I think at minimum the big problem with “regular contact” is that it would mean that Cohen was making public and false statements with the President’s knowledge and there was no attempt to correct the record call out the falsehoods. That’s another puzzle piece in building a conspiracy case.
Is this a requirement? If I know someone is lying but I’m not asked under oath I don’t have to volunteer that information. Right?
Legally very gray, and by itself it probably it would be more politically damaging than anything in a normal presidency. But if Mueller is laying the groundwork for conspiracy to obstruct or something similar, it’s a very complimentary piece of that.
Okay. I’m following. Well we’ll see eventually if anything comes out of any of this in the end, and if that’s true, well that will come out too. There are going to be some liars in this group. They’re doing illegal stuff. Lying is just the topping.
I would think if Trump’s counsel were coaching him on what to tell Congress, that would be somewhat important. Right now, we don’t really know what info was flowing and in what directions.
Ummmm … covfefe?
Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Very interesting :
In fairness, everyone who corruptly tried to help Trump break laws and lie to the American people probably helped Mueller make a case against him.
Roger Stone: “Attempted murder? I mean really, what is that? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry?”
This is actually a common misconception that I saw recently repeated on CNN this week during the Cohen probe. The GOP platform on Russia was not weakened at the convention; in fact it got stronger. What happened is that a single delegate sought to amend the platform to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia. This would be a change from Obama’s policy (which was to provide only defensive weapons.) The Trump delegate in the room kept some of the amendment, but eliminated the addition of the lethal defensive weapons because it was inconsistent with Trump’s policy of seeking better relations with Russia. Trump has since provided lethal weapons to Ukraine regardless, because platforms are nonbinding.
There is more information here on what happened at the convention and how certain misinformation spread from a Washington Post opinion piece into a FISA application.
Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than source that with a Washington Examiner opinion piece.
Joins 20 min ago, immediately posts to P&R and as a bonus includes a link to a RW media outlet to support his argument. Who could it be now?!
This objection is strange because the origins of the entire story are also in an opinion piece, linked here. The headline being its main problem as York points out. The facts are not even in dispute, but the headline did the damage.
It comes down to: “Do you believe Paul Manafort’s denials, or the great evidence stacked against them that suggests otherwise?”
If you’re a neo-fascist brownshirt, I suppose you’ve picked your horse in this race.
I’m starting to suspect that many of you aren’t as interested in making America great again as our new poster HoraceMann225 is.
I can’t think of one reason why Manafort would lie about this.
You guys are crazy. I saw an article on Breitbart that completely debunked the whole thing. And Hannity spent 5.3 hours exhaustively describing how Clinton literally handed over the keys to the White House to her Russian handlers back in February.
The Politifact article does not dispute anything in the York piece. The Washington Post piece is also factually accurate except for the headline. The facts are not in dispute. The problem is the headline in the Washington Post opinion piece is misleading.
Maybe I am not being clear so I will try again. Read the Examiner piece and The Post piece. They are saying the same thing at a factual level except for the headline. But the latter gives a slant to the issue, which leads to misconceptions.
This community seems nice. And I wonder why I stopped lurking!