared to have been an earlier suicide attempt.

The U.S. attorney general, William Barr, whose Justice Department oversees the federal Bureau of Prisons, ordered the FBI and department’s inspector general to investigate the circumstances around Epstein’s death.

But those circumstances also prompted outrage from his many accusers, who saw him as again eluding justice, years after escaping federal prosecution on similar charges of sexually abusing girls. He was allowed to plead guilty in 2008 to state prostitution charges in Florida, and served a 13-month sentence, spending most of his days on work-release.

“I never wanted him to die. I just wanted him to be held accountable for his actions,” said Michelle S. Licata, 31, who was among the dozens of girls who Palm Beach police and the FBI found were recruited to give Epstein erotic massages, which included his touching her breasts while he masturbated.

Still, many of his accusers can pursue civil claims against his vast estate, which is said to be worth more than $500 million, lawyers for some of his accusers have said.

Berman, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, appeared to have the frustration of Epstein’s accusers in mind when he spoke Saturday.

“To those brave young women who have already come forward and to the many others who have yet to do so,” Berman said in a statement, “let me reiterate that we remain committed to standing for you, and our investigation of the conduct charged in the indictment — which included a conspiracy count — remains ongoing.”

It is unclear whether others will be charged; but even before Epstein’s death, it was apparent that the investigation was expanding into his finances, with FBI agents and prosecutors gathering evidence from banks and others.

In addition to possible sex-trafficking conspiracy charges against others, prosecutors could also seek charges of aiding and abetting Epstein or money laundering, which could lead to trials and criminal forfeiture actions. The government could try to seize assets that could be sold and used to compensate his accusers.

Sharon Cohen Levin, a former federal prosecutor who led the Southern District’s money laundering and asset forfeiture unit, said another likely option would be for prosecutors to file a lawsuit known as a civil forfeiture action against Epstein’s properties, such as his $56 million mansion in Manhattan, claiming they were used to facilitate crimes.

The procedure has been used to recover artwork stolen by the Nazis in World II and to return it to victims’ families, she noted.

If prosecutors were to file such an action against Epstein’s property, Levin said, they would likely offer a detailed narrative of how the mansion, for example, was used to further his alleged trafficking of underage victims.

“The victims will lose the opportunity to face him in court, see him eye to eye and tell their story,” Levin said, “but they can still work with the government to get their story out.”

Lawyers for Epstein’s accusers said the news of his death was traumatic, but did not leave them without options.

David Boies, a New York lawyer who represents several of Epstein’s accusers, said his clients were surprised by the apparent suicide and unhappy that they would never be able to confront Epstein.

“On the other hand, they have been through a lot, and they are not going to give up, and to the extent that they can hold his estate liable and to the extent that they can hold the other people who worked with him responsible, they’re committed to trying to do that,” Boies said.

Lisa Bloom, a California-based lawyer, said she intended to file a lawsuit in the coming days on behalf of two accusers, naming Epstein’s estate as the defendant.

“The victims are entitled for compensation for the anguish he put them through over so many years,” Bloom said. She said her clients were older than 18 when Epstein victimized them in the early 2000s in New York and that they have been in touch with federal investigators.

Roberta Kaplan, who represents a woman who was a minor at the time she said she was abused by Epstein and was one of the victims cited in the federal indictment, said Epstein’s death was for her client “not only emotionally devastating but a real emotional roller coaster.”

But Kaplan was confident her client could still achieve justice through the courts. “It may not be justice through the criminal system,” Kaplan said, “but there should be some measure of justice as a result of civil lawsuits and civil claims.”

A Florida lawyer, Jack Scarola, said his clients were disappointed. But he suggested that the troubling and strange turn to the case could perhaps bring an unforeseen benefit. “They are hopeful,” he said, “that other victims may be relieved of some of the fear that has prevented them from coming forward while Epstein was still alive.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-investigation.html" id="a03883fa-acfa-3134-ac24-a3926d53b5c9">The New York Times</a>.

Why the Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Is Not Over

NEW YORK — Jeffrey Epstein is dead. But the criminal investigation that led to the sex-trafficking charges against him is not.

The documents show that Cohen’s business dealings had already been the subject of an extensive investigation by the time FBI agents conducted a highly public raid on his home and office nine months later, in April of last year.

They also show how little the public knew about the Russian investigation in real time as prosecutors zeroed in on Cohen, revealing some of the investigative steps they took to obtain evidence through search warrants in Washington and New York.

Prosecutors, for instance, unearthed bank payments from a New York investment firm tied to Viktor Vekselberg, a billionaire Russian businessman with ties to the Kremlin who met with Cohen in his Trump Tower office just days before the inauguration, the documents show.

The public did not learn of those payments, or that Mueller’s prosecutors later interviewed Vekselberg, until almost a year later.

The records, including search warrants and materials related to the April raid, were among hundreds of pages of documents released in response to a request by The New York Times and other news organizations.

Lanny J. Davis, a lawyer for Cohen, said in a statement Monday night that the release furthered Cohen’s “interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress.”

One newly released search warrant said that the FBI and Manhattan federal prosecutors were investigating Cohen for a range of crimes, including defrauding several banks dating back to 2016 and a scheme “to make an illegal campaign contribution in October 2016 to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.” The warrant also indicated they were investigating him for wire fraud and conspiracy.

Late last year, Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws, financial crimes and lying to Congress in two separate prosecutions, one filed by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York and the other by Mueller’s office.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/nyregion/michael-cohen-search-warrant.html" id="3a3e6982-fafa-3e19-ad4e-4b58ff890690">The New York Times</a>.

Federal authorities investigating Russian interference in the presidential election obtained search warrants for emails of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, beginning in July 2017, according to documents released Tuesday that provide a glimpse into the earliest stages of the inquiry into the president.

Special Counsel Sought Michael Cohen's Emails in 2017, Documents Show

The documents give a rough timeline of how the Cohen investigation unfolded. Starting in July 2017, two months after Mueller’s appointment, and stretching through November, his office obtained three search warrants for Cohen’s emails and another for his iCloud account from a federal judge in Washington.

By February 2018, Mueller’s office had referred aspects of its investigation to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Two months later, the raid on Cohen’s office and home in New York took place.

Cohen, 52, apologized at his sentencing in December, blaming himself for “my own weakness and a blind loyalty” to Trump that he said had led him “to choose a path of darkness over light.”

Judge William H. Pauley III sentenced Cohen to three years in prison. He is scheduled to begin serving his sentence May 6 after Pauley granted him a two-month delay in his surrender date because of pending shoulder surgery and his need to prepare for testimony before three congressional committees.

Cohen testified Feb. 27 in a daylong public hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee about what he described as Trump’s lies about his business interests in Russia and his role in the payment of hush money to an adult film actress who claimed to have had an affair with Trump. Cohen called the president a racist, a con man and a cheat.

The search materials were made public at the order of Pauley. Last fall, when The Times and other news organizations asked the judge to unseal the materials, the government opposed such action.

Prosecutors cited the “need to protect an ongoing law enforcement investigation” and the privacy of “numerous uncharged third parties.”

Pauley ultimately ordered the government to provide him with a copy of the sealed materials and proposed redactions. On Monday, after saying he had reviewed and approved the redactions, he ordered the government to file the redacted copy on the public court docket.

The judge also said he would revisit the documents’ secrecy in the near future, directing prosecutors to provide him with a confidential update by May 15.

The emails, dating back to January 2016, were sought by the office of Robert Mueller, the special counsel conducting the Russia investigation, the documents show. The records show that Cohen’s business dealings had already been the subject of an extensive investigation by the time FBI agents conducted a highly public raid on his home and office last April.

Lanny J. Davis, a lawyer for Michael Cohen, said in a statement Monday night that the release furthered Cohen’s “interest in continuing to cooperate and providing information and the truth about Donald Trump and the Trump organization to law enforcement and Congress.”

The materials that were unsealed Tuesday came from FBI searches in April on Cohen’s office, apartment, hotel room and a safe deposit box.

The April 8, 2018, search warrant said that the FBI and Manhattan federal prosecutors were investigating Cohen for a range of crimes, including defrauding several banks dating back to 2016 and a scheme “to make an illegal campaign contribution in October 2016 to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.” The warrant also indicated they were investigating him for wire fraud and conspiracy.

Federal authorities began investigating the email accounts of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, as early as July 2017, only months after Trump took office, according to documents unsealed Tuesday.

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Documents Show

Pauley, in a 30-page opinion Feb. 7, made clear why he thought some materials could be released while others had to remain sealed for now.

“At this stage,” the judge wrote, “wholesale disclosure of the materials would reveal the scope and direction of the government’s ongoing investigation,” the subjects of the inquiry and the potential conduct under scrutiny and other sensitive issues.

But Pauley approved the release of information related to Cohen’s charges for tax evasion and false statements to financial institutions, as well as conduct by Cohen that did not result in criminal charges.

Pauley ultimately ordered the government to provide him with a copy of the sealed materials and proposed redactions. On Monday, after saying he had reviewed and approved the relations, he ordered the government to file the redacted copy on the public court docket.

The emails, dating to January 2016, were sought by the office of Robert Mueller, the special counsel conducting the Russia investigation, the documents show.

Hundreds of pages of documents about the inquiry into Cohen were released in response to a request by The New York Times and other news organizations.

The materials that were unsealed Tuesday came from FBI searches in April on Cohen’s office, apartment, hotel room and a safe deposit box. Among the documents seized in the search were papers recovered from a shredder and electronic files contained on a series of cellphone, iPads and computers.

The emails, dating back to January 2016, were sought by the office of Robert Mueller, the special counsel conducting the Russia investigation, the documents show.

Hundreds of pages of documents about the inquiry into Cohen were released in response to a request by The New York Times and other media organizations.

The materials that were unsealed Tuesday came from FBI searches last April on Cohen’s office, apartment, hotel room and a safe deposit box. Among the documents seized in the search were papers recovered from a shredder and electronic files contained on a series of cellphone, iPads and computers.

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Records Show

Cohen gave an emotional apology to the court for his involvement in a hush-money scandal that could threaten the Trump presidency — a scheme to buy the silence of two women who said they had affairs with Trump to protect his chances before the 2016 election. Cohen said his blind loyalty to Trump led him to ignore “my own inner voice and my moral compass.”

The sentencing in federal court in Manhattan capped a startling fall for Cohen, 52, who had once hoped to work by Trump’s side in the White House but ended up a central figure in the inquiry into payments to an adult-film star and a former Playboy model before the 2016 election.

Judge William H. Pauley III called Cohen’s crimes a “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct” and added, “Each of the crimes involved deception and each appears to have been motivated by personal greed and ambition.”

He added that Cohen’s particular crimes — breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion and lying to Congress — “implicate a far more insidious harm to our democratic institutions.”

“As a lawyer, Mr. Cohen should have known better,” the judge said.

Cohen had pleaded guilty in two separate cases, one brought by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, the other by the office of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Before he was sentenced, a solemn Cohen, standing at a lectern, sounded emotional, but resolved, as he told the judge he had been tormented by the anguish and embarrassment he had caused his family.

“I blame myself for the conduct which has brought me here today,” he said, “and it was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man” — a reference to Trump — “that led me to choose a path of darkness over light.”

Cohen then apologized to the public: “You deserve to know the truth and lying to you was unjust.”

Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, called Cohen’s assertion he had acted out of loyalty to Trump “a complete lie.”

“I feel sorry for him,” Giuliani added. “He’s a pathetic serial liar.”

Federal agents raided Cohen’s office and home in April, and he later turned on Trump, making the remarkable admission in court that Trump had directed him to arrange the payments.

Trump at first denied knowing anything about the payments, but then acknowledged that he had known about them. This week, he insisted that the payments were “a simple private transaction” — not election-related spending subject to campaign-finance laws.

He also maintained that even if the hush-money payments were campaign transactions in violation of election law, that should be considered only a civil offense, not a criminal one.

Since Cohen came under investigation, Trump has mocked him as a “weak person” who was giving information to prosecutors in an effort to obtain leniency when he is sentenced.

In fact, Cohen did not sign a formal cooperation agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan or with Mueller. In addition to the campaign-finance violations, Cohen pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

He took a calculated gamble in pleading guilty to this litany of federal crimes without first entering into a cooperation agreement with the government. He offered to help prosecutors, but only on his terms, and there were some subjects he declined to discuss.

His lawyers argued he should not serve time in prison. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan said he deserved around four years.

Pauley had the final say. The judge said Cohen’s assistance to the special counsel’s office, though useful, did not “wipe the slate clean,” and a “significant term” of prison was justified.

In the end, the judge gave Cohen three years for the crimes he committed in New York and two months for lying to Congress, to be served at the same time. He was also asked to pay nearly $2 million in fines, forfeitures and restitution. The judge ordered Cohen to begin serving his sentence March 6.

Cohen’s sentencing was unusual because it involved guilty pleas he had made in cases brought by the two separate prosecutors.

In the case brought by Mueller’s office, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the duration of negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, as well as about the extent of the involvement of Trump.

Cohen revealed that Trump was more involved in discussions over the potential deal during the election campaign than previously known.

Cohen’s three-year sentence is the first substantial prison term in a case stemming from Mueller’s inquiry. The special counsel had referred the case to the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, where it was overseen by Robert S. Khuzami, the No. 2 official there, who attended the hearing Wednesday.

The investigation of Cohen by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan burst into public view in April when the FBI raided his office, apartment and hotel room. Agents hauled off eight boxes of documents, about 30 cellphones, iPads and computers, even the contents of a shredder.

Four months later, on Aug. 21, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, tax evasion and making false statements to a financial institution.

Cohen admitted in court that he had arranged the payments “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016.

The payments included $130,000 to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, which the government considers an illegal donation to Trump’s campaign since it was intended to improve Trump’s election chances. (The legal limit for individual contributions is $2,700 in a general election.)

Cohen also admitted he had arranged for an illegal corporate donation to be made to Trump when he orchestrated a $150,000 payment by American Media Inc. to a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal, in late summer 2016.

Prosecutors in Manhattan wrote last Friday to Pauley that Cohen, in arranging the payments, “acted in coordination with and at the direction” of Trump, whom they referred to as Individual 1.

On Nov. 29, charged by Mueller’s office with lying to Congress, Cohen pleaded guilty again.

The two prosecuting offices each wrote to Pauley, offering sharply contrasting portrayals of Cohen. The Southern District depicted him as deceitful and greedy and unwilling to fully cooperate with its investigation.

Mueller, on the other hand, said Cohen had “gone to significant lengths to assist” the Russia investigation and recommended that he receive some credit for his help.

Cohen’s lawyer, Guy Petrillo, made an impassioned plea for leniency, citing his client’s courage in cooperating with the Russia inquiry, which he said was “of the utmost national significance,” comparing it to Watergate.

He added: “He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our country,” without knowing what the result would be, how the politics would play out, or whether “the special counsel would even survive.”

Jeannie Rhee, a prosecutor from Mueller’s office, with which Cohen met seven times, told the judge that Cohen had accepted responsibility for the lies he told Congress and had provided “credible and reliable information about core Russia-related issues.”

But a Manhattan prosecutor, Nicholas Roos, said of Cohen’s cooperation that as much as he “claims he’s done for the republic, the same can be true in the way in which he’s undermined it.”

In the end, Pauley seemed to side with the defense. He said that “cooperation, even when it is not the product of a formal agreement, should be encouraged” when it advances a criminal investigation. “Our system of justice would be less robust without the use of cooperating witnesses to assist law enforcement,” the judge said.

Shortly before Cohen and his family and friends walked out of the courtroom, roughly 20 minutes after the sentencing had ended, he briefly addressed a cluster of reporters who were waiting in an anteroom between the courtroom and the hallway.

“This is my last time talking to you guys,” he said abruptly, then said nothing more.

He and his lawyers waited briefly in the courthouse lobby while his wife, son and daughter left the building, passed through a huge gantlet of television crews and photographers outside, and climbed into a waiting black Infiniti QX60.

Cohen then walked out of the building with a hangdog expression and made a silent beeline to the car.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/nyregion/michael-cohen-sentence-trump.html" id="98498b99-8171-31fd-a98f-211e0c24dabf">The New York Times</a>.

Cohen Gets 3 Years in Prison for 'Smorgasbord of Fraudulent Conduct'

Michael D. Cohen, a former lawyer for President Donald Trump, was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday after denouncing Trump and explaining that “I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”

Cohen gave an emotional apology to the court for his involvement in a hush-money scandal to buy the silence of two women who said they had had affairs with Trump, payments that Cohen has said were meant to influence the 2016 election. He said his blind loyalty to Trump led him to ignore “my own inner voice and my moral compass.”

The sentencing in federal court in Manhattan capped a startling fall for Cohen, 52, who had once hoped to work by Trump’s side in the White House but ended up a central figure in the inquiry into payments to a porn star and a former Playboy model before the 2016 election.

Judge William H. Pauley III said Cohen called Cohen’s crimes a “veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct” and added, “Each of the crimes involved deception and each appears to have been motivated by personal greed and ambition.”

Before he was sentenced, a solemn Cohen, standing at a lectern, sounded emotional but resolved as he told the judge he had been tormented by the anguish and embarrassment he had caused his family.

Cohen then apologized to the public: “You deserve to know the truth, and lying to you was unjust.”

He also maintained that even if the hush-money payments were campaign transactions in violation of election regulations, that should be considered only a civil offense, not a criminal one.

In fact, Cohen did not sign a formal cooperation agreement with the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan or Mueller. In addition to the campaign-finance violations, Cohen pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

The two prosecuting offices each wrote to Pauley, offering sharply contrasting portrayals of Cohen.

The Southern District depicted him as deceitful and greedy and unwilling to fully cooperate with its investigation. It said it declined to sign Cohen as a formal cooperator because he refused to discuss fully any crimes in his past or crimes by others that he was aware of — its policy for witnesses who seek to cooperate.

The Southern District wrote to the judge that Cohen had a “rose-colored view of the seriousness” of his crimes, which they said were “marked by a pattern of deception that permeated his professional life.”

Lawyers for Cohen, who once claimed he would “take a bullet” for Trump, cited his cooperation with Mueller and his attempts to assist the Southern District prosecutors in asking that he be spared prison.

Cohen’s lawyers, Guy Petrillo and Amy Lester, argued in a memorandum to the judge that Cohen had taken responsibility for his crimes and had cooperated with Mueller’s office, meeting seven times with those prosecutors to offer information. They also noted that Cohen had met twice with prosecutors in Manhattan.

Trump last week weighed in with his own sentencing recommendation, tweeting angrily, “He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence.”

Cohen’s daughter quietly cried through much of the hourlong hearing, and after the sentence had been handed down and the proceeding had ended, she continued sobbing in the courtroom as the gallery slowly emptied out, surrounded by roughly a dozen family members and friends who sought to comfort her.

He and his lawyers waited briefly in the courthouse lobby while his wife, son and daughter, who was walking with a cane and moving slowly, left the building, passed through a huge gantlet of television crews and photographers outside, and climbed into a waiting black Infiniti QX60.

Cohen then left the building with a hangdog expression and made a silent beeline to the car.

Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years After Implicating Trump in Hush-Money Scandal

Cohen gave an emotional apology to the court for his involvement in a hush-money scandal to buy the silence of two women who said they had had affairs with Trump. Cohen said his blind loyalty to Trump led him to ignore “my own inner voice and my moral compass.”

Judge William H. Pauley III said Cohen had committed a “veritable smorgasbord” of crimes involving deception and “motivated by personal greed and ambition,” each warranting “serious punishment.”

He added that Cohen’s particular crimes — breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion and lying to Congress — “implicated a far more insidious harm to our democratic institutions.”

“I blame myself for the conduct which has brought me here today,” he said, “and it was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man” – a reference to Trump – “that led me to choose a path of darkness over light.”

Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s lawyers, called Cohen’s assertion he had acted out of blind loyalty to Trump “a complete lie.”

Pauley had the final say. The judge said Cohen’s assistance to the special counsel’s office, though useful, had not “wiped the slate clean,” and a “significant term” of prison was justified.

In the end, the judge gave Cohen three years for the crimes he committed in New York and two months for lying to Congress, to be served at the same time. He was also asked to pay nearly $2 million in fines, forfeitures and restitution.

Cohen then left the building with a hangdog expression and made a silent beeline to a the car. He will surrender to begin his sentence March 6.

NEW YORK — Michael D. Cohen, a former lawyer for President Donald Trump, was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday after denouncing Trump and explaining that “I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds.”

Judge William H. Pauley III said Cohen had committed a “veritable smorgasbord” of crimes involving deception and “motivated by personal greed and ambition,” each of which “standing alone warrant serious punishment.”

But he added that Cohen’s crimes — breaking campaign finance laws, tax evasion and lying to Congress — “implicated a far more insidious harm to our democratic institutions.”

Cohen said the president had been correct to call him “weak” recently, “but for a much different reason than he was implying.”

“It was because time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than to listen to my own inner voice and my moral compass,” Cohen said.

In fact, Cohen did not formally cooperate with prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. In addition to the campaign-finance violations, Cohen pleaded guilty to charges of tax evasion, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

Pauley had the final say. The judge said Cohen’s assistance to the special counsel’s office, though useful, had not “wiped the slate clean,” and a “significant term” of prison was justified. In the end, the judge gave Cohen three years for the crimes he committed in New York and two months for lying to Congress, to be served at the same time. He was also asked to pay nearly $2 million in fines, forfeitures and restitution.

Cohen’s sentencing was unusual because it involved guilty pleas he made in two separate cases, one filed by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and a later one by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

NEW YORK — Michael D. Cohen, the former lawyer for President Donald Trump, was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday morning in part for his role in a scandal that could threaten Trump’s presidency by implicating him in a scheme to buy the silence of two women who said they had affairs with him.

Judge William H. Pauley III said Cohen had committed a “smorgasbord” of crimes involving “deception” and motivated by “personal greed and ambition.”

In fact, Cohen did not formally cooperate with prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. In addition to the campaign-finance violations, the sentence covered Cohen’s guilty pleas to charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and making false statements to Congress.

Pauley had the final say. The judge said Cohen’s assistance to the special counsel’s office, though useful, had not “wiped the slate clean,” and a “significant term” of prison was justified. In the end, the judge gave Cohen three years for the crimes he committed in New York and two months for lying to Congress, to be served at the same time. He was also fined $100,000 and ordered to pay restitution of $1.4 million.

<h1>NEW YORK — A Chicago bank chairman has been indicted in Manhattan on a charge that he issued millions of dollars in high-risk loans to President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, in an effort to obtain a senior position in the administration, federal authorities said Thursday.</h1>

Benjamin Weiser and William K. Rashbaum

Articles written by the author

Ruling on Trump's Tax Returns: Five Takeaways

Trump Is Accused of Inventing Tax Return 'Privilege' to Block Subpoena

Why the Jeffrey Epstein Investigation Is Not Over

Special Counsel Sought Michael Cohen's Emails in 2017, Documents Show

Special Counsel Sought Michael Cohen's Emails in 2017, Documents Show

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Documents Show

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Documents Show

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Documents Show

Cohen's Emails Were Sought by Special Counsel in July 2017, Records Show

Cohen Gets 3 Years in Prison for 'Smorgasbord of Fraudulent Conduct'

Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years After Implicating Trump in Hush-Money Scandal

Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years After Implicating Trump in Hush-Money Scandal

Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years After Implicating Trump in Hush-Money Scandal

Michael Cohen Sentenced to 3 Years After Implicating Trump in Hush-Money Scandal

Banker accused of arranging $16 million in loans to Manafort to gain high-level Trump post

Scrutiny started in 2017 for Trump's former fixer