Kendall Coffey Quotes


Kendall Coffey Chimes in on Michael Cohen Potentially Flipping on Trump

The question of much speculation has been whether Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, would flip on his former boss. It’s been three months since the FBI raided his offices and residences, but it’s still an unanswered question. Cohen finally sat down for his first interview since the federal raid and he offered some compelling clues. Cohen stated, “My wife, my daughter, and my son have my first loyalty and always will. I put family and country first.” This is a very big change for Cohen since he previously stated that he would take a bullet for Trump. Kendall Coffey chimed in on the situation saying, “It’s a barely coded message that he is ready to cooperate. When people that are targets of investigations are talking about doing what’s best for their family, it’s inevitably a code for cooperating and getting the best deal they can from prosecutors.” Cohen recently hired a new attorney, Guy Petrillo, who is a highly-regarded former prosecutor who once led the criminal division of the same U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan that is conducting the criminal investigation of Cohen. There has been a lot of speculation that this decision could be a sign that Cohen could be on the verge of seeking a deal. After Petrillo officially assumes his role as lead counsel, Cohen plans to exit a joint defense agreement he shared with the president and others potentially implicated in federal probes. Coffey says, “Being part of a joint defense agreement generally means your cooperation is with fellow targets and you’re sharing confidential information. Exiting a joint defense agreement generally means you are leaving them behind and your cooperation is now focused on the United States government. The message to the president is: ‘I’m not taking any more...

Read More

President Trump Prioritizing Selecting Federal Judges Who May Challenge the Administrative State

White House Counsel Don McCahn recently announced that President Trump will prioritize selecting federal judges who may challenge the federal administrative bureaucracy sometimes referred to as the “Administrative State.” The spiraling growth of federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Trade Commission may seem unstoppable and yet their growing power raises important legal questions. Some view the question concerning federal agencies such as the EPA as an issue between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. But this should not be a partisan political debate. In legal terms, a giant  question has been whether courts or agencies should decide a certain category of legal issues whenever federal statutes do not have clear language. Inevitably, many federal laws have provisions that are not clear or that do not cover all possibilities. Based on the Chevron  decision by the Supreme Court, federal courts are not to decide certain legal issues and instead should allow the agencies headed by the politically appointed to make legal interpretations that may otherwise be made by judges. As a result , this Chevron issue is essentially a question of who decided -of judicial decision-making by independent judges as opposed to agency decision by political appointees concerning the meaning of the law. Supporters of agency legal decision-making may point to the expertise of, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency on environmental issues. Others contend, however, that issues of law belong entirely to the independent federal judiciary. The White House apparently favors having certain legal questions presently being decided by federal agencies instead to be decided by federal judges. Emphasizing respect for the role of federal judges over federal agencies is not a partisan political issue. Instead, it reaches deeply into the fundamental principles of the U.S....

Read More

Kendall Coffey on Russian Interference in 2016 Election

Sam Nunberg spoke about the potential path of Robert Mueller’s investigation on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. In several interviews, he suggests that prosecutors may be building a case against President Trump. At one point, he suggested that Trump knew in advance about the meeting his son held at Trump Tower where he allegedly shared dirt with the Russians about Hillary Clinton. Yet, Nunberg hasn’t been able to provide anything to back up his claims. “Witnesses like this, the more colorful and inconsistent they are, become almost un-usable or very limited, except for the documents they can produce,” said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami. “In the case of Nunberg, he has thrown a deck full of wild cards into the investigation.” Read the full article here:...

Read More

Kendall Coffey on MSNBC with Kristen Welker – June 16th, 2017

Kristen Welker: I now want to bring in former federal prosecutor Kendall Coffey and my panel here with me for the hour, White House correspondent for the Washington Examiner Sarah Westwood, and National political reporter for the Boston Globe, Astead Herndon. Thanks to all of you for being here. Kendall, I want to start with you and that stunning tweet. I, in my head, had a split-screen of the president tweeting and his own outside counsel reading this tweet. Can you break down the potential legal implications? Why is a tweet like this so significant? Kendall Coffey: Well the president is obviously recognizing that there is indeed an investigation, and he’s still punching back. One of the things I keep seeing in this is a White House reaction that is simply not consistent with recognizing the seriousness of the matter. You look at some of the other people who are discussing the scope of this investigation. They’re staying as quiet as possible, they are listening to their lawyers. What we continue to see is more of a political reaction to what is going on with the special council’s office, to what is going on with the investigation, rather than a thoughtful recognition that there could be some serious issues here, and it’s time to deal with them accordingly. KW: Kendall, for correspondents like myself who cover the White House, we’re witnessing this incredible divide where you have his staffers, the people who are charged with talking to the press, saying they are not going to discuss the Russian probe at all. It is, in fact, only the president [who] is discussing the Russian probe. Does he not potentially risk getting himself into more legal jeopardy with these tweets? With this lack of message discipline, essentially? KC: Well, absolutely he does. If you think about it, at the time James Comey was fired, the official documented statement was based on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. Who is the one that connected that to Russia? None other than the president himself. And for him to get through this, at some point, there needs to be more thought to the legal consequences, rather than political reactions to things he doesn’t like to hear about or read about. ……………… KW: Kendall, I want to go back to you and talk about the significance of the vice president hiring a lawyer. This is an investigation that is expanding, everyone expected it to. That’s what happens when there is special council in place. What do you make of this move by the vice president? KC: I think it’s a smart move. Not that I think he’s in any legal jeopardy, but he’s eventually going to be brought in for questioning [by] the special council. He obviously had interactions with Flynn, who is a very, very significant person in all of this. He wants to make sure that even if he’s not worried about looking bad criminally, that he doesn’t get damaged politically. To...

Read More

Kendall Coffey on the Lars Larson Show – January 24th, 2017

Kendall Coffey, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and co-founder of Miami law firm Coffey Burlington, joined the Lars Larson Show on January 24th, 2017 to discuss a lawsuit filed against President Trump to make his tax returns public. Follow Kendall Coffey on Twitter for additional updates and media appearances. Lars Larson: It’s a pleasure to welcome back to the program Kendall Coffey, former United States Attorney. Kendall, thanks for taking the time to talk. A lawsuit filed against our brand new president, Donald Trump, for ethics violations to force him to release his tax returns. What in the world is this all about? Kendall Coffey: Well, I’m just surprised they waited until Monday. I thought maybe 12:30 on Friday the lawsuits like this would begin. But I guess they wanted to give him the weekend. The theory of the lawsuit is that it is a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution to accept emoluments, whatever that means, which we’ll talk about momentarily, from a foreign government. President Trump has businesses around the world, and sometimes foreign governments or foreign diplomats rent some of his buildings or perhaps stay as guests in some of his hotels, [and] any money that comes to President Trump’s business…constitutes some kind of a emolument from a foreign government. I don’t really think it’s a sound case. But in a way, they’ve signaled what they really want to do, even though what they’re arguing is that it’s a violation of the Constitution, and President Trump’s businesses shouldn’t be having anything to do with any kind of foreign interests. What they’re saying at the same time is, in order to prove their case [they must] find out what money President Trump may have been receiving [that is] directly or indirectly attributable to a foreign source. They’ve got to look at his tax return. So it’s not actually a lawsuit to get the tax returns. But it’s part of the normal discovery or subpoena process. They say they’ve got to get that information. Now bottom line, I don’t think this lawsuit is going to be successful in terms of a court of law, but in the court of public opinion they’ve already got their message out once again. They’ve got a message that you know President Trump has connections to foreign businesses or governments, and more specifically, they’re beating the drums once again that he hasn’t disclosed his tax returns. So is this really a strong case in a court of law? I don’t think so. Did they get a couple of points or get a little bit of attention in the court of public opinion? Maybe; that’s really for you and your listeners to decide. LL: And we’ve talked about the emoluments clause a lot both before and after the election and before and after the inauguration. But let me kind of dive into this a little bit. And in fact I might even ask you to stay over if...

Read More