Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to Charge in Mueller Inquiry Related to Russia Business Deal

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

What? You didn't know that Watergate was run by a Special Prosecutor? Seriously?

What you didn't know mueller was a special council? And his investigation was from the doj and not a senate select committee?
In no way the same.

Quick civics lesson, the senate is not the department of justice.
The senate is part of the legislative branch, the department of justice is part of the executive branch.

My God, you aren't worth my time.

wow
the gall from someone who doesn't know the difference between the legislative and executive branches of government

Here's another lesson for you, there is no difference between the terms special council, special prosecutor or independent investigator. They all do the exact same thing. Read more, it will do you good.

So what is a special counsel? And what is the difference between a special counsel, a special prosecutor, and an independent counsel? The terms are largely interchangeable to refer to someone appointed to investigate allegations that could involve a conflict of interest within the Department of Justice. But the manner in which they are appointed and why has changed over time.

That's right, the manner in which they are appointed has changed over time. It's different now than it was in the 60's, imagine that.

Special counsel vs. special prosecutor: What's the difference?

Oh one more thing. A Senate select committee did NOT appoint the Special Prosecutor that investigated Watergate. That was the Attorney General

In 1973, Attorney General Elliott Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

least /lēst/Submit determiner & pronoun
1. smallest in amount, extent, or significance. "who has the least money?" synonyms: slightest, smallest, minutest, tiniest, littlest "I have not the least idea what this means"
adverb 1. to the smallest extent or degree. "my best number was the one I had practiced the least"

yeah that in no way is an absolute term....

Holy jeeze you can't really be this obtuse right? Even if it is an absolute term, you are failing to grasp the point, that until you show another DOJ probe with fewer, it still may in fact be the least leaky probe in history. You have proven nothing other than you dissatisfaction over defending an indefensible point and the concurrent about face of your argument into an area you feel capable of mounting some kind of rebuttal (even if it is feeble) as a means of re-directing attention away from the fact that Cohen's plea deal don't look good for your precious perfect golden boy.

a reply to: Wayfarer
your need to be proven wrong is strong
good thing it is pretty simple to do
adage.com...

this one is less leaky than muellers

a reply to: BlackJackal

So COhen...who lied before and said he didnt. then he did,and then he didnt. flip flop much?

a reply to: BlackJackal

Perhaps you should sit down.

Here's another lesson for you, there is no difference between the terms special council, special prosecutor or independent investigator.

really no difference?

That's right, the manner in which they are appointed has changed over time.

then why contradict yourself?
Your link lists the differences.
interesting you should include that

the doj is still not the senate


en.wikipedia.org...
The Senate Watergate Committee, known officially as the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, was a special committee established by the United States Senate, S.Res. 60, in 1973, to investigate the Watergate scandal, with the power to investigate the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and any subsequent cover-up of criminal activity, as well as "all other illegal, improper, or unethical conduct occurring during the presidential election of 1972, including political espionage and campaign finance practices".

Senate investiagation began in feb of 73
Cox was appointed in may of 73

Are you attempting to push that Cox brought down nixon and not the senate investigation?

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: BlackJackal

Dude, people are trying to gaslight you like crazy. Even when blatant evidence is staring them directly in the face. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone on ATS draw this kind of response.

Whatever you’re doing, keep it up. That’s a good sign.

This is what we call Testi-lying(testifying to a lie to save your own arse)

Trump is right. This is a witch hunt. The special council is searching for crimes. Cohen has pleaded guilty to something he said or didn't say during his interview, and not to anything regarding Russian collusion. A total disgrace.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer
your need to be proven wrong is strong
good thing it is pretty simple to do
adage.com...

this one is less leaky than muellers

But how, its just an article describing the probe. There's no mention of leaks or no leaks. The absence of evidence is not evidence, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Dide, you don’t know when to quit do you? You could easily say “I must have remembered incorrectly, sorry about that” and just moved on, but nooooo, you just have to be right even when you are wrong.

Where did you think the Senate Committee got the evidence they had? Do you think a bunch of Senators with no investigative skills were running around investigating Nixon? No, they were sitting in the Senate conducting hearings while the special prosecutor got the evidence.

You really need to brush up on American history.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Whatever you say pal.
"least leakiest" it is.......

office of trump's tax guy in Chicago raided this morning. oh snapples.

link



and, Deutsche Bank, raided for money laundering.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: BlackJackal

So COhen...who lied before and said he didnt. then he did,and then he didnt. flip flop much?

The only way this sticks is if Mueller was able to verify Cohens story independently or through hard documents. The special prosecutor has to know that Trumps team would pounce on Cohens reputation and planned for it. It’s far too obvious not to, I personally wouldn’t believe anything Cohen said without something else to back it up.

You can bookmark this if you like, but if all Mueller has is Cohens word against Trump, it is not enough.

originally posted by: knoxie
office of trump's tax guy in Chicago raided this morning. oh snapples.

link



and, Deutsche Bank, raided for money laundering.

Holy crap.... they raided Deutsche Bank? And Trumps tax guy?

Not looking good for the orange man. Good thing he enjoys that color it is appearing not and more likely he will be wearing it a lot in the future.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: knoxie
office of trump's tax guy in Chicago raided this morning. oh snapples.

link



and, Deutsche Bank, raided for money laundering.

Holy crap.... they raided Deutsche Bank? And Trumps tax guy?

Not looking good for the orange man. Good thing he enjoys that color it is appearing not and more likely he will be wearing it a lot in the future.

Whats funny is unless trump is impeached it dont matter.

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: shooterbrody

Dide, you don’t know when to quit do you? You could easily say “I must have remembered incorrectly, sorry about that” and just moved on, but nooooo, you just have to be right even when you are wrong.

Where did you think the Senate Committee got the evidence they had? Do you think a bunch of Senators with no investigative skills were running around investigating Nixon? No, they were sitting in the Senate conducting hearings while the special prosecutor got the evidence.

You really need to brush up on American history.

You seem to be the one with the issue on history.
Here is a remedy, tho I doubt you will accept it.
www.senate.gov...

Several factors contributed to the committee’s overall success including extensive media coverage, sustained public interest, the meticulous work of investigators, the cooperation of key witnesses, and the continuing support of the full Senate. Public support for the investigation remained strong even when a series of confrontations between the Watergate Committee and the White House provoked a constitutional crisis.

Throughout the inquiry President Nixon rebuffed the committee’s requests for access to information. Claiming a constitutional separation of powers, he refused to allow his aides to testify. Senator Ervin insisted that executive privilege could not be extended to cover criminal behavior and he threatened to authorize the sergeant at arms to arrest White House aides who refused to testify. Conceding to public pressure, the president allowed his aides to cooperate but continued to deny the committee access to presidential papers. Nixon repeatedly declared that he knew nothing about the Watergate burglary, but former White House counsel John Dean III testified that the president had approved plans to cover up White House connections to the break-in. Another former aide, Alexander Butterfield, revealed that the president maintained a voice-activated tape recorder system in various rooms in the White House.

Chairman Ervin requested access to the tapes, believing that they would either corroborate or repudiate testimony that the president had knowledge of, and approved efforts to cover up, the Watergate break-in. Senate Resolution 194 authorized the committee to “issue subpoenas for documents, tapes and other material to any officer of the executive branch,” and the committee subpoenaed the tapes and documents. Nixon refused to comply, citing executive privilege and separation of powers. Senator Ervin rebutted that “the select committee is exercising the constitutional power of the Senate to conduct the investigation, and the doctrine of the separation of powers of Government requires the President to recognize this and to refrain from obstructing the committee.”

so you see the senate actually did its own investigation

not the same thing at all no matter how much you and msnbc want it to be

a reply to: BlackJackal

You do understand that Cohen plead guilty to pursuing a deal. Muller is playing semantics. Unfortunately semantics won't hold up in a court of law.

Having a deal and pursuing a deal are two very different things. When Trump says he has no business in Russia or no dealings with Russia he is not lying. Both of those statements emply an actul deal was done. Since no deal was done the Symantecs game goes to Trump in a court of law.

The English language is a peculiar thing. You don't get to assume the meaning of words in a court of law. You have to prove the intent behind what was said.

Cohen is looking for a plea deal for something. Like a man being tortured he will say anything to stop them from going after him.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: knoxie
office of trump's tax guy in Chicago raided this morning. oh snapples.

link



and, Deutsche Bank, raided for money laundering.

Holy crap.... they raided Deutsche Bank? And Trumps tax guy?

Not looking good for the orange man. Good thing he enjoys that color it is appearing not and more likely he will be wearing it a lot in the future.

yeah has to be trump related,right?
from the link:

The nature of their visit was not known, but Ald. Burke (14th) has dodged dozens of federal investigations over five decades in Chicago politics.

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Yeah most aren't using it in the legal definition. Suffice to say there are dozens of associated elements stemming from Trump's desire to seek help from the Russians that are in fact violations of US laws, and rest assured those are the avenues Mueller is working through in his report.

I don't think Trump's team contacted Russia looking for help which I agree is illegal, and extremely stupid at some level of all this. It seems unidentified agents contacted Trump's team saying they had information. It also seems both parties were told different reasons for the meeting and so the meeting ended very quickly once both parties determined that the meeting wasn't what either thought.

1. Was it a setup from day one? Seems like that could have been the real reason for it all.
2. Was Russia pulling the strings? Maybe, but how much did Trump's team know at the time seems to be very little since there were a number of intermediaries work with this.
3. Could this have all happened quickly from the start to a failed meeting without Trump knowing? Very well could have since this all looks like chasing a lead that someone gave to Trump's team that they had dirt of Hillary. It might be something that you look into and then decide if there is anything there, and if there is then Trump would be brought in...otherwise you are wasting his time with XX number of false leads as this turned out to be.

a reply to: Xtrozero


trump junior response to meeting - “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

originally posted by: knoxie
office of trump's tax guy in Chicago raided this morning. oh snapples.

link



and, Deutsche Bank, raided for money laundering.

From your link:

Burke’s firm, Klafter & Burke, repeatedly has sought to reduce the property taxes that Trump Tower and other commercial properties have to pay — a lucrative business that’s also enriched Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, D-Chicago.

His status as "Trump's tax guy" appears be because he was helping Trump appeal a property tax assessment. Yeah, get the noose ready.

If you actually bothered to read the article, you would see that he was representing clients who were doing business with the city of Chicago, while he was a city alderman. That's is a huge conflict of interests, and its likely the raid is due to some kind of graft or pay-to-play scheme.