i mean, we could know rather soon when Cohen testifies before Congress on Feb. 7th


also, this:



"in accordance with Client 1's directives."


but it seems like the issue is probably that the proof that the orders came directly from Trump isn't ironclad, and as such Mueller didn't want to run with that assertion and/or as emptywheel said, Mueller can't do anything with that information anyway, so he wanted to omit it (for now?)


but i'm not even a pretend lawyer...

I think the only way Trump *did not* directly tell Cohen to lie to congress is if they, somehow, did not talk about it at all. The ven diagram of them talking about it and Trump directing him to lie is just a circle, and there's *no chance* they didn't talk about his personal lawyer/fixer about to testify to congress. It's merely about the corroborating evidence. Cohen will answer, "Yes, he told me too." we'll know that part (I'd say we already do, but whatever). What we won't know is why Mueller hasn't moved this forward or why he would come out and dispute the story as written. I think that emptywheel theory is just more wish fulfillment and it's way way more likely it's just not ironclad.

if i had to guess*, the directive from Trump was verbal (the BF story mentioned multiple witnesses, so like Cohen and a lawyer, or some other collaborator who was in the room), but the corroborating text/email evidence is from a lawyer/Jr/Kush on behalf of Trump, so not strong enough to run with in this way

but BF felt differently

Farrow seems to be saying that none of it was direct, according to his sources
Mueller, NYT, etc might be saying the same thing
and Cohen's sentencing statement says "in accordance with Client 1's [indirect?] directives"

curious as to where the disconnect is here, and BF seems to feel strongly about the accuracy of their report
(anyone have a good theory?)


* - obv worthless

or that the direct directives from Trump were not specific (e.g. DON'T GIVE 'EM ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HURT ME!!!) + maybe the indirect directives were specific

but it seems rather unlikely that BF just made some **** up here or got took on a story, like some seem to be hoping


though i'm curious as to why Mueller felt the need to comment on this report
i mean, i kinda doubt it's the first not 100% correct thing written about his probe

I am sure that the Buzzfeed reporters are 100 percent sure that their sources weren't misleading them, as they have proven to be right in the past. Plus, they don't face any real consequences for being wrong. Leopold has been spectacularly wrong in the past and emerged somewhat unscathed. Plus, probably 60 percent of the country really wants him to be right. Eventually they can probably do what Leopold did with his Rove story, which is to just keep claiming he never made a mistake.

As far as Mueller releasing his statement, that part seems pretty easy. If Trump told Cohen directly to lie, and there are documents to back this up, it is a slam dunk impeachable offense. As I stated in my original post on this issue, the game would be over.

But I think it is clear that Mueller doesn't have this, so he had to push back on the story. Letting it stand unchallenged would have created a frenzy around his investigation, even more than there already is.

and there's always at least 1 ****head from the WSJ/NYT/WaPo/CNN who wants to get ratio'd defending this kind of thing, today it's this guy:

yeah i mean it seems unlikely that he has that, because the idea of Trump personally sending such a text/email/DM/document is somewhat preposterous. he seems like a yelling in meetings & delegating dirty work kind of guy.


i remain skeptical on your reasoning for his need to comment, because again, it's not like this is the first salacious not-100%-true thing written about the probe, but about the only time i can remember them responding like this. and it's extremely strange in conjunction with the WH's refusal to comment on the report for about 24 hours. i was theorizing that maybe they leaned on Whitaker to get a comment out of the SCO, but if they knew it's not true and that some kind of denial was coming, then it's a pretty damn easy thing for them to deny as well. yet even Kellyanne ****ing Conway was afraid to say anything.


anyway, i'm sure y'all are more than tired of seeing me type words about this by now...

Just once will someone walk up and punch one of those mother****ers right in the face.

I still don't understand why he is so orange with those diving goggle rings around his eyes.

fake tan?

Obviously, but why haven't any of his 3 wives told him he looks ridiculous?

They all hate him

it's almost as if his looks are not what attracted them to the fat, ageing, brainless rich guy

Yeah this

I want to believe in Mueller but the fact is he's a Republican cop. That the one statement he's made is in defense of Trump is lol

Trump has rosacea so I think he tans to not look red and then he just ends up orange instead, but it’s an even pumpkin rather than blotches of red

Uhh.

If you believe Mueller is biased for Trump/Reds, then we're all ****ed so none of it matters, but if anything means anything, nothing in Mueller's history gives any indication that he's anything other that a genuine lawman.

The dude was willing to give up his career to say that torture and warrant-less surveillance was wrong (I realize this shouldn't be a big thing, but remember this meant crossing the Cheney DoJ). He's been nominated/renominated and unanimously confirmed as FBI director.

It seems far more likely that he's a guy who's office realizes it's absolutely essential that he retains credibility with as much of the country as possible. Doing that requires he speak as little as possible, but probably that he deny things that are fully and clearly impeachable (yes, I realize Trump has done 100+ things that qualify, but ordering someone to lie and leaving a paper trail is the clearest example yet).

Well, I don't see any Mexicans crossing the border in San Antonio do you??? Checkmate Libtard.

Ma.son putting on a show. What a perfect representative of baby boomers and the GOP.

Entitled
Whiny
Petulant
Arrogant
Ignorant
Condescending
And of course, the obvious thing that will get me perma'd

And way to go forum giving him exactly what he wants, attention and deference. The correct response is "nothing."

RIP dth

I think you can say "fat" as a pejorative but not "religious". Hope that helps.

M@s0n is truly an embarrassment. He's made some of the absolute dumbest threads in Politics, gets dunked on relentlessly for how dumb they are, can't defend any of his obviously wrong and terrible arguments and then threatens to shut down the entire forum in the name of civility.

can't make this **** up

His nut low thread has to be the new one about the recent polling. And the politics mods have deleted (and worse, stealth edited) a bunch of posts so Grandpa doesn't get upset and take away their toy.

For sure. I mean look at this:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...9&postcount=97

We have to play pattycake with this guy so he doesn't throw a tantrum and burn down 2p2.

Baby Boomers!!!

Also, this: