Kendall Coffey Quotes


Kendall Coffey on MSNBC with Richard Lui – July 16th, 2017

Founding member of Coffey Burlington, PL and author of Foreclosures in Florida, Kendall Coffey appeared on MSNBC to discuss the recent developments in the Russian investigation with Richard Lui. For additional information about Kendall Coffey, follow him on Twitter, @Kendall_Coffey Richard Lui: An ABC News/Washington Post poll out this morning shows 63% of Americans believe that Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russians was inappropriate. Kendall Coffey is a former federal prosecutor and former US attorney in the southern district of Florida. Thanks for being here. Kendall. You heard what Jay Sekulow said. So lawyer-to-lawyer here, you to him, was this meeting illegal? Kendall Coffey: Well, not from what we’ve seen so far, but there’s some elements here that certainly the special council Robert Mueller is going to have to look at very closely. He has not indicated, and is not going to indicate, all the information he has about this meeting until maybe the very end of his investigation. What we know is that some of the attendees of the meeting, they’re saying nothing came from it. Mueller isn’t going to accept that. He’s going to want to get into the details of everything that was said at the meeting and, very importantly, whether any further collaboration was produced by the meeting. So far no crime, but there’s still a good ways to go on this. RL: Now part of that meeting, Jared Kushner there, son-in-law of the president, when you look at Jared Kushner’s legal jeopardy, legal exposure, after failing to disclose the meeting, along with other connections. Not once, not twice, but three times, adding, all said, 100 new contacts that he did not do initially. Where does he face danger here when he became a government employee? KC: Well, better late than never. At least he added some of these elements after the fact. But the reality is, it’s going to be up to the individuals with the FBI in Mueller’s office interviewing him, whether they believe his explanation that he simply forgot these meetings. And he’s going to get pressure, and they’re going to look at a lot of different evidence to see what might indicate that of course he remembered–or maybe he didn’t. People do forget things, and there could be legitimate explanations, but remember– RL: But Kendall, forgetting 100? You as a prosecutor would you say, “Well, it’s fine to forget two or three.” But 100? KC: They’re going to be skeptical. But he’s going to have an opportunity to make the explanations, and very importantly, in his explanations, they have to believe that he is truthful. Because the biggest mistake anybody can make in this kind of scenario is to lie to the FBI and attempt to defend themselves in the course of an interview. We all know how often prosecutions happen, not because of what they did, but because of what they fibbed. RL: So as we’ve seen over the last seven or eight days here—Kendall, you’ve been watching it–it’s sort...

Read More

Kendall Coffey on New Day with Chris Cuomo – June 19th, 2017

Former U.S. attorney of the Southern District of Florida Kendall Coffey appeared on CNN’s New Day with Chris Cuomo to discuss the on-going Trump-Russia investigation. For additional information about Kendall Coffey, visit his personal website Chris Cuomo: The joke here is what do you call it when the president’s tweet is creating confusion, and his own people don’t know how to defend it? We call it Monday. But this is actually a very serious matter about the understanding of the probe of the Russian investigation. Here’s the confusing part: *Clip from previous CNN segment with Jake Tapper and Jay Sekulow* Jay Sekulow: So there should be no confusion, no confusion. The president is not under investigation. Jake Tapper: But it is confusing. *End of Clip* CC: The reason that Jake is right, it is confusing, is because Jay Sekulow, the president’s attorney, who you saw there on this matter, is contradicting the president. The president tweeted, “I am being investigated for firing the FBI director.” So what’s going on here? Is it a legitimate line of questions or another smokescreen to undermine the probe? Let’s bring in former South Florida US attorney Kendall Coffey and former George W. Bush political director Matt Schlapp. I want to direct you to just one more piece of sound. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Now, before we begin the discussion, this is from Sekulow saying the exact opposite of what you just heard him say to Jake. Listen to this: *Clip from FOX News segment with Chris Wallace and Jay Sekulow* Chris Wallace: But you don’t if he is under investigation, now do you? Jay Sekulow: Well, no one has notified us that there is, so I can’t read people’s minds. But I can tell you this: we have not been notified that there is an investigation of the president of the United States. So nothing has changed in those regards since James Comey’s testimony. *End of Clip* CC: That’s a different non-issue because there’s no mystery. They want to know whether or not the president is being looked at by Mueller. For anything, they can just pick up the phone; clearly this White House doesn’t have any problem meddling. He said to Chris Wallace that he is being investigated; he said it more than once. What do you make of all of this? Whether or not he’s being investigated. Legit issue? Kendall Coffey: Well, it’s a fair issue because if we’re all Americans and we care about our presidency, the fact that the president of the United States is actually being investigated, that’s a very serious thing. But I think we’re at a point now where, sadly or not, we have to accept that in some form or another, there’s an inquiry going on. And part of that inquiry, call it a matter, call it an inquiry, call it an investigation, is whether something done by the president of the United States could be seen as an act of obstruction. That’s our...

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 James Comey’s Testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee

Currently acting as partner at Coffey Burlington in Miami, FL, and one of the country’s top litigators, Kendall Coffey shared his law expertise regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on the investigation into Russia’s involvement with the 2016 US presidential election. Find out more about Kendall Coffey here: From Morning Coffey: How does former FBI Director James Comey’s current standing affect his strength as an accusing witness in last week’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony?  “One year ago, essentially everyone across the political spectrum had great confidence in James Comey. But the last year has seen a cross-fire of criticisms.” “Many expected the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to be a bad day for President Donald Trump,” Coffey said. “But it may not be a great day for anyone.” From ABC News: How did Comey’s hearing fair in regards to potential obstruction charges against President Trump? “This seemed to be an uncomfortable and improper conversation that would not, based on usual obstruction cases, sufficiently establish the crime of obstruction,” said Kendall Coffey. Coffey said not only was Comey’s testimony not a “smoking gun,” it actually “gave both sides ammunition.” “It was clear that Comey did not believe those concerns should prompt him to consider resignation as he had considered before in his career,” Coffey said. “And he had no answer for his decision not to promptly report the February conversation.” But Coffey pointed out that if Trump is interviewed by Mueller and contradicts Comey, crimes of obstruction and false statements could be alleged if Mueller believes Comey. “Comey’s testimony was a bit like Al Capone’s vault,” said John Lauro, a former federal prosecutor and attorney at the Lauro Law Firm. “There is nothing inside — no corrupt intent to derail a federal investigation.” From ABC News: Do FBI agents have a legal duty to report a potential crime? In other words, did Comey have a duty to inform Congress or the Attorney General of his concerns about Trump, if he thought it amounted to obstruction of justice? No, said multiple experts. However, “there is the oath of office that obligates agents to uphold and enforce the law, which is a more general obligation,” said former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey, who agreed that there is no specific statute requiring a federal agent to report a potential...

Read More

Kendall Coffey on i24News – New immigration Ban Might Fare Better in the Supreme Court than in the Appeals Court

Kendall Coffey joined i24News with David Shuster to discuss the latest challenge to the President’s immigration ban. For more information about Mr. Coffey, visit his attorney profile on Super Lawyers. David Shuster: Thanks for joining us. The judges who put a stop to the travel ban, they cited some of the public comments that President Trump has made. How far can the court go in taking those public comments into consideration? Kendall Coffey: Well, to a significant extent that seems to be what the challengers to this current ban are relying on. You’d have to look at the order itself within the four corners, and ask, “Does it say anything about anti- religious discrimination, or anything other than developing a system for improving national security?” It looks facially valid and neutral. But what the courts are looking at much more carefully than what you’ve seen perhaps in times past, is what was the actual intent of the decision makers? So, comments to the press, comments by even Rudy Giuliani are getting much more attention than what you might normally see, and it recalls from my friend Fred Menachem, who would always say, “If you lose badly in the court of public opinion, its hard to win anywhere else in government, and sometimes that includes in the courts.” DS: Does that continue, though? At a certain point if this gets kicked up to the Supreme Court, you’d think that they might take a little more high-minded look at the law than looking at public statements that the President or his press secretary have been making? KC: Well I think the Supreme Court might take a different view, because their concerned about the history of this country, and what is the long-term impact of rulings like this on the executive power and the President’s prerogative to protect national security. Like this executive order or not, federal courts don’t expect to have trials on whether something that the President does is a good idea or could have done better. So the issue is discrimination, it looks like the fourth circuit is seriously considering that this is a discriminatory executive order, we’ll see, but whatever happens with the circuits court, the mid-level appellate courts, looks like its going to the supreme court and Trump might do better...

Read More