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.
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.
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
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.
The assertion that Mueller was only supposed to investigate Russian collusion is another lie.
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.
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.
See, reading that tells me he can investigate the possibility of Russian collusion and follow any trail pertinent to the subject of Russian collusion.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
(4) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … 1/download
You realize that no matter how many facts you provide or evidence you use, none of it will matter.
It has been pretty well publicized and now you can read it in the report.
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."
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
I did. It has nothing to do with his cooperation.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ … cle_inline
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.
"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
Then there's this: “Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan fumed.
The judge walked that comment back: https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-q … d-treason/
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.
Someone is fuming today.
by IslandBites 19 months ago
Special counsel Robert Mueller has finished his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.Mueller’s confidential report has been delivered to Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department announced Friday.Barr must now decide whether to release the report or parts of it to...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
In light of recent events, here is my advice for President Trump moving forward.1. Focus like a laser beam on the economy.2. Start building the wall.3. Reframe from tweets and attacking the media.4. Act Presidential in all foreign affairs.5. Speak directly to the American people like Reagan did and...
by PrettyPanther 2 months ago
At his final press conference at the Justice Department, Attorney General William Barr said he sees no reason to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden.Mr Barr said that he has "not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave."Mr...
by Randy Godwin 2 years ago
For many of us on the left, DT's putting a known anti-Mueller person in the AG's position is simply an attempt to quash the investigation into himself. Legal scholars are already saying the act is unconstitutional at best, and may be illegal at worst. Not to mention Whitaker's being involved in an...
by IslandBites 21 months ago
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to make a statement about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.The Justice Department announced Mueller's would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel. ...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
It begs the question why the media reported Director Comey as a “straight shooter” all along...?Why did they lie to the people and defend the indefensible? What is so damaging is the credibility of the people we are suppose to trust to do the right thing...The requirement to pass the test to become...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|