On July 27, CNN published what looked like a major scoop. President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, claimed that candidate Trump knew “in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.” This was attributed to “sources with knowledge.”
Moreover, CNN’s sources said Cohen is willing to “make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller,” who is investigating Russia’s reported interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The New York Post later confirmed the CNN report with an anonymous source of its own. The Cohen scoop was a media sensation for as long as these things normally are in the Trump era.
But guess what: It may all be bunk.
Cohen testified before Congress last year that he had no idea “whether then-candidate Donald Trump had foreknowledge of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians,” according to Axios. Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis (yes, that Lanny Davis), also said this week that the stories from July were total nonsense.
“It was painful,” he told Axios’ Jonathan Swan after being asked why he and Cohen didn’t do more to dispute CNN’s reporting. “We were not the source, we could not confirm, and we could not correct. We had to be silent because of the sensitivity needed in the middle of a criminal investigation.”
It’s possible that Cohen was lying then and is telling the truth now, or vice versa. Just because you testify one way doesn’t mean you’re telling the truth. But now have a look at the New York Post’s follow-up report this week on its original Trump Tower meeting coverage.
But Thursday, Davis, speaking on the record, apologized for confirming something he did not know to be true.
“I regret that I wasn’t clear enough to The Post. I should have been more clear. I could not independently confirm the information in the CNN story,” he said.
“I’m sorry that I left that impression. I wasn’t at the meeting. The only person who could confirm that information is my client.”
In other words, Davis confirmed a story for the Post, despite having no idea whether it was true or not. He actively participated in a major narrative he claims now was “painful” to watch.
He didn’t follow-up with the Post until now, only after newsrooms are reporting the initial July reports may be inaccurate.
Boy, if you can’t trust a longtime Clinton ally, then who can you trust?
