President Trump Directed His Attorney To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project

[jnug]

He knows Barr will FIRE HIS ASS if he got caught not outing a leak , especially a LEAK THAT's A BLATANT LIE.

Don't believe its a leak in the classic sense. Mueller has been cutting staff for three weeks now. Its probably a pair of agents that are no longer part of the investigation.

Makes no sense to be a leaker from inside what is left of that staff. In fact it makes no sense at all.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Hmmm, I said this:

Well...

The allegations are from "unnamed sources" who are reporting what Cohen is alleged to have admitted to the Mueller investigators.

This appears to be hearsay... So unless there is solid corroboration of these second hand allegations?

I prefer to wait to see what "facts" Mueller actually announces. :coffeepap:

and this:

I don't address the "actual claim" because I explained it is from a suspect "source" presented second- or third-hand, therefore not valid except as a sensationalized story.

I added the FACTS we do know about the alleged source, who has already stated the exact opposite when he was not under pressure to "sing like a canary" to maybe shave time off his prison sentence. :roll:

Finally, I point out that I prefer to WAIT until the actual investigation report, rather than discuss all this speculation on what might or might not have been said.

and the responses were:

Just like the Dossier? Ask Aleksej Gubarev how that lawsuit went...

You have a valid argument that we must wait for the actual facts to be laid out rather than just reporting on the facts based on anonymous sources.

With that said, I don't know why you can't honestly address what was actually said. You are diverting from the actual claim. You immediately start pointing at Cohen and how he has lied before. You completely ignore the claim that there is corroborating evidence and other witness testimony. Again, we must consider that this is just reporting, but it's still dishonest to pretend that if this story is true that it hinges upon Cohens word and nothing but Cohen's word. Along with that you can't even say if you would even be the tiniest bit upset if the president actually instructed his lawyer to lie to congress. It's amazing to me.

The "source" is two government investigators intimate with this aspect of the collusion case.

They have every Cohen/Trump written and recorded communication from when Cohen's office/home were raided. They also have every Cohen/Sater text message.

Not looking good for your boy Trumpov.

Yet now we know THIS, from Reuters:

Mueller's office disputes Buzzfeed story on Michael Cohen

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muellers-office-disputes-buzzfeed-story-004908616.html

Sooo, what do you all have to say in regards to my position on this issue now? :coffeepap:

 

[NeverTrump]

Hmmm, I said this:



and this:



and the responses were:







Yet now we know THIS, from Reuters:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muellers-office-disputes-buzzfeed-story-004908616.html

Sooo, what do you all have to say in regards to my position on this issue now? :coffeepap:

Doesn't change what I said about Gubarev's lawsuit. We don't know what's true or what's not, but there's some elements of Buzzfeed's report that are true and they are sticking by their reporting just as they did with the Dossier. With the Dossier none of it was proven wrong, some aspects are still left unproven.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Doesn't change what I said about Gubarev's lawsuit. We don't know what's true or what's not, but there's some elements of Buzzfeed's report that are true and they are sticking by their reporting just as they did with the Dossier. And just like the Dossier none of it was proven wrong, some aspects are still left unproven.

What? This thread is about what Cohen was "reported" as "alleged" to be saying. No one was talking about your "Gubrev's lawsuit" thread...except you.

Your response was a red herring, trying to derail this thread with a false equivalency argument down some rabbithole discussion. :doh

Don't you have the capability of admitting when you are wrong?

 

[NeverTrump]

What? This thread is about what Cohen was "reported" as "alleged" to be saying. No one was talking about your "Gubrev's lawsuit" thread...except you.

Your response was a red herring, trying to derail this thread down some rabbithole discussion. :doh

Don't you have the capability of admitting when you are wrong?

That's the quote you quoted from me...

 

[roughdraft274]

Hmmm, I said this:



and this:



and the responses were:







Yet now we know THIS, from Reuters:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/muellers-office-disputes-buzzfeed-story-004908616.html

Sooo, what do you all have to say in regards to my position on this issue now? :coffeepap:

The exact same thing I said last time. You attacked the reporting and the accusations based solely on Cohen's character and didn't address the other claims as if they didn't exist. It's perfectly fine if you're position is that we have to wait for the actual evidence to come out, hence why I said "You have a valid argument that we must wait for the actual facts to be laid out rather than just reporting on the facts based on anonymous sources." Can't get any more clear than that. My issue is that you were acting as if the claims were based solely on Cohens reliability when the reporting clearly stated that the claims had other witness testimony and documentation. You specifically went out of your way to avoid the other witness testimony and documentation and proceeded to pretend that the reporting was simply "Cohen claims". That wasn't honest of you, regardless of whether the reporting is 0% accurate or 100% accurate. I never claimed the reporting was 100% accurate or should be treated as such. So if you don't mind, please quit pretending that I ever said otherwise.
K, Thx.

 

[NeverTrump]

The exact same thing I said last time. You attacked the reporting and the accusations based solely on Cohen's character and didn't address the other claims as if they didn't exist. It's perfectly fine if you're position is that we have to wait for the actual evidence to come out, hence why I said "You have a valid argument that we must wait for the actual facts to be laid out rather than just reporting on the facts based on anonymous sources." Can't get any more clear than that. My issue is that you were acting as if the claims were based solely on Cohens reliability when the reporting clearly stated that the claims had other witness testimony and documentation. You specifically went out of your way to avoid the other witness testimony and documentation and proceeded to pretend that the reporting was simply "Cohen claims". That wasn't honest of you, regardless of whether the reporting is 0% accurate or 100% accurate. I never claimed the reporting was 100% accurate or should be treated as such. So if you don't mind, please quit pretending that I ever said otherwise.
K, Thx.

He's having a hard time processing it. As are all of us...Some just handle it better than others who desire them to freak out more. :mrgreen:

 

[Captain Adverse]

The exact same thing I said last time. You attacked the reporting and the accusations based solely on Cohen's character and didn't address the other claims as if they didn't exist. It's perfectly fine if you're position is that we have to wait for the actual evidence to come out, hence why I said "You have a valid argument that we must wait for the actual facts to be laid out rather than just reporting on the facts based on anonymous sources." Can't get any more clear than that. My issue is that you were acting as if the claims were based solely on Cohens reliability when the reporting clearly stated that the claims had other witness testimony and documentation. You specifically went out of your way to avoid the other witness testimony and documentation and proceeded to pretend that the reporting was simply "Cohen claims". That wasn't honest of you, regardless of whether the reporting is 0% accurate or 100% accurate. I never claimed the reporting was 100% accurate or should be treated as such. So if you don't mind, please quit pretending that I ever said otherwise.
K, Thx.

Incorrect.

I attacked BOTH Cohen's credibility AND the problem with unnamed sources.

I then explained why I did not have to address the issue of the alleged testimony, hence my posting BOTH my responses to you...the second of which was something you failed to respond to in acknowledgement.

In both cases my points were subsequently proven out. :shrug:

He's having a hard time processing it. As are all of us...Some just handle it better than others who desire them to freak out more. :mrgreen:

Don't try to ride his coat-tails. At least HE had a valid and reasonable response to my original post...you just did knee-jerk fallacies. :coffeepap:

 

[CEngelbrecht]

I doubt Senate Republicans or, more importantly, the base will care. Trump will deny. They will believe. As the world turns.

Or, Republicans don't want to die of skull cancer just for doing the right thing and 'ting.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Cohen may be a liar but he was also Trump's attorney. Cohen had nothing to gain personally by lying to Congress. Any rational person knows that Trump instructed him to lie.

We all know that Trump instructed Cohen to lie.

If a mobster testifies against his boss and claims his boss ordered the hit, it's very credible. People understand that an underling is acting on behalf of his boss.

All we have in this thread are conservatives finding ways to defend a president they know is guilty of a felony. Our president instructed his lawyer to lie to a Congressional investigation. This is very serious.

So Cohen is not a liar and everything he says is credible? WOW!

 

[roughdraft274]

Incorrect.

I attacked BOTH Cohen's credibility AND the problem with unnamed sources.

I then explained why I did not have to address the issue of the alleged testimony, hence my posting BOTH my responses to you...the second of which was something you failed to respond to in acknowledgement.

In both cases my points were subsequently proven out. :shrug:

Doesn't matter if you attack unnamed sources. The unnamed sources are the people who told the reporters the story. It all goes to the reliability of the story, which I said (I'm hoping you don't need me to quote it yet again) is completely fair. We don't know if it's accurate. But when you attacked the evidence that was reported for the claims (IE: other eyewitness testimony, Cohen's testimony and other documentation) you only attacked Cohen's character. My entire point is that the story does not rely on Cohen's character. If reporting was accurate it was based on things other than Cohen's character. But you only attacked his character, even though the article at no point used him as a source.

Here's a fun exercise. Go back and quote the exact line of what i said where I was incorrect about something in my original post that you quoted here. Give me the exact line. You won't find anything, because I never claimed the reporting was accurate. I stated outright that we can't assume it to be accurate. So feel free to go quote the exact thing that I got wrong and you got right.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Doesn't matter if you attack unnamed sources. The unnamed sources are the people who told the reporters the story. It all goes to the reliability of the story, which I said (I'm hoping you don't need me to quote it yet again) is completely fair. We don't know if it's accurate. But when you attacked the evidence that was reported for the claims (IE: other eyewitness testimony, Cohen's testimony and other documentation) you only attacked Cohen's character. My entire point is that the story does not rely on Cohen's character. If reporting was accurate it was based on things other than Cohen's character. But you only attacked his character, even though the article at no point used him as a source.

Here's a fun exercise. Go back and quote the exact line of what i said where I was incorrect about something in my original post that you quoted here. Give me the exact line. You won't find anything, because I never claimed the reporting was accurate. I stated outright that we can't assume it to be accurate. So feel free to go quote the exact thing that I got wrong and you got right.

More fun exercise? Read the response to your query as to why I did not address the allegations as you "expected" despite your admitting that the sources were suspect and the story was possibly untrue. I did post it twice.

You did not acknowledge the validity of my second response, which appears (as far as the Reuter's report that Mueller indicates the story is not factual) to have been on the money. THAT was why I added you to the list expecting you to acknowledge my justifications in THAT post were also valid.

 

[roughdraft274]

More fun exercise? Read the response to your query as to why I did not address the allegations as you "expected" despite your admitting that the sources were suspect and the story was possibly untrue. I did post it twice.

You did not acknowledge the validity of my second response, which appears (as far as the Reuter's report that Mueller indicates the story is not factual) to have been on the money. THAT was why I added you to the list expecting you to acknowledge my justifications in THAT post were also valid.

Can only say it so many times buddy. The report stated there was evidences of Cohens testimony, Y & Z. You then claimed "The reporting is based on Cohen's testimony, which isn't reliable, a defense lawyer would have a field day etc" (paraphrased). You falsely made the dubious claim that it was based on one thing where as it was based on multiple. You ignored those that were hardest to explain and instead attacked the easiest, and when called out for it you jabber about not wanting to speculate, though you were happy to speculate about a defense lawyer having a field day with Cohen. You can give all the excuses you want. But it would be much easier if you just told the truth.

If the reporting was born out, it would be incredibly hard to defend Trump against it, so you picked the weakest possible link and speculated and ignored anything and everything else. Then when called out for it, you acted high and mighty claiming you don't want to speculate.

 

[jnug]

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

That in bold above is the line of text from the Buzzfeed piece that is particularly troubling from their end of things. Still and all my biggest beefs are with:
A) FBI Investigators either read into the case or now off the case acting as news sources, possibly even out of the FBI or furloughed during this gov shutdown.
B) Congressmen shooting their mouths off asking the Mueller hurry to close out his investigation, so they could get the results of that investigation. They don't actually even know what they are going to get even when Mueller does close out his investigation.

My suggestion for you Congresspeople....shut up and investigate. Do your jobs.

 

[haymarket]

Mueller did the right thing with his statement on Friday.

However, it was so overly broad as to leave many questions unanswered. The BuzzFeed report was NOT ACCURATE according to Mueller. Okay. It would have been nice to find out in what way it was not accurate.

 

[jnug]

Mueller did the right thing with his statement on Friday.

However, it was so overly broad as to leave many questions unanswered. The BuzzFeed report was NOT ACCURATE according to Mueller. Okay. It would have been nice to find out in what way it was not accurate.

Mueller is not going to do that. The oldest trick in the reporter's book is to get investigators involved in a dialog about the accuracy of THEIR own reporting. No investigator worth his salt is going to get sucked into that vortex.

The effort Buzzfeed made to engage with Mueller after the statement from Mueller's spokesperson was transparent and was bait. Buzzfeed produced the piece. It got shot down as in some ways "inaccurate", not false or erroneous but inaccurate. Its THEIR problem now. They can expose their sources to defend themselves or they can shut up and move on.

I should also point out that WAPO made pretty much the same mistake in their Watergate investigation. Nixon's WH called it an outright lie, never mind inaccurate. As it turned out WAPO had simply pointed to the wrong WH aide but had reported the substance of the story accurately. If news media is going to play in the shark tank they need to realize they are going to get bitten now and again and it is not likely to be just a scratch.

 

[Logical1]

Of course we now know that was a huge lie put out by left wingers.

 

[haymarket]

Mueller is not going to do that. The oldest trick in the reporter's book is to get investigators involved in a dialog about the accuracy of THEIR own reporting. No investigator worth his salt is going to get sucked into that vortex.

The effort Buzzfeed made to engage with Mueller after the statement from Mueller's spokesperson was transparent and was bait. Buzzfeed produced the piece. It got shot down as in some ways "inaccurate", not false or erroneous but inaccurate. Its THEIR problem now. They can expose their sources to defend themselves or they can shut up and move on.

I should also point out that WAPO made pretty much the same mistake in their Watergate investigation. Nixon's WH called it an outright lie, never mind inaccurate. As it turned out WAPO had simply pointed to the wrong WH aide but had reported the substance of the story accurately. If news media is going to play in the shark tank they need to realize they are going to get bitten now and again and it is not likely to be just a scratch.

I do not doubt your analysis which I feel is accurate. Simply think the Mueller statement only raised more questions that were answered and only provided fodder for the Trumpkins who can now criticize the media and pretend that Mueller just cleared Trump with his statement which of course he did not do at all. But they will pretend he did.

 

[LowDown]

I do not doubt your analysis which I feel is accurate. Simply think the Mueller statement only raised more questions that were answered and only provided fodder for the Trumpkins who can now criticize the media and pretend that Mueller just cleared Trump with his statement which of course he did not do at all. But they will pretend he did.

It's pretty scary watching you guys go out of your minds.

 

[haymarket]

It's pretty scary watching you guys go out of your minds.

That makes no sense as a reply to what I wrote.

 

[poweRob]

In order to label Mueller a liar, he would have had to make statements in the first place. I don't remember him making any statements ... until today.

Intresting. After all the accusations of leaking and whatnot from the right. Anyhow... nice to know you find Mueller highly credible. We'll see how your integrity stands up when the report is released.

 

[Barnacle]

Intresting. After all the accusations of leaking and whatnot from the right. Anyhow... nice to know you find Mueller highly credible. We'll see how your integrity stands up when the report is released.

I don't find Mueller highly credible at all ... :lol: ... don't know what gave you that notion.

However, you claimed that Trump supporters labeled Mueller a liar, which means he must have made some statements or comments in order for anyone to call him a liar ... or a truth-speaker, for that matter.

What were Mueller's statements that were determined by Trump supporters to be lies?!?

 

[poweRob]

I don't find Mueller highly credible at all ... :lol: ... don't know what gave you that notion.

However, you claimed that Trump supporters labeled Mueller a liar, which means he must have made some statements or comments in order for anyone to call him a liar ... or a truth-speaker, for that matter.

What were Mueller's statements that were determined by Trump supporters to be lies?!?

The right calls mueller a liar every time they say "witch hunt". Which means an investigation based on lies.

Next.

 

[Barnacle]

The right calls mueller a liar every time they say "witch hunt". Which means an investigation based on lies.
Next.

Correct; the investigation is based on lies, but the investigator has not created any lies ... yet. :lamo

 

[poweRob]

Correct; the investigation is based on lies, but the investigator has not created any lies ... yet. :lamo

If Mueller hasn't made any statements on the investigation, just as you claim, how do you know what it's based off of?

You should stop digging. This is rather embarrassing for you.