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”


    Personally I believe that cable news networks are less reliable sources than the finest newspapers. Cable news networks have to fill 24 hours of programming per day. That’s a big task.

    However it stands to reason that Trump knew about the tower meeting in advance. Manafort, Kushner and Don Junior were all at said meeting. And during this time frame, Trump himself was only one floor down.

    It seems less than credible that Trump was completely unaware of a meeting one floor up involving his campaign manager, son and son-in-law.

    The contradictions in CNN’s reporting strikes me as a red herring of an issue. A straw that Trump supporters can seize on and yell, “Ah ha..!!”. Like somehow this contradiction is a major game changer. It changes almost nothing.

    1. The best source of news are the independent voices out there. Corporate news is fake news. Listen to a VERY broad range of independent voices and you’ll get a better picture of reality.

  2. (music)
    We went to the animal fair!
    The birds and beasts were there!
    The old baboon by the light of the moon, was combing his auburn hair.
    The monkey he got drunk!
    And fell on the elephant’s trunk.
    The elephant sneezed, and fell on his knees and…
    That was the end of the monk, the monk, the Monk!

  3. It doesn’t seem that confusing to me. For them to stand by their story, they must have two other sources (or more) for the story, not counting Cohen, and I’m guessing that they reconfirmed the report with those sources.

    1. What difference does it make if Trump was tthere or not there. Everything Trump says is off the record.

    1. Trump lies, which proves it’s OK for “journalists” to lie. “We had to burn the village to save it.” The NYT similarly justifies their latest columnist, a proven bigot and racist: “She only uses racist, bigoted language in reply to similar language, which means it’s OK.”

      “Just following the bosses orders.” What brought convictions and death sentences at the Nuremberg Trials is the edifice of modern DNC Progressives.

    2. Analysis by, the same liars that made up the story in the first place, lol, your rich

    3. Excerpted from the above op/ed to which anonymous kindly linked us all:

      Questioning the legitimacy of video proof of his own mistakes is the logical next step of the weaponizing of untruth that Trump has pursued since he became a candidate for president in 2015.

      –Chris Cilliza

  4. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a couple of days ago:

    “CNN, Credibly Accused of Lying to its Audience About a Key Claim in its Blockbuster Cohen Story, Refuses to Comment”

    “Whatever words one wishes to use to defend the U.S. media’s conduct here, “rare” and “isolated” are not among those that can be credibly invoked. Far more accurate are “chronic,” “systematic” and “reckless.”

    “And when it comes to discrediting journalism in the U.S., thousands of mean Donald Trump tweets about Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer can’t accomplish even a fraction of what this media behavior has done to themselves, particularly when their behavior is followed by secrecy and refusals to comment so brazen and unjustified that it would make even security state spokespeople blush with shame.”

  5. Other than Soros, Progressive and …. who?Any who advertise with them are advertising their unsuitability and dishonesty as prospective vendors.

  6. JT, I can’t get comments to post on your site. It says it goes through then 1/2 the time it doesn’t or it will show up later. What is going on?

  7. A news organization would correct the record immediately. It would state that one of it’s sources, Davis, said he had lied earlier and that Cohen his client has also “contradicted” his former testimony given to Congress under oath. Then, if they want to stand by their story, they can give details concerning their other anonymous sources. Were these sources present or are they giving secondhand info.? Did they receive the info through surveillance? If so, now who would be able to do that? Let’s hear!

    In contrast, if you look at the details given by Lavrov on the fake chemical weapons the US/UK and France are ready to launch against Syrian civilians in order to blame Assade and start a huge war there, you will see what actual, detailed information looks like. Check out zerohedge for that info.

    I see no details, just a repetition that, “we stand by our story”, even after two of the known sources have openly said they lied. That’s why FB needs to take CNN off the site for engaging in fake newz!

  8. Interesting. If circumstances push Congress towards an impeachment, it’s likely that one alleged crime will involve the Trump tower meeting and, especially, whether Trump knew about it beforehand. We might see, finally, an impeachment proceeding that rests on whether CNN is willing to reveal the alleged source that they continue to maintain is real.

    1. There is no alleged (meaning unproven) source. There is in reality a never ending string of unproven sources from what can only now be described as Communist No News just Marxist Socialist Propaganda.

      1. i believe CNN represents the capitalistic interests of Silicon Valley on most days more than it does the average American worker. So I would not give them the grace of any political ideology just call them what one old guy I read does “PRESSTITUTES”

        no offense intended to sex workers

        1. Note, Ivan, how you answered the question yet igpres suddenly became silent. It seems leftist viewpoints are constantly provided along with a lot of talk until facts and proof are asked for. Then, only silence.

    2. Oy vey! CNN, Lanny Boy Davis, and Rat Michael Cohen forever connected to this fake news story. There goes value/credibility of Cohen as Muler/SDNY rat. As John McClaughlin would say: “Bye! Bye!”

    3. I truly wish that someone could explain to me how the Trump tower meeting was a crime. What law did it break?

      1. I’ll explain it, and then you’ll contest it because you. At a minimum, the meeting shows very poor judgment. No, that’s not a crime. Then, you get into issues of intent. That’s too murky. Unless there’s a Manafort flip. Or unless there is a credible source for the claim Trump knew about the meeting and approved. But if you can connect the meeting to some quid pro quo–DNC hacking and HRC dirt in exchange for efforts to ease Magnitsky sanctions–you’ve got crimes. 18 USC 371.

        1. hollywood, thanks for the explanation of what law was broken by the Trump tower meeting. If I understand you correctly, there was no crime, but if the attendees + Trump intended to commit a crime, then they are guilty based on their intent, even though they committed no crime.
          Did I get that right?

          1. See Nash’s opening comment. So, Don Jr. is potentially on the hook.
            Intent is hard to prove unless people start falling on their swords.
            More to the point, if Mueller can link up the Tower meeting with the hacking by Russians and the deliverables to benefit Trump/hurt HRC, you have a conspiracy to defraud. Will this happen? Don’t know yet.
            Trump not being at the meeting potentially has the ability to throw everyone else under the bus and proclaim his innocence (but who knows what emails or texts exist on his devices?). But he might not want the blowback from that gambit.

      2. FF Sierra,
        Directly communicating with a Russian, with the objective of getting negative information about a candidate😧, is considered to be a crime by some.
        Campaigns need to be slicker about how they do opposition research involving Russians.
        We have a model for how to fo it legally ( and with patriotism as the only motive 😉); hire a law firm and have them contact an American( Confusion GPS) firm that does opposition research.
        That firm in turn hires a British firm( Abyss) headed by a businessman who left the British intel community seven years earlier and now heads a firm that will do oppo reasearch.
        The Brit in turn hires contacts who in turn use their Russian sources to feed back negative information to the British businessman who in turn feeds it back to Confusion GPS, and also leaks its contents to the press.
        Concealment of who pays to have this done is possible ( but not certain) because of all of the intermediaries involved.
        If the campaign that funded this operation is eventually exposed, they proudly say that this projevt was done with only the purest of motives😇 because of the danger posed by the other candidate; i.e., the other candidate might win the election.
        Many members of the Trump campaign were rookies, amateurs who didn’t know about all of these hoops they needed to jump through.
        There was also the time factor; e.g., 3 days before the election Putin expressed his preference for Trump bcause “Hillary is a boozer and a devil worshipper”.–THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, NOV. 5, 2016.
        There simply was not time for the Trump campaign to go through all of these steps to find out if Hillary is either, or both, of these things.
        Hypothetically, if Hillary ran against Trump in 2020, the Trump campaign ( through a bunch of intermediaries) could check out Putin’s allegations.
        Even if Hillary does not drink and Putin is only half right, these concerns about the fitness of an opposing candidate would require the Trump campaign (out of sheer patriotism) to have others check into these rumors about Hillary .

        1. I was following you closely till you got to the three days before nonsense. BTW, it’s Orbis.

          1. Good catch, Hollywood.
            So you’re OK with the “Confusion GPS” on my other “mistake”?

      3. Foxtrot, Hollywood explains it, but never states how the meeting was a crime. He sort of leaves his argument dangling. Then he says: “No, that’s not a crime. Then, you get into issues of intent.” If no crime was committed then why does intent matter? Better yet, can Hollywood read minds? Of course not. Why does a Manafort flip matter if it wasn’t a crime? He finally ends with a typical If, if and if scenario (If I were taller I would be a great basketball player.) extending the if to a crime that was not committed by Trump to round off his response.

        Hollywood ties himeself into a pretzel trying to implicate Trump and all we end up with are bits and pieces from the pretzel.

        The Trump Tower meeting was NOT a crime, but the misuse of logic on this blog should be.

          1. You can say what you wish Hollywood, even when you know that what you are saying is not true. I showed you a chart on the U 6 and where to find it. You did nothing with it.

            Above you do the same. You talked a lot and said almost nothing except after admitting no crime was committed you decided that even without a crime the President’s thoughts could be criminal and then you extended that to a bunch of ifs all to end up trying to prove a crime was committed when even you at the verty beginning had to say no crime was committed.

            You would fail any logic course with your rhetoric. You probably were lousy in the sciences because you couldn’t use horsesh!t to get to the right answer. You had to actually know the subject.

              1. Hollywood, you get confused between insults and the truth.

                Didn’t I show you where to find the U 6. Didn’t I show you a comparison between Obama and Trump?

                Look at your “thesis” above. You didn’t show how Trump committed a crime. Without a crime you brought intent into to the question and then a bunch of hypothesis such as Manafort flipping (on what?) adding a bunch of ifs trying to link a non crime to a crime that never happened. All this is foolish and looks that way. That is why you wish to blame it on insults rather than your poor logic.

                I can’t help it if you can’t show a logical chain of actions that occurred. It is you who is insulting. You are insulting anyone with an education above grade school that reads this type of nonsense.

                Why don’t you try and state facts to prove your case so that discussions can progress instead of being wrapped up in your hurt feelings?

                1. The facts are not all in yet. You need to curb your anger and learn to be patient.

                  1. “The facts are not all in yet. You need to curb your anger and learn to be patient.”

                    But, you think you know the facts in advance and you believe you are a mind reader with regard to intent. That is a laugh.

                    I don’t require anger. I have facts and I am the one to constantly reminding you that the facts are yet all in. However, the facts that are known tell us Trump has been doing a good job and hasn’t done anything illegal while as President or while campaigning.

                    1. Allan, as we have discussed, the Trump Foundation has violated the law and Trump has exposure. As has been discussed many places, the payments to Daniels and McDougal are pretty clearly campaign finance violations.
                      There are issues whether the emoluments violations are normative failings, high crimes and misdemeanors, or actual crimes (a court may have to decide this). And obviously, there’s the Russia mess still being untangled.
                      As for doing a good job: he (via McGahn) got a lot of conservative jurists appointed and he got a massive tax cut for himself and the wealthy. Elsewhere, I have explained that your claims for the economy are overblown. Meanwhile, he has damaged our standing with allies, upped the chance of a nuclear disaster in Iran and N. Korea, allowed Russia to run free in Syria, done all he can to increase climate change and increase the use of coal and fossil fuels, started a senseless trade war that’s hurt our manufacturers, soybean farmers and pig farmers, etc. And meanwhile, those Carrier jobs have vanished. Heckuva job, Trumpy!

                    2. Hollywood, once again we know what you are going to provide as evidence is cr-p from the first sentence because that should be the most powerful one and it doesn’t even involve Trump and the Presidency.

                      We do not know if the Trump Foundation violated rules and regulations, however if they did it was not criminal in nature. Private foundations are peculiar and violations occur all over the place. It is very hard for normal people to manage such foundations without running into some violation or another and that violation is not proven until proven by the courts. Generally there is a settlement and a fine. The legal system is too expensive.

                      The President can spend his own money on his campaign. Nothing tangible has demonstrated that Trump committed a criminal act with regards to his campaign and it is doubtful that he committed any violation by spending his own money. You keep building bridges that fall into the water and repeatedly build the same bridge over and over again so they fall in the water as well.

                      I don’t have to deal with the rest because it is similar bullsh1t and mostly ridiculous nonsense. You are listing a laundry list of complaints. Volume has nothing to do with accuracy and in your case it is a coverup for a lack of knowledge. None of the complaints are built on fact and proof. They are merely your opinion that holds no value because over and over again you refuse to take one complaint at a time providing facts and proof.

          2. but i mean judging from how the Clinton foundation took all that money from Saudis and various others in apparent exchange for facetime with her as US Secretary of State, isn’t it plausible that a hotshot private foundation gets a pass to do whatever it damn well pleases? Seems like the prosecutorial bar is pretty high for such “charities”

            1. Mr Kurtz – I just found out that after Hillary lost, Soros, Saudi and Rothchild money went to the McCain Foundation that is based at ASU.

              1. war mongers and world-manipulators looking for a place to park a wee fraction of their billions

              1. Where did this Pulitzer Prize winner prove Trump guilty of a crime.

                Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer. I am still waiting for the NYTimes to give it back since the award winning writing was a fabrication.

                  1. Are they crimes or are they assumed violations of rules and regulations?

                    Do you think criminal charges will result or fines?

                    You seem to mix criminal and civil violations together. Are you a criminal if you run a red light?

                    1. Interesting point. I expect fines, and significant ones. And the dissolution of the Foundation and folks being barred from being in fiduciary positions. But, you never know, if things are heating up in the Mueller investigation, perhaps someone will have the indignity of doing some time.

                    2. He tried to do it as a defensive move. Too bad, it didn’t work. “In December 2016, one month before his inauguration, then President-Elect Trump announced that he would dissolve the Trump Foundation to avoid ‘even the appearance of any conflict with [his] role as President’.[29] The New York Attorney General’s office, however, blocked the dissolution, stating that the foundation ‘cannot legally dissolve’ until its current investigation is completed.[30]” per Wiki.

                    3. “Interesting point. I expect fines, and significant ones.”

                      There very well might be significant fines or a significant settlement. However, none of that is criminal. Private foundations and tax free status are both misused every day. I doubt that anyone will be barred from “being in fiduciary positions” though NYState might prevent them from opening up Foundations in NY State.

                      ” perhaps someone will have the indignity of doing some time.”

                      Based on some of your perceptions it seems that most Americans could have the indignity of doing some time, but that is not going to happen, at least not yet.

            2. Kurtz, there is generally no crime unless there is embezzlement which didn’t happen. The IRS reviews the tax returns and Trump took no money out of the foundation. Hollywood is barking up the wrong tree and he should look at the Trump Foundation’s IRS forms that list the money in and where it went.

              Hollywood’s problem is that he thinks he knows more than he does. He seems to know nothing about private foundations and very little about the law.

              1. Basically, there was embezzlement through the Trump self-dealing (paying for portraits, paying for settlements against Trump entities, not reporting properly or filing proper returns). I know more than you, Allan. Or you are pretending.

                1. “Basically, there was embezzlement”

                  None of that (assuming it was done according to the paramenters I think you are drawing) is criminal and “basically” is a filler word that you seem to need to fill up your gaps of knowledge.

                  You have to take one point at a time, provide the facts, the proof and then your claim. You have done none of that. Instead you mix a lot of things together and claim criminality. Then you say ” I know more than you” which is juvenile and stupid.

                  1. Take out the word “basically.” You, Allan are a liar, paid or not, you are a liar. And you know it.
                    Trump and his Foundation lied, and you are lying. You have no evidence supporting any good deeds by the Foundation that were not exposed by Farenthold. Click on the links, sucker.

                    1. Hollywood, I am not engaging in whether or not Trump was generous or any of those other things. I let people decide what is or is not generous for themselves.

                      I am discussing whether what Trump did was criminal or not. You seem not able to tell the difference and likely that is partly because you aren’t that well educated and partly because you are so protective of the team you root for.

                      The angrier you get, the more foolish you sound.

                    2. “Blah, blah, blah,”

                      This is a foolish remark of yours when I am trying to get you to understand the difference between criminal violations and violations of rules and regulations that are not criminal.

                      You lump the two together and make yourself look foolish espeically when you respong with blah, blah, blah.

                      Did your teachers leave you back a number of grades due to your antics?

                    3. You sound foolish with your school yard banter, Allan. But maybe that’s your habitat.

        1. Allan,
          -Hollywood may not feel the need to explain how the Trump Tower meeting was illegal; I think Hollywood accepts my earlier explanation to FF Sierra about the proper, patriotic, and “legal” way to get Russian opposition research on a candidate.

            1. thats a good article but maybe you didnt get the implicit point

              “….At the same time, we know that Steele, the former British spy, did get lots of juicy allegations about Trump from several high-level Russian government officials when he was working on a contract paid for by the Clinton campaign. That dossier did not sway the election, but it did poison the political environment for Trump during the presidential transition and during his first months in office. It dominated news coverage and prompted, in part, the launch of congressional inquiries into his election.

              It’s quite possible that Mueller has more information that shows Russians illegally provided the Trump campaign with dirt or coordinated with it the release of the stolen Democratic emails. But so far, nothing like that has surfaced.

              What has surfaced is that the Democrats in this instance played it smarter than Trump’s associates. The Clinton campaign had the good sense to pay a contractor for Russian info besmirching the opponent (even if they do eventually get in trouble for failing to disclose it). Trump Jr. and Papadopoulos, on the other hand, may have violated the law by agreeing to receive Russian dirt that was never delivered.

              The sad irony is that various Russians were willing to share opposition research directly and indirectly with both campaigns. In this case, Team Clinton was just smoother than Team Trump. Nonetheless Trump still won. As the late Tom Petty sang: Even the losers get lucky sometimes. ”

              the explict point is that the LADY WHO GOT THE DIRT LOST

              the implicit point is that IT HAD NO IMPACT ON THE ELECTION

              another implicit point is that THE LAWS ARE TECHNICALITIES

              if you think that the American people let alone their elected reps are going to impeach a president over technicalities like these you’re mistaken. it will play out. you will see.

              1. Your implicit points have not been proven as much as you would like them to be. As for technicalities, we need them for cases just like this one.

            2. Hollywood,
              What did the Trump campaign “get for free” from Veselnitskaya at the Trump Tower meeting?
              The fact that Clinton camp paid for the Russian Dossier is immaterial; a hooker who gets paid for her tricks is no less of a hooker.
              The fact that the Clinton camp paid their whores for Russian opposition research does not address the legality of soliciting/ purchasing/ accepting foreign opposition research.
              At present, there is no clear consensus on what is legal or illegal when involving foreign actors into the area of opposition research.
              Going forward, I’m more interested in seeing clarification on that issue than seeing who gets nailed for alleged 2016 violations.
              With the exception of crimes like “lying to the FBI”, I don’t see any strong cases for prosecution of either the Trump Tower participants ( Manafort wasn’t charged with anything related to that meeting), or the DNC funded Steele/ Russian Dossier.

              1. No, there is a clear consensus on what the law is. Clinton did not violate it. The Trump campaign appears to have done so. They may have received material at the meeting. They certainly benefited by emails released after the meeting. That is potentially criminal. But you are correct, there is no basis for any criminal charge arising from the Steele dossier.

            3. Hollywood, no opposition research was obtained and had it been obtained it would have been legal. What Clinton did may or may not have been illegal because she was a smart politician and used a lot of intermediaries. We may see a jail term for at least one person from the FBI.

                1. Hollywood, It is your claim that the meeting was illegal and illegal things occurred. It is up to you to prove your case not for others to prove what you say is wrong.

                  Your understanding of the law is completely backward.

              1. No, the Trump campaign did not pay for oppo research. Receipt without payment was criminal.

                1. ” Receipt without payment was criminal.”

                  I think you better go back and look at the law.

                    1. Hollywood, the Constitution and the law trump Mr. Lake.

                      In any event historically your ability to read and understand your citations has been quite poor. Tell us in your words what you think Lake is saying, quote a sentence from the immediate area and provide the citation. Then we can discuss your or his point of view. We might need to discuss both because frequently you are at odds with your own proof.

                    2. Allan, the law is clear. You can’t get free money or material of value from a foreign government or foreign nationals (which is what the Trump campaign). You can pay for foreign oppo research (which is what the Clinton campaign did). Trump and his folks broke the law. Clinton did not.

                    3. hollywood – I do not see how Trump or anyone on his campaign broke the law.

                    4. Don Jr. may have broken the law by setting up the meeting to get dirt on Clinton.
                      The Trump campaign and Trump (“Russia if you’re listening”) violated the law by seeking and receiving Clinton/DNC dirt from Russia via GRU and Assange with either no legitimate payment or via a proposed quid pro quo (easing Magnitsky sanctions so Putin’s oligarch pals could move their money around freely). Yeah, yeah, it’s not all nailed down–yet.

                    5. hollywood – you are going to have better luck nailing Jello to a wall. 😉

                    6. hollywood – I heard Mueller lost two attorneys today. Know anything about it?

                    7. Hollywood, if the law is so clear it should be easy for you to copy the passages that demonstrate what you believe.

                      What makes your “crime” even more nonsensical is that the discussion didn’t involve opposition research.

                      When you are done with everything take a look at the first amendment to the Constitution.

                    8. Allan, the law is cited in the link I provided. Do your own research and report back.
                      The first amendment is a fine thing, but it’s not the only thing. Even Hugo Black would acknowledge that.

                    9. “the law is cited in the link I provided.”

                      Hollywood, one can’t find something that doesn’t exist. Apparently, you can’t find it either.

                    10. The link provided a specific link to United States Code and to Code of Federal Regulations. You are just lazy.

                    11. I saw that but nothing pertained to the event. Try again Hollywood. You are unsure of yourself and your ability to understand what you have cited. That is why you refuse to quote the sentence or two you think back you up.

                    12. Yes, it pertains to the multiple events, not just one. Do the work, Allan. Or have you nodded off in your Lay-Z-Boy?

                    13. “Yes, it pertains to the multiple events”

                      Hollywood, the discussion started off with one specific event the Tower Meeting. Suddenly you have changed the basis of the argument and apparently added events unproven or outright fictitious.

                      State the events you are talking about. Then we can see if the law could apply.

                      I guess you finally got it through your head that you were wrong on the issue at hand and are now trying to save face by increasing the number of issues. You lie more than Trump and in the context of our discussions your lies are significant lies much more like those told by Obama.

                    14. You are misstting the facts as I presented them and too lazy to do the research. You lie like your boy Trump.

                    15. “You are misstting the facts”

                      No, Hollywood. You are stating things without the facts to back your up. I am more than willing to debate facts, but you are less than willing to provide them.

                      Face it Hollywood, you are a superficial person and you refuse to think. Until you engage your brain expect comments asking you to prove what you say.

                    16. You are a strange bird, Allan. I wonder what your MMPI scores would look like. You might want to get some therapy.

                    17. Again, Hollywood, without engaging your brain or any facts you go on a tangent to try and confuse the issue that you are a know nothing. Whatever you do you have to be led by another because you are unable to adequately think for yourself.

                    18. ” I cited a specific section of the United States Code”

                      I read that code in its entirety and didn’t find the answer. You refused to copy the sentence that you say proves you right. There is no way for me to copy a sentence to prove you wrong because one cannot generally prove a negative.

                      Since you are stuck with your intellectual defficiencies you rely on calling me a liar just like you call any one proposing ideas you don’t like. That is not a very bright response but we are not dealing with a very bright person.

    4. lol, impeachment for what pray tell, lying? That means every president in modern history needs a posthumous impeachment. Lying (in this situation) is not a crime, knowing of the meeting beforehand, (in this situation) is not a crime. Talking to the Russians for dirt, is NOT a crime. That darn 1st amendment thing again.

      Lanny Davis has admitted he was the source, the fake journalist at CNN first spoke of sources, then corrected himself to a single source. Lanny Davis is a slime ball,

      But somehow, you think this could lead to impeachment .. I guess it could, if the Leftist had control, their sick minds hate for the fun of it.

      But lets not talk about a Fake dossier, paid for the Clinton campaign, bought from the Russians, on no, the collusion is all Trump!

    1. Fox, There is a Carl Bernstein doll coming out for Christmas and when you pull strings says those very words: “this is worse than Watergate”.

      1. What is worse than Watergate? Nothing is worse than watergate and what there is nothing.

        1. We’re just laughing at the fact that Bernstein says this All The Time, about EVERYTHING related to Trump.

      2. I’d expect a bigger market for a Trump doll that says things like “Yuge!” “No puppet!” “You’re the puppet!” “No collusion!” and “Witch hunt!”

        1. There probably will be, hollywood. You should check Amazon and see if you can pre-order them as gifts for all of your friends and family.

  9. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – you already used CNN as the source of a link today. You are required to back them as reputable.

    1. It would violate their programmers rules of Marxist Leninism to provide ‘truthj’ as it is known by decent people and citizens. There is only the Marxist truth of the day ever changing and ever unproven.

  10. I think CNN might have finally OD’d on anonymous sources, a most addictive “substance” for too many reporters.

  11. The announcers on CNN all have a drawer full of fake glasses to put on when they get on camera. Many guests wear them. Don Lemon wears fake glasses. They think they look smarter. Watch CNN and look at the glasses. You can see clear lens. All are black and there are several shapes. Be real you lame brains.

    1. its too bad, i remember the early days when it was a novel concept and well done

  12. Mr Turley :”The story states “Contacted by CNN, one of Cohen’s attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment.” However, that is clearly false and misleading, right? Davis did comment as a source. He simply did so anonymously.”

    So, CNN does lie! Call me shocked!

      1. Corporatism and Statism along with Union Leaders (but not members) are the triumverate ruling class of Socialism.

  13. Even those that are vehemently anti-Trump in my milieu no longer CNN seriously. Their defenders are a small group, methinks.

  14. Might protecting the reputations of Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein and Marshall Cohen have something to do with CNN sticking by their story?

  15. There were actually two parts to the story – the first, as you described, that Cohen was present for a meeting where Donald Trump was informed of the meeting and purpose by his son, and gave the go-ahead. It’s possible that there were other people in the room, if that conversation ever took place, and one of those people could be a CNN source. I doubt it, but that could be the reason for CNN claiming a second source and refusing to retract. (Although his every is story supposed to have two sources, and if one of them drops out…)

    The second part of the story was that Cohen was willing to testify to Mueller about the “facts” discussed above. CNN is on much shakier ground here, unless as you say Cohen himself is the second source. His lawyer says the story wasn’t true, so presumably his client will not be testifying to the FBI/Cohen, especially testimony that would contradict his congressional testimony. If the alleged other CNN source is anyone other than Cohen, then they certainly cannot speak to the willingness to testify to Mueller and the FBI. At the very least, that part of the story should be retracted.

    By the way, CBS reissued the story with a top of the story disclaimer about Lanny Davis. It also included the “Lanny Davis refused to comment” in the original story.

    1. Speaking or having spoken with the FBI IS shakier ground. Especialy with the Mewling Group. What evidence do we have that they are truth tellers? None.But we have evidence they are the opposite.

  16. CNN is not an honest broker of the news. This is one of the more obvious cases but those that like fake news will continue to promote it like we see on this blog.

    1. Will Zuck and google downgrade CNN now because of blatant misleading? Not likely

  17. Turley wrote, “. . . [I]t is hard to see how the original story can stand uncorrected. What do you think?”

    I think CNN probably has sources for the story other than Lanny Davis or Michael Cohen. However, given the substance of the CNN story, those other sources ought to have shown to CNN’s satisfaction that they were capable of passing along hearsay from Michael Cohen. IOW, the other sources have to be people who have access to Michael Cohen–such as his cigar-smoking buddies, for instance. Otherwise, CNN had no basis for reporting such hearsay. Mind you, this would be but a minor, perhaps even a negligible, improvement in CNN’s position on this story. Who else besides Cohen’s cigar-smoking buddies could hoodwink CNN into reporting hearsay from Michael Cohen? Beats me.

    1. What a surprise. Late4HotYoga standing behind CNN who stands behind fake story. Anything to keep the conspiracy theory alive. This is good example of a Fake News Network and Lefty Loony Toon walking hand-in-hand over cliff. More indication that Trump-Russia hoax of a story dying heading into holiday weekend. In case there was any doubt whether this story had already jumped the shark, then now that can be confirmed. Late4HotYoga, don’t forget your tin foil hat when you go for a walk around the block during this holiday weekend.

      1. Tab Lockheed said, “Late4HotYoga standing behind CNN who stands behind fake story.”

        L4D had previously said, “. . . [P]eople who have access to and are capable of passing along hearsay from Michael Cohen–such as his cigar-smoking buddies–would be but a minor, perhaps even a negligible, improvement in CNN’s position on this story.”

        Pigeonholing doesn’t work any better on L4D than does alter-casting. Lockheed needs new tools in his kitbag.

      2. They don’t celebrate this holiday weekend. They do that on May 1st. Even then don’t celebrate as we do but just ruling class of the masses the collective.

    2. Willing? Willing to be hoodwinked or willing to be the hoodwinkers?Then there is the special prosecuters doing what an Australian would call a yank wank.

Comments are closed.