Breaking News: Trump's Felony #2

[_EAllusion]

If it turns out Trump wasn't guilty of one impeachable offense, you'd still want him impeached for other impeachable offenses he did. That's so unfair of you!

[_canpakes]

I'm at the airport on my phone so I can't post a link, but Sean Hannity said that even if Trump did order Cohen to lie, that it wouldn't matter because democrats are hypocrites.

It wouldn't matter to him if he committed that felony.

Front page at mediamatters.org

Oh, yeah. Hannity. The guy who said a while back, “Uranium One will be one of the biggest scandals this country has ever seen...”

So much for that BS.

Well, he’s got an actual scandal now, but he can’t dare admit to it because it isn’t a Clinton or Obama. What a spineless bag of hot air.

[_ajax18]

https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/01/21 ... -real-one/

What if a central figure in the Russian collusion scandal — a former U.S. senator, in fact — died? In his obituaries, would the alt-left media ignore not only the decedent’s role in the scandal, but the collusion itself, totally?

Yes, they would. In fact, yes they did, last week.

Because this was not the imaginary Trump collusion scandal, this was the real Russian collusion scandal, engineered by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy back in 1983. Nothing to see here folks, move along!

The 83-year-old dead guy is John Tunney, former one-term U.S. senator from California, son of ex-heavyweight champion Gene Tunney and law-school classmate at UVa of Ted Kennedy.

Most significantly, Tunney was Kennedy’s D.C. drinking buddy — the original Chris Dodd, you might say. In his last campaign, in 1976, his Democrat primary opponent, Tom Hayden (a.k.a. Mr. Jane Fonda) described Tunney as “a Chappaquiddick waiting to happen.”

After he lost his seat in 1976 at age 42, Tunney still palled around with Teddy on those summerlong drinking binges down on the Cape. But in May 1983, Teddy had a bigger assignment for Tunney than the usual beer run to the packy at the ­Hyannis rotary.

Tunney was assigned to go to Moscow, and make the Evil Empire an offer it couldn’t refuse: The Soviets and the Democrats would join forces to deny President Ronald Reagan a second term in 1984. The Soviets would retain their slave empire, and the Democrats could resume destroying America.

How do we know this? Because when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the KGB’s secret files were opened to Western researchers. In the Kremlin, a British reporter discovered a 1983 memo from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, then the Soviet dictator.

The KGB memo described Tunney as Teddy’s “close friend and trusted confidant … charged to convey the following message, through confidential contacts… ”

Comrade Tunney explained that Teddy controlled the media in the U.S., and that his fellow travelers would do whatever the hero of Chappaquiddick instructed them to do.

“Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews … The senator (Tunney) underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
In other words, the Reds and their fellow travelers in the Democratic party had to make it seem like the “news” wasn’t Russian disinformation. You know, exactly like they tried to do with Hillary’s dirty dossier. And Tunney’s outreach was designed to accomplish the same outcome as Clinton’s dirty dossier — the election of a corrupt Democrat puppet the Russians could control.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memo read. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight … .”
Does anyone doubt that even then the Democrats had utter control of the parlor pinks in the card-carrying mass media? A couple of years later, Teddy would succeed in spiking a devastating 27-minute ABC “News” documentary about RFK, JFK and the final hours of Marilyn Monroe’s life. Ask Geraldo Rivera sometime how he happened to lose his job at ABC.

And this was long before ABC “News” hired conniving Democrat hacks like George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz and Brian Ross.

Nothing came of this first treasonous Democrat-Russian plot to subvert a U.S. presidential election. Andropov was dead eight months later, and Kennedy and Tunney resumed their lifelong happy hour, soon to be joined by Chris Dodd.

This 1983 memo is not some libelous Fusion GPS made-up oppo-research fiction. This is from official KGB files. It’s been reported in The Times of London, Forbes magazine and it’s between hard covers in a 2006 book. Ted Kennedy never denied it, nor did Tunney.

But in all the major obituaries for Tunney last week, there was not one single word about this original, real Russian collusion. All the national newspapers that have been printing one false story after another about Trump’s “collusion” for more than a year gave this real Russian collusion story a good leaving-alone.
Are you surprised that the alt-left media would again ignore the biggest Russian “collusion” story in American political history, while simultaneously promoting endless nonsense about a 2016 collusion that never occurred?

Me neither. They don’t call it fake news for nothing.

[_Chap]

But in all the major obituaries for Tunney last week, there was not one single word about this original, real Russian collusion. All the national newspapers that have been printing one false story after another about Trump’s “collusion” for more than a year gave this real Russian collusion story a good leaving-alone.

The events to which you refer are claimed to have happened over a third of a century ago, I suspect that the news outlets that produced obituaries for Tunney simply pulled out what they had had on this old man since he ceased to be politically active years ago.

Your notion that there is this strange hive-mind called 'the left' that knew all about what you allege to have happened and decided to conceal it on Tunney's death is simply weird. And it's not remotely surprising that news outlets in general should devote vastly more attention to a major and long-term investigation of a sitting president (which has so far seen guilty pleas from close associates of that president and indictments of others) than to what one dead person is said to have done with other dead persons years before many of their readers were even born.

Meanwhile, on the 'KGB memo' story as a whole, see:

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... ng-never-/

[_Chap]

Oh, and:

Trump may have spoken to Cohen before false testimony to Congress – Giuliani

Giuliani is really doing good work for his client, isn't he?

Donald Trump may have talked to Michael Cohen in advance about Cohen’s false testimony to Congress on their pursuit of a property deal in Russia, the president’s attorney said on Sunday.

Rudy Giuliani said it would have been “perfectly normal” for Trump to discuss the testimony with Cohen, his former legal fixer who has admitted to lying to Congress about when the “Trump Tower Moscow” project ended.

“So what if he talked to him?”, Giuliani said on CNN’s State of the Union, while insisting that Trump did not instruct Cohen to lie in the testimony.

Cohen initially told a congressional committee investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that the Trump Organization’s pursuit of a property deal in Russia ended before the Republican primary began in January 2016.

But last November, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and admitted discussions on the Moscow deal actually continued well into 2016. He said he had briefed Trump and members of Trump’s family extensively.

Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing last month Cohen told investigators about “preparing and circulating his response to the congressional inquiries”, indicating that the White House may have been in the loop about his false testimony.

Late on Friday, the office of the special counsel disputed an explosive BuzzFeed News report that said Trump personally directed Cohen to lie to Congress. BuzzFeed has said it stands by the story, which was sourced to anonymous federal law enforcement officials.

Giuliani said on Sunday Cohen had a clearer oversight of the Russia project than Trump, and that Trump had been too busy with his campaign to pay close attention.

He said any advance discussion about Cohen’s testimony would have involved Cohen telling Trump what he intended to say and Trump trusting that it would be accurate.

“The guy driving this testimony was Michael Cohen,” Giuliani told CNN.

Giuliani also reiterated a past statement that the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations may have continued even beyond the June 2016 date given when Cohen admitted that his earlier testimony was false.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Giuliani said Trump’s team had told Mueller the discussions “went on throughout 2016” and continued “probably up to, could be up to, as far as October, November”.

This would mean Trump was pursuing a lucrative deal requiring Russian government approval right up until his election as president of the US. American intelligence agencies have concluded Russia’s interference in the campaign was aimed at boosting Trump and damaging Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

Mueller is investigating whether anyone from Trump’s campaign was involved in the Russian interference. Trump has repeatedly claimed there was “no collusion”.

Last week Giuliani conceded that Trump associates may have colluded with Russia. If they had, he said, Trump had not known.

[_MeDotOrg]

As for those who say there is a left wing conspiracy, many on the right have consistently called this investigation a witch hunt and have ignored the serious threat the Russian interference poses to our democratic institutions.

Without making this a right of left argument...Russian Interference has been going on since world war 2. Can we agree on that, and that it will not stop anytime in the future.

I find a bit of a cognitive disconnect here. So the Russians have been trying to interfere in our elections since WWII, but any attempt to investigate interference in our elections is a 'witch hunt'? That there is absolutely no difference between Soviet interference in 1948 and the way Putin interfered in 2016? Not worth investigating? Nothing to be gained by understanding what they are trying to do?

Ask yourself: why such a cynical and fatalistic view of our country's efforts to make our elections freer from foreign influence?

Adlai Stevenson was the Democratic candidate in '52 and '56. He was softer than Kennedy or Nixon with respect to the Russians. Before the '60 election, he was approached by the Soviet Ambassador and told if he ran again the Soviet Union would be happy to provide assistance. How did Stevenson respond?

He told the ambassador bluntly that he did not expect to be a candidate in 1960 but that the offer of assistance was "highly improper, indiscreet, and dangerous." He went on to express "grave misgivings about the propriety or wisdom of any interference, direct or indirect, in the American election."

Adlai Stevenson was a liberal Democrat. His idea of how to make America great was NOT to embrace the Russians. And up until 2016, that was also the sentiment of most conservative Republicans.

It was communications director Hope Hicks who said that there had been no contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Trump's own campaign manager gave polling data to the Russians and offered briefings to Russian Oligarchs. Trump had a meeting where he asks everyone to leave except Comey, and then asked Comey drop the Flynn investigation. Trump helped draft the memo that lied about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting. He lied about not pursuing business interests in Russia. He said he finds the arguments of Vladimir Putin more compelling than the assessments of the United States intelligence community. He has a meeting with Putin where only the Russian translator is present. The day after Comey is fired, Trump had a meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian Ambassador, where he said "“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” He is withdrawing from Syria. He seriously talked about leaving NATO.

What is Trump's response? It's all a witch hunt. Mueller is corrupt and morally compromised, propped up by Hillary supporters who can't accept the 2016 election results.

The Russians tried to influence our election. That is not news. What IS news is they got active and willing support from the President's campaign. Manafort's lawyer admits that he gave polling data to the Russians. Giulini now admits that discussions for Trump Tower Moscow were taking place up until the election, while Trump was on the campaign trail denying that he had any potential business deals in Russia.

In regards to how we attack our President and act, both sides of the aisle, is that alone helping or hurting our country?

Having real evidence is one thing, but blind hatred is another...I hope we can learn from this, I have.

I don't think Buzzfeed getting the facts wrong on a story negates every other piece of evidence that is already in the public arena. We don't what the facts ARE, only that Buzzfeed's story was inaccurate. I agree that there are those who hate Donald Trump blindly, but blind hatred is not the cause of Donald Trump's troubles. His own actions are the cause of his troubles.

For blind hatred I would nominate the gentleman wearing the "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat" T-Shirt while wearing a MAGA hat at a Trump rally. That is a hatred that will blind you from the truth.

[_subgenius]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5CB5D526

are still with the OP?

[_subgenius]

Because the President of the United States committing a felony is newsworthy stuff even if it hasn't been corroborated by other outlets.

let that sink in...uncorroborated accusations are now "newsworthy", when convenient to hair-fire du jour.

It was corroborated by Buzzfeed, however. They have two witnesses who say they have documents to prove it.

That is not how "corroboration" works with news....your "source" can't be the same as the "corroborator".
But I appreciate how you are asserting that the 2 witnesses have documents to prove that Mueller's statement on the matter is false.

We all know Trump of course told Cohen to lie. That's what he does.

Its not knowledge, its supposition (see also hair-fire above). But yeah, still noticing how you suddenly find Cohen credible now.

I don't know why you're acting like you really care. If he was found guilty of this you'd still support him and blow it off as a nothing burger.

Kinda like your position on this thread's OP, got it!

[_canpakes]

Because the President of the United States committing a felony is newsworthy stuff even if it hasn't been corroborated by other outlets.

let that sink in...uncorroborated accusations are now "newsworthy", when convenient to hair-fire du jour.

I’m not sure how any regular viewer of Fox News over the last decade would find this to be unusual.

[_Kevin Graham]

let that sink in...uncorroborated accusations are now "newsworthy", when convenient to hair-fire du jour.

They're uncorroborated to CNN and FOX but not to Buzzfeed. A second eye witness supporting the testimony of the first, is by definition corroborating evidence.

That is not how "corroboration" works with news....your "source" can't be the same as the "corroborator".

That is how most corroboration works in news. One source's claims are supported by a second source. You seem to think corroboration only exists in the form of video/audio proof. That's almost never the case. In the context of journalism, a second witness constitutes corroboration: "The use of anonymous sources has always been controversial. Some news outlets insist that anonymous sources are the only way to obtain certain information, while others prohibit the use of unnamed sources at all times. News organizations may impose safeguards, such as requiring that information from an anonymous source be corroborated by a second source before it can be printed."

Buzzfeed is confident in their report precisely because they have two Law Enforcement officials feeding them the same information.

But I appreciate how you are asserting that the 2 witnesses have documents to prove that Mueller's statement on the matter is false.

That isn't what I asserted.

Its not knowledge, its supposition (see also hair-fire above). But yeah, still noticing how you suddenly find Cohen credible now.

It is an educated assumption given what we know of Trump's criminal tendencies.