https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...7790/trump-mueller-buzzfeed-cohen-obstruction If this is true....it is the beginning of the end.... But Cohen is an admitted liar. There must be corroborating evidence. The article says there is and Mueller would never take Cohen's word alone.
Part could be right and part could be wrong, but there is still at least part of it which is false. There are two parts to the buzz field report. One part said that Trump told Cohen to lie and the other part said there was collaborating evidence. At least one part did not take place according to Mueller. The most likely scenario is that Cohen claimed Trump told him to lie, but there is no collaborating evidence. If that is the case, it is only the testimony of a known liar. The other likely scenario is there is collaborating evidence, but Cohen did not say Trump told him to lie. That scenario appears unlikely.
No. After a while it became evident that the main street media was not commenting. That was very telling by itself. It was fun watching the left go hog wild over this based on a known liar and a questionable source and then trying to cover their tracks which they realized they had jumped the gun.
Guess what, ALL those that surround Trump are liars. And, Trump is a liar. So, what you are saying is, like the mob, or mafia, he is immune. Giuliani convicted these type folks, and now he defends one. And the REPUBLICAN PARTY is fully responsible.
Today, Mueller himself essentially called Buzzfeed liars. Now there's your real problem; media outlets working for the DNC as political propaganda organizations.
"Part could be right and part could be wrong, but there is still at least part of it which is false" still fails to muddle the difference between inaccurate and false. Words have meanings.
Robert Mueller has debunked this story! The sheep should be careful about following the pied piper (news media) over the cliff!
I really think this is not iver. In an earlier court document there was a line about Cohen lied at the direction of "individual one."....that would be the Mafia Boss president.
Synonyms of "inaccurate" according to the dictionary: "Incorrect, wrong, erroneous, faulty, flawed, defective, unsound, unreliable; out,adrift, wide of the mark, off target; fallacious, false, mistaken, untrue,not true, not right; falsified, distorted." But trust them, Mueller didn't mean that. ROFL.
As long as their is this mentally ill, low IQ portion of the electorate desperate for garbage on Trump (real or not) buzzfeed will continue to exist.
We know from Trump's defense attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that negotiations over the Moscow Trump Tower continued on into November 2016, not January 2016. Trump claimed the negotiations ended in January 2016. "According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to November of 2016," Giuliani said on ABC's "This Week," apparently referring to Trump's written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding the deal. This means that during the entire election campaign, Trump had a stake in the Russian government. https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...-trump-tower-moscow-discussions-took-place-up This is why Trump would want Cohen to lie. And we know this from The Hill article from December. "Cohen last month pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about plans to build a Trump property in Moscow, plans he initially said were scrapped in January 2016, but actually continued well into the presidential campaign according to his confession." As into November 2016, the entire campaign. Are we to believe Cohen lied on his own? Trump would not want voters to know he was negotiating a hotel in Moscow while running for President. We are to believe he said nothing about this to his personal lawyer who was about to testify before Congress? That is a bit of a stretch, isn't it? https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...-trump-tower-moscow-discussions-took-place-up Paul Farhi in an Op/Ed in the the Washington Post said this morning, "The fact that the normally buttoned-up special counsel’s office felt compelled to issue a statement suggests that the story’s conclusions were too baldly stated and too consequential to stay unchallenged. In effect, Mueller’s office seemed to be saying that BuzzFeed went too far and got some things wrong, though it did not say how or what." We know that Mueller does not leak, and this came from "two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter." That has to carry some validity. Some observers think Mueller is feeling deeply proprietary about his evidence and does not want premature disclosure of interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization, internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. That would explain why Mueller would not explain how or what BussFeed got wrong. It should be noted that Mueller did not deny the accusation that Trump asked Cohen to lie. He said, "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." In other words, Mueller was solely concerned about his evidence.
In other words, you have no idea whether Mueller was concerned solely with his evidence. You only know that he said the report was inaccurate. Anything else is pure speculation.
