Cohen plea deal looks like exoneration for Trump.

Sep 2014
56,061
11,607
United States
#1
Despite all the alt-left talking heads running around claiming the end of Trump is near, the details of the deal show Mueller has nothing, and once again is misleading the courts.

What a scumbag Mueller is.

Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.

Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.

The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.

On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel's collusion case.

Page 2 of the same criminal information document holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.” This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.

Also notable, Mueller did not challenge Cohen’s statement that he “ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”



For Trump, Cohen Plea Deal's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Exoneration | RealClearInvestigations
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
#2
Despite all the alt-left talking heads running around claiming the end of Trump is near, the details of the deal show Mueller has nothing, and once again is misleading the courts.

What a scumbag Mueller is.




For Trump, Cohen Plea Deal's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Exoneration | RealClearInvestigations
Just so people are clear, Paul Sperry is a paid conservative propagandist. He is a "Hoover Institution" media fellow, which is a nice way to say that people like the Koch Brothers launder money to him, by way of a think tank, in exchange for him churning out stories pushing the viewpoints they want pushed to the public. He spent 2016 pushing the idea that the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails would lead to an indictment of Clinton, and now he's pushing the idea that the Mueller investigation of Russian meddling won't find anything on Trump. Hacks are going to hack. That's what they're paid to do.
 
Sep 2014
56,061
11,607
United States
#3
Just so people are clear, Paul Sperry is a paid conservative propagandist. He is a "Hoover Institution" media fellow, which is a nice way to say that people like the Koch Brothers launder money to him, by way of a think tank, in exchange for him churning out stories pushing the viewpoints they want pushed to the public. He spent 2016 pushing the idea that the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails would lead to an indictment of Clinton, and now he's pushing the idea that the Mueller investigation of Russian meddling won't find anything on Trump. Hacks are going to hack. That's what they're paid to do.
Any comment on the actual article, or just tired old libnut tactics of attacking the messenger?
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
#5
Any comment on the actual article, or just tired old libnut tactics of attacking the messenger?
I think it's important to understand that the article is a piece of paid conservative propaganda. As for its contents, I didn't find it convincing -- did you? Basically, the argument is that some anonymous "congressional investigators" told an obscure website that Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president. Who were these supposed investigators? What, exactly, did they say? What were the details that Mueller supposedly withheld?

Other bits of "reasoning" here are equally weak. For example, we're meant to think that if Cohen didn't have a direct email connection to Putin, that it undercuts the collusion case. Why? Collusion is attempted cooperation to do something illegal. Collusion doesn't have to be competently carried out to be a crime.

The whole piece is downright bizarre. For example, it calls "exculpatory" a letter from Cohen where he indicated that Trump worked through him on the Moscow Project. That's not exculpatory. Collusion doesn't require direct contact between Putin and Trump, obviously.

Basically, the whole article just consists of a shitty hack for a shitty webpage passing along spin from an unnamed Congressional "source."
 
Sep 2014
56,061
11,607
United States
#6
Basically, the whole article just consists of a shitty hack for a shitty webpage passing along spin from an unnamed Congressional "source."
Your ignorance of the realclear webpages says all we need to know about your alt-left diatribe.