Lots of of y'all took that seriously, because you wanted it to be true, and lots of us think its hilarious.
But you win this post. Congrats.
Time to stock up on popcorn
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
But you win this post. Congrats.
The was a separate time the Adolemocrats cried treason. We have have been insulted for 2 years for not going along with this collusion farce. Tonight, I'm enjoying all the squirming.
And there is no evidence that either side would've done it prior to the last election cycle. It only takes one to set a precedent, to raise or lower that bar. And currently, the moral superiority pendulum has swung in the left's favor as far as dirtbag presidents go, just as it was in the right's favor from 92-00, just as it was in the left's favor from 68-74 and so on. I have no doubt it will swing back right again. As for me, I have no party, I have been an outside observer for quite some time. I vote conscience and candidate that best represents my beliefs, and sometimes I even eschew the candidate or issue that would benefit me most and vote for the one who would benefit the greater good. No matter how morally superior and sophisticated you think the average Democrat voter is in relation to their Republican counterpart, the reality is there isn't a whole helluva lot of difference when you consider the vast majority vote for party regardless of their disdain for the choices.
Last edited:
I don't know what an "Adolemocrat" is, but I assume it's intended to be insulting.
And yet, real life continues to reject your interpretation of history. Treason is a big word, and it shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Trump didn't commit treason. Obama didn't commit treason. Clinton didn't commit treason. Anyone claiming they did is being hyperbolic at best and outright idiotic at worst. I can't recall any actual politician throwing around the word "treason" so recklessly.
Well, almost.
Well, first of all, there's plenty of evidence neither side would have done it prior to Trump: the fact that they didn't.
But still, the point is that your hypothetical yabbuts are just that: hypothetical. You can't simply dismiss horrendous mistakes by claiming - without evidence - that others would have made the same mistake. The Republicans got caught in 2016 in the barn f***ing a sheep, and your response is essentially, "Yeah, but Democrats would have totally f***ed that sheep if given the chance. No doubt about it."
Yes, there is doubt. Very much doubt.
I'm confused because Republicans are totally able to nominate an actual real conservative who is a decent human being if they wanted to. They could nominate a John Kasich or Nikki Haley or Ben Sasse or Susana Martinez or Mitch Daniels...but they don't. And they could win doing so. But, there's something about Trump, his lack of decency, disinterest in policy, and complete focus on what benefits him personally that is attractive to Republicans. That's too bad because there are some really good people who would make good conservative Presidents that they are missing out on.
Whoever the Republicans nominated would have been sold as racist and bigoted by the MSM. That’s just what the media does.
I was listening to a nationally syndicated sports program on my way to work this morning and the host asked, on air, what is CNN gonna do now that Mueller has found no collusion? What angle are they gonna push now? They may have too, oh I don’t know, ACTUALLY REPORT THE NEWS!!!
People are fed up with the media bias in this country. Heck, Rachel Maddow was tearing up on MSNBC because are President was found NOT to have committed a crime. That’s insane.
Russia has been attempting to interfere with our elections for years, just as we have attempted to interfere with multiple countries elections. And both will do it in the future. That’s just the way it is.
We just need to insure that they cannot succeed.
Please explain why someone would be okay with someone interfering with our election simply based on the proximity of the person falsely voting? Why and how do the Dems justify being all concerned over Russian tampering but not concerned with knowing WHO in the country is casting a vote at the ballot box? Does anyone else find that odd? Maybe that is what Russia should do in 2020. Send a few thousand across our southern border and have them vote in different parts of the country .... I am assuming then the Dems would be fine with that. After all, they made an effort to be here so we should let them vote!
Barr's letter regarding the Mueller investigation states that it's understandable that no charges of obstruction were brought up because there was no underlying crime that the obstruction was meant to cover up. Therefore, there is no reason to claim obstruction. Mueller's report itself, it seems, does not exonerate Trump of obstruction, but simply doesn't deal with the question at all.
This is going to be the Clinton email fiasco in reverse
This is going to be the Clinton email fiasco in reverse
Martha Stewart says Barr doesn't make sense. She was convicted of obstruction and not charged with any other crime.
Okay, sure. I can buy that. I am possibly even willing to buy that. However, I am not fully willing to buy that because a lot of people pushing this idea that Barr is out of line were silent when James Comey announced that Hillary Clinton had, in fact, broken the actual law, but had no intent to so there's no reason to charge her.
Slate magazine believes William Barr put a spin on the report toward Trump's innocence by carefully crafting his words, such as:
“The Russian government.” The letter quotes a sentence from Mueller’s report. In that sentence, Mueller says his investigation didn’t prove that members of the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The sentence specifies Russia’s government. It says nothing about coordination with other Russians. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, gave campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian associate who has been linked to Russian intelligence. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner met secretly in Trump Tower with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer. But neither Kilimnik nor Veselnitskaya is part of the Russian government. They seem to be excluded from Barr’s analysis.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...y-close-reading.amp?__twitter_impression=true
The author describes other instances of spin by Barr of what Mueller reported to him. Barr then provided the most favorable interpretation he could to the report in Trump's favor per Slate. It's an interesting read if nothing else.
“The Russian government.” The letter quotes a sentence from Mueller’s report. In that sentence, Mueller says his investigation didn’t prove that members of the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The sentence specifies Russia’s government. It says nothing about coordination with other Russians. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, gave campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian associate who has been linked to Russian intelligence. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner met secretly in Trump Tower with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Kremlin-connected lawyer. But neither Kilimnik nor Veselnitskaya is part of the Russian government. They seem to be excluded from Barr’s analysis.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...y-close-reading.amp?__twitter_impression=true
The author describes other instances of spin by Barr of what Mueller reported to him. Barr then provided the most favorable interpretation he could to the report in Trump's favor per Slate. It's an interesting read if nothing else.
I am not sure what the law is on obstruction. I know that most of the people accused of what Clinton was only got into legal trouble when they tried to cover it up*. It is like everything in life, there is the law (speed limit is 70) and there is the real world.
In this real world case, I have no idea what evidence they have for obstruction. It may not meet the usual requirement and if so, it is right to not make charges. The President (and his people) are neither above nor below the law.
A couple weeks ago I heard Ken Starr discussing the investigation. He made a point about presidential abuse of power. He believed that Clinton was instructing people like Carville to go out and damage the investigation, and Starr believed that was an impeachable abuse of power offense. But he couldn't prove it. He said in this case that if there is evidence that Trump was engaging in a pattern of lying to the American people to serve his own legal interest, it likewise would be an abuse of power and could be impeachable. Starr said it would take a pattern, not a one-off.
I am just suggesting somewhere in here is a murky area. I have no idea if anyone rose to the level of obstruction (though using Starr's definition is seems more probable). As to obstruction, I suspect I want the president treated like every other American. For abuse of power, there really isn't any other American to compare him to.
*If Patreaus didn't initially lie about his data breach, he probably wouldn't have faced a conviction. Same for the sailor on the sub. However this article suggests it has long been policy to not prosecute civilians and that military personnel are held to a much more strict standard. The policy goes back at least as far as Nixon.
Much like you don't need an underlying crime in order to commit obstruction, you don't have to have intent in order to be guilty of mishandling classified information.
But, it doesn't matter what the media says about your candidate. It matters what you say about your candidate. And Republicans say that they love Donald Trump...his lack of decency, his disinterest in policy, his complete focus on what benefits him personally - love it.
So, maybe you should spend less time whining about the media and spend more time on getting a real conservative who is a decent person nominated. It's what Republicans say that they want, but their words and their actions don't match.
I am far removed from a lawyer, but two things. As I said above, there is the real world application.The speed limit may be 70, I bet not many are pulled over for going 71. Secondly, and here's where the not a lawyer comes in, is this information:
In Gorin v. United States (1941), the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a conviction of a Navy intelligence official who sold classified material to the Soviet Union on Japanese intelligence operations in the United States. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling information “relating to the national defense” to a foreign power. The defendant argued on appeal that the phrase “relating to the national defense” was unconstitutionally vague, so much so that the defendant was deprived of the ability to predetermine whether his actions were a crime.
Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).
Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.
Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.
On edit - link to source.Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f).
Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague. This reading of the statute has guided federal prosecutors ever since, which is why Comey based his decision not to file charges on Clinton’s lack of intent. This is also why no one has ever been convicted of violating 793(f) on a gross negligence theory.
Only one person has even been charged under a gross negligence theory: FBI Agent James Smith. Smith carried on a 20-year affair with a Chinese national who was suspected of spying for Beijing, and Smith would bring classified material to their trysts, behavior far more reckless than anything Clinton is accused of. But Smith was not convicted of violating 793(f). He struck a plea agreement that resulted in a conviction to the lesser charge of lying to federal agents. Smith was sentenced to three months of home confinement and served no jail time.
Members of the U.S. military have been charged with the negligent mishandling of classified material, but not under 793(f). Criminal charges in military court are brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the Espionage Act (although violations of the Espionage Act can be charged under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in military court). The military has extensive regulations that govern the handling of classified material and the failure to follow these regulations is a criminal offense. Negligence can result in a conviction under Article 92 because the test is whether the service member “knew or should have known” they were violating the regulation. But these rules do not apply to any civilian personnel at the State Department and can only be applied to DoD civilians in very limited circumstances.
Yes, you do. Intent is part of the crime. We've been going over this same point for three years.
THE MEDIA’S RUSSIA ‘BOMBSHELLS’ LOOK EVEN WORSE NOW THAT MUELLER FOUND NO COLLUSION
THE MEDIA’S RUSSIA ‘BOMBSHELLS’ LOOK EVEN WORSE NOW THAT MUELLER FOUND NO COLLUSION
1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion
Last December, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public.
Unfortunately for CNN, it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date. Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14, 2016, after they had already been released publicly.
2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News
ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians.
The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake.
ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office. Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president.
3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation
CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony, “The Mooch,” Scaramucci. In June, CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump’s inauguration.
The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology. Oh … and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece.
4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop
Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family.
Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “people affiliated” with Trump.
5. Sessions Exonerated
Last May, CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn’t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms. To CNN and other establishment media outlets, this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia.
A little over six months later, CNN quietly walked back the scandal, explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator.
6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid
The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont, only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated. It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid.
7. Republicans Funded The Dossier!
A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, failing to note that Steele wasn’t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding. The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier.
The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused, repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.
8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong
Prior to former FBI director James Comey’s congressional testimony last June, CNN asserted that Comey was prepared to contradict a key claim by President Trump — that Comey told him he was not under investigation.
Sadly for them, Comey’s prepared testimony was released with the line, “During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower … I offered that assurance [that he was not under investigation].”
9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie
The media perpetuated a false claim from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for months, insisting that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The New York Times, for example, rated that claim as true only to later say the exact opposite.
Only four intelligence agencies ultimately deemed Russia responsible for meddling because the other 13 have no business making judgments on the claim. As The NYT succinctly explained, “The rest were doing other work.”
10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger
NBC botched its big scoop claiming that Paul Manafort’s notes from a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.
Turns out, not only did the word “donations” not appear in Manafort’s notes, but the word “donor” didn’t, either. POLITICO had to correct the NBC report, leaving the legacy network looking awfully embarrassed.
11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction
NBC issued a major correction in May on a story about wiretaps and Michael Cohen.
NBC initially claimed that federal investigators were listening in on Cohen’s phone calls, but it turns out they had what’s called a “pen register warrant,” which means they could see who Cohen spoke to on the phone but could not hear what was said.(RELATED: MSNBC Issues HUGE Correction To Michael Cohen ‘Wiretap’ Story)
12. Did Cohen Go To Prague?
A McClatchy report stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen visited Prague in the summer of 2016, which seemed to corroborate the portion of the Steele dossier claiming Cohen visited Prague at that time to meet with a Kremlin official.
However, no other outlets ever confirmed the report and Cohen told Congress during an open hearing in February that he has never been to Prague. (RELATED: Here’s Why You Should Be Skeptical Of That Michael Cohen Prague Story)
13. Busted BuzzFeed
The special counsel’s office disputed a 2019 report by BuzzFeed claiming that Trump directed his lawyer to lie about a potential business deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The BuzzFeed report was used to float impeachment proceedings and obstruction of justice charges against the president, but Mueller’s team disputed the core premise of the reporting.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story
CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians.
ut Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions.
CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report.
15. NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury
NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project.
“Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.”
16. Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval
Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov.
Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo.
The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins.
This story was originally published in May 2018 but has been updated with additional information regarding the delivery of Mueller’s report to Attorney General Bill Barr.
Follow Amber on Twitter
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/m...ort-fake-news/
Unbelievable. Putin played a lot of people in this charade, and it wasn’t Trump or the Republicans.
It was the Democrats and the media.
THE MEDIA’S RUSSIA ‘BOMBSHELLS’ LOOK EVEN WORSE NOW THAT MUELLER FOUND NO COLLUSION
1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion
Last December, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public.
Unfortunately for CNN, it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date. Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14, 2016, after they had already been released publicly.
2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News
ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians.
The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake.
ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office. Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president.
3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation
CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony, “The Mooch,” Scaramucci. In June, CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump’s inauguration.
The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology. Oh … and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece.
4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop
Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family.
Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “people affiliated” with Trump.
5. Sessions Exonerated
Last May, CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn’t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms. To CNN and other establishment media outlets, this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia.
A little over six months later, CNN quietly walked back the scandal, explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator.
6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid
The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont, only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated. It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid.
7. Republicans Funded The Dossier!
A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, failing to note that Steele wasn’t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding. The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier.
The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused, repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.
8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong
Prior to former FBI director James Comey’s congressional testimony last June, CNN asserted that Comey was prepared to contradict a key claim by President Trump — that Comey told him he was not under investigation.
Sadly for them, Comey’s prepared testimony was released with the line, “During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower … I offered that assurance [that he was not under investigation].”
9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie
The media perpetuated a false claim from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for months, insisting that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The New York Times, for example, rated that claim as true only to later say the exact opposite.
Only four intelligence agencies ultimately deemed Russia responsible for meddling because the other 13 have no business making judgments on the claim. As The NYT succinctly explained, “The rest were doing other work.”
10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger
NBC botched its big scoop claiming that Paul Manafort’s notes from a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.
Turns out, not only did the word “donations” not appear in Manafort’s notes, but the word “donor” didn’t, either. POLITICO had to correct the NBC report, leaving the legacy network looking awfully embarrassed.
11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction
NBC issued a major correction in May on a story about wiretaps and Michael Cohen.
NBC initially claimed that federal investigators were listening in on Cohen’s phone calls, but it turns out they had what’s called a “pen register warrant,” which means they could see who Cohen spoke to on the phone but could not hear what was said.(RELATED: MSNBC Issues HUGE Correction To Michael Cohen ‘Wiretap’ Story)
12. Did Cohen Go To Prague?
A McClatchy report stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen visited Prague in the summer of 2016, which seemed to corroborate the portion of the Steele dossier claiming Cohen visited Prague at that time to meet with a Kremlin official.
However, no other outlets ever confirmed the report and Cohen told Congress during an open hearing in February that he has never been to Prague. (RELATED: Here’s Why You Should Be Skeptical Of That Michael Cohen Prague Story)
13. Busted BuzzFeed
The special counsel’s office disputed a 2019 report by BuzzFeed claiming that Trump directed his lawyer to lie about a potential business deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The BuzzFeed report was used to float impeachment proceedings and obstruction of justice charges against the president, but Mueller’s team disputed the core premise of the reporting.
“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story
CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians.
ut Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions.
CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report.
15. NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury
NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project.
“Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.”
16. Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval
Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov.
Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo.
The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins.
This story was originally published in May 2018 but has been updated with additional information regarding the delivery of Mueller’s report to Attorney General Bill Barr.
Follow Amber on Twitter
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/m...ort-fake-news/
Unbelievable. Putin played a lot of people in this charade, and it wasn’t Trump or the Republicans.
It was the Democrats and the media.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
For a really smart man he says some really dumb shit.
So, God planned for the Drumpf family to come from Germany to America before WW I and after millions of them perished at the hands of the Germans during WWII he is now going to use a German to save them.
Mike don’t you realize how stupid that sounds?
I assume that comment was aimed at people that are stupid enough to actually believe that.
You know, people like VPM.
So basically, all that has happened is that the SCO has handed off their investigations to DC and SDNY for the meat of the investigation. Commercial/financial wrongdoings versus some political misdoing.
