BuzzFeed: Sources say Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about proposed Moscow project

He said nothing of the sort he said the reporting is false.

 

Should it be a removable offense? Was it a removable offense?

 

Which president has ever instructed a witness to lie to Congress in relation to an investigation about himself (i.e. that president)?

 

What's the distinction you are attempting to make between perjury to federal investigators and a federal grand jury and to Congress? I believe the alleged lying by Cohen would have been to federal investigators working for the congressional committee. What's the distinction?

 

It's lying to a federal investigation, what's the distinction you are attempting to make?

 

None that I know of.

 

If not the specific statements alleged in the reporting that Trump order Cohen to lie what other allegations of testimony and documents is the story talking about?

 

Saga3030 brought up the 1990s, not me.

According to the Buzzfeed story (which I acknowledge must be in some doubt because of the Mueller statement), the president INSTRUCTED a witness to lie, under oath - in this case to Congress - in order to obstruct an investigation into the president himself.

I am asking when, in the 1990s, there was a similar situation - of a president INSTRUCTING a witness to lie under oath in order to protect the president.

 

Dunno. I'll wait and see.

I'll wait for the Mueller report and accept the findings. WILL YOU?

 

"Obstruction of justice is not an impeachable offense"
- Democrats. 1998

 

So..... Mueller publicly denied this story as accurate. Now what? Is Buzzfeed credible and Mueller is obstructing justice here? I Buzzfeed credible and Mueller is identified as having committed an actual federal crime, that being exposing the inner workings of his own special prosecution?

Hard questions here. I think I'll buy a little popcorn this morning.....

 

This is obstruction of justice.
This is not an impeachable offense.

 

The Buzzfeed story is a lie....totally inaccurate according to Mueller.

 

You just said it was not the specific statements that Cohen was ordered to lie by Trump, what other specific statements in the Buzzfeed article could Mueller have been responding to?

You mean Barr's report? You won't see Mueller's report. Sure, will you? You don't accept Mueller debunking this news report so I have no reason to believe you will.

 

But you chimed in on it with

It's lying to a federal investigation, what's the distinction you are attempting to make?

And Mueller said reports there is evidence of such either documentary or in testimony are false.

Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky and Betty Currie.

 

Who said that?

 

Here is what the Mueller statement 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"
That isn't clear. It is consistent with the entire Buzzfeed story being false. It is consistent with specific parts of the BuzzFeed story being false, but other parts being correct.

I can already see that you are relishing the thought that Barr will bury the Mueller report, and issue his own sanitised version. It is pretty clear that you don't want the Mueller report to see the light of day. I think the American people are entitled to full transparency. I hope they get it.

 

You ask as if you don't remember the proceedings.
Included, below, the testimony of all the senators that argued as much, for you to read at your leisure.\
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-106sdoc4/pdf/CDOC-106sdoc4-vol4.pdf

 

The Dems voted on party lines in the Clinton impeachment trial and said it was not an impeachable offense

 

hahahahaa why won't you accept the Mueller report? The story was false...a fake, a lie...Mueller just made it clear Trump did not order Cohen to lie...face it, you lost again

 

No need to repeat it, the reporting is false both on the documents and testimony, what other specific statements is the Buzzfeed article reporting that you believe Mueller was REALLY talking about?

By LAW the Mueller report is not a public document. But can already see that if Barr comes to the conclusion there are no chargeable acts within it you will not accept it. And no the American people are not entitled to see every unsubstantiated charge made against innocent people, those persons have rights too. Heck you don't even accept Mueller's statement here because it doesn't fit your prejudiced narrative.

Mueller report to be 'almost certain to be anti-climactic,' sources tell ABC's Karl
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report may not be as shocking as it has been built up to be - at least according to ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.

Speaking to host George Stephanopoulos Sunday on “This Week,” Karl said that he’s been told by sources close to the investigation that the report into Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible collusion between President Trump's campaign and Moscow is “almost certain to be anti-climactic.”

"There have been expectations that have been building, of course, for over a year," Karl told Stephanopoulos. "But people who are closest to what Mueller has been doing, interacting with the special counsel, caution me that this report is almost certain to be anti-climactic."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mu...n-to-be-anti-climactic-sources-tell-abcs-karl

 

Robert S. Mueller III was praised as the ideal lawman when appointed as Special Counsel. An experienced, stanch, no bullshit, nonpartisan investigator. There was none better nowhere to appoint. A Vietnam Marine combat hero with honorable service, an experienced lawman, an FBI director, and now an elder statesman universally held in the highest regard. More honorable than Cicero.

He says in a stunning statement uncharacteristic of the office of Special Counsel that Buzzfleece was not accurate.

 

Again. people ate tide-pods to become youtube famous. Always assume people are stupider then you think.

Also, making assumptions requires evidence to back them up. All you have is 'well, people would be stupid not to'. All I have is 'No mention from the afflicted individual, the database for licensed housing providers is literally 2 pages long with about 10-15 individuals per page in a city of 700K, and the complete lack of any follow up at all'.

I'd say I have a stronger case to back my assumption then you (of which you'll of course disagree)

Says the guy who literally admitted to Assuming in this very same post.

Cover? Pawns? You have a very odd view on this. It's almost like a competition for you. Must have a big trophy case full of 'No-Prizes'.

 

Its delish how this is panning out.

 

I'l quote the left wing Washington Post AGAIN because you aren't getting it: "The special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described (by Buzzfeed), reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case......They found none......People familiar with the matter said the special counsel’s office meant the statement to be a denial of the central theses of the BuzzFeed story."

Mueller's looked at what they had to see if testimony and/or evidence matched what Buzzfeed said. They found "none". The statement was also a rejection of the "central theses" of the accusation that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress.

You still are not accepting those FACTS. You are still throwing out hypotheticals that Mueller shot the "central theses" down to. You aren't accepting what Mueller is saying now so why should you have any credibility here?