Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delphic Oracle said:
Probably an objectionable question along the lines of hearsay.

Questions could be crafted about how Trump has operated on previous occasions that would go to character, but asking Cohen to clarify what Trump intended in the very instance in question is legally dubious.
Click to expand...

First: There are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Second: If Person "A" instructs Person "B" to tell Person "C" to lie, and Person "C" knows that the instruction came from Person "A", then that is not hearsay.

Third: Is there a prohibition against hearsay in testimony to the Senate or Congress? I don't think there is
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-12/news/mn-166_1_trial-procedure
 
Again, through all this, BuzzFeed are still standing behind their story; they are 100% confident in their sources.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ohen-trump-report_us_5c44a1eee4b0bfa693c487c6

"Anthony Cormier, half of the reporting duo behind the story, told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that his sources are “solid” and that he was confident their information would be proven accurate over time.

“I’m solid. My sources are solid,” Cormier told host Brian Stelter. “This is going to be borne out, Brian. This story is accurate.”

Stelter asked Cormier about the possibility that his sources are wrong.

“They’re not,” Cormier responded. “They’re not. I’m confident.”​

What else can they do when they go back to their sources, and those sources are telling them that they are confident what they are telling BuzzFeed is correct and accurate?

Is there any chance that BuzzFeed are being deliberately scammed (shades of "The Newsroom" and the Season 2 - Operation Genoa story arc) ?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Brief Seth Abramson thread on the above
Click to expand...

From that Abramson twitter sequence:

8/ The important thing is this: if Giuliani is willing to say this publicly, it means he's either certain Mueller already has this information from another source, or sure that information at *least* this bad about the Trump-Kremlin negotiations is certain to come out eventually.
Click to expand...

I like Abramson, but he's giving Giuliani waaayyyy more credit than I do. Never discount the possibility that Giuliani simply screwed up and said something he shouldn't have.
 
dasmiller said:
This "Trump" you speak of who carefully and tactfully chooses his words to achieve a particular level of ambiguity and deniability while subtly communicating his intent . . . who is he and how is he related to the President?
Click to expand...
It continues, people imagining all the ways the POTUS is magically clever in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Take a few minutes to look at this Time compilation of Trump's changing story about the Moscow Trump Tower deal. It's Trump's repeating pattern, not because he's clever, but because his lies are the same over and over (see the book, Gaslighting America).

Giuliani Says Trump Signed Russian Trump Tower Deal Letter. 2 Days Ago, He Said Trump Didn’t It has a timeline of Trump's changing story. A pattern, yes, clever, no, not unless you count a natural born liar as clever.
 
The Trumpublicans keep telling the lie that Mueller's investigation is narrow and should only be about Russia's meddling in the election. These are the same people that lead an investigation into Hillary about Benghazi, that turned into an attempt to indict her for forwarding a few classified emails..............
 
Who cares what Congress Republicans want?
The only Republicans who matter are Mueller and Rosenstein (until Barr is in charge).
But they, too, might want to keep the investigation as narrow as possible, to keep things prosecutable and to avoid too much splash on the rest of the GOP.
 
Aridas said:
Ehh. Only if, say, there's a whole bunch of related criminal behavior to be discovered in relation to the investigation. So, narrow, with the possibility of expansion on need. The main reason for it becoming broad would be because Trump and his campaign are flagrant criminals.

That's a pretty safe bet, honestly, so questions of whether it's narrow or broad are probably best tossed to the wayside.
Click to expand...
I'd say given the number of already successful prosecutions it is hard not to draw that conclusion.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Depends how you ask the question. ;)

"Did Trump HIMSELF make it clear to you by any means how he wanted the answers to go? Or that you should not be truthful?"
Click to expand...

Maybe as with some life forms the communication is all done by smell. Or, a code:

T: "You know that thing?"
C: "Oh, that thing?"
T: "Yeah, the usual thing"
C: "Talk to our friend."

That could cover everything from perjury to murder. You think Putin has to give anyone explicit orders?

smartcooky said:
Is there any chance that BuzzFeed are being deliberately scammed (shades of "The Newsroom" and the Season 2 - Operation Genoa story arc) ?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen those, but in "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" the hero is suckered into printing a libelous story, which lands him in Swedish jail. Which doesn't look half-bad.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Take a few minutes to look at this Time compilation of Trump's changing story about the Moscow Trump Tower deal. It's Trump's repeating pattern, not because he's clever, but because his lies are the same over and over (see the book, Gaslighting America)
Click to expand...
I wonder if it is time to gently urge our Trump-supporting relatives to watch such clips. I have a brother who is on the bubble about leaving the Republican Party - a big concession for him - but I wouldn't bother with my nephew.

I also wonder if the narration could be ditched entirely if such clips are used for advertising. No voice-over, just dates and some enigmatic tagline. IMO it would make it harder to reject as "fake news."

Without at least some shift in popular opinion, the Mueller report is in danger of being dismissed as purely partisan. I think GOP senators know better but they will act the way constituents want them to act.
 
Minoosh said:
I wonder if it is time to gently urge our Trump-supporting relatives to watch such clips. I have a brother who is on the bubble about leaving the Republican Party - a big concession for him - but I wouldn't bother with my nephew.
.....
Click to expand...


You might show 'em this.
Two years after taking the oath of office, President Trump has made 8,158 false or misleading claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.

That includes an astonishing 6,000-plus such claims in the president’s second year.

Put another way: The president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. But he hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year, almost triple the pace.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-his-first-two-years/?utm_term=.02b2961eb7fd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom