Okay, Trump supporters, this report from Buzzfeed, if true, would appear to be the end of the Trump presidency.
Buzzfeed is reporting that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower Trump project and wanted to go to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin personally to discuss the project in 2016.
Combine this information with the recent revelation that Trump kept all the notes from his meeting with Putin as President, and this gets very interesting.
So, some simple questions:
1. Do you believe this story?
2. Assume it's true, should Trump be impeached?
In other words, if anyone persuades or compels another to lie before Congress, to commit perjury, should that person go to jail, be impeached, whatever?
And just to be clear, this report has yet to be proved as a fact, but in terms of circumstantial evidence, it adds a lot of smoke to an already smoldering series of accusations and revelations.
And I understand, Trump supporters, if you haven't heard about this yet. It's not even a blip on Fox News. And before you discount this, the report has two sources, investigators, who have seen the documents that show communications between Trump and Cohen and other Trump people, supporting this conclusion.
If Donald resigns he'll be immediately indicted, when he's impeached and finally REMOVED form our oval office he'll immediately be indicted: Those are his only realistic options at this point: MAGA once he's gone:
Only the beginning of the cretin's downfall! His offspring may be in danger of being charged as well.
I know that Trump supporters like to refer to TDS and all this other stuff. I've resisted calling for his impeachment or even drawing any conclusions. However, this thing that came out would do it. IF he instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, that has to be it. I have to believe that Republicans wouldn't stand for that either.
Furthermore, that basically proves collusion - he wanted to meet with the Russians and not have anyone know about it.
I'm not too excited about a Mike Pence presidency. In many ways, that guy is a bigger loon than Trump.
Let's not forget Christian "Squinty" MIke Pence was Donald's "Transition Chief" which indicates he knows a lot more than has been made public to date and even if he 'flips' on Donald he's still a goner from our white house:
He parrots Donald and has morphed into almost as big a habitual liar which is an impeachable offense in and of itself, tell tale signs of guilt:
This is terminal for many republicans and they ALL know it: It's also terminal for senate republicans like "Mutt" McConnell who has willfully abandoned his duty as senator, con man Paul Ryan who orchestrated the greatest wealth giveaway to the filthy rich, spaced out Rand Paul, Deven Nunez and many others who have been complicit with Donald:
I've said all along that Trump is the devil we know, but Pence is more dangerous. He is a loon in gentleman's clothing.
I know the succession to the presidency according to the Constitution, but when the next in line is a part of a corrupt Whitehouse, why should the U.S. be forced to accept more of same? If it were proved that Russian collusion with certain members of the Republican Party put Trump, AND then Pence was chosen as part of the team, in the White House, it seems like the actual prevailing party, in this case Democrats, should be allowed to take their rightful place.
MizBejabbers, when Donald is finally removed legally and with irrefutable cause from our oval office which must happen soon if we still have laws, Mike Pence, the guy who was according to press reports deeply involved in the Trump Campaign as its transition chief, a campaign in which Vladimir Putin was also intimately and unlawfully involved in as well according to our intelligence agencies, will more than likely be forced to resign or perhaps face legal jeopardy:
You can't have the vice president who seems to lie almost as frequently as the oval office and who is working within what many are calling the most corrupt white house in history, take over power: It just won't happen:
"Obviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction"
(Bill Barr - Current Attorney General Nominee)(1)
Caution is advisable though as the original story cites anonymous "law enforcement sources"(2).
(1) https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper … pdf#page=1 (Mueller’s "Obstruction" Theory)
(2) https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ja … =bfnsplash
So far we have the normal jester's court of the forums liberals. Curious to hear from some conservatives. To me, there are only two options:
1. You don't believe it and therefore the charge is irrelevant.
2. You don't care if he did it or not.
I mean, Trump's own AG nominee believes it's a crime.
I'm just curious if we've come to a point where even the staunchest Trump supporter has to admit this could be a game-changer. Honestly, I don't expect so, but I'm curious anyway.
*sits quietly in the court of jesters to watch the proceedings unfold
The dearth of comments from the right should be a clue, Cranky!
There should be a third Conservative option:
3. It is obstruction if true - by any AG's standard, but needs to be proven
Ivanka, Jerrod and Don Jr. were given regular updates by Cohen on the Moscow Tower project and they're in jeopardy as well. Can't wait for them to be called before the House Intel Committee as last time they weren't made to answer questions by those on the right.
This time they'll have no choice but to lie or tell the truth. I hope they get a few years behind bars themselves for their duplicity. They'll look great in their custom tailored orange jumpsuits!
I damn near sprained a finger trying to follow that leap. (Fortunately it wasn't the one Ewent mentioned)
Completely agree. What, for you, would constitute proof? Clearly, Michael Cohen saying so would not do it, right?
According to Buzzfeed, there's documentation to support this - records of emails and other communications. Would that do it?
Yes, documents like those would do it for me Crankalicious.
Fox News says the reporters were told the corroborating materials were; texts, emails, and 'company' documents, (???) - but, the reporters did not get to see those materials, they were only told about them.
My understanding is that their reliable sources HAD seen those documents. I would think that should be concerning to any American.
But, all we have at this moment is "two anonymous" law enforcement sources, (even if they have seen the documents), . Any other accreditations are just speculation.
Don't get ahead of yourself. As both CNN and Fox News have noted - no other major news source has been able to corroborate the Buzzfeed report - yet.
And speaking of "yet." this story broke as early as late last night, so a lack of corroboration by any other "big Boy" outlet could be a warning sign.
I am not dismissing the BUzzfeed story, but I am withholding judgement until additional support surfaces.
CNN and Fox report that the reporting Buzzfeed journalists had not yet seen the corroborating evidence. (as of 8pm Eastern time)
This is why I have not drawn any conclusions. Mueller’s office has also disputed the story.
Careful Crankal;icious, we might be ostracized for not immediately jumping on one or the other's bandwagon, and you might be labeled a fence sitter, (I already own that label).
If the story is true it is pretty damning. But, that is a big "if" at this point.
Yes, the main stream media--as Fox likes to call it--have been saying all day they couldn't verify the article in Buzzfeed.
Mullers office spokesman said the article was not accurate, but didn't say in what aspect. However, the reporters for Buzz were two highly respected journalists--one a Pulitzer winner if I heard correctly--who stand by their reporting.
Reputedly, the reporters relied on two Federal agents who claimed to have seen the incriminating documents, emails, etc., but since there are 17 different investigations into Trump's businesses and other financial dealings, it's a guess as to which Federal agent from which investigation they were speaking with.
GA, that's what impeachment hearings and indictments are for, to gather all the evidence and prove the case which is astoundingly damning against Trump:
So I take it you are in favor of impeachment hearings to commence?
Actually, at this point it's irrelevant what the last remaining Trump followers around here think and we already know their response: Impeachment and indictment are absolutely imminent and I'm still SHOCKED this 72 year old mad man who is destroying the USA from the inside was allowed the keys to our oval office for an astounding 2 YEARS !! UNREAL:
"Report: Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress about Moscow business project"
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/donald- … ss-project
Raving Incoherent LUNATIC: Still not embarrassed to say you voted for this ?? Turns out according to reports, Donald was correct, the POLLS were rigged but he was the crooked man who Instructed Michael Cohen to do the rigging, and if you were actually gullible enough to believe he had no deals in Russia I'd have to assume you don't have at least one working digit to run a simple GOOGLE search because if you did, at an absolute minimum you'd immediately discover his so called beauty pageant held in Russia and his prsuit of a big real estate deal in Russia: ASTOUNDING:
Raving Incoherent LUNATIC:
Don W., I read as much of Barr's critique as I could stand. I am a retired legal editor with 30 years experience, and this thing reads like a junior high ESL paper. This guy has no real command of articles, prepositions, or even pronouns. For example, try to make sense of this sentence: "Second, Mueller’s premise that, whenever an investigation touches on the President’s own conduct, it is inherently “corrupt” under § 1512 for the President to influence that matter is insupportable."
No that is not legalese, it is poor grammar. It was my job for 30 years to take these ramblings and put them into coherent sentence form. As one reviewing attorney that I worked under used to say: our job is to make sense out of chaos. I know what he was trying to say because I can rearrange the sentence and possibly add another verb after which even a sixth grader could understand it.
I certainly hope if he is confirmed, he gets at least one assistant with an undergrad degree in English.
I am sorry to report that Mueller has released a statement saying that the Buzz Feed story is "inaccurate." That is all anyone knows for now. The question is which of the synonyms for inaccurate does this mean:
"erroneous, false, incorrect, inexact, invalid, off, unsound, untrue, untruthful, wrong"?
According to Mirriam Webster those words are all synonyms, but they don't look like synonyms to me, at least not in the legal sense. I don't own a copy of Black's Law Dictionary, and I only found the definition of Accuracy in the version online.
"What is ACCURACY?
The lack of error in accounting. All the values are deemed correct. The range of possible error in engineering.The amount of difference between predicted performance and actual performance. The closeness an instrument measures. Refer to precision."
So as an antonym, "inaccurate" could mean anything from "false" to "The amount of difference between predicted performance and actual performance." Or not precisely exact.
So I guess we will just have to wait until Mueller explains to what degree of inaccuracy he is referring.The media is saying that he is right to come forward to counteract the story. Meanwhile, Buzz Feed says it is going to go over the story with a fine tooth comb to see what might be "inaccurate." I'm not familiar with Buzz Feed, but other media says that they have a reputation for good reporting, so how would they have fallen for a false story?
I really think that Mueller has done the public a disservice by using the word "inaccurate" and not explaining if all, or how much of it is wrong, or where he is coming from.
MizBejabbers just to clarify, The response from Mueller's prosecutors to the BOMBSHELL Buzzfeed story to my knowledge never included the word "Inaccurate", it used the words "Not Accurate" which according to my research means "Not Precise", "Not Exact", "Not Error-Free", "Not Clear-Cut" etc:
And just remember, the Mueller response NEVER claimed the Buzzfeed BOMBSHELL story was "Categorically False", or "Untrue" in its entirety, they appear to be simply disputing certain aspects which is understandable:
"BuzzFeed: ‘No indication’ Cohen story disputed by Mueller is inaccurate"
"BuzzFeed News doubled down on its defense of its report that President Trump ordered his former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4261 … inaccurate
Jake, that was the point I was trying to make but I guess the reader can get lost in the legal BS. CNN used the word "inaccurate" in its report.
MizBejabbers, Perhaps interchanging the two words is expected, but with egregiously incompetent attorneys like "Batty" Rudy Giuliani, who needs prosecutors right ??
After Sarah Huckleberry "Parrot Liar" got out their and misled the USA again for Donald, "Batty" Rudy shows Up on television only to light Donald's yellow wig on FIRE before throwing him under the proverbial bus again by suggesting that it was POSSIBLE Trump TALKED to Cohen prior to his congressional testimony: Now can we see WHY Buzzfeed is standing by their investigative reporting ??
The next question should be "WHY did Donald talk to Cohen before his testimony if he did, and what did they talk about"?? Given Donald's unprecedented and record breaking proclivity toward dishonesty which continues to be documented and will be I believe just ONE Article of Impeachment, you think it was a discussion about the weather ??
It appears as if "Batty" Rudy does a fantastic job of CORROBORATING elements of the Atomic BOMBSHELL Buzzfeed story which claims Donald Trump instructed Michael Cohen to LIE to congress: UNREAL
"Giuliani: ’So What’ If Trump Talked To Cohen About His Testimony"
"The president's attorney said on Sunday that it's possible the president spoke with his former attorney Michael Cohen prior to Cohen's congressional testimony."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/giuliani- … -testimony
For eight years we got news stories about this, that, or the other thing being the end of the Obama presidency. Believe me when I say, The Trump presidency ends when his term is scheduled to end, (That is if he doesn't get re-elected).
Ho Hum...one more over reaction by the left. Maxine Waters represents the left.
by Scott Belford 2 weeks ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
by JAKE Earthshine 18 months ago
It can't be a surprise that in this ultra-disturbing and egregiously unholy and disastrous Trump era of constant Crisis, Chaos, NATO Bashing and Shear Madness, brave righteous republicans like congressman Justin Amash are now calling for the Inevitable NECESSARY IMPEACHMENT of Donald Trump however,...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Once again, Donald Trump sides with the bad guy. He rarely has a bad word to say about - Murdering Putin- Murdering Un- Murdering Dutertes (president of Philippines)And now Murdering Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.Yet he has no problem debasing our allies like the Macron, May,...
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by crankalicious 17 months ago
It's pretty clear that many conservatives do not believe that President Trump's latest actions are worthy of impeachment.So this begs the question, what is worthy of impeachment?Let's remember some things from history:1. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of...
by Sharlee 7 days ago
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it," McConnell said at the time. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their...
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.|