Our President, the Liar

1. 87

   crankaliciousposted 5 years ago

   Here's a recent tweet from President Trump:
   
   "Remember, Michael Cohen only became a RAT after the FBI did something that was absolutely unthinkable and unheard of until the witch hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE!"
   
   So, none of that is true. The investigation is not illegal and has been upheld in court. The raid on Michael Cohen's office was a legal raid from a search warrant approved by a federal judge.
   
   So, in your estimation, why is Trump lying about this and, more importantly, what is the effect on his supporters? I can only assume that the vast majority of his supporters believe him, which is truly scary. It's like he's living in an alternate reality or creating one.
   
   Here's what I suspect a Trump supporter would say: it doesn't matter. Liberals live in an alternate reality based on all the lies liberal politicians tell.

   replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I look at Trump the same way I looked at Hillary; only she was never president so it didn't escalate to this level. Politics is dirty. You throw enough mud, show enough suspicion, throw out enough allegations and, eventually, something will stick enough to sway public opinion.
   
   I do consider the Mueller investigation troubling.  He was tasked with determining if there was Russian collusion. It wasn't meant to be a blanket fishing expedition, to see what dirty laundry could be aired. I think that may be the premise used by Trump for his comment. Maybe not. The guy can certainly tweet some crap.
   
   If Trump is guilty of committing a crime we must tackle that when presented but, I will say, I want to see facts before coming to judgement. I'm happy to wait until they are presented.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Mueller was officially given the authorization by the Justice Department to investigate more than just collusion between Trump and the Russians.
      
      The appointment letter gives him the freedom to pursue money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy among other crimes if he finds evidence about them during the investigation.
      
      https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 1/download

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, it's basically an invitation for Mueller to investigate whatever he likes; even so, the opportunity for the investigation was CREATED under the premise that Trump, or the campaign staff, colluded with the Russians, a proposition that has proven elusive for Mueller, probably because it never happened.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The authorization was "created" by Trump's own Department of Justice and led by a Trump appointee.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The assertion that Mueller was only supposed to investigate Russian collusion is another lie.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Funny, because so many people want to understand the scope of his mandate and I haven't seen where anyone has been provided full details. You must have a really high position with special clearance to have info no one else appears to have.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Promisem provided you a link above. I find it incredibly disingenuous that people still push this notion that Mueller can't investigate various crimes as he finds them.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               See, reading that tells me he can investigate the possibility of Russian collusion and follow any trail pertinent to the subject of Russian collusion.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "any matters that may arise directly from the investigation".
                  
                  That is extremely broad.
                  
                  So, while looking into Russia, he finds that Cohen and Trump coordinated a pay-off to various women and covered it up, that would seem to easily fall within the scope.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     If campaign funds were used, sure. That is a crime. If it's just the case of a rich guy paying off a prostitute to keep quiet....not so much. However, I do question to what extent one should have followed that line of investigation once it became apparent that Russian collusion was not part of it.
                     
                     As previously stated, once the Mueller investigation is over we will have full information on the facts of the investigation. Until that point, what you are doing is simply showing how personal bias makes it difficult to be fair and equitable.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm showing that the President lied about a legal warrant. That seems like a very serious thing to me and incredible coming from the POTUS. Does he not know the difference or is he doing that on purpose to create misinformation and controversy? Did you not see what he accused the FBI of? BREAKING INTO AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
                        
                        And again, you are drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid. If the pay-off was done to influence the election, then it was a crime. Pretty simple. Is there anything at all to suggest that it wasn't?
                        
                        And then you have Michael Flynn lying to the FBI about meeting with a Russian official. A little frightening.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           The prosecutors are recommending no jail time for Flynn so his crime couldn't be of great magnitude.
                           
                           Obama lied in office. Bush lied in office. Clinton lied in office. With Hillary's track record only a fool would think she wouldn't have lied in office.
                           
                           I try to balance my news sources, so that I can attempt to find a fair opinion on current events. I challenge you to do the same.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              True.  Americans have to get used to be lied to by our government, and especially by our president.  It's been happening for a very long time, and is seemingly getting worse.

                              replyreport
                           2. 87

                              crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Are you actually following the Flynn story? They are recommending no jail time due to his cooperation.
                              
                              And your ability to create false equivalencies is mind-boggling.

                              replyreport
                        2. 81

                           Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           People seem to be underestimating the strength of the evidence that this payment was, in fact, a campaign finance violation. E.g:
                           
                           "In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company [The Trump Organization] with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election"
                           (Southern District of New York summary of Cohen's guilty plea)(1)
                           
                           So to be clear, the Southern District of New York has said that Cohen literally claimed the $130,000 as an election-related expense. And Cohen admitted he did exactly that and has now, in fact, been convicted of it as a campaign finance violation.
                           
                           There is no ambiguity here. There was a campaign finance violation. Someone has been convicted of it.
                           
                           The pertinent questions are, what did "Individual-1" know about the payments, when did he know it, and most importantly, what evidence exists to prove it?
                           
                           (1) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/mi … iminal-tax

                           replyreport
                     2. 81

                        Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you are mistaken. The Special Counsel discovered evidence of campaign finance violations while investigating Russian links with the Trump campaign, and merely handed it over to the relevant jurisdiction, which in this case was the Southern District of New York.
                        
                        The Deputy US Attorney General for the Southern District of New York indicted Cohen on campaign violations charges (among others) not the Special Counsel(1).
                        
                        On August 21 Cohen pled guilty charges of:
                        
                        " . . .five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution"(2).
                        
                        The Special Counsel indicted Cohen on one charge: lying to Congress. Specifically, submitting a statement containing:
                        
                        ". . . material false statements about the Moscow Project, including false statements about the timing of the Moscow Project, discussions with people in the Company and in Russia about the Moscow Project, and contemplated travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project"(3).
                        
                        Cohen pled guilty to that charge on November 29.
                        
                        If you could explain exactly how the charge brought by the Special Counsel is not within the scope of his authorized investigation into links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, or "matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"(4), that would be appreciated.
                        
                        (1) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press … 6/download
                        (2) https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/mi … iminal-tax
                        (3) https://www.justice.gov/file/1115596/download
                        (4) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 1/download

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Don,
                           
                           You realize that no matter how many facts you provide or evidence you use, none of it will matter.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I know.
                              
                              But I find contrasting false, misleading, or incorrect information with hard facts (when available) helps throw some of the nonsense into sharp relief.

                              replyreport
         2. 86

            My Esotericposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It has been pretty well publicized and now you can read it in the report.

            replyreport
3. 89

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   Wrong.
   
   Prosecutors from special counsel Robert Mueller's office had asked the judge to give Flynn little to no jail time because he had cooperated extensively with them and in at least one other investigation, a case in Virginia against Flynn's former business associates in which they are accused of illegally lobbying for Turkey. Prosecutors said Tuesday that Flynn had already given the "vast majority of cooperation" the judge should consider for his sentence but it was possible he could still help in other prosecutorial actions.
   
   After almost two dramatic hours in a courtroom discussing his crimes, Flynn asked to postpone his sentencing for several months so he can have more of an opportunity to cooperate in federal investigations and attempt to mitigate the judge's disgust with his actions.
   
   "I want to be frank with you, this crime is very serious," federal Judge Emmet Sullivan said in the courtroom Tuesday. "Not only did you lie to the FBI, you lied to senior officials in the incoming administration."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The judge's comments aside, please read this article where the prosecutors recommended no jail time.
      
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.co … N/amp.html

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I did. It has nothing to do with his cooperation.
         
         http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ … cle_inline
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The only comment I made was that his crime couldn't have been but so bad, if the prosecutors were recommending no jail time.
            
            So, I'll assume your laughing at yourself on this one.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "The seriousness of the defendant’s offense cannot be called into question, and the Court should reject his attempt to minimize it. While the circumstances of the interview do not present mitigating considerations, assuming the defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions, his cooperation and military service continue to justify a sentence at the low end of the guideline range"
               
               (Special Counsel's Office, aka "the prosecutors")
               
               https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … d/full.pdf

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Then there's this: “Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan fumed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     The judge walked that comment back: https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-q … d-treason/

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        No, he walked back the treason comment specifically..different thing and why I left that part of the comment out

                        replyreport
4. 89

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   Trump said several times that Flynn, "a great person" didn't lie.
   
   He then said "They gave General Flynn a great deal because they were embarrassed by the way he was treated - the FBI said he didn’t lie and they overrode the FBI. They want to scare everybody into making up stories that are not true by catching them in the smallest of misstatements. Sad!......"
   
   Today he said: "Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign. There was no Collusion!"
   
   Let's see what did Flynn said:
   
   Flynn told the judge on Tuesday "I was aware" that lying to the FBI was a crime. He said he accepted responsibility for his actions.
   He was asked if he believe he was not guilty? Did he think he was entrapped by the FBI when they interviewed him without a defense attorney present? He's answer was NO.
   
   And then he asked to postpone his sentencing for several months so he can have more of an opportunity to cooperate in federal investigations.
   
   LOL
   
   Someone is fuming today.

   replyreport