The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Didn't read about her extracurriculars while with her husband(s). Born in the US but lots of technicalities, seems like a squirrelly way to me though to avoid the question.

Still don't know but definitely leaning more towards saying a F-you. Sympathies to the family though for a wayward child. Can't begrudge a family for tying to doing its best they can.

Hoda Muthana: the ISIS recruit’s citizenship controversy, explained - Vox

Hoda Muthana was born in the US. In 2014, as a 20-year-old student at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, she told her parents she was going on a field trip to Atlanta; instead, she withdrew from school, used the reimbursed tuition to buy a plane ticket, flew to Turkey, made her way to Syria, and joined ISIS.

Now she wants to come home. But the US doesn’t want to take her back — and it claims it doesn’t have to.

While in Syria, Muthana used her social media accounts to call for the murder of Americans.

“Go on drive-bys and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriot, Memorial etc Day parades..go on drive by’s + spill all of their blood or rent a big truck n drive all over them. Kill them,” Muthana tweeted from her now-suspended Twitter account, according to a 2015 profile of her by BuzzFeed News.
:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, however, has declared that Muthana was never actually a US citizen — and that, therefore, there’s no legal obligation for the US to take her back, even if it’s to put her on trial.
:
Muthana was issued a passport as a US citizen, that’s true. But the government challenged her citizenship before giving her a passport. And in 2016, after she’d burned her passport upon joining ISIS — “Bonfire soon, no need for these anymore, alhamdulliah [thanks be to God],” she tweeted, with a photo of her and several other women’s Western passports — the Obama administration officially declared the passport and her citizenship had never been valid to begin with.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides birthright citizenship to everyone born on US soil and “subject to the jurisdiction of” the United States. While there’s an argument (somewhat on the fringe) that “jurisdiction” doesn’t apply to unauthorized immigrants living in the US, everyone agrees that it doesn’t apply to babies born to foreign diplomats.

Diplomatic immunity exempts the diplomat — and, generally, his or her family — from US jurisdiction, the argument goes, so children born in the US to foreign diplomats are citizens of their parents’ home countries, not US citizens.

Hoda Muthana’s father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, came to the US from Yemen in 1990 to serve as a diplomat representing his home country at the United Nations, whose headquarters are located in New York City.

However, he lost that job — and thus his diplomatic immunity — as the result of the Yemeni civil war in the mid-1990s. The question is exactly when he lost his diplomatic privileges — and whether that happened before Hoda was born, on October 28, 1994, or after.

The US government has told Ahmed Ali Muthana (according to his lawsuit) that its records show he held diplomatic status until February 6, 1995 — that is, until after Hoda’s birth — and therefore that Hoda was born while he was still a diplomat and thus is not a US citizen, but a Yemeni one.

Ahmed Ali Muthana, on the other hand, claims in a lawsuit that he surrendered his diplomatic identity card on June 2, 1994 — months before his daughter was born.

[Thomkal]

The Mueller sentencing memo on Manafort is out and if you are in for a little light reading-its 800 pages or so A lot of it is redacted, so I'm waiting for the legal experts on Twitter to read it first


2-23-19 US Sentencing Memo Manafort DC | Sentence (Law) | Crimes

[JPhillips]

Turning the national 4th of July celebration into a campaign rally is an asshole move.

HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called “A Salute To America” and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

[bronconick]

Ron Fournier
‏
Verified account

@ron_fournier
1h
1 hour ago


HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest religious celebrations in the history of Christianity on Dec. 25th. It will be called “Christmas” and everybody will gets gifts! Thanks to your favorite president, me!

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Turning the national 4th of July celebration into a campaign rally is an asshole move.

Thing is, Nixon did the exact same thing. Because if you are president in constant fear of indictment, what better role model could you have but Nixon?

[whomario]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Thing is, Nixon did the exact same thing. Because if you are president in constant fear of indictment, what better role model could you have but Nixon?

Bread and Games, why ditch the classics ?

[bbgunn]

Nearly puked at "by your favorite President, me!"

[QuikSand]

Broken record time for me.

James Fallows on Twitter: "If you have any experience in government, you will find these 78 seconds stupefying.

And if you don’t, let me tell you: this is stupefying.

(Lighthizer is right about how international trade agreements work.)… https://t.co/Znf5HwtV4y"

I know, I know. Still gets to me.

[Edward64]

I like that Mexico is becoming a "buffer" (must have been some behind-the-scene agreement and/or threat).

I don't understand why Mexico allows the unauthorized into their country in the first place, why don't they control their borders. Don't really care or no real way to stop them or a combination?

Trump prevails as Mexican officials stop caravan at Texas border and ship migrants to other cities - Los Angeles Times

Last week, a caravan of 1,800 Central American migrants arrived in this isolated Mexican border city, where police ushered them into a makeshift government shelter at a shuttered factory surrounded by chain-link fence.

As conditions at the shelter deteriorated, riots erupted last Wednesday. Migrants broke through security barriers and struggled with guards. Some threw pipes, tables, chairs and parts of a tent at Mexican officers. Migrant advocates and reporters were barred from the facility, which was surrounded by dozens of federal police in riot gear.

On the other side of the Rio Grande, in the sleepy town of Eagle Pass, Texas, 250 troops and scores of Border Patrol agents were sent to shore up defenses as President Trump vowed to stop this latest caravan.

For the moment, Trump appears to have gotten his way.

As of Tuesday, the shelter was closing, with all but one group of migrant family members sent to other, larger border cities, where prospects of entering the United States were little better.

[PilotMan]

Let's get a couple things straight though.

We do want better controls on the border, better service, better eyes, better knowings about comings and goings of people and objects. That's the entire point of CBP. For years, it's been a hot button issue with broad support, that was largely ignored by administrations on the left and right.

Money spent in a good way, with proper channels for addressing the issues as they arise, along with a process that doesn't take years to unfold, while addressing the humanitarian needs of those who truly need help. That should be the ultimate end game.

Saying trump is winning because he's getting his way wouldn't be the way that I would see it, other than he's making Mexico basically create a queue line for the Americans to deal with. trump's ideal solution here is more akin to Jon's call for direct extrajudicial killings of border crossers because they are all so very dangerous and out to get you. Building a wall, with no supportive technology, no additional bodies to police it, no way to maintain it, no other supports, other than to simply build it and be able to put your name on it is a complete waste of resources. There's a path to success for him here, if he'd just open his eyes to how he can succeed, and get rid of his wall demands.

Mexico is a huge country, with one of the biggest cities on the planet, yet it's vastly rural without the sorts of infrastructure that we have here. The central government isn't strong enough to deal with most of the issues that arise as a result, the local and state police are often in control of the local gangs, in a way, or as a way to support themselves. Corruption is rampant and the Feds simply don't have the numbers to root all of it out, everywhere. The massive violence and gang killings that were seen across most of Northern Mexico were a result of the last efforts to get things in control there. I will say this, by and large, Mexicans are some of the hardest working, nicest people that I've ever run across. Most of them are humble and just want to be able to make ends meet like anyone else. I was just in Mexico City and with all it's issues, it's still a very pretty city underneath. It's a shame that it can't all be cleaned up and the money moved other places. Mexico is exactly what a country with a weak central government looks like.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Building a wall, with no supportive technology, no additional bodies to police it, no way to maintain it, no other supports, other than to simply build it and be able to put your name on it is a complete waste of resources. There's a path to success for him here, if he'd just open his eyes to how he can succeed, and get rid of his wall demands.

I don't know why you think this was the original plan. I never saw what would have gone into the $30-$40B version but pretty sure it would have some/all of this. Sure an argument can be made that the $1.5-$2B or the $5B version doesn't have all this stuff but is that Trump's fault?

His fault is not making this a top-top priority vs tax cut in his first year (just like Obama didn't think immigration reform was important enough to spend his political chips in his first two years. I personally agree that Health Care reform was much more important).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why you think this was the original plan. I never saw what would have gone into the $30-$40B version but pretty sure it would have some/all of this. Sure an argument can be made that the $1.5-$2B or the $5B version doesn't have all this stuff but is that Trump's fault?

His fault is not making this a top-top priority vs tax cut in his first year (just like Obama didn't think immigration reform was important enough to spend his political chips in his first two years. I personally agree that Health Care reform was much more important).

Almost certainly not, is the thing. The $40-50 billion cited by opponents was construction + maintenance costs in the first ten years, IIRC.

That was just to acquire the land, build the 2000 miles of wall, and keep it maintained. All of the other stuff would have been an *additional* cost.

Now, that said, Trump wasn't spending his "political chips" at all in his first two years. He was content to let Congress do the heavy lifting and lob the occasional rhetorical bomb, and Congress' focus was on "repeal every word of Obamacare" and "let's cut taxes for corporations and call it a win for the middle class."

This was a President who had long-time members of his own party cowed because they feared angering his base, and he couldn't be bothered to make his wall a priority.

Now he's throwing temper tantrums because Democrats took the House and have been adamant that they aren't going to give him his wall, so he's trying to usurp the House's Constitutional prerogatives for an "emergency" he freely admits isn't one ("I just want to do it faster").

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Broken record time for me.

James Fallows on Twitter: "If you have any experience in government, you will find these 78 seconds stupefying.

And if you don’t, let me tell you: this is stupefying.

(Lighthizer is right about how international trade agreements work.)… https://t.co/Znf5HwtV4y"

I know, I know. Still gets to me.

I used to have conversations like this with a client service VP at my old company.

VP: Can we make this change to our agreement?

Me: No, we've never been willing to make that change because it impacts others involved.

Him: Well, what if we did it in a side letter?

Me: That would still have the same impact, so no.

Him: But it's not in the contract.

Me: It still changes our obligations and we'd be bound to it.

Him: But it's a side letter.

And so it would go. Just change the name to an MOU and it's the same discussion. Difference is I was talking to a corporate VP instead of everyone's favorite president, Trump!

[QuikSand]

It's hard for me to convey why that hurts me so much. I guess it's just the... nerve? He hears the term for presumably the first time, hears the three words, and presumes that he understands it clearly enough to back down a subject matter expert, not once but twice.

I mean...it's okay for a non-government person to not be familiar with the exact term "memorandum of understanding." Fine. But once you are in the government business, it ceases to be okay to be completely unfamiliar with the stuff that you are actually doing. And then, after you are so enthusiastically ignorant to skip the sort of briefings or meetings that might put you into a position to understand something, to then push all your chips in that your personal third-grade understanding of something must be right just because it seems right to you. I don't even know how to classify that.

With my usual caveat... it's only the 87th most offensive thing he has done since, say, the first of the year, but ugh.

[Lathum]

I think the thing I hate most about Trump is it makes me look at people I care about, in some cases deeply, who happen to support him, and question if they are the person I always thought they were. Thankfully my wife is on my side.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

His fault is not making this a top-top priority vs tax cut in his first year

It seems to indicate that the wall wasn't really all that important to him except as a political rallying cry. Tax cuts will actually make him a ton of money, so...

[Izulde]

I'm also on the don't let her back train. There's some choices and lines that you make and cross, you can't return. These are among that number.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yeah, I've seen the reporting that she burned her US passport in an Instagram post? Is that like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, or does it have some validity?

I think it would be just like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. There's a few things that give the U.S. grounds to strip your citizenship, but you can only disclaim it yourself by submitting an application at an embassy or consulate and making a declaration. Otherwise, it could just be an artistic expression.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If we were looking at technicalities, would the US be put in a position where the only way to say she pledged allegiance to a foreign government we were at war with would be to acknowledge ISIL's claim of legitimacy?

I was wondering that too, the statute uses the term "foreign state". I don't think the U.S. Attorney General's Office pursuing revocation on that ground would be conceding that ISIL is legitimate for any other context. A legal argument made by one government entity doesn't bind all others. But, I guess it could be a theoretical defense to a citizenship revocation request that ISIL is not a "foreign state" under the language of the statute. But I'm guessing it wouldn't fly. The plain meaning of "foreign state" does not necessarily require legitimacy. You can have an illegitimate foreign terrorist state - it's still a foreign state. And it'd be hard to argue that the legislature didn't intend ISIL and similar organizations to "count" under that language.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's hard for me to convey why that hurts me so much. I guess it's just the... nerve? He hears the term for presumably the first time, hears the three words, and presumes that he understands it clearly enough to back down a subject matter expert, not once but twice.

I mean...it's okay for a non-government person to not be familiar with the exact term "memorandum of understanding." Fine. But once you are in the government business, it ceases to be okay to be completely unfamiliar with the stuff that you are actually doing. And then, after you are so enthusiastically ignorant to skip the sort of briefings or meetings that might put you into a position to understand something, to then push all your chips in that your personal third-grade understanding of something must be right just because it seems right to you. I don't even know how to classify that.

With my usual caveat... it's only the 87th most offensive thing he has done since, say, the first of the year, but ugh.

Apparently they've changed the titles of all the documents from MoU to Agreement.

Honestly.

They did that.

[ISiddiqui]

I think I'd be more inclined to bring her back and try her for treason (which looks as slam dunk as any other case I've seen). Would rather have her locked away for life than potentially causing harm to other people in the future. Also would avoid thorny issues as noted above regarding IS's legal status, etc.

[Julio Riddols]

They should bring her back and have her speak with other kids like her. Put her on some kind of probationary semi citizenship until she has done enough good to redeem herself and prove how sincere her statements are. She may never do enough, but her experience being relayed first hand would likely be helpful to deter those who are naive enough to romanticize ISIS or a similar group in their minds.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

They should bring her back and have her speak with other kids like her. Put her on some kind of probationary semi citizenship until she has done enough good to redeem herself and prove how sincere her statements are. She may never do enough, but her experience being relayed first hand would likely be helpful to deter those who are naive enough to romanticize ISIS or a similar group in their minds.

I like the idea of using her as a deterrent for other kids who may consider doing something similar.

I think they should put her on trial, then broadcast her execution by firing squad on every network.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think I'd be more inclined to bring her back and try her for treason (which looks as slam dunk as any other case I've seen). Would rather have her locked away for life than potentially causing harm to other people in the future. Also would avoid thorny issues as noted above regarding IS's legal status, etc.

It would be fascinating to see how the courts would handle Article III, Section 3 in the social media era.

Can't convict her of treason without a confession in open court or two witnesses to the same overt act. Does two people seeing a tweet or a video constitute being an eyewitness to treason?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think they should put her on trial, then broadcast her execution by firing squad on every network.

I guess that might work if your goal is to make more martyrs... (I mean fundamentalists would have a field day with that one - might as well die on your own terms as opposed to having your shooting death broadcast)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I guess that might work if your goal is to make more martyrs... (I mean fundamentalists would have a field day with that one - might as well die on your own terms as opposed to having your shooting death broadcast)

Yeah, I'm more for the lock her up and let her languish in prison for a good amount of time.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I like the idea of using her as a deterrent for other kids who may consider doing something similar.

I think they should put her on trial, then broadcast her execution by firing squad on every network.

That's not really a deterrent. I would imagine that would actually make recruiting far easier for extremists.

[Edward64]

I don't want to bring her back just to put her on trial, send her to prison for a lifetime or execute her. Too many good defense attorneys and even if she is convicted, way too much money spent on her imprisonment.

If we all agree she is treasonous and doesn't deserve the privilege of being a US citizen, then my vote is leave her out of the country and let her find husband 4+

TBH, I'm a little surprised at the response re: her. I had thought there would be more sympathetic views.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Almost certainly not, is the thing. The $40-50 billion cited by opponents was construction + maintenance costs in the first ten years, IIRC.

Admittedly I cannot find "the plan" and what it states (if you find it please provide a link). However, I will point you to this C-span site where there are representatives and supporters of Trump's wall that discusses technology and personnel.

Border Protection Official Briefs Construction Wall, Mar 30 2018 | C-SPAN.org

I will concede that Trump likely did not go into the details other than beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it but the c-span transcripts indicates it was more than just building a wall and leaving it alone.

[PilotMan]

My point was you don't need a wall as trump desires it. You can't say that trump meant border security either. trump didn't mention anything other than a wall. He has never laid out a plan himself, only a wall. Why not? Because he's too simple minded, too lazy, and frankly only cares about building a wall. If other people, like you know, career civil servants and government officials, say there's some good stuff we can do he might like to add that to get support, but only if it furthers his straight up, simple desire for a wall. We know his MO now, after more than 2 years. People who say stuff he likes, are the greatest, people who don't are dumb. He completely disregards credentials, facts, science, and what have you. He's only interested in being surrounded by 'yes' men and women. So to point to some larger plan as a project and call it a trump plan is no accurate. His only plan is 'WALL'.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Admittedly I cannot find "the plan" and what it states (if you find it please provide a link).

Because like everything else he does there is no plan. He will spend, spend, spend, until there is no money, then screw over the little guy.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't want to bring her back just to put her on trial, send her to prison for a lifetime or execute her. Too many good defense attorneys and even if she is convicted, way too much money spent on her imprisonment.

If we all agree she is treasonous and doesn't deserve the privilege of being a US citizen, then my vote is leave her out of the country and let her find husband 4+

TBH, I'm a little surprised at the response re: her. I had thought there would be more sympathetic views.

If we all agree she is treasonous, shouldn't we capture or arrest her so that she doesn't continue to pose a threat? And then given she is a citizen, shouldn't we afford her a trial? And sentence her accordingly?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It would be fascinating to see how the courts would handle Article III, Section 3 in the social media era.

Can't convict her of treason without a confession in open court or two witnesses to the same overt act. Does two people seeing a tweet or a video constitute being an eyewitness to treason?

Pretty sure Supreme Court precedent doesn't require this to be eyewitnesses.

[Chief Rum]

So I keep getting news notifications about this meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un, like it's a big deal.

The first time, I got. It was historic on the face of it, since no one could get crazy into a room to talk about anything.

But this time, I don't see the point. From everything I have read Kim didn't do anything he promised, or at least nothing significant. Like last time, all another meeting does is lend him legitimacy.

The unstated mission again just seems to be "let's just get our names in the papers but not actually accomplish anything."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So I keep getting news notifications about this meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un, like it's a big deal.

The first time, I got. It was historic on the face of it, since no one could get crazy into a room to talk about anything.

But this time, I don't see the point. From everything I have read Kim didn't do anything he promised, or at least nothing significant. Like last time, all another meeting does is lend him legitimacy.

The unstated mission again just seems to be "let's just get our names in the papers but not actually accomplish anything."

It wasn't a case of nobody could, but instead, nobody would. American presidents didn't want to give the Kim family the legitimacy of having face to face meetings.

[bronconick]

The other fun part is that they're having meetings with no press and Sergey Lavrov also happens to be in Hanoi

[PilotMan]

I remember Obama getting melted down by conservatives just for mentioning the prospect of meeting with him.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The other fun part is that they're having meetings with no press and Sergey Lavrov also happens to be in Hanoi

Total coincidence I'm sure

[Thomkal]

Harris not running in the new NC election due to his health he says. No word yet on who the R's might run against McCready.


Mark Harris announces he will not run in NC District 9 special election

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Harris not running in the new NC election due to his health he says. No word yet on who the R's might run against McCready.


Mark Harris announces he will not run in NC District 9 special election

McCrory out, hearing Pettenger's wife (who is loaded) doesn't want him running again either. The special election rules allow local and state politicians to run without giving up their current seat, so it could get very crowded.

Originally Posted by digamma

If we all agree she is treasonous, shouldn't we capture or arrest her so that she doesn't continue to pose a threat? And then given she is a citizen, shouldn't we afford her a trial? And sentence her accordingly?

This does actually appear to be in question. It centers on when her father stopped being a Yemeni diplomat, and given the other context it's worth noting that it was initially the Obama administration that argued she wasn't.

I do agree I'd rather just bring her back and incarcerate her, but the initial reporting made it seem like Trump was unilaterally deciding people weren't citizens, and that doesn't appear to be the case when you look into it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The other fun part is that they're having meetings with no press and Sergey Lavrov also happens to be in Hanoi

I'd been wondering if anyone was keeping tabs on where Vlad was, but this is close enough.

[Izulde]

Actually, he was no longer a diplomat when she was born. The issue is when the government was notified he was no longer a diplomat, which happened three months after she was born. So it's a delayed filing technicality that's causing the dispute.

[Thomkal]

So you probably will not want to go anywhere near the internet or tv tomorrow if you are against Michael Cohen testifying publicly tomorrow/pro-Trump. We've already had one Republican congressman (Gaetz) try witness intimidation/tampering after Cohen testified privately today and I'm sure there will be more outrageous behavior on both sides before its over on Thurs.



"Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot..."

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Actually, he was no longer a diplomat when she was born. The issue is when the government was notified he was no longer a diplomat, which happened three months after she was born. So it's a delayed filing technicality that's causing the dispute.

Interesting that you have to go through a UN protocol instead of just informing the country. Also interesting to see that the UK is trying to revoke citizenship in their case, but on equally debatable grounds (they say she *could* get Bangladeshi citizenship, Bangladesh is saying she was never a citizen and why the hell would we want her) Hoda Muthana and Shamima Begum: Citizenship and Expatriation in the U.S. and U.K. - Lawfare

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So you probably will not want to go anywhere near the internet or tv tomorrow if you are against Michael Cohen testifying publicly tomorrow/pro-Trump. We've already had one Republican congressman (Gaetz) try witness intimidation/tampering after Cohen testified privately today and I'm sure there will be more outrageous behavior on both sides before its over on Thurs.



"Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot..."

What an utter jackass.

[Ben E Lou]

Mother of God, Cohen’s prepared remarks: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...d-bfb99a790001

[digamma]

So, today, we've got...
-The President getting tight with is dictatorial buddy in Vietnam.
-While tweeting about a Democratic Senator's military service (ignoring the fact that he himself didn't serve),
-While removing American reporters from the summit dinner,
-While ignoring a conflict between two nuclear powers on the same continent,
-While his former fixer is testifying in Congress about covering up his affairs and his ties to WikiLinks.

Just another day in the life--matter of fact I shoveled another three inches of snow this morning.

[Flasch186]

The Frog has been boiled and now the bones are in the bottom. The goal worked as the American Public have been so overwhelmed by it all that they're numb.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Mother of God, Cohen’s prepared remarks: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...d-bfb99a790001

Fox News' headline on this:

"Cohen to accuse Trump of knowing about Roger Stone-WikiLeaks plot, but deny 'direct evidence' of Russia collusion"

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

Fox News' headline on this:

"Cohen to accuse Trump of knowing about Roger Stone-WikiLeaks plot, but deny 'direct evidence' of Russia collusion"

I don't know if you read Cohen's prepared remarks but the way he put it, that headline is more or less accurate.

Whether it's actually true, of course...

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't know if you read Cohen's prepared remarks but the way he put it, that headline is more or less accurate.

Whether it's actually true, of course...

I did, and it is from a direct quote from his statement, yes. But to me it feels disingenuous because the rest of his statement documents many times when Trump was in direct contact with Russians for personal gain and the times he personally worked with Russia on behalf of Trump, which basically prove that everyone in Trump's campaign lied to congress about contacts with Russians, there are countless crimes during the campaign and after becoming president that Cohen is discussing. Yet Fox News headline is basically "NO COLLUSION". So many people on the right have been conditioned to believe that every news source but Fox News is actively lying to them, and the entire takeaway those people are going to have is "NO COLLUSION."


By the way, I want to point out that this guy is clearly a known and proven liar and anything he says without proof I'm going to be wary of. But I'm very interested in the many times where he says he has documentation proving information on crimes committed by Donald Trump. When he says that he personally overheard a call between Stone and Trump on wikileaks, I'm wary. If that's true I hope Meuller has a lot of other information and evidence to prove it, because this douchebag's statement alone without proof just isn't enough.