Kendall Coffey Quotes

TwitterRss

Transcripts

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 of like watching somebody fall down steps since the reveal of this meeting. Some have said, “Well, that’s because they’re new to this.” That they are new to government, new to being in the White House. How would that factor in at all as you might be prosecuting such a...

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 http://kendallcoffey.com/ 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 reality, and we can’t spin away from it. JC: Why isn’t it as simple as that, Matt? Why all this twisting by Sekulow, by the president? Why play this game? Matt Schalpp: Well, I think the frustrating part of all of this is that the leaks keep happening. After this...

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 do that, you get a smart and experienced lawyer, which he has, who helps you navigate through it, so when your moment of truth comes in your interview, your answers are credible, consistent, and fully prepared. That’s a good move, and I believe a lot of others around the White...

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: http://kendallcoffey.com/ 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

Kendall Coffey Breaks Down Comey Hearing on i24News – May 3rd, 2017


Kendall Coffey current Chair of the Southern District Conference, Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, appeared on i24News to discuss the James Comey hearing with David Shuster. Learn more about Kendall Coffey at CoffeyBulington.com: http://www.coffeyburlington.com/attorneys/kendall-coffey/ David Shuster: I’m not sure that the FBI director or Wikileaks forced Hilary Clinton not to go to Wisconsin and some of the other key battle ground states that she lost, but what do you make of her explanation and her justification there that, you know what, “Comey went too far?” Kendall Coffey: I think you’re right; there were a lot of factors that would have contributed to it. As my friend Fred Menachem would say, in a close political election there are a million things you second-guess and a million things you coulda-woulda done differently. The Wikileaks problems had been significant, but the worse of that was already over, and I do think she started to move to a significant lead at the time of the Comey bombshell. History is never going to be able to tell us for sure that that was the ultimate game-changer. But I think that the verdict of history will be critical about an FBI director, in an election that close, breaking normal traditions of the Department of Justice and announcing an investigation that at the end of the day proved to be nothing. A week later, they stated, “well there’s nothing we found in these thousands of emails that changes anything.” But by then I think the election may have been recalibrated, and we’ll never know for sure, but we know who’s president...

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 we’ve got calls on this. But you know first of all the Emoluments Clause–correct me if I’m wrong–does not make a distinction about the value of the emolument, does it? KC: It doesn’t, but it seems to contemplate some form of a gift. LL: So if President Obama got a...

read more

Florida’s Death Penalty Law


“Supreme Court got it right in rejecting Florida’s death penalty law. Ironically, because Florida did not  correct legal  defects in the law  years ago, previously  condemned inmates will now receive  life...

read more

Kendall Coffey | Accusations and Accountability


Famed Miami litigator, Kendall Coffey as published in the Daily Business Review “…[I]f a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint is replete with personal attacks, those attacks could not be “reasonably calculated” to advance dismissal because such dismissal motions are determined upon legality rather than personality.”   Read the whole article in the Daily Business...

read more

Kendall Coffey : Search-and-Seizure


“While not every search-and-seizure warrant results in a criminal prosecution, in a very significant number of cases, a search-and-seizure warrant eventually culminates in a prosecution. […] When FBI agents show up to execute a search warrant because probable cause has necessarily been found, there will be some people who are sleeping less at night.” Find the original story...

read more