Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
That_Guy

Trump Directed Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

GrimV

The Special Counsel’s office took issue with the “description of specific statements” to them as well as the “characterization of documents and testimony” which they obtained - not the substance of the reporting.

 

 

 

What...no pizza-gate?

 

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on BuzzFeed: "People are going to take from this story is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're willing to lie to do it...I just think this is a bad day for us".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Almost.

 

Essentially, it was to distance the Special Counsel's office from whoever these anonymous, information-sharing "law enforcement officials" might be.

 

WOW! Amazing! How do you know all this stuff, are you deepthroat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Cohen’s opening statement and questioning on February 7th will be interesting...

It sure will be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

These two paragraphs:

 

Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president
personally instructed
him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

 

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.

 

 

The Buzzfeed report was written by two men. One of whom claims that he and the other author saw supporting documentation. The second author said this didn't happen. Why the differing sets of "facts?" Is this another one of those "his truth" versus "his truth" things you love so much?

 

...refer to 1) an instruction to lie about when negotiations ended (described as coming from Trump personally) as well as 2) a directive to lie to Congress (characterized as being learned about via interviews, e-mails, texts, and other documents).

 

The Special Counsel's office took issue with the description and the characterization, but NOT the substance of the instruction or the directive.

 

 

 

The special council disagrees, and only a desperate parsing of the wording of their statement says anything else. Hell even CNN is reporting it as a repudiation of the report as a whole, and their coverage has been more than 90% unfavorable towards the President.

 

You're better off trying to claim that this is some sort of brilliant 3 dimensional chess maneuver on Muller's part to set Trump up somehow. That's a lot more realistic (which is to say not realistic at all) than claiming Muller's team's only statement on a new report was to state nothing.

 

 

ETA: Quote boxes messed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on BuzzFeed: "People are going to take from this story is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're willing to lie to do it...I just think this is a bad day for us".

 

Umm...LOL...I've got news for Mr. Toobin...It ain't just this story. What, did he think the MSM had something resembling "credibility" up until this point, and now all of a sudden because of this specific story people will see them as a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president and will gladly lie to do it?

 

ROFLMAO. Hey Jeffy, wake up and smell the bong water: You proved yourselves a bunch of shamelessly partisan leftist liars a loooooooooooooooong damn time ago. The only people who weren't aware of your blind partisanship and brazen dishonesty have either been living in a cave for many years, or else are just as blindly partisan and dishonest as you are.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

These two paragraphs:

 

Now the two sources have told BuzzFeed News that Cohen also told the special counsel that after the election, the president
personally instructed
him to lie — by claiming that negotiations ended months earlier than they actually did — in order to obscure Trump’s involvement.

 

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.

 

...refer to 1) an instruction to lie about when negotiations ended (described as coming from Trump personally) as well as 2) a directive to lie to Congress (characterized as being learned about via interviews, e-mails, texts, and other documents).

 

The Special Counsel's office took issue with the description and the characterization, but NOT the substance of the instruction or the directive.

 

2 different people? You mean like Page and Stroczk? They could never be conspiring to bring about a false story, I mean hell man there are two separate people! That PROVES the claim!!! Run to the presses!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

Where did That_Guy go? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Umm...LOL...I've got news for Mr. Toobin...It ain't just this story. What, did he think the MSM had something resembling "credibility" up until this point, and now all of a sudden because of this specific story people will see them as a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president and will gladly lie to do it?

 

ROFLMAO. Hey Jeffy, wake up and smell the bong water: You proved yourselves a bunch of shamelessly partisan leftist liars a loooooooooooooooong damn time ago. The only people who weren't aware of your blind partisanship and brazen dishonesty have either been living in a cave for many years, or else are just as blindly partisan and dishonest as you are.

 

:rolleyes:

 

I suspect we'll soon revisit "Fake But Accurate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

I suspect we'll soon revisit "Fake But Accurate".

 

That or the subjective "His truth" which because he's a news reporter shouldn't be questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

I suspect we'll soon revisit "Fake But Accurate".

That or the subjective "His truth" which because he's a news reporter shouldn't be questioned.

 

More likely it will play out like their previous reporting (How Trump’s Team Worked The Russian Deal During The Campaign) and remain largely unconfirmed until it re-appears in a filing from the Special Counsel's office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat

More likely it will play out like their previous reporting (How Trump’s Team Worked The Russian Deal During The Campaign) and remain largely unconfirmed until it re-appears in a filing from the Special Counsel's office.

 

I think using Buzzfeed as a source for your argument is an outstanding idea at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

More likely it will play out like their previous reporting (How Trump’s Team Worked The Russian Deal During The Campaign) and remain largely unconfirmed until it re-appears in a filing from the Special Counsel's office.

Dream on, Quixote! Straight into the wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

I think using Buzzfeed as a source for your argument is an outstanding idea at this time.

Hahahahahaha!!

 

That is some side splitting stuff right there!!

 

And to think, TG has been providing this kind of entertainment for years! He is like the energizer bunny of what won’t happen next. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

More likely it will play out like their previous reporting (How Trump’s Team Worked The Russian Deal During The Campaign) and remain largely unconfirmed until it re-appears in a filing from the Special Counsel's office.

Why do you keep going back to one reporter who has been repeatedly disgraced? What next, proving your point because Claas Relotius wrote an article? You're probably a big Jayson Blair fan too aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hieronymous

Why do you keep going back to one reporter who has been repeatedly disgraced? What next, proving your point because Claas Relotius wrote an article? You're probably a big Jayson Blair fan too aren't you?

I wonder whatever happened to Jayson Blair. I used to buy the Sunday Times regularly (political leanings aside,it had a ton of great stuff in it) right around the time that all hit the fan. When your employer uses a full page of their own news space in order to apologize for you, you must have really screwed up. Blair should have just done a Mitch Albom and blamed his editors. Albom is still employed after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Sucks when ya propagate a lie and are caught, don’t it, T_G? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

I suspect we'll soon revisit "Fake But Accurate".

 

I sure wouldn't bet against it. Leftists are nothing if not predictable.

 

 

That or the subjective "His truth" which because he's a news reporter shouldn't be questioned.

 

Another undeniable possibility.

 

 

I think using Buzzfeed as a source for your argument is an outstanding idea at this time.

 

LOL

 

:2up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

It’s like TG doesn’t know that Mueller said Buzzfeed was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Dream on, Quixote! Straight into the wind.

 

tilting.jpgAction shot of T_G!

 

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy

Why do you keep going back to one reporter who has been repeatedly disgraced? What next, proving your point because Claas Relotius wrote an article?

 

This team's reporting has been pretty solid on the Trump-Moscow deal.

 

What's next is there is a good chance Michael Cohen won't appear because the Special Counsel's office will limit the scope of his testimony so much as to make the whole exercise essentially pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

This team's reporting has been pretty solid on the Trump-Moscow deal.

 

What's next is there is a good chance Michael Cohen won't appear because the Special Counsel's office will limit the scope of his testimony so much as to make the whole exercise essentially pointless.

Is it impossible for you to just admit you were wrong? Or to even acknowledge that the report was at best biased and at worst completely made up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto

EXCLUSIVE: Transcripts of Former Top FBI Lawyer Detail Pervasive Abnormalities in Trump Probe

 

(Excerpt - bold mine)

 

Former top FBI attorney James Baker admitted to House lawmakers in October last year that the investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump 2016 presidential campaign and Russia was riddled with abnormalities.

 

Confronted with a damning summary of abnormalities, bias, and omissions, which transpired during the investigation, Baker told Congress that the investigation indeed was “highly unusual.”

 

“I had a jaundiced eye about everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff. I was concerned about all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were trying to figure out what to do, and it was highly unusual,” Baker told lawmakers.

 

Members of the House judiciary and oversight committees conducted the interviews in an unclassified setting, with agency counsel present to ensure that classified information didn’t enter into the unclassified setting. The transcripts of the interviews have not been publicly released, but were obtained for this article.

 

Baker served as the FBI’s general counsel when the bureau investigated the Trump campaign and Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server. During two days of testimony on Oct. 3 and Oct. 18, he told lawmakers that he believed even toward the end of the Clinton investigation that she should have been charged over her “alarming, appalling” mishandling of classified information.

He argued with others, including then-FBI Director James Comey, about the issue all the way toward the end of the investigation, but was ultimately persuaded that Clinton should be exonerated.

 

“My original belief … after having conducted the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials, I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be charged,” Baker told lawmakers.

 

As of October 2018, nearly two years after the Clinton probe concluded, Baker still believed that the conduct of the former secretary of state and her associates was “appalling” with regard to the handling of classified information.

 

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tabla_Man

This team's reporting has been pretty solid on the Trump-Moscow deal.

 

What's next is there is a good chance Michael Cohen won't appear because the Special Counsel's office will limit the scope of his testimony so much as to make the whole exercise essentially pointless.

 

No it hasn't, and they pretty much "blew their load" with this one. This was a story entirely based on conjecture, which unfortunately is what passes for news now a day. The believability factor of the MSM on this story has just gone down to zero as a result of the Buzzfeed story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

tilting.jpgAction shot of T_G!

 

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...