@realDonaldTrump Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump More Kevin Corke, @FoxNews “Don’t forget, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of perjury and fraud, and as recently as this week, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that he may have stolen tens of thousands of dollars....” Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law! 7:02 am - 18 Jan 2019
We won’t sidetrack for more than a moment on Cohen’s father-in-law Fima Shusterman, but as Trump keeps bringing him up, here’s a quick recap.
Shusterman, was charged with two other men in 1993 with conspiring to defraud the IRS in connection with his New York taxi business. He pleaded guilty to a related charge that same year, and was placed on probation for two years.
He reportedly loaned at least $20 million to a Chicago taxi business mogul referred to in FBI search warrants for Michael Cohen, according to this CNBC report.
Trump told Fox News in a phone interview last weekend that be believed that Cohen decided to give prosecutors information on him, in order to get a reduced sentence from his crimes. He told Fox: “He should give information maybe on his father-in-law, because that’s the one that people want to look at.”
Michael Cohen’s background is certainly colorful, or shady, whichever way you’d like to put it. Here’s one of the Guardian’s profiles of “the lawyer who rose from the taxi business to fixing the future president’s messiest problems” to conviction in a New York courtroom.
Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violation, tax fraud and bank fraud, last August and convicted of lying to Congress, last November. He’s been sentenced to three years in prison.
The man who once said he would “take a bullet” for Trump but has now directly and repeatedly implicated the president in criminal conduct.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
for example, in your copy/paste we read - "President Donald Trump personally directed his longtime former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Trump Tower project, two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter told BuzzFeed." Yes, because this is what Cohen is saying out loud...how is "2 federal law enforcement officials involved" making this "more truthier"....geez, no wonder Brits can't even get Brexit correct, you guys let your most successful colony win a revolt back in c 1776.
Dude, do you even read?
Mueller's office learned Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization, internal company emails, text messages and other documents, Buzzfeed reports.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
I love that this is his defense, because it isn't much of one. He seems to be trying to win over the court of public opinion instead of the upcoming legal court.
Mueller's office breaks form and responds to the buzzfeed article calling it "not accurate" as far as their description of the special counsel's evidence.
Kevin Graham wrote:Mueller's office breaks form and responds to the buzzfeed article calling it "not accurate" as far as their description of the special counsel's evidence.
Perhaps let's wait until the investigation is over prior to determining what the facts are? N.Y. Times retracts, then buzzfeed. It's tough to trust the media on this story.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Kevin Graham wrote:Mueller's office breaks form and responds to the buzzfeed article calling it "not accurate" as far as their description of the special counsel's evidence.
Perhaps let's wait until the investigation is over prior to determining what the facts are? N.Y. Times retracts, then buzzfeed. It's tough to trust the media on this story.
I still never understood why you thought there was an NYT reaction of the substance of that story when there wasn't. They issued a correction that misidentified who he shared the data with, but the people he shared it with wasn't any less damning. Sources like Infowars call it a retraction, but everything about the story that makes it concerning is still there. The records that story is based on are publicly accessible. What people were freaking out about in that story remains true. That you insist on call it a retraction makes it seem like you are relying on sources like Infowars.
Buzzfeed hasn't retracted. They've doubled down on asserting that their sources are reliable, but the wise thing to do given the Mueller spox's statement is to withhold judgement. There's no way you can take their story at face value now. It's possible the Mueller investigation is disputing small details to preserve ongoing threads of investigation, but it's also possible that Buzzfeed is just wrong. We don't know.
One of the problems with just waiting until the investigation is over is that we may never see the details of the investigation. The idea of a grand "Mueller Report" that lays out what they found and details the evidence backing it may never hit the public. Journalists uncovering what they can without impeding an on-going investigation are doing a service.
Mueller didn't say Buzzfeed was not accurate until 7:30pm. He did this not out of any moral conviction but rather Mueller was scared of another leak investigation.
Just another day of fake news selling leftists false hopes of impeaching DJT and overturning the results of a democratic election they didn't agree with.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Ajax's fevered brain inadvertently gets at a point that makes the story strange. It's common practice for journalists to go to targets in stories like this and give them forewarning what they are going to publish and offer an opportunity to dispute at that point. Buzzfeed is claiming they did this and got a "no comment" from the Mueller team 24 hours ago. Why wait as long as they did to dispute a nonspecific portion of the story? Seems like something got lost along the way.
The most plausible argument I've seen so far for what may be going on here is that the sources for the Buzzfeed story are in SDNY. They have access to the same evidence and characterize its strength more boldly than what Mueller wants to for prosecutorial reasons. That at least would explain why the Spox statement was worded the way it was, Buzzfeed's confidence in its sources, and the unusual correction timeline.