CNN Sticks With Story That Cohen Alleges Trump Knew Of Trump Tower Meeting Despite Cohen and His Lawyer Denying The Story

200px-Cnn.svgCNN is facing rising questions over its refusal to correct its earlier bombshell story entitled “Cohen Claims Trump Knew In Advance Of 2016 Trump Tower Meeting.”  As I discussed recently, Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis now admits that he was the anonymous source for that story (after publicly denying that he was the source) and that he has no information to support the allegation. Cohen himself testified to Congress that he had no such information.  One would think that the denial of both Cohen and his lawyer (and original source) would alter that story that “Cohen claims Trump knew . . . ”  CNN however says that it had multiple sources for the story and sticks with the reporting by Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein and Marshall CohenPresident Trump has continued to hammer CNN and renowned reporter Carl Bernstein for the allegedly false statement:

What do you think?

375 thoughts on “CNN Sticks With Story That Cohen Alleges Trump Knew Of Trump Tower Meeting Despite Cohen and His Lawyer Denying The Story”

  1. What will it take for the entire nation to wake up to the coup attempt at hand? They are so blinded by there hate of the REPUBLIC that there madness will be a shock when and if the Militia of the Deplorable (That is the people) stands the millions across that nation demanding surrender. And so once again the Democrats are defeated and surrender again. I hope the ceremony is once again held at Appomattox re:1865

          1. hollywood – I have seen all of Spike’s films, however he annoys me. He doesn’t just have chip on his shoulder, he has a damn log. I will wait for it to come out on DVD. I liked his earlier films when he had a sense of humor.

                1. In the early 70s, a black cop in Colorado goes undercover to “infiltrate” the KKK. There’s humor, drama, history and reflections on recent events. On balance, it’s one of the better Spike Lee joints I’ve seen.

  2. Picture the Democrats going forward with the impeachment process and they are not successful with removing him from office. Can anybody picture Donald Trump after he successfully defeats an impeachment lawsuit? If you liberal lefties think he’s nasty now, wait till you see him then.

    1. If they can’t come close to 66 Senators to convict they won’t waste their time.
      Instead, numerous House investigations will commence on the more unsavory aspects of Trump, his associates and his administration.

      God knows tgey will have a wealth of evidence to shift thru…

      1. In other words the Democrats will be trying to pin something on Trump even though it is meaningless to do so. That will be done at the expense of running the nation. What a bunch of fools that don’t care about the nation.

          1. Hollywood, I am talking about the Democrats obsession with Trump that seems to supercede their desire to do their jobs in Congress and elsewhere.

            As far as the 92 million dollar parade one has to determine its value compared to what the money would be spent on but if you are calling for a fiscally responsible government I am with you. We need a balanced budget amendment and a government that knows how to live within their budgets and the Constitution.

            1. Allan, I am talking about the GOP’s fear of Trump that seems to supercede their desire to do their jobs in Congress and elsewhere. The GOP controls both Houses, but they can’t pass sh*t.

              1. Hollywood, Trump is not a traditional Republican or politician and has even been a Democrat. He is a disrupter and both sides of the aisle like things the way they are. Both parties have a lot of bad features.

                In reality they might have been able to work with Trump on certain issues even healthcare but they chose to stop every bit that Trump supported even if they supported the same things in the past.

                You are a partisan that knows squat and so you rely on party loyalty for your fights. Try thinking once in a while.

                1. Allan – Ann Coulter made a telling point the other day. All the things in Trump’s past the Left does not like he did while he was a registered Democrat. 🙂

      2. Close to 66 won’t do it it’s 67 or more. With AZ pick coming up what’s left of the GOP leadership before they are themselves shunted aside for the Constitutional Republic Party is already 49 with five possible of seven available. The left has to get all the leaning towards etc. just to make 50 and that’s now , because of AZ impossible. 66? The polls don’t even count the largest voting group More like where do the Demos get 50? More like 45 max if they are lucky. Better odds on power ball.

    2. The day he said he was “tapped” was the day he understood that the Republic was under attack and they would stop at nothing. Do you actually think the attack on his family including his 12 year old son and beautiful 4 year old grand daughter will go unpunished. Just think of Doyle Lonnegan in “The Sting” As a fellow New Yorker we believe in the Klingon motto “Revenge is a dish best served cold” There will be a patriot who even though he or she may not like the President is a patriot and loves his or her country. Today 2 junior members of the Mueller team quit. Maybe we’ll hear an audio or see a video from the Insurance Company (The MuellerTeam) Washington had his Benedict Arnold President Trump has Robert Mueller.

  3. Our increasingly desperate and demented President also put forth the notion that the tape of his interview with Lester Holt was somehow “fudged”.

    Just curious, but is there anyone here stupid enough to swallow that whopper?

      1. Dude, raw video? Did you see that raw video from Helsinki? I think you need to wait for the raw video from the Moscow Four Seasons. Because we want you to be sure.

        1. Paul, take note how Hollywood has to rely on a laundry list as an excuse not to produce any facts. The Holt video was clear.

          In order to inject a bit of fact into the foolish rhetoric of Hollywood and wildbill here are some of Trump’s quotes from the video regarding Russia and Comey. They seem to indicate a more than compliant President.

          Re Russia investigation:

          “I want that thing to be absolutely done properly.”

          “I want to find out if there was a problem with an election having to do with Russia, or by the way, anybody else, any other country. And I want that to be so strong and so good, and I want it to happen.”

          “But I want to find out, I want to get to the bottom—if Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election. I want to know about it.”

          On the firing of Comey and Rosensteins recommendation:

          Holt asks “”You had already made the decision?”

          Trump responds: “”Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation,” Trump said. “[Rosenstein] made a recommendation, but regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey. Knowing there was no good time to do it.”

          “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,'”

          On the Russia investigation and Comey:

          “Look, look. Let me tell you As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now, I said, ‘I probably, maybe will confuse people, maybe I’ll expand that, I’ll lengthen the time,’ because it should be over with—in my opinion, it should have been over with a long time ago, because all it is is an excuse—but I said to myself, ‘I might even lengthen out the investigation.’ But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He’s the wrong man for that position.”

            1. Dear Late4StinkyHotYoga: Stop posting links to articles nobody reads. Go with original thought or go home! Peace out.

          1. Excerpted from the article linked above about Trump’s remarks to Lavrov and Kislyak in the Oval Office:

            “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

            Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

          2. Also Excerpted from the article linked above:

            The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

            1. There were many reasons for firing Comey and all of them were good. There was even cross party agreement about firing Comey for different reasons. Comey was fired for just cause and if one didn’t recognize the just cause before he was fired they should have recognized it afterward.

              1. You’re dodging the question, Allan. Why was it so important for Trump to report to Lavrov and Kislyak that the pressure had been taken off and that Trump was not under investigation? Try answering that question, if you can, Allan.

        2. Trump tried a similar ludicrous claim over the Access Hollywood tape.
          Mind blowing stupidity from that fountain of stupidity and depravity, Donald Bonespur.

          1. wildbill99 – Trump is right about the Access Hollywood tape, it was creatively edited. There is a very important line missing. Read chpt 2 of Ann Coulter’s new book.

      2. There was nothing said by Trump in the raw Holt video that was bad. Some are talking about his subsequent tweet and trying to generate talking points. The problem is that one can’t have certainty as to what the President was referring to in that tweet. People like wildbill just like to shoot off their mouths off but can’t really justify what they say. That makes them stupid.

        1. Maybe people like wildbill still want to know why Trump was so eager to tell the Russians, Lavrov and Kyslyak, that Trump was not under investigation because he had just fired that crazy nut job Comey. Or maybe Allan is just shooting his mouth off without just cause for whatever that was that Allan just shot out of his mouth.

          1. Diane, when you stop with anonymous sources and actually have real information then we can talk. When you put garbage in you get garbage out.

            1. This is strange. I replied to Diane and was given the name anonymous that has been popping up again and again with the same icon. Then I found my name and email deleted in the information section below. Darren, do you know what is happening?

              1. Allan,..
                – I can only speculate, but the switch in names may have been done to protect you from a heavy load of bull**** being flung at you in a reply; the name “Anonymous” was substituted to divert the BS to the “anonymous” target.
                As someone wrote earlier, “it’s not impossible” that this is what happened.

            2. Allan dithered, “Diane, when you stop with anonymous sources and actually have real information then we can talk.”

              The source for the NYT article about the Oval Office meeting between Trump, Lavrov and Kislyak was an official White House document containing the minutes of that meeting. L4D linked to that NYT article. The White House minutes for that meeting were cited in that NYT article. L4D quoted Trump’s remarks to Lavrov and Kislyak from that article which reported those minutes from that meeting. And the incomparable nincompoop, Allaniny, accuses L4D of using “anonymous sources.”

              In related news: Giuliani says “Truth is not truth.” Trump says, “Google algorithms are biased against him.” Trump also says [paraphrase] Lester Holt fudged the editing of Trump’s interview with Holt. And Allanonsense insinuates that Trump, himself, might as well be just another Fake-News anonymous source.

              1. Diane, it seems you don’t know how to validate any claims made. That leaves you open to believing stupid things based on faulty knowledge.

                Who wrote the notes?
                Why were those notes written?
                Why should those notes be considered accurate”
                Where is the complete transcript?

                Who provided the quotes to the NYTimes?
                Why did he provide the quotes?
                What made him pick out the specific quotes?
                How do we know he isn’t lying?

                Who at the times received the quotes?
                Why him or her?
                How do we know the person isn’t lying?
                Why did he not provide the entire transcript?
                What did he do to validate the notes?

                There are lots of questions that Diane cannot answer which means the entire article is suspect. This is typical of Diane and her rhetoric which means whatever Diane says is totally untrustworthy.

        2. Seriously though, L4D, wildbill and Hollywood are hardly the only people who still want to know why it was so important for Trump to tell the Russians Lavrov and Kislyak that the pressure had been taken off and that Trump was not under investigation. Mueller still wants to know the answer to that question, too. And Trump’s answer to Mueller’s question will have far less to do with obstruction of justice than the question of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

          Fun Fact: It was not until August 2nd, 2017, that Trump finally signed (under protest) the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. That means that up until August 2nd, 2017, Trump still could have rescinded Obama’s EO’s for the Crimea sanctions and the election interference sanctions. If only it hadn’t been for the public revelation of the Trump Tower meeting, the revision of Jared Kushners security clearance forms, the appointment of Mueller, the firing of Comey and the firing of Flynn who got caught talking on the phone about sanctions with the Russian Kislyak.

          1. Provide a document that is valid. Then talk. Anonymous sources reading from the document to people that then write a portion of what the alleged document is supposed to have said is not proof of anything except that the NYTimes is not a reliable source of information.

            That you have questions is fine, but don’t expect all your questions to be answered especially since some of your questions are based on faulty conclusions.

            1. Diane, no dodging of any questions. Provide the authenticated document so that one can see the context of the statement if such a document exists.

              I have often wondered what Obama meant when he said to the Russian leader he could be more flexible after the election. That was heard by the entire world and we still don’t have an answer.

                1. Hollywood, nothing wrong with whataboutism when people are digging up non existent questions when they didn’t bother with obvious problem that existed with someone they liked.

                  That is your nature. You don’t believe in equality under the law.

                    1. I believe in the Constitution and the amendment process. You however seem to side with those that improperly use the law.

                    2. No, Hollywood. I am dealing with how each of us approaches the law. I believe in equality under the law and the Constitution. You seem to believe in cheating to get ahead.

            2. From The NYT article linked upstream:

              “The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

              Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.”

              Pay particular attention to that last sentence, you preposterous blowhard, you. If the White House press secretary did not dispute the account, then why in the world should the extreme skeptic poseur, Allanonsense, dispute the account???

              1. One anonymous source only confirming another anonymous source in general (not speicific quotes) about a meaningless statement that may never have been made. …And then the NYTimes wonders why Spicer didn’t comment on anonymous anonimity without knowing whether he did or didn’t.

                You are a nutcase.

        1. Also known as selective disbelief. Just ask Paul if he disbelieves anything negative about Hillary Clinton. Anything at all negative.

          1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – send a list, numbered 1 to 50 and I will tell you which of those I don’t believe. I need specifics.

        2. Paul: “wildbill99 – I am going to hold an open mind until I see the raw video.”

          wildbull: “Paul I believe that is called a willful suspension of disbelief.”

          Wildbull that is called not being a jackass by actually wanting to see all the evidence before making a decision. Should your name be changed to wildass?

      3. Paul, It’s telling that you couldn’t quite bring yourself to say you believe Trump’s ludicrous claim…
        Other than that I believe what you are engaging in is called a willful suspension of disbelief.

        1. wildbill99 – what I am saying is I have not seen the unedited raw video and therefore am keeping an open mind. Can I be any clearer?

          1. Paul, you are talking to wildbull and wildbull is very dense.

            The Holt video as shown on the net doesn’t place Trump in a bad light. The left pulls out of context parts and then places them into a different context making a lie out of what they say.

      4. Paul, that video has been out there since May, 2017. Millions of people watched it live.
        Trump made his horseshit claim two days ago.
        And you believe him?

    1. It’s odd, Bill, that Trump didn’t seize on that ‘fudged editing’ the day said interview aired. I mean, if NBC News deliberately cut crucial moments, Trump should have had his spokespeople lodge a formal protest immediately afterwards. How could a year and half slip by before Trump got around to objecting?

        1. Wildbill made an argument by analogy–and a strong one, at that. Trump calls everything negative that press reports about Trump Fake News–including even videotaped interviews with Trump in which Trump speaks his own words in front of cameras and microphones–just like he did in Helsinki. What he meant to say is that he didn’t see any reason that it wouldn’t be Russia, when what he said at Helsinki is that he didn’t see any reason why it would be Russia. Trump calls his very own words Fake News on a recurring basis. One can never know what Trump said until Trump says what Trump said. Guess what? Trump’s right. Trump’s very own words are Fake News. They always were. And they ever will be.

          1. “Wildbill made an argument by analogy–and a strong one,”

            Wildbull doesn’t make arguments as he doesn’t have facts. What he does is vigerously wave his arms and legsso that to quiet him he requires a straight jacket.

            You guys have got to learn to put facts on the table and use the usual methods of proof to prove your contentions.

              1. Hollywood, you seldom know what you are talking about and when you quote a link it doesn’t generally show what you are saying to be true. I won’t deal with your links any more in our discussions, I’ll only deal with the words that you write.

                We just had a discussion on your contention that Trump violated the law with the Tower Meeting and you have quoted several items that showed nothing of the kind. When asked to produce the sentence that you were talking about you refused. The reason was clear your proof didn’t back up what you said. Then you tried to change the subject to save face. You might convince a person like Diane who grabs at ghosts and fantassies to boost her arguments but you won’t convince anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence whether or not they have a similar ideology to you.

                1. Allan, again you lie. I cited a specific section of the United States Code and a specific section of the Code of Federal Regulations. You won’t read what threatens your distorted worldview.

              1. Hollywood, you probably were a low level employee all your life so I don’t expect you to understand how different people negotiate and react to various stresses.

                The release of off the record comments demonstrates how bad the news media is. But did that comment matter? Very little though it would have been better if the President hadn’t made it on the record or off the record. Do you think the Candian leaders didn’t know that beforehand? You probably didn’t. It will be a pinch but in the scheme of things means very little. It’s like the pinch Trudeau gave to Trump after their meeting awhile back. These things happen all the time. I think Trudeu’s drooping eyebrow caused Trudeu more pain.

                  1. “Allan, FWIW, I have negotiated matters for millions of dollars.”

                    I deal with low level and middle level people all the time despite the fact that a lot of money is involved. Tell me, what is the color of your leash and collar?

    2. WBill – just curious, but were you stupid enough to swallow these whoppers when your beloved BO shot them out to you?

      you can keep your health plan
      you can keep your doctor
      that (white) cop acted stupidly
      Those 4 Americans were killed because of a video
      I cannot change the (immigration) law on my own

      if so then swallow hard – enjoy the world you created!!

        1. no deflection at all – WBill asked who was stupid enough to swallow such whoppers – the point is that *he is* and so are you — as long as you’re being fed such whoppers by BO or HRC.

          1. Yes, you can find a few things Obama said that were false. You can find thousnads of things Trump said that are false. See the difference?

            1. No, *you* didn’t just ‘find a few things’: *you* swallowed hard and fast and with a smile -and lets face it – are still chugging it down to this day!! Tell me the Truth: did you believe that Benghazi was due to a video? Do you still believe it? If you actually came to your senses (seriously doubt), let me ask you, who lied to you for his own political gain? Trump? Who trusted that you would swallow the obvious whopper? And who was more than willing to swallow BO’s whoppers rather than obvious Truth? Conclusion via WBill logic (and let me mock): that hollywood person acted/voted stupidly.

              1. This seems a mislabeled Allan post. But whatever.
                No one believed Benghazi had something to do with a video. Susan Rice got tossed into the fire, but the video story was almost immediately walked back (and that was a godawful video). She walked it back. HRC walked it back. But you in your Rush/Drudge/Hannity/PJMedia fever dreams seized on it forevermore. Woo Hoo!
                “who lied to you for his own political gain? [TRUMP]
                Trump? [YES]
                Who trusted that you would swallow the obvious whopper? [TRUMP]. And, yes, Allan, you have swalloed Trump’s semen deep in the back of your throat.
                Guess what, unlike you I did not swallow his bullsh*t.

                1. Hollywood, though I agree with the poster that “*you* swallowed hard and fast and with a smile” that wasn’t my post. I’ll leave it up to anonymous to respond, but I take note of your emotionally low level response that is an insult and demonstrates your lack of sensitivity to someone of a different sexual persuasion.

                  To the poster and everyone else. Sometimes the name gets dropped from the information boxes below and the name comes up as anonymous with the same icon all the time. Make sure to check the box saying “save my name”.

                2. Hey hollywood – imo anon brought up a revealing question:

                  So who was it that lied to *you* about Benghazi for his own political gain? Who trusted that *you* would swallow the whopper?

                  Hint: it wasn’t Trump.

                  Can you even admit who it was? This seems to me like the ‘whopper’ you’ve been swallowing ever since 2012 and may indeed be anons point.

                  Thanks

                  1. Benghazi is over and done. You’ve had eight investigations and come up with nothing. Yes, Ms. Rice initially passed on some erroneous information, but she also provided other scenarios. The whopper on Benghazi is the GOP, including Trump, claiming the Obama administration did something terribly wrong. Other than initially getting the facts on the ground wrong, they did nothing wrong. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/
                    Even Gowdy had to admit it was a nothingburger. If you feel otherwise, you are the one doing the swallowing. Having overcome your gag reflex, you are ripe for continued swallowing of lies from Trump and his legions.

                    1. poor attempt at deflection. To repeat:

                      So who was it that lied to *you* about Benghazi for his own political gain? Who trusted that *you* would swallow the whopper?

                      Hint: it wasn’t Trump.

                  2. How many folks died at Benghazi? Was it 4? How many folks did Trump allow to die in Puerto Rico? Close to 3,000. But they got paper towels.

                    1. Hollywood is now bordering on being committed. Trump controls the weather. That is the sign of a paranoid schitzo on the blog.

                      I wonder if Hollywood realizes that Puerto Rico has its own government that was supposed to fix its infrastructure years ago but never did. Puerto Rico is the heaven that people like Hollywood dream about when they are not dreaming about Venezuela.

                    2. hollywood – Trump did not allow them to die, the various government structures of Puerto Rico refused to deliver material that was already in place. They were thin because of disasters that had occurred under the Obama administration and those supplies had not been refilled. There was a hurricane, btw.

                    3. “Trump’s late, undermanned…”

                      Hollywood, your words are those of an ignorant fool that cites an article that doesn’t back up any of your claims. One has to do an evaluation of how the deaths occurred. Trump is not responsible for deaths due directly to the hurricane or the poor infrastructure that was caused by poor Democratic management. All these things take years to correct but most of these people died within days unless we are talking about factors contributing to the death which is a whole other story.

                      We can look at a real preventable crisis, the area that Barack Obama represented as a state senator. He said he would help those people as did Rahm Emanuel but the area that Barack Obama represented never did get help and is as bad today as it was when he was the state senator1997 to 2004. Questioning an African American in the district Obama led a writer asked if Obama ever did anything positive? The answer was Yes, he got one black man from the area out and moved him into the White House.

                      Thousands upon thousands of people from Chicago have been killed over a relatively few years while under near total Democratic Control. Should Chicago run by Democrats such as Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel have been in Puerto Rico during that hurricane we might have seen a much larger death count. Puerto Rico and Chicago have one thing in common, a similar leftist view of politics.

                    4. hollyw –
                      2nd poor attempt at deflection. Care to answer the question?

                      So who was it that lied to *you* about Benghazi for his own political gain? Who trusted that *you* would swallow the whopper?

                      Hint: it wasn’t Trump.

            2. Falsehood statements are human. Trump is a promoter so one might think that his puffery is a falsehood. It isn’t, it is puffery. On significant things he doesn’t lie much and most of the “lies” are inconsequential. Obama lied like everyone else except his lies were very consequential.

              Hollywood I don’t expect you to be able to tell the difference because you can’t list the consequential lies of Trump while many have listed the consequential lies of Obama.

                1. Another meaningless citation from Hollywood. Unfortuantely, this doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood doesn’t know the difference between puffery and a lie, significant and insignificant, a mistake and a lie etc.

                  That is Hollywood’s problem. He is as superficial as they come and he can’t sustain an argument that deals with specifics.

                    1. Hollywood, you say you know the difference, but you say a lot of things you can’t defend. Logically that means a lot of times you don’t know the difference.

                      What was the lie at Helsinki? How significant was it? Could it have been puffery, a necessary lie, a mistake, etc.?

              1. Just two of many examples, Allan. Trump lied at Helsinki. Then, on his return to DC, Trump lied when he tried to cover up his Helsinki lie. He is a liar, and by extention so are you.

                1. You are repeating yourself Hollywood without ever providing facts so I will ask the question again.

                  “What was the lie at Helsinki? How significant was it? Could it have been puffery, a necessary lie, a mistake, etc.?”

  4. CNN’s reputation for journalistic integrity has greatly suffered over the years.

    In addition, if taking a meeting, or knowing about a meeting, with a Russian offering opposition research was collusion, then surely Hillary Clinton actually paying a British National to pay Russians for a false story opposition research, that was used by the FBI to investigate her opponent, would fall by that sword.

    1. Ignoring key facts is the epitome of false equivalency. Had Russia hacked the RNC email server then used Fusion GPS to leak thousands of emails damaging to Trump right before he accepted the Republican nomination for President and thereafter right up to election day on November 8th, 2016, then the meetings between Glenn Simpson and Natalia Veselnitskaya might very well raise substantial suspicion of a conspiracy to defraud the United States implicating Hillary Clinton and Marc Elias at Perkins Coie. But, even then, those hypothetical emails damaging to Trump would have had to have been used to influence a federal election rather than forwarded to the FBI for possible investigation. And that is why ignoring key facts epitomizes false equivalency.

      1. Substitute the name “Hillary” for “Trump” in the email/ text exchanges between Strzok and Lisa Page.
        “She can’t win, can she?
        No, we’ll stop it”
        We never did hear what the “insurance policy” was in case the unthinkable happened and their candidate lost.
        And these statements are from the senior FBI official in charge of BOTH the Hillary email “investigation”, and the Trump-Russia investigation.
        As long as we”re speculating about “had this or that happened”, we can hear how Hillary and her supporters would have just brushed off😉😒 the activities and statements from people like Strzok, Page, the Ohr couple, etc. had she been targeted instead of Trump.

    1. i object to calling the CNN propaganda operation, communists. They would be more of a false popular front controlled by Silicon Valley Capitalists.

      there has never been a President as open a champion of the interests of unskilled native born workers as Donald Trump, since FDR.

      The only thing you can rightly call DJT a traitor of is a class-traitor, like FDR

    1. Trump’s ‘top targets’ are people using FBI personnel and equipment to run errands for the Democratic Party. Anything else about them is incidental. They belong in prison.

      1. TS to Dance,….
        The ATLANTIC article cited includes high praise for the Mueller team’s expertise in the area of racketeering, money laundering, and other financial crimes.
        So it’s not as if firing or demoting FBI or DOJ officials stops an investigation into Trump’s financial dealings.
        The people that the author mentioned ….Strzok, McCabe, and Ohr……were, according to Ms. Bertrand, fired or marginalized/ demoted because Trump is targeting FBI/ DOJ officials who can tie him to financial crimes.
        #1.- The alleged offenses by Trump in the are of financial crimes did not start on Jan. 20, 2017.
        The connection with Russians ( and other nationalities) in property sales, etc. goes back for years.
        #2 –So if these “targeted people”….Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, were on the case, the suspected “Trump Trail of Illegal Financial Dealings”…..what evidence did they produce over the years?
        #3–If it’s zip, we are now supposed to believe that they must have been “on the verge” of some major invesigative breakthough that Trump short-circuited.
        #4— If that is indeed the case, no evidence of their alleged knowledge of Trump’s financial crimes has surfaced in any of their testimony, or other statements.
        Is their memory bank erased as they are discharged, or demoted?
        The article builts conjecture on top of speculation and comes up with a guess that “she knows the REAL reason” these clowns were discharged or demoted.

        1. Tom, more often than not, your points are easy to grasp. But here you lose me completely.

          Basically you’re saying that since Robert Mueller never sat down and briefed you on his investigation, you can only assume the people on your list have no relevant expertise.

          1. My comments are self-explanatory to most people.
            Your reply indicates that you don’t comprehend clear, direct comments.
            I’m not surprised that you were “completely lost” by my comnents, and came back with a crazy, irrelevant response.
            I’m not going to try to walk you through, point by point, the comments that I made.
            Your response alone indicates that it’s not worth the effort.

            1. On a somewhat related matter, there is a July 2, 2017 article in THE ATLANTIC entitled “HOW THE LEFT LOST ITS MIND”, by McCay Coppins.

                1. Don’t bother, Mr. Hill. July 2nd, 2017 was roughly one week before The NYT first reported the Trump Tower meeting on July 8th, 2017. Krazy Kat Rambler is pining for the good old days when even The Atlantic had doubts about the Trump-Russia conspiracy to defraud the United States.

                  1. The observations that Coppins makes in his article are still valid.
                    Intervening events have not changed what Coppins notes about some on the left.
                    The ATLANTIC has more than supportive of key figures like Christopher Steele, their patron saint, and the disgraced FBI officials who were fired or demoted.
                    The Jane Mayer piece this spring was accurately described as a gushing, fawning tribute to Christopher Steele and his tabloid Russian Dossier.
                    And of course the poor FBI figures were only fired or demoted to derail an alleged breakthrough in linking Trump to financial crimes.☺😊😂
                    Crimes that supposedly go back many years, and that they…..and only they…..were only now just on the verge of wrapping up.
                    Coppins was referring to people like L4D, our AM Queen of Sophistry, who can spin, contort, distort, or lie her way to ” reach” the desired conclusion she started out with in the first place.

        2. “Trump’s financial crimes?” Really? You mean the ones that DNC progressives search for till they find them, to justify nominating the worst candidate in history, rather than admit the truth? You mean those so far non-existent Russian financial crimes?

          You mean the crimes that don’t exist, because if they did “Adam” Schiff would have leaked them a million times over by now? The crimes Adam promised happened about a thousand times, but have not yet been found? You mean those non-existent crimes?

      2. There aren’t enough prisons and there aren’t enough guards to accomodate all the folks you want to imprison.

            1. hollywood – using the Sheriff Joe model, it has passed SCOTUS muster. If it is good enough for US troops it is good enough for prisoners.

                    1. hollywood – the new sheriff ran on a platform of getting rid of Tent City, but has not done it. Too cost effective. 😉 Of course, since the new sheriff is a Democrat there are no complaints about Tent City. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

                    2. It’s curious how as you say the new Democrat sheriff campaigned to rid Maricopa County of the tent city, but everywhere else Democrats want to build tent cities to warehouse the homeless.

                    3. Darren Smith – but, but, but …. Sheriff Joe was putting convicted criminals in Tent City, that is bad, bad, bad. It is good, good, good when you put the homeless in Tent Cities. 😉

                    4. Darren/PCS,
                      I am unaware of the homeless being housed in tents in the greater LA area.

    2. preposterous. it is easier to prove by far that the Russian mafia is in fact misnamed because it is is mostly Russian born Jews– an “antisemitic” sounding comment but for the factual basis– but that is more provable than this nutty thesis that DJT is somehow doing their bidding. Just ridiculous.

      https://www.amazon.com/Red-Mafiya-Russian-Invaded-America/dp/0316294748

      Putting aside that there are facts to support such a plausible hypothesis, but if you say them you are a hater and in big trouble.

      by contrast if you say Trump is now in service of the Russian mafia then you get a slot on CNN.
      its crazy!

      (to be fair maybe they are more goyische than they were when Freidman wrote that book, nearly 20 years ago)

      (this is the same quality of crap from the likes of people who with scant knowledge but easy confidence in their own uninformed opinion,
      say the Yakuza run Japan, the Sicilian mafia controls the Pope, blah blah blah)

      1. “it is is mostly Russian born Jews– an “antisemitic” sounding comment”

        Sounds that way and probably is.

        1. “Anti-semite” definition: “Not someone who hates Jews, but rather someone hated by certain Jews.” James Sobran

          1. Jones, try remembering that Joseph Sorban was fired by Bill Buckley from National Review for anti-semitic columns.

            1. Allan, do not react too strongly, there is often something interesting to be found in things dismissed as antisemitic. At least something worth understanding. For example, observe that Jews are called this too. Jesus and Saul of Tarsus have been called that, but is there not something worth studying in Christianity, even for those who do not adhere?

              I seem to recall that Freidman, the author of that book was called antisemitic too. But, putting that aside, the question is what is the factual basis for the claim? “red mafiya” is a book about the Jewish Russian emigres who formed the back of what had become to be called the “russian mafia”

              It shares a certain interesting historical nexus here, in that the Jackson Vinik amendment of 1974 facilitated the emigration of Russian Jews to the West, that is, Europe the US and Israel. And, many of them, were convicted criminals, vohr, bandity, that is to say, Russian mafia types.

              I am not saying the Russian mafia is all Jews. That would be silly and wrong. I am saying that at the time of the writing of that book a disproportionate number who had come here, were.

              I would not that in 2012 the Jacov Vinik act was repealed by the Magnitsky act, which plays a part in the special counsel’s investigations. I am not sure how all these threads weave together, but maybe it is something worth study.

              For now I was simply saying, that things are often complicated, and oversimplifications will not suffice.

              Applied to Trump and the campaign, I would say here is an oversimplification.

              To pretend either that Russians do not engage in electoral propaganda operations, or, to pretend that just because they do, that is a huge concern, or that the operations were successful.

              In fact we know they do, we know that the US does too, and that is par for the course with “spooks.” Thus the relevant question is not whether there is this omnipresent war of words but did the candidates do something specifically illegal and very serious, which can be proven by competent evidence, and which was CONSEQUENTIAL, and thus worth tying down the Chief Executive for his tenure, and tormenting half the population because of it?

              In this way, this failure to weigh the wisdom of pursuing all these things like Manafort’s flawed old tax returns, which embarasses the President but does not implicate him, in this way the Special Prosecutor is DOING PUTIN’S WORK by creating the appearance of impropriety in what was otherwise just another American presidential election.

              Putin does not love Trump I think; i think he sees it as his job to delegitimize the US electoral system thus to weaken the US. You might ask, has Putin both done things to try and help Trump– such as public praise that may be embarassing, at a minimum– thus to make Trump look bad in the eyes of the security apparatus, by doing so?

              And do the Democrats always and every time, play into his hand, even as they revile him? Maybe the trivial amount of “phony facebook ads” that were a small expense for a country like Russia, were a very worthwhile gambit. It could have been ignored, but the frustrated Clinton backers wanted to make an issue out of it, for their own partisan reasons. They took the bait; and the chessmaster is no doubt pleased.

              Now Americans who supported Trump, like me, look at our partisan system, and the institutional bias evident in certain “institutions” who go by various acronyms, and say, is perhaps the whole system invalid on some very basic level? if it is a democracy and yet the democratic winner can be the subject of a slow moving bureaucratic coup, then what were we voting for?

              This may be complicated but it is similar to criticisms leveled at “warmonger republicans” during the days of the Soviet Union. if you are old enough to remember.

              So let me wind that up by saying: yes, many of the Russian mafia are Jewish, But, it is still a Russian mafia. Or, yes, Russians were meddling in our American election. But it was still a valid American election. And don’t make too much of the meddling, like an antisemite who makes too much of the Jewish presence in the “Russian mafia.”

              In other words, it’s a form of ethnic suspicion and mistrust, to hate and suspect Russians of being behind every surprising outcome.

              1. this also reminds me of how many years ago some people used to point out that there oligarchs “behind Yeltsin” included many Jews. And that supposedly, Putin was not a “new Hitler” who had displaced them. …..And yet, it turns out, that now many of “Putin’s oligarchs” on the sanctions list are Jewish too. and Putin has a good relationship with the Jewish community in Russia, if not the US; and likewise, Trump has a strong support among Jewish community in US and Israel, if not all of it. Some see him as a philosemite, and others an antisemite. What do such malleable charges really mean?

                Perhaps it’s too simplistic to say Oh Putin is anti Jewish or Trump is Pro Jewish; more often that not the accusation is so plastic that it is meaningless.

                Thus electoral politics as a whole almost seems to be at a sort of crisis where political operators all call each other the same names. Such as Donald Trump who says both that he is very hard on Russia but also he wants to make nice with them. In a way it’s understandable but in another way it is just as stupid as Hillary, who tried to get opposition research from them, “legally,” we are told, as opposed to the unsophisticated Trump campaign who we are promised “was up to something,” or Hillary who who wanted to take a lot of Russian bribes, er, sorry, donations, from them, but also agitated on behalf of the MIC against them.

                One is tempted to say who do these elected politicians ever represent?

                1. “oligarchs “behind Yeltsin” included many Jews.”

                  Jews have some prominence in that they seem to rise in society more than many in the general society so one would think that prominence might be in all areas including crime. Take a look at the number of Nobel Prize winners that are Jewish and then consider that the Jewish population of the earth is almost insignificant.

                  ” Trump has a strong support among Jewish community in US…, if not all of it. ”

                  That is wrong. The Jewish vote went to Hillary. A lot of Jews hate Trump and I would bet that if there were an election tomorrow the Jewish vote would go to Hillary. They may be excell in intellect but not in self preservation when it comes to their voting habits.

                  “Perhaps it’s too simplistic to say Oh Putin is anti Jewish or Trump is Pro Jewish”

                  It’s simply wrong. By the way Putin’s history provides him a bit of fondness towards Jews. Trump is simply a NYC businessman.

              2. Your comment was as follows: “the Russian mafia is in fact misnamed because it is is mostly Russian born Jews”

                There are Jewish Russian Mafia figures but the Russian mafia is not misnamed. Some like to obsess over Jews so anything bad a Jew might be associated with they like to magnify. That is frequently done and is frequently associated with anti-semitism and anti-semitic behavior.

                Many things occur in the world whether it be death, killings, famine, war, but some like to focus only on those participants that happen to be Jewish while forgetting about everything else. It is similar to the leftist attitude we see over and over again. Take note how a white person kills a black (that is terrible) and it hits the news for weeks at a time and is magnified out of proportion. However, do you hear those leftists talking about the weekly dead blacks in Chicago or other cities? No. That demonstrates a racist attitude as well. That also demonstrates no real concern for African American children that are dying on our streets at an horrendous level.

                Broaden your focus.

                (There were two halves of your discussion that didn’t truly relate to the underlying issue. The latter half can be discussed at another time.)

          2. Sobran played dumb for years, pretending he didn’t understand what an ‘anti-semite’ was. Sobran had issues, which caused escalating conflict with the staff of National Review over a period of nearly 7 years. The complaint was that his syndicated column was damaging the magaizine’s brand. Buckley and others wanted him to stop addressing certain topics in his column and radio commentary. He eventually replied with a column that all but dared Buckley to fire him. After he was let go, he discovered the hard way that his other gigs were a function of the Buckley imprimateur. He couldn’t earn much of a living as a freelancer and he either could not or would not retool and follow another line of work. In the terminal phase of his career, he was appearing at gigs organized by the Institute for Historical Review.

            It’s doubtful he ever mattered enough to Norman Podhoretz for Podhoretz to hate him.

            1. Allan and Kurtzy,

              You two should share notes and publish a book on your intellectual insight into Jewish culture, history, and how this manifests in today’s political climate.

              A good title might be: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — The Revised Second Edition — Or Not.

              It would sell well, I’m sure — George would buy it, probably PCS and Squeeky too!

              You both are so obviously attuned to the subject, it would be a shame if your perspectives were forgotten in these turbulent times.

              1. The above post of mine should have been placed under Allan’s post here:

                https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/30/cnn-sticks-with-story-that-cohen-alleges-trump-knew-of-trump-tower-meeting-despite-cohen-and-his-lawyer-denying-the-story/comment-page-2/#comment-1775940

                Why it’s under SOT/DSS et al. post — and many other issues lately — is a good lesson in not letting your kids make administrative changes to a website.

                But, I really only post this correction so that T Gnash doesn’t unhinge with his inability to follow threads.

                1. I’m sure you do, PCS. Look under your mattress.

                  Maybe you could edit the new edition, though, with a preface and annotations.

                  1. R. Lien – I find that highly offensive. I am horrified that you would even suggest that. If I thought you were a man, I would challenge you to a duel. High Noon here is perfect. Temperature is about 100, we can do it in the center of town.

                    1. Schulteacher has to reenact the part originally played by Ian MacDonald–the dreaded Frank Miller.

                      That leaves R Lien with the Gary Cooper role–Marshal Will Kane.

                      Obviously the Grace Kelly part, Amy Fowler, should be played by Annie/Inga. But if Dr. Benson truly is a Quaker, then . . .

                    2. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – If that is the best you can do at casting parts, no one is going to let you do it. I would cool my jets if I were you. I am still pissed about that insult. I will be happy to displace that anger on you if you like.

                    3. Get a magic marker. Write L4D on a post-it note. Stick the post-it note on a pillow or a seat cushion. Take the effigy to the center of town at High Noon. Displace your anger upon it with your mash-potato slingshot. Leave the AK47 in your Skechers underneath your bunions. No chipotles in the mashed potatoes, please. Chives or garlic, or both, are acceptable.

                    4. Fine then. So be it.

                      FTR, there’s no indication that Paul C Schulte is an anti-Semite. Given the umbrage that Paul has taken to the contrary insinuation one might more emphatically declare that Paul C Schulte is not an anti-Semite. But it’s really not L4D’s place to defend the honor an ancient Greco-Roman demi-bull-god. So he’ll just have to do his own snorting, instead.

                    5. Paul, Lien has nearly all the qualities of a racist. Lien is even stupid and didn’t understand the context of the discussion between Kurtz and myself. Lien promotes ill will because Lien is a sick dog.

    3. Excellent article, J.J.

      Here are two paragraphs that stood out to me:

      “Trump’s fixation with seeing Ohr ousted from the Justice Department could be perceived as yet another attempt to undermine the credibility of the people who have investigated him. It could also be interpreted as an attack on someone with deep knowledge of the shady characters Trump and his cohort have been linked to, including Semion Mogilevich, the Russian mob boss, and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate close to Putin who did business with Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Ohr was involved in banning Deripaska from the U.S. in 2006, due to his alleged ties to organized crime and fear that he would try to launder money into American real estate. Nearly a decade later, Ohr and the FBI sought Deripaska’s help in taking down overseas criminal syndicates.

      And then there’s Andy McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI who spent more than a decade investigating Russian organized crime and served as a supervisory special agent of a task force that scrutinized Eurasian crime syndicates. McCabe is a 21-year FBI veteran who handled aspects of the Russia investigation until Mueller was appointed last May, an appointment McCabe says he pushed for”.

      1. Ohr’s wife works for Glenn Simpson. He’s the linchpin of this whole sh!t show. Of course Trump wants him fired from the Justice Department. Any person of decency and sense would.

    1. Here’s a more balanced look at the economy. To summarize: “The president inherited an economy that had come a long way toward healing. During his administration, the economy has continued growing at about the same rate it did before he took office, pushing incomes, employment and output to yet higher levels.”
      In short, he’s no miracle worker. More details. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/upshot/how-good-is-the-trump-economy-really.html

      1. the economy is not as good as they say. it never is. government statistics on inflation consistently understate it and the employment figures are based on who’s looking for a job not who is too lazy or on the dole or working a black economy job. that is hardly Trump’s fault. i doubt that his administration would fudge things any more than any other feds.

        there are some structural things Trump is definitely fixing and the “free trade” deals foremost

        there are some bad things that Trump can’t fix like an economy overdosing on financialization so all he can do is give it another dose of morphine and hope it lives on a while longer

        if there is another financial contagion it would not surprise me and all the Dems would rush to blame Trump, but, they are equally to blame.
        Just as Clinton was equally to blame for NAFTA problems, a treaty he signed into law and took high credit for over the years

      2. Hollywood, for every downturn there is an upturn and historically the figure continues to rise. Therefore if we use $20,000 as a base number and suddenly that number is cut in half we expect over a certain amount of time, generally just a couple or a few years, to reach baseline numbers and continue climbing.

        Assuming the economy fell from $20,000 to $10,000 before Obama and in 10 years (using simple numbers) it rose to $20,000 one could say he had an average of 10% increase per year. That is pretty bad for in that time he should have reached baseline and added to the baseline. That is something your numbers don’t account for because the ones misusing the numbers are trying to make Obama look better than he was.

        I don’t know if you can understand this or not, but at least recognize the fact that numbers can be misused and that is what you have become accustomed to, the misuse of numbers.

        1. Allan, tell us how many recessions in the last hundred years were triggered by Financial Crisis’. And how long, on average, did it take to recover from each financial crisis?

          Now remember, the key term here is ‘financial crisis’. Not every recession is caused by one. The last bad recession, 82-83, was not caused by a financial crisis.

          1. Peter, the last time you asked me for proof on JFK and Trump I quickly provided it and you acted like your usual self, as a fool. It was a waste of my time to bother to actually add content to the blog.

            Every recession and post recession has its differences. We can clearly look at the response to this event and take note that the actions of the Obama administration should be questioned. I believe Obama made things worse and cared more about his ideology than the people he hurt.

              1. Hollywood, if you read a little more carefully or were a better reader you would have seen that I actually answered Peter’s question skipping over details I would have provided if Peter chose to engage instead of running away after someone provides the details he is asked for.

                  1. Hollywood, I did read Peter’s reply and though he might understand you certainly don’t. Your mind is quite rigid perhaps akin to cement.

                    1. I’m left to ponder and laugh at the irony of your claiming anyone else is “rigid.’ HaHa!

                    2. “You forgot the laugh”

                      You have run out of things to say, Hollywood. Why would I laugh at a person who cannot help himself? You seemed to be unable to understand my response to Peter. That is sad, not laughable.

                    3. “I’m pretty sure you have no idea the difference between cement and concrete.”

                      Jones, if you wish to believe that you are free to do so.

              2. The Great Recession of 07-09 was the first Financial Crisis since the Great Depression. Financial Crisis’ are a distinct type of recession; bank failures being a major component. The stock market was literally in a free-fall from September of ’08 to March of 09. When that much wealth is wiped out, it takes years for the economy to rebound.

                Nevertheless our economy recovered all the wealth that was lost ‘before’ Obama left office.

                Regarding JFK, I promptly pointed out that upper bracket taxes were 90% when JFK took office. But somehow you had difficulty processing that answer You seemed to think that taxes can be cut indefinitely. Like we would never get to ‘zero’. Member of the Libertarian cult often have that impression.

                1. Obama’s administration returned the wealth after 8 years but it was lackluster. Trump demonstrated a much greater effect. We have to wait to see how permanent any effect is.

                  Regarding JFK you pointed out numbers that weren’t real if one looked at what was actually paid. You don’t like to compare apples to apples and had a great deal of difficulty dealing with the four different areas I covered. That is why you didn’t cover all of them and of those you covered it was a poor attempt.

                  When you talk of libertarians you talk about a wide spectrum. Try to recognize that. I consider myself more of a classical liberal and have no problems with taxation to do those things government is supposed to do. I also believe in federalism so I believe states have a right to tax as well.

          1. Hollywood, I have always recognized that you weren’t very good with numbers, but I didn’t recognize how bad with numbers you really are.

              1. False recognition? Anyone educated in the sciences, if honest, can see I am correct. Otherwise you would have dealt with the numbers and explained your side of the story. You couldn’t because you don’t have the capacity even though I purposely kept the numbers simplistic.

                1. These sciences are what? The dismal science? Fail. Which science? Which numbers? U6? Fail? A rate change? Which education? You have one? Where? You are like one of these guys who tells a mark you can make 90% interest but it’s some nonsense about buying and selling or moving some accounts over a weekend. Nonsense, Allan.

                  1. Hollywood having become inconsequential you are now incoherent. “These sciences are what?…” You realize that education in the sciences means more than one science. The clue was at the end of the word sciences, in specific the s that enotes plural.

                    The U6 is a specific number released by the government and involves unemployment. That is a number we discussed earlier. Apparently you are having trouble dealing with real numbers that have meaning. I’ll leave the rest of the rambling to you.

                    1. “So no meaningful education. That’s ok,”

                      One need not know anything about either of us. All they have to do is read the content or lack of content in your case.

                  2. i am not following what you are arguing about guys

                    But let me point out a big undeniable national trend over decades: that real wages have not gone up for the average American worker since the mid 70s. This is not due to any party but to a general trend that some call “financialization.”

                    One antidote to financialization is a better industrial policy. It’s hard to describe what that would entail since few economists champion it, and some of those who do, like Michael Hudson, are actually considered leftists.

                    But it seems obvious to me that the “fair trade over free trade” approach of Trump to renegotiating NAFTA and so forth have a clearly beneficial effect for American manufacturing operations and thus also the American worker.

                    I am somehow sure Democratic partisans will just keep denying that no matter what.

                    1. that real wages have not gone up for the average American worker since the mid 70s

                      No clue where this meme comes from. It’s false.

                    2. I’m guessing that the phrase “average American worker” excludes workers in the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sector or possibly even any other sector that has seen significant real wage growth since 1970. But that’s just a guess.

        1. Yawn. Mespo, wake me when Trump cures cancer. Right now he’s trying to create a Deep State by denying Federal workers their COL increases.

          1. “Right now he’s trying to create a Deep State by denying Federal workers their COL increases.”

            How does that create a Deep State?

            When one makes a controversial statement one should have a reason ready to explain one’s reasons.

          2. A richly justified action considering how overpaid most of them are. I am fully aware of federal employee standards of living which would make most people in Flyover blush if they knew. Oh, and the vacation for longtime civil servants, wow. Seriously, let them eat cake! Boo hoo

            1. I love my job in the private sector but the one quiet voice in my head just keeps saying, “MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE” especially when reviewing health insurance plans. Wow.

              Seriously, the poor federal employees! Oh, cry cry cry, we are so worried!

  5. “CNN Sticks With Story That Cohen Alleges Trump Knew Of Trump Tower Meeting Despite Cohen and His Lawyer Denying The Story”

    “Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks”

  6. Partisan Democrats in the last 3 years have yet to meet a sh!t sandwich they didn’t want to eat.

  7. CNN is merely entertainment at this point. So what does it matter if they lose any further credibility on their trustworthiness in reporting news?

    1. It matters because CNN getting caught lying again in an attack on Trump helps him. It’s yet further evidence of their corruption. Every “mistake” the corporate news makes is in an attack on Trump. Somehow they never make mistakes in his favor. Their extreme bias and incompetence is a boon for the Trump camp. It’s what drove him to victory in 2016.

  8. While you folks are all in a lather about a purported lie on CNN, Trump is not standing idly by. At any point he has to be the biggest liar in the room. So now he’s come up with his lie that Lester Holt fudged the Comey-was-fired-because-of-Russia tape. Lunacy!

    1. Sooner rather than later, Trump supporters will have to decide whether or not they will follow the path that Trump is demanding of them: Don’t believe what you read, don’t believe what you see, don’t believe what you hear, don’t believe your own intelligence and logic. Look ONLY to me [and by extension, Hannity] and I will tell you what to see, hear, and think.

      1. It’s called discernment JJ.
        The Germans in the 1930’s could have used more of it. The current crop of hate filled violence loving democrats too.

      2. who the hell watches hannity. most people I know dont. get off the hannity thing. it used to be oreilley now it’s this other irishman. gosh i dont watch tv even one hour a week.

    2. “Biggest liar”? Come on, man. Call him a “traitor”,”racist”, etc. “Liar” is just too soft and “biggest” really softens the attack because you’re saying they’re all liars.

      CNN is the gift that keeps on giving.

  9. I love the hate from the left. It’s one of the best things about coming to this blog now. They’ve gone so bananas that it’s actually funny.

    1. Yeah real funny like the FBI stopped a man from shooting up the Boston Globe because he thought they were the enemy of the people.

      1. Does the FBI or the Globe have any proof of the threat.

        With all their lies why should anyone believe they wouldn’t make up another load of Bull Sheet?

        Even worst a handful of your types post here & there & seem to think others believe the crap you post.

        https://www.jsmineset.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/unnamed-225×300.

        BTW: Someone should pass this lawyer’s article to Prof Turley so maybe he to can catch up to reality over labor day holiday. Maybe he already but chooses not to go public yet?

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/28/gregg-jarrett-scheme-from-bruce-ohr-and-comeys-confederates-to-clear-clinton-damage-trump.html

      2. We have been in an extremely heated political environment for a long time now and I expect there to be more crazies losing it. The Scalise shooting was over a year ago. We’re going to see more sadly.

        That said, I do enjoy and laugh at all the comments here…especially yours. I even laughed at your last one. I’m not laughing at the prospect of violence, I’m just laughing at you feigning indignation and righteousness.

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          [Robert] Chain, 68, is due to appear in a federal court in Los Angeles on Thursday afternoon charged with making threatening communications in interstate commerce. He will later be transferred to Boston, officials said.

          In an affidavit filed to federal court in Boston, the FBI said Chain began a series of 14 threatening calls to the Globe soon after the newspaper announced on 10 August that it was coordinating a response by US publications to Trump’s attacks. Dozens of outlets agreed to publish editorial columns on the subject on 16 August.

        2. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – wow, we had to get this from The Guardian. I was unaware the Globe got FBI protection.

  10. JT throwing more red meat to the Trumpsters because Trumpy Bear can’t turn the focus of attention back on him until after John McCain is buried. It takes gall to harp about any person or organization lying in the face of the most mendacious White House ever, headed by a narcissistic pathological liar.

    1. i dont know turley but you think he really cares? he’s just a law prof writing, talking, doing law prof stuff. cut him a break, if you dont like him you can always stop visiting his blog and cluttering it with your cant

      1. Kurtz,

        ” … if you dont like him you can always stop visiting his blog and cluttering it with your cant …”
        ********************************************

        How then will Natacha get paid?

        1. she’s earned at least a dime a post. even at a piece rate like that one could imagine why pols want to use bots to spread the word. same quality, but cheaper

    2. NUTCHACHA, so we can demolish the “Affirmative Action Privilege” you enjoy so much along with welfare, food stamps, quotas, utility subsidies, unconstitutional forced busing, unconstitutional “Fair Housing” laws, unconstitutional “Non-Discrimination” laws, social services, Obamacare, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, lazy, greedy, striking public worker thug unions, etc., etc. etc.?

      Can we revert to constitutional American freedom?

      You’re not a communist, you just want “FREE STUFF,” NOT “FREE-DOM,” by the ton, funded by the money of all the people who OWE you and your ilk.

      Freedom terrifies you because you’re not equipped to win.

      Right?

      No, no, no, not NUTCHACHA, she don’t want no “free stuff,” she ain’ts no commanist!

      1. George: did you read Natacha’s comment through a Bircher Filter?

        It seems a growing number of conservatives have what’s known as the Bircher Filter on their computer. Said filter makes it look as though any criticism of Donald Trump is somehow an assault on Free Enterprise. Therefore they reply to the criticism with accusations the writer is a lazy welfare queen!

        And ‘yes’ these filters are insane. Even respectable family men make total fools of themselves by responding to filtered text. But in the never-land of Trumpworld, it all makes perfect sense.

        1. Not only is Crazy George insane (What was your first clue Peter?) he is also one of the last of the Confederate sympathizers known to exist. Just to hear him rhapsodize on his beloved Slavocracy, why it would move a stone to rears….

      2. George, you must be about half Commie/Nazi because look at all the so called free sh!t from the govt bureaucracy run you left out. LOL:)

      3. BTW: Ret Congressman Ron Paul put together a pretty good plan a few years back as to how to start unwinding this commie/nazi bs without throwing those dependent on this govt socialist crap into a crisis.

    3. “Trumpy Bear?” I must get one. McCain was the biggest war monger in the entire Congress. Nice company you keep.

  11. … “That’s my story.
    “Oh, that’s my story.
    “Well, I ain’t got a witness and I can’t prove it.
    “But that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.”

  12. Lanny Davis and Rudy Giuliani represent scuzzy guys. None of them should ever be believed.

    Carl Bernstein: “Follow the money. And follow the lies. Particularly when the lies come from the President of the United States and the office of the President of the United States and those around him.”

    I’ll stick with Bernstein. And am looking forward to the Woodward book coming out in two weeks.

    1. “…men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
      ____________________________________________________________________________________

      It is vital, crucial, imperative, nay, mortal, that

      “…courts…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      Alexander Hamilton –

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    2. “…men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
      ____________________________________________________________________________________

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      It is imperative, nay, mortal, for “…courts…to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    3. You must be referring to James Clapper when he lied to Congress about gathering data on every single American. Or were you referring to Lois Lerner when she lied to Congress about deliberately targeting Tea Party groups at the behest of John McCain? Or was it Eric Holder testifying to the House Judiciary Committee that he’s never been involved in the prosecution of members of the press when he had just submitted a warrant request that stated that James Rosen of Fox News was a potential criminal defendant? Liars and perjurers all.

    4. yeah people don’t get this. at the the executive level of the US you have a group of sociopaths who will absolutely commit murder and so why would they hesitate to do less.

      take obama. i don’t know if he ever lied but I do know that he was responsible for a number of drone assassinations including at least one American citizen overseas who was killed without any trial

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13577464/obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surveillance-trump

      and Obama won the Nobel peace prize, amazing!

      I would allow that both parties attract sociopaths to high positions, I’m sure there is no monopoly of Democrats on such persons

      then again so do all the big corporations for their C suites

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#36edd6224104

  13. CNN is pulling a Trump; say whatever you want, a lie, an exaggeration, whatever, and let the other side deal with it. Trump has done this almost three thousand times since being inaugurated. Now you have the press and you have the President. Is it that the press is supposed to be closer to the truth; there are many newspapers, some of which post lies distant from the truth, and typically on the right? Or, is it that the President should represent that which is closer to the truth?

    In America today, we have a President who is the quintessential liar and master of fake news. We also have many, many newspapers, each of which drifts to the right or the left. We know that this is so. The difference is that regarding the news, we can choose to read the rag or not, read the rags and balance the reality, or read our own special rag, like Breitbart and feel all warm and fuzzy inside that we are right and the others are wrong; but we can’t stuff a rag into the mouth of the biggest travesty that has ever occupied the Oval Office.

    The newspapers don’t do the damage. They just report it and get it right or wrong to some degree. Trump is doing the damage.

  14. TRUMP TWEETS ABOUT CNN

    AND MAKES WILD CLAIM REGARDING HOLT INTERVIEW

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
    6h6 hours ago

    What’s going on at @CNN is happening, to different degrees, at other networks – with @NBCNews being the worst. The good news is that Andy Lack(y) is about to be fired(?) for incompetence, and much worse. When Lester Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly!

    17,439 replies 12,290 retweets 44,938 likes
    Reply 17K Retweet 12K Like 45K

    Trump is referring to his interview last year with NBC Anchor Lester Holt. Out of nowhere Trump claims Holt ‘fudged’ that interview’, and that NBC Executive Andrew Lack is ‘about to fired’.

    In a normal universe, this one tweet alone would be grounds for impeachment. The president is obviously a compulsive liar and, or, suffering from delusions.

    1. sorry that’s not even close to a high crime or misdemeanor. back to civics textbook Peter.

      Question: do you think that a President surrenders his own opinions and free speech just because he takes office?

      That’s what the Pope is supposed to do, essentially, so nobody gets mislead. Not that the current guys follows that. He says a lot of stuff off the cuff.

      But the Presidency is like the Papacy for some people. It’s supposed to be Holy Writ and they have a meltdown if a nondogmatic point is stated. Sad!

      1. Kurtz, free speech and baseless lies are two different things. For Trump to say at this point that Lester Holt ‘fudged’ the interview tape is pathetic. Had that interview actually been fudged, why didn’t Trump speak up the moment it was aired??

        More than likely someone told Trump recently that that interview constituted possible obstruction of justice. So Trump got in his head that he say, for the record, the tape was deceptively edited.

        Only in Trumpland would supporters argue Trump was merely exercising his ‘right to free speech’.

          1. your comment also reminds me of something i have heard called “asymmetrical warfare” …. the mass media strategists, frustrated and impatient with the plodding pace of Miller’s persecutions, now losing all pretense of objectivity and increasingly aimed at securing apparent wins, have gone overboard and exposed themselves like government troops “burning villages in order to save them.

            perhaps they have met an adversary that understands LIC better than they.

            who knows what lies ahead, eh?

        1. Actually yes free speech often does including baseless lies. Holt is a public figures just as much as Trump. NY Times v Sullivan

          You said he would have been impeached if the world was just or something like that.

          I am “just” pointing out to you that the Constitution calls for High Crimes and Misdemeanors as premise for impeachment.

          Tweets that you don’t like are not a premise for impeachment.

          And btw the story here is about CNN lying not Trump.

          1. HOLD ON, KURTZ, LET’S BREAK-DOWN YOUR COMMENT

            Firstly, you maintain that the president is protected by free speech rights. Therefore he can assert any baseless lie with full constitutional protections.

            Now even if one is literal enough to buy this argument, how is that good for the country? Is it healthy for America to have a maniacal president asserting baseless lies in public announcements??

            The fact that you’re making this argument Kurtz, demonstrates the absurd desperation of Trump supporters, ‘The president has the right to lie per Sullivan Vs The New York Times’!

            Secondly, you’re arguing that baseless lies are ‘no grounds for impeachment’. But that argument suggests insanity is no grounds for impeachment. Like the president can babble absolute nonsense and still be considered ‘fit to serve’??

            I doubt if our founding fathers expected the public to tolerate a president whose mind is totally gone.

            1. Peter Hill – insanity or lying are neither high crimes or misdemeanors as required by the Constitution for impeachment. However, as one Democratic politician rightly said the other day, Impeachment is a political act. They can impeach Trump for bad breath if they want to.

              A lot will depend on the midterms and who replaces McCain. The Democrats will need a lot of Republican Senators to vote guilty to convict for impeachment. I am not sure the numbers will be there.

            2. insanity is to be resolved by 25th amendment peter
              trump is not insane but you can push that meme like others if you see fit

            3. ” Is it healthy for America to have a maniacal president asserting baseless lies in public announcements??”

              Peter, when asked to list the most significant lies of the President that have to do with his Presidency you are always unable to do so. You on the other hand lie all the time. That is why you carry the name Peter Shill. You can’t stand it that Trump is President so you are willing to support those that wish to get rid of him in any way possible despite the fact that he has done a lot of good for the people and started the ball rolling on international negotiations.

              You don’t care at all if your actions hurt the US or not. Your only interest is in self aggrandizement and supporting your ideology. That is sick.

                1. Again, you make a statement without facts or proof and again you will claim you are being insulted.

                  Tell me how “Allan Projects”.

                  Hollywood, you always get stumped when you have to provide proof behind your comments.

                    1. “Gosh, I’d like to reply to your drivel, but I’m stumped.”

                      Hollywood, you are something other than *stumped* and that causes you to be unable to reply to words that are responsive to the nonsense you keep repeating.

            4. “I doubt if our founding fathers expected the public to tolerate a president whose mind is totally gone.”

              It’s called the 25th Amendment you clown.

          2. “And btw the story here is about CNN lying not Trump”

            That is right, but the Peter Shills of the world don’t want to look at anything that doesn’t aid their attempt of getting rid of Trump. They don’t like depending on elections. They like to rig things in advance like they did to Sanders and after the fact they like to create untrue stories like they did with the Steele Dossier.

        2. “For Trump to say at this point that Lester Holt ‘fudged’ the interview tape is pathetic.”

          Peter, the comment is a meaningless add on to another comment. We don’t know what this means. For all I know he is talking about something that Holt said about the tape a year ago. You make too many assumptions. Critical thinking seems to constantly evade your mind. Let us assume the worst that Trump made a mistake. So what? What did Trump say in the interview that was wrong? Nothing. Over and over he supported continuing the Russia investigation no matter what.

          Then you came up with an explanation as to why Trump would say that about Holt, emphasizing your opinion, “More than likely”. You have dellusions of grandeur and no, your ability to read minds doesn’t exist. You have enough trouble with facts that you shouldn’t bother with mind reading.

          1. Allan, you always sound like some Nixon supporter yelling at a hippie in 1971. Which makes me seriously wonder if you know what century this is.

                  1. “Allan, Allan, Allan, Allan…. You are nothing.”

                    This type of reply represents ignorance not intelligence.

            1. “makes me seriously wonder if you know what century this is.”

              Peter, I know what century this is and what the last century was. That is the difference between the two of us. You know neither.

Leave a Reply