Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7826

Post by Danraft » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:24 pm

Careful. To me, there isn't an apples to apples comparison.

"Buzzfeed released the Steele Dossier."

"Released" does the lifting in that sentence. It wasn't their research or conclusions.

Whether the Steele Dossier is accurate or not does not, by extension, apply any insight into the accuracy of the TrumpCohen obstruction claim.
Right?
The Mercury Project

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28048
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7827

Post by Foggy » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:22 pm

Danraft wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:24 pm
Whether the Steele Dossier is accurate or not does not, by extension, apply any insight into the accuracy of the TrumpCohen obstruction claim.
Right?
That's how I see it. :smoking:
Hopefully, this will blossom into a snowball.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31947
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7828

Post by Addie » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:37 pm

CNN
BuzzFeed says it still remains confident in its story, one day after Mueller disputed it

The special counsel took the extremely rare step of issuing a statement and purposefully casting doubt on BuzzFeed's story. But BuzzFeed says the special counsel should explain what, exactly, is inaccurate.

"We really urge the special counsel to make it clear what he's disputing," editor in chief Ben Smith said on CNN's "AC360" Friday night.

That's unlikely to happen. In the meantime, BuzzFeed is exuding confidence about its original story, even as journalists at other newsrooms express doubts.

On Saturday a spokesman for the news division said, "As we've re-confirmed our reporting, we've seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate. We remain confident in what we've reported, and will share more as we are able."

The story is still displayed prominently on the BuzzFeed News homepage: "President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project."

The subheadline says "Trump received 10 personal updates from Michael Cohen and encouraged a planned meeting with Vladimir Putin."

BuzzFeed added a line on Friday evening noting that the special counsel's office had "disputed aspects of" the story.
Adding:
New York Times: BuzzFeed News Faces Scrutiny After Mueller Denies a Dramatic Report
WaPo: Inside the Mueller team’s decision to dispute BuzzFeed’s explosive story on Trump and Cohen

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 2476
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7829

Post by Gregg » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:29 pm

Danraft wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:24 pm
Careful. To me, there isn't an apples to apples comparison.

"Buzzfeed released the Steele Dossier."

"Released" does the lifting in that sentence. It wasn't their research or conclusions.

Whether the Steele Dossier is accurate or not does not, by extension, apply any insight into the accuracy of the TrumpCohen obstruction claim.
Right?

I have yet to see any proof that ANY of the assertions in the Steel Dossier have been disproved.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15455
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7830

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:29 pm

Danraft wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:24 pm
:snippity:
Whether the Steele Dossier is accurate or not does not, by extension, apply any insight into the accuracy of the TrumpCohen obstruction claim.
Right?
No but it speaks to their ability to break a major story before any of the larger media outlets did.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 8640
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7831

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:22 am

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/20/t ... ower-deal/
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CAN AND SHOULD SUBPOENA THE 18-MINUTE GAP ON THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL
“A black woman can invent something for the benefit of humankind.” -Bessie Blount-Griffin, physical therapist, inventor of devices for disabled WWII veterans, and forensic scientist.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15455
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7832

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:31 am

Marcie is terrific.
Over the last few days the following happened:
  • Buzzfeed published a story stating what the evidence already shows: Trump suborned perjury
  • Mueller’s spox Peter Carr issued an unprecedented rebuttal to a specific story
  • WaPo, in a story presenting DOJ’s side of events, revealed that someone from Rod Rosenstein’s office (probably Ed O’Callaghan, who has managed most interactions with Mueller’s office) called to ask them if they were going to issue such a statement
I am not certain whether the call from Rosenstein’s office violated Special Counsel regulations protecting the Special Counsel from day-to-day interference in the office, but it certainly is something Jerry Nadler’s committee should inquire about.

And while I think Mueller’s office can make a very good case they needed to respond to Buzzfeed’s story for prosecutorial reasons, Rosenstein’s involvement seems far more suspect, particularly since he’s the guy who set the new DOJ standard that even warning a journalist off a story, as former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker did, may get you disciplined or referred for prosecution. By all appearances, Peter Carr was playing by Rosenstein’s rules in his interactions with Buzzfeed, so Rosenstein is the last person who should weigh in if he doesn’t like the outcome.

But — in addition to HJC asking DOJ about contacts between Rosenstein’s office and Mueller’s, as well as contacts between Big Dick Toilet Salesman Matt Whitaker and Rosenstein and contacts between the White House and either one — Congress has a means of pursuing this question that should not harm Mueller’s investigation: Subpoena the information that Cohen, Felix Sater, the Trump Organization, and the campaign withheld from the House Intelligence Committee so as to sustain Cohen’s false testimony through March 22, 2018.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7833

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:47 am

Whatever evidence may or may not exist, there is only a microscopic line between the acknowledged “I did it out of loyalty to Person 1 and “I was ordered by Donald Trump ”. Who suggested what lies to tell?

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5154
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7834

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:47 am

Knowing what we know about trump and his interactions does anyone here seriously doubt that he ordered Cohen to lie to congress?

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5399
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7835

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:31 am
Marcie is terrific.
Over the last few days the following happened:
  • Buzzfeed published a story stating what the evidence already shows: Trump suborned perjury
  • Mueller’s spox Peter Carr issued an unprecedented rebuttal to a specific story
  • WaPo, in a story presenting DOJ’s side of events, revealed that someone from Rod Rosenstein’s office (probably Ed O’Callaghan, who has managed most interactions with Mueller’s office) called to ask them if they were going to issue such a statement
I am not certain whether the call from Rosenstein’s office violated Special Counsel regulations protecting the Special Counsel from day-to-day interference in the office, but it certainly is something Jerry Nadler’s committee should inquire about.

And while I think Mueller’s office can make a very good case they needed to respond to Buzzfeed’s story for prosecutorial reasons, Rosenstein’s involvement seems far more suspect, particularly since he’s the guy who set the new DOJ standard that even warning a journalist off a story, as former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker did, may get you disciplined or referred for prosecution. By all appearances, Peter Carr was playing by Rosenstein’s rules in his interactions with Buzzfeed, so Rosenstein is the last person who should weigh in if he doesn’t like the outcome.

But — in addition to HJC asking DOJ about contacts between Rosenstein’s office and Mueller’s, as well as contacts between Big Dick Toilet Salesman Matt Whitaker and Rosenstein and contacts between the White House and either one — Congress has a means of pursuing this question that should not harm Mueller’s investigation: Subpoena the information that Cohen, Felix Sater, the Trump Organization, and the campaign withheld from the House Intelligence Committee so as to sustain Cohen’s false testimony through March 22, 2018.
When I get a chance to check this later on today, I think I’ll go back and look at it. But it seems to me like the highlighted portion has things backwards. I think it’s more likely that the Washington post asked the DOJ whether it was going to issue a statement. The Washington Post is a newspaper. It does not “issue statements.” So it sounds more to me like someone from the post called the DOJ and asked if it was going to issue a statement. But I’ll go back and see if I can find the Washington Post reporting and see what it actually says.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7836

Post by NotaPerson » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 pm
When I get a chance to check this later on today, I think I’ll go back and look at it. But it seems to me like the highlighted portion has things backwards. I think it’s more likely that the Washington post asked the DOJ whether it was going to issue a statement. The Washington Post is a newspaper. It does not “issue statements.” So it sounds more to me like someone from the post called the DOJ and asked if it was going to issue a statement. But I’ll go back and see if I can find the Washington Post reporting and see what it actually says.
I read the Post story this morning. It said DOJ (or Rosenstein's office?) called Mueller's office to ask if a statement would be issued on the Buzzfeed story.

Marcie's wording wasn't all that clear on this, hence your confusion.
Am I being detained?

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15455
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7837

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:05 pm

NotaPerson wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm
:snippity:
Marcie's wording wasn't all that clear on this, hence your confusion.
Her article seemed clear to me but I had read the WaPo article first.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3704
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7838

Post by Whip » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:33 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:47 am
Knowing what we know about trump and his interactions does anyone here seriously doubt that he ordered Cohen to lie to congress?
not sure he would have to if cohen was being an adoring puppy.

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5399
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7839

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:39 pm

NotaPerson wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 pm
When I get a chance to check this later on today, I think I’ll go back and look at it. But it seems to me like the highlighted portion has things backwards. I think it’s more likely that the Washington post asked the DOJ whether it was going to issue a statement. The Washington Post is a newspaper. It does not “issue statements.” So it sounds more to me like someone from the post called the DOJ and asked if it was going to issue a statement. But I’ll go back and see if I can find the Washington Post reporting and see what it actually says.
I read the Post story this morning. It said DOJ (or Rosenstein's office?) called Mueller's office to ask if a statement would be issued on the Buzzfeed story.

Marcie's wording wasn't all that clear on this, hence your confusion.
Do you have a link to the post story? The post has written a lot of stories about this, and I’m not sure which one it was in.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
NotaPerson
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7840

Post by NotaPerson » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:32 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:39 pm
NotaPerson wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 pm
When I get a chance to check this later on today, I think I’ll go back and look at it. But it seems to me like the highlighted portion has things backwards. I think it’s more likely that the Washington post asked the DOJ whether it was going to issue a statement. The Washington Post is a newspaper. It does not “issue statements.” So it sounds more to me like someone from the post called the DOJ and asked if it was going to issue a statement. But I’ll go back and see if I can find the Washington Post reporting and see what it actually says.
I read the Post story this morning. It said DOJ (or Rosenstein's office?) called Mueller's office to ask if a statement would be issued on the Buzzfeed story.

Marcie's wording wasn't all that clear on this, hence your confusion.
Do you have a link to the post story? The post has written a lot of stories about this, and I’m not sure which one it was in.
Here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 1939d01693

Two people familiar with the matter said lawyers at the special counsel’s office discussed the statement internally, rather than conferring with Justice Department leaders, for much of the day. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said.
Am I being detained?

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31947
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7841

Post by Addie » Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:46 pm

The Hill
BuzzFeed reporter says bombshell account is ‘solid’ despite pushback

BuzzFeed's Anthony Cormier on Sunday defended his explosive report that President Trump directed his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

Cormier said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" that his report is "solid" and "accurate" despite special counsel Robert Mueller's office issuing a statement last week disputing it.

"I’m solid. My sources are solid. This reporting is accurate," he said.

He added that he has received "further confirmation" that the report is accurate.

"I have further confirmation that this is right. We’re being told to stand our ground. ... Our reporting is going to be borne to be accurate and we’re 100 percent behind it," he said.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28048
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7842

Post by Foggy » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:19 pm

He's calling Carr a lyre. :lol:

.
Edit: :whisper: (You have to read MN-Skeptic's joke.)
Hopefully, this will blossom into a snowball.

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7843

Post by p0rtia » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:46 pm

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:47 am
Knowing what we know about trump and his interactions does anyone here seriously doubt that he ordered Cohen to lie to congress?
Clearly Cohen lied to congress and 45 knew he lied. "Ordered" is a narrow lane, however. My WAG is that Cohen didn't need to be told to lie, let alone ordered to lie. He just lied because that was part of his job. It might have come up in conversation; it might not. If 45 said "For Christ's sake don't tell them about X,Y, and Z" is that an order? I can picture that happening--though I see it as more of a reminder to get their stories straight. I just think that the OSC is saying they don't have tangible proof that 45 said anything like that. Indeed I think it's more likely that 45 didn't say anything like that. Cohen knew his job. It's what 45 calls "loyalty" when he really means "subservient".
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5399
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7844

Post by Maybenaut » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:54 pm

NotaPerson wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:32 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:39 pm
NotaPerson wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:00 pm


I read the Post story this morning. It said DOJ (or Rosenstein's office?) called Mueller's office to ask if a statement would be issued on the Buzzfeed story.

Marcie's wording wasn't all that clear on this, hence your confusion.
Do you have a link to the post story? The post has written a lot of stories about this, and I’m not sure which one it was in.
Here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 1939d01693

Two people familiar with the matter said lawyers at the special counsel’s office discussed the statement internally, rather than conferring with Justice Department leaders, for much of the day. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said.
Thanks! :bighug: yeah, I was confused. :oops:
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 2476
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7845

Post by Gregg » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:05 pm

p0rtia wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:46 pm
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:47 am
Knowing what we know about trump and his interactions does anyone here seriously doubt that he ordered Cohen to lie to congress?
Clearly Cohen lied to congress and 45 knew he lied. "Ordered" is a narrow lane, however. My WAG is that Cohen didn't need to be told to lie, let alone ordered to lie. He just lied because that was part of his job. It might have come up in conversation; it might not. If 45 said "For Christ's sake don't tell them about X,Y, and Z" is that an order? I can picture that happening--though I see it as more of a reminder to get their stories straight. I just think that the OSC is saying they don't have tangible proof that 45 said anything like that. Indeed I think it's more likely that 45 didn't say anything like that. Cohen knew his job. It's what 45 calls "loyalty" when he really means "subservient".
I think he lied, I think Trump told him to lie. Where I think the story might be problematic is does OSC have documents that prove it. For what I've seen, the problem with the story could be that its SDNY and not OSC that has the proof.

But I'm not afraid to think Trump told him to lie.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31947
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7846

Post by Addie » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:09 pm

WaPo - Max Boot
Trump should not take solace from Mueller’s cryptic correction

President Trump and his defenders are spiking the football as if they were heading to the Super Bowl after the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III publicly disputed a BuzzFeed report that Trump had instructed his attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his attempts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump even went so far as to thank Mueller for “coming out with a statement,” saying, “I very much appreciate that.”

Yes, this is the same Mueller whom Trump disparages as the leader of 13 or 17 (the number varies) “Angry Democrats” who are engaged in a “WITCH HUNT!” Turns out that Mueller is not engaged in a witch hunt but a fact hunt. His willingness to set the record straight even when it helps Trump indicates his fundamental integrity — something that Trump implicitly admits by citing Mueller as an impartial authority.

But Trump should not take too much solace from Mueller’s cryptic correction. BuzzFeed may well have been wrong in writing that Trump personally told Cohen to lie (although the publication still stands by its article). But Cohen himself admitted in his sentencing plea that his lie to Congress was “in accordance with Client-1’s directives.” So while the special counsel’s team might not have evidence that Trump personally told Cohen to lie, it’s not disputing Cohen’s claim that his false testimony was coordinated with Trump’s aides in furtherance of the president’s own lies.

Trump has repeatedly denied doing business with Russia. Now his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, admits that Client-1 was pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow through the fall of 2016 — in other words, long after it was common knowledge that the Russians were hacking Democratic Party computers. Trump might just have dodged accusations that he actively suborned perjury, but what he did was bad enough — he concealed his business dealings with a hostile foreign power that was helping him to win the presidency. That BuzzFeed might have gotten some part of the story wrong hardly exonerates Trump.

While BuzzFeed’s disputed report does make the rest of the press look bad by association, we should remember how much the media have gotten right. Thanks to intrepid reporting we know that the Trump campaign tried to change the language of the Republican platform to be less critical of Russia; that Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, got millions of dollars from pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine; that Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had secret conversations with the Russian ambassador and then lied to the FBI; that Trump pressured FBI Director James B. Comey to shut down the investigation of Flynn; that Trump told Russian diplomats that firing “nut job” Comey eased pressure on Russia; that the high command of the Trump campaign met with a Russian representative promising dirt on Hillary Clinton; that Trump repeatedly tried to fire Mueller; that Trump tried to hide details of his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin from his own aides; and that the FBI investigated Trump as a possible Russian asset.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 21871
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7847

Post by Volkonski » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:36 pm

Emin Agalarov, Russian singer linked to Trump family, cancels upcoming North American tour
The pop star claimed he had been forced to nix the tour "against his will."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigat ... d_nn_tw_ma
Emin Agalarov, the Russian pop star who is said to have helped arrange Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, said Monday he has been forced to cancel his tour of the United States and Canada "due to circumstances beyond [his] control."

In a video on Facebook, Agalarov claimed he had nixed the upcoming tour "against his will." His lawyer said in a telephone interview with NBC News that he doesn't want his client coming to America under fear of being held under a material witness warrant. Agalarov had been scheduled to perform in New York on Saturday night.

Agalarov is seen as a figure in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian election interference. Agalarov's lawyer told NBC News last July that his talks with Mueller's team were "ongoing," but NBC News reporting at the time indicated that the singer had not been officially interviewed.

Agalarov's lawyer, Scott Balber, claimed in a phone interview Monday that the cancellation is "most definitely" linked to the Russia probe.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28048
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7848

Post by Foggy » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:55 pm

:violin:
Hopefully, this will blossom into a snowball.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15622
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7849

Post by kate520 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:59 pm

I listened to the KCRW* LRC podcast with Popehat and Josh Barrow that Mikedunford suggested.

Gregg said:
I think he lied, I think Trump told him to lie. Where I think the story might be problematic is does OSC have documents that prove it. For what I've seen, the problem with the story could be that its SDNY and not OSC that has the proof.

But I'm not afraid to think Trump told him to lie.
Popehat, talking about Manafort but positing it about Cohen as well and, by extension, trump, said (paraphrasing) ‘Manafort is a crook, therefore a liar. Lying is a crook’s stock in trade, they do it seamlessly but when required to tell the truth they can’t help themselves, they slip back into lying”.

Another thing crooks reflexively do, especially the high up crooks, is avoid a paper trail. There may never be documents that prove it.
Is circumstantial evidence enough to prove the President did what Buzzfeed alleges or must there be documents? I assume OSC can get the documents from SDNY if they exist.


* one of my two home NPR stations :thumbs:

Edited to conform to grammar norms
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31947
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7850

Post by Addie » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:30 pm

CNN
After BuzzFeed article, Trump legal team reached out to Mueller's office, Giuliani says

(CNN) President Donald Trump's legal team reached out to special counsel Robert Mueller's office Friday morning after BuzzFeed published an explosive report suggesting Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a Trump Tower project in Moscow, Rudy Giuliani told CNN.

Giuliani, who is Trump's attorney, would not provide further details about what they said to Mueller's office. Friday evening, special counsel spokesman Peter Carr issued a rare statement rejecting the central claim in the BuzzFeed article, that Mueller has corroborating evidence (including testimony from Cohen) indicating Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress about the deal.

The statement was drafted internally within the special counsel's office, which made the decision to release it, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation. The deputy attorney general's office, which oversees the special counsel, was only given a heads up it was coming Friday evening.

Carr declined to comment to CNN about any communication from the Trump legal team.

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”