If some of the Dear Readers have been sleeping under a rock, then it behooves these endeavors to draw attention to some information from the Mueller team with regard to Cohen and Buzzfeed. Of the many punditing, only Chuck Rosenberg with Maddow has done the j'accuse.

The information provided by Cohen about the Moscow Project in these proffer sessions is consistent with and corroborated by other information obtained in the course of the SCO's investigation.

Game, set, match. If Cohen did, in fact, tell the SCO that The Manchurian President told him to lie. If you pause the video, you'll see that the filing is by SDNY, not SCO. The only issue is whether Cohen didn't tell either SCO or SDNY that The Manchurian President told him to falsely represent the Moscow Project in testimony. Why would he still cover for The Manchurian President at such a juncture? And why would SCO make plain that his cooperation about the Moscow Project was backed up by other evidence?

And, naturally, why would the SCO get it's back up and tell a vague rebuke? The mostly likely reason is simple timing. The SCO was saving the pound of dry powder for later. But, again, Rosenberg points out that the SDNY filing shows that the pound of dry powder was sitting there in plain sight.

Views: 54

Comment by moki ikom on January 20, 2019 at 6:25pm

Last I understood the rushed autopsy of the buszfeed report was loved by  the beloved leader of the republic's evanglical base, our great fraud, our President Trump.

i don't usually think of lawyers writing in the jargon of science, though it doesn't take a moron to do so, when a moron should mistake the difference between accuracy and precision, he the moron even when president is surely unable to appreciate the signifigance of the difference.  

In other words, that the SCO could claim the buzzfeed report was not accurate does not mean the SCO necessarily means the report was not signifigantly precise.

Comment by Robert Young on January 20, 2019 at 6:44pm

what Rosenberg sees:  if it were only Cohen admitting to self-lying, there'd be no point in referencing "other information obtained in the course of the SCO's investigation", now would there?  he said he did it, on his own, so what other information is needed to prove that he did it, on his own? 

some times, all you need is logic.

Comment by Tom Cordle on January 20, 2019 at 11:16pm

Methinks the SCO is splitting hairs on this one. The distinction, as I understand it, is that Cohen testified, that is to say, he lied, in order to conform to what he believed was Hairball's position on the matter. If Hairball didn't in fact tell Cohen to lie, then he didn't suborn perjury. I suspect we will discover that's a distinction without a difference, for you can bet the farm Hairball is up to his arse in obstruction of justice, and a host of other crimes. The question remains whether Mueller has the balls to indict the bastard.

On a related note, the same sort of legal pretzel logic applies in the case of the infamous Trump Tower meeting. It may be factual to say the Trump Tower meeting was about adoption, since adoption is related to the Magninsky Act, which is related to sanctions, which is related to colluding with Russians to get Hairball elected. It's an old dodge, but something can be factual without being truthful – certainly not in the sense of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

One more question:  Given the ignorance, willful blindness and warped sense of values among a substantial portion of the populace, is it possible to seat a jury of twelve citizens without one juror voting for acquittal, regardless of the evidence?

Comment by Robert Young on January 21, 2019 at 7:39am

" to conform to what he believed was Hairball's position on the matter."

which was his public version of his testimony, which goes to public motive.  that Hairball told him to lie doesn't contradict his testimony.  if his public testimony were the whole truth, the statement in the filing with regard to 'other information' would have no reason to exist, since his public testimony would be sufficient.  as Rosenberg saw, that reference to 'other information' is the tell.

Comment by Ron Powell on January 21, 2019 at 12:24pm

There are 'other shoes' yet to drop...

Mueller & Co do not wish to be pushed to reveal the nature and strength of their case against Trump until they're ready to bring its full force to bear on the salient issues and iterations...

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

10 More Great TV Series

Posted by John Manchester on April 23, 2019 at 10:08am 0 Comments

Notes From Earth Day

Posted by Robert B. James on April 23, 2019 at 7:36am 2 Comments

Earth Day

Posted by Anna Herrington on April 22, 2019 at 10:30am 8 Comments

The Big One

Posted by Robert B. James on April 22, 2019 at 7:26am 0 Comments

Vũng Tàu

Posted by Rodney Roe on April 22, 2019 at 6:53am 12 Comments

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service