So did Cohen lie in his plea agreement, or is he lying now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

So did Cohen lie in his plea agreement, or is he lying now?

---

Yes

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/donald-trump-legally-over/

Elie Mystal says the Trump presidency if over--but only if McConnell and Senate Republicans do their jobs.

pruritus_ani said:

---

You need 67 Senate votes to convict. Not 60.

People thought Nixon was safe until the evidence convinced enough Republicans that he had to go. He spared them, and the country, by resigning.

I don't know what Mueller will report, but I cannot fathom Trump resigning no matter what.

---

I can. He hates this job. He didn't expect to be elected. I can see him picking up his toys and going home to Mar A Lago. If that's an option.

Heard an interesting item on Chuck Todd's show this afternoon. I don't remember the man's name, but Chuck gave him high credibility and the man said that because of how the Constitution talks about impeachment (vague) that while the House can bring articles of impeachment, the Senate does Not have to act on it. He was not talking about it not getting enough votes, he was saying that the Senate (probably meaning McConnell) doesn't even have to discuss, just doesn't bring it up for a vote.

I'm sure the public backlash against McConnell would be unheard of and thus he likely would not take that route, but it was an interesting tidbit.

Concerning how the Senate could get enough votes to convict, I believe if the evidence was blatantly obvious and damning, there would be no problem with getting enough votes. The Reps aren't stupid. I would hope the Dems would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. I believe a member of either party would find themselves hanging out to dry in the next election if they voted solely on politics. Remember we are talking about Senators. They have to be elected by the entire state. Gerrymandering and packed districts may insulate House members of both parties, but that doesn't come into play in a statewide election.

pruritus_ani said:

---

You need 67 Senate votes to convict. Not 60.

People thought Nixon was safe until the evidence convinced enough Republicans that he had to go. He spared them, and the country, by resigning.

I don't know what Mueller will report, but I cannot fathom Trump resigning no matter what.

---

You are completely correct ....67....perfect .

Trump isn't resigning .....so exactly how is he going to be convicted in the Senate ?

All just silly chatter to mask Trumps economy come 2020.

The only way Trump loses in 2020 is if .....

A. The economy tanks....always could happen

or

B. Trump continues to self destruct on Twitter....he's been horribly stupid in this realm already

or

C. Trump completely over reaches himself in a power grab.....wouldn't shock me .



But it's not going to be due to any impeachment 'trial'.

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/donald-trump-legally-over/

Elie Mystal says the Trump presidency if over--but only if McConnell and Senate Republicans do their jobs.

---

I don't think "precedent" means what Elie Mystal thinks it means.

Osodecentx said:

---

This looks like big trouble for Trump. Why isn't this obstruction?

Attorney General Barr wrote the following in June, 2018:
And the soon to be new Attorney General wrote on June 8th of last year: "If a President . . . suborns perjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity of available evidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction."

Buzzfeed published the following:
Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his business interests in Russia. "The special counsel's office learned about Trump's directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Org and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents."
(Tip of the hat to Liberally Lean from the land of Dairy Queen, an entertaining blog published by a Baylor lawyer)

---

So if Mueller says it's BS what do you say now about al these fake anonymous sources? How many times can the liberal media be wrong about these stories before being held accountable for making crap up?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-team-disputes-buzzfeed-report-claiming-trump-told-cohen-to-lie

I told y'all.

Mueller team disputes BuzzFeed report claiming Trump told Cohen to lie.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mueller-team-disputes-buzzfeed-report-claiming-trump-told-cohen-to-lie

#fakenews again and again and again and again and again and again and . . .

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So did Cohen lie in his plea agreement, or is he lying now?

---

Yes

---

Any response? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

Clickbait sites are going to clickbait.

contrario said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So did Cohen lie in his plea agreement, or is he lying now?

---

Yes

---

Any response? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

Clickbait sites are going to clickbait.

---

I'll believe the Special Counsel and the WSJ over Buzzfeed 10 times out of 10.

From WSJ:
Special Counsel Disputes BuzzFeed Report That Alleged Trump Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress
House Democrats said earlier they would probe the allegations in the report

The special counsel's office issued a rare statement late Friday disputing a BuzzFeed report that said President Trump directed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about the president's involvement in a real-estate deal with Russia during the 2016 campaign.
"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," said Peter Carr, spokesman for special counsel Robert Mueller.

The statement came nearly a day after BuzzFeed published the story, citing two anonymous law-enforcement sources, that set off a firestorm in Washington. The chairmen of two House investigative panels had said earlier Friday they would probe the report's allegations.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said the panel would "do what's necessary to find out if it is true." Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tweeted that the panel's "job is to get to the bottom of it, and we will do that work."
Mr. Trump in a tweet Friday morning suggested Mr. Cohen was "lying to reduce his jail time," but didn't specify what he believed his former lawyer was lying about. Mr. Cohen was sentenced last month to three years in prison.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, had responded to the story by questioning Mr. Cohen's credibility. "Haven't checked it out but if you believe Cohen I can get you a good all-cash deal on the Brooklyn Bridge," Mr. Giuliani said via text message.
On Friday, Mr. Giuliani said in a statement: "Any suggestionfrom any sourcethat the president counseled Michael Cohen to lie is categorically false." He called the allegation that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to lie to Congress "just more made-up lies born of Michael Cohen's malice and desperation."
The president repeatedly has denied collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice.

BuzzFeed News reported late Thursday that Mr. Cohen had told Mr. Mueller that Mr. Trump had directed him to tell Congress in his 2017 testimony that negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow had ended in January 2016, when in fact they had continued through June of that yeara month after Mr. Trump effectively won the GOP nomination.
BuzzFeed also reported that Mr. Mueller had evidence corroborating Mr. Trump's direction of Mr. Cohen, including interviews and documents.
Late Friday, responding to the statement from the special counsel's office, BuzzFeed said it was confident in its story. "We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing," Ben Smith, editor in chief of BuzzFeed, said on Twitter.

A sentencing statement by Mr. Cohen's attorneys last month suggested that the former Trump lawyer had acted at Mr. Trump's behest when he lied to Congressan allegation that wasn't repeated when Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court later that month.

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

My biggest issue is if this is true, why are we hearing about this through a clickbait news source? Why isn't Trump already being indicted? If they have emails and texts that indicate this, why aren't they taking him down already? What's the hold up? He's already halfway through his first term and if this goes much longer, he'll finish the term. Why let him stay in office one day longer? It doesn't make any sense.

---

I think a sitting president cannot be indicted. The remedy would be impeachment and removal from office.

---

Understood, but why not get the process started?

---

I think the process is started

---

Trust the process.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

My biggest issue is if this is true, why are we hearing about this through a clickbait news source? Why isn't Trump already being indicted? If they have emails and texts that indicate this, why aren't they taking him down already? What's the hold up? He's already halfway through his first term and if this goes much longer, he'll finish the term. Why let him stay in office one day longer? It doesn't make any sense.

---

I think a sitting president cannot be indicted. The remedy would be impeachment and removal from office.

---

Understood, but why not get the process started?

---

I think the process is started

---

Trust the process.

---

When media zeal outruns the process, we get runaway speculation and narratives that Mueller is compelled to correct.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

My biggest issue is if this is true, why are we hearing about this through a clickbait news source? Why isn't Trump already being indicted? If they have emails and texts that indicate this, why aren't they taking him down already? What's the hold up? He's already halfway through his first term and if this goes much longer, he'll finish the term. Why let him stay in office one day longer? It doesn't make any sense.

---

I think a sitting president cannot be indicted. The remedy would be impeachment and removal from office.

---

Understood, but why not get the process started?

---

I think the process is started

---

Trust the process.

---

When media zeal outruns the process, we get runaway speculation and narratives that Mueller is compelled to correct.

---

We are responsible for how we consume media. None of it compels Mueller to do anything except complete his investigation.

blackie said:

---

Heard an interesting item on Chuck Todd's show this afternoon. I don't remember the man's name, but Chuck gave him high credibility and the man said that because of how the Constitution talks about impeachment (vague) that while the House can bring articles of impeachment, the Senate does Not have to act on it. He was not talking about it not getting enough votes, he was saying that the Senate (probably meaning McConnell) doesn't even have to discuss, just doesn't bring it up for a vote.

I'm sure the public backlash against McConnell would be unheard of and thus he likely would not take that route, but it was an interesting tidbit.

Concerning how the Senate could get enough votes to convict, I believe if the evidence was blatantly obvious and damning, there would be no problem with getting enough votes. The Reps aren't stupid. I would hope the Dems would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. I believe a member of either party would find themselves hanging out to dry in the next election if they voted solely on politics. Remember we are talking about Senators. They have to be elected by the entire state. Gerrymandering and packed districts may insulate House members of both parties, but that doesn't come into play in a statewide election.

---

MCConnel is refusing to refer considered legislation to the president for signature. He refused a hearing to President Obama's SC nominee. What makes you think he wouldn't ignore an impeachment request?

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

contrario said:

---

My biggest issue is if this is true, why are we hearing about this through a clickbait news source? Why isn't Trump already being indicted? If they have emails and texts that indicate this, why aren't they taking him down already? What's the hold up? He's already halfway through his first term and if this goes much longer, he'll finish the term. Why let him stay in office one day longer? It doesn't make any sense.

---

I think a sitting president cannot be indicted. The remedy would be impeachment and removal from office.

---

Understood, but why not get the process started?

---

I think the process is started

---

Trust the process.

---

When media zeal outruns the process, we get runaway speculation and narratives that Mueller is compelled to correct.

---

Well said .