If this story is corroborated, it is the end

[AUDub 11,151]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Your hatred is coming through. You qualify what you post from liberal sources. I could go to RedState Watcher, or The Liberty Daily, and get the exact opposite or a refutation of just about everything you cut and paste from liberal articles.

I qualify carefully because I don’t assume everything is fact, even from sources that support my positions. Hence all the ifs and maybes in my posts.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

38 minutes ago, AUDub said:

If the SDNY doesn’t have a reputation for being leaky, then I’m Pope Francis. Who the hell is Mimi Rocah? A former AUSA there? No shock she’s tries to cast her former district in a favorable light in spite of the obvious. 

Why be so simple Ben? You know damn well I said nothing about SDNY being leaky. Typical diversionary tactic? 

Mimi has quite a resume'. https://www.marathi.tv/political-analyst/mimi-rocah-biography/ 

Perhaps you should start quoting someone with her pedigree. 

Nothing is obvious. 

Do better.

[AUDub 11,151]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why be so simple Ben? You know damn well I said nothing about SDNY being leaky. Typical diversionary tactic? 

Mimi has quite a resume'. https://www.marathi.tv/political-analyst/mimi-rocah-biography/ 

Perhaps you should start quoting someone with her pedigree. 

Nothing is obvious. 

Do better.

It was right there in the tweet you linked. 

Mimi Rocah doesn’t think someone within the SDNY could be the source because, why exactly? The SDNY is well known for how leaky to the press it tends to be. To assert otherwise because “reasons!” is silly, even for a former AUSA that worked there. 

I don’t give a damn about her education or accomplishments if she’s denying the bleeding obvious. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

Just now, AUDub said:

It was right there in the tweet you linked. 

Mimi Rocah doesn’t think someone within the SDNY could be the source because, why exactly? The SDNY is well known for how leaky to the press it tends to be. To assert otherwise because “reasons!” is silly, even for a former AUSA that worked there. 

I don’t give a damn about her education or accomplishments if she’s denying the bleeding obvious. 

Not exactly what she stated Benjamin. I' feel confident she knows more about the SDNY than you. You're reaching at this point because nothing is obvious.

Look, I understand it's been a rough day for you, but the story nor the allegations have reached a conclusion. Everything is going to work itself out. Facts will emerge.  Mueller report will come. 

We may very well find Trump ordered Cohen to lie. We may find the SDNY leaked the goods. At this point both are mere speculation.

What for it. Truth will come out in due time.

[AUDub 11,151]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Not exactly what she stated Benjamin. I' feel confident she knows more about the SDNY than you. You're reaching at this point because nothing is obvious.

She “pushed back on the speculation that SDNY prosecutors or the FBI agents working with them” could be the source of any sort of leak on this case, and I find that preposterous. While they may not have in this case, the idea of a leak from there isn’t the least bit shocking. Again, the SDNY and the FBI field office there border on legendary with regard to leakiness. It doesn’t take insider knowledge to know that. A modicum of research will clear that misconception right up. She worked there, okay. Whatever. That she might see them in a better light than I do shocks me not at all, but I can point out when the emperor has no clothes even if I haven’t studied haute couture.

They have a reputation among barristers as the “Sovereign District of New York” for a damned good reason 

Quote

Look, I understand it's been a rough day for you, but the story nor the allegations have reached a conclusion. Everything is going to work itself out. Facts will emerge.  Mueller report will come. 

Only thing that sucked about today was Jared’s shot not falling, dammit. 

I’m happy to take a wait and see approach here. 

Quote

We may very well find Trump ordered Cohen to lie. We may find the SDNY leaked the goods. At this point both are mere speculation.

Haven’t asserted otherwise. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

18 minutes ago, AUDub said:

She “pushed back on the speculation that SDNY prosecutors or the FBI agents working with them” could be the source of any sort of leak on this case, and I find that preposterous. While they may not have in this case, the idea of a leak from there isn’t the least bit shocking. Again, the SDNY and the FBI field office there border on legendary with regard to leakiness. It doesn’t take insider knowledge to know that. A modicum of research will clear that misconception right up. She worked there, okay. Whatever. That she might see them in a better light than I do shocks me not at all, but I can point out when the emperor has no clothes even if I haven’t studied haute couture.

They have a reputation among barristers as the “Sovereign District of New York” for a damned good reason 

Only thing that sucked about today was Jared’s shot not falling, dammit. 

I’m happy to take a wait and see approach here. 

Haven’t asserted otherwise. 

 

If SDNY was the source, why did they get the facts wrong? And Bob was clear, the facts were wrong.

[AUDub 11,151]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

If SDNY was the source, why did they get the facts wrong? And Bob was clear, the facts were wrong.

SDNY isn't Mueller, and taken at face value, Mueller's statement was actually pretty cryptic. Which facts? How many? Some? All? To quote myself:

On 1/18/2019 at 7:15 PM, AUDub said:

That's not really a denial. There are, IMO, three ways to interpret that statement:

1.  The story accurately reflects what Cohen told federal prosecutors in another office (e.g. SDNY) but not Mueller.

2. My, admittedly, charitable thought, the story has minor inconsistencies with what Cohen told Mueller.

3. And this is the one that would destroy some careers, the story’s central claims are substantively wrong.

However, the fact that Mueller's office commented at all could mean a lot. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

SDNY isn't Mueller, and taken at face value, Mueller's statement was actually pretty cryptic. Which facts? How many? Some? All? To quote myself:

However, the fact that Mueller's office commented at all could mean a lot. 

I've seen a few claim it as cryptic, others not so much.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate,"

To me it reads: Cohen did not tell us Trump ordered him to lie and we have no documents to support that specific allegation. 

[AUDub 11,151]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I've seen a few claim it as cryptic, others not so much.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate,"

To me it reads: Cohen did not tell us Trump ordered him to lie and we have no documents to support that specific allegation. 

It's a carefully wordsmithed statement, expected of Mueller. The wording was very specific in its denials, saying it pertained to “this office” and not getting into specifics. Without specifics, it's pretty meaningless. As I said, the meaningful thing is that the office of the SCO commented at all. 

If Mueller's office wants to keep control of the narrative, this is how you do it. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It's a carefully wordsmithed statement, expected of Mueller. The wording was very specific in its denials, saying it pertained to “this office” and not getting into specifics. Without specifics, it's pretty meaningless. As I said, the meaningful thing is that the office of the SCO commented at all. 

If Mueller's office wants to keep control of the narrative, this is how you do it. 

Excerpts from WAPO: 

When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr’s initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described fixer, “told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie,” and that Mueller’s office learned of the directive “through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

[BuzzFeed’s stumble is highest-profile misstep at a time when press is under greatest scrutiny]

In the view of the special counsel’s office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Mueller’s team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.

The reason for disputing seems clear. IMO

[AUDub 11,151]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Excerpts from WAPO: 

When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr’s initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described fixer, “told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie,” and that Mueller’s office learned of the directive “through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

[BuzzFeed’s stumble is highest-profile misstep at a time when press is under greatest scrutiny]

In the view of the special counsel’s office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Mueller’s team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.

The reason for disputing seems clear. IMO

Not necessarily. 

 

[AUDub 11,151]

Rudy is the gift that keeps on giving. 

 

[homersapien 11,380]

43 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Rudy is the gift that keeps on giving. 

 

He also admitted Russian deal discussions were occurring right up to the election.

 

So AU 78 gives me a 'face palm' for stating a simple fact. 

Clear evidence that Trump supporters are fact-adverse.

[AUDub 11,151]

Just now, homersapien said:

He also admitted Russian deal discussions were occurring right up to the election.

 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

Not necessarily. 

 

Max Kennerly? Alex Shunnarah quote forthcoming?

[AUDub 11,151]

18 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Max Kennerly? Alex Shunnarah quote forthcoming?

If Shunnarah had said it, I’d be quoting him. It’s a good point whatever you think of the source. 

Mind you, Kennerly is a pretty sharp dude. 

 

[AUDub 11,151]

Notice all the facepalms, but Rudy’s media appearances today were pretty wild, no matter which side of the aisle you fall on. 

 

[AUDub 11,151]

If pedigree concerns you, Mrs. Vance here has a good one. She makes a good point here.

And hey, look, there's Mimi Rocah again, who co-wrote the article! 

I've had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Vance and her husband, Judge Vance. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

14 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Notice all the facepalms, but Rudy’s media appearances today were pretty wild, no matter which side of the aisle you fall on. 

 

I watched Rudy on CT's show and JT's. Did not come away with the same interpretation as you and homey. Thus the face palms from me. Not complicated. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

If pedigree concerns you, Mrs. Vance here has a good one. She makes a good point here.

And hey, look, there's Mimi Rocah again, who co-wrote the article! 

I've had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Vance and her husband, Judge Vance. 

Got you quoting Mimi. Score! 

[AUDub 11,151]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I watched Rudy on CT's show and JT's. Did not come away with the same interpretation as you and homey. Thus the face palms from me. Not complicated. 

So this:

That's not a "so what" thing. It's actually pretty perilous.

Question: If Trump spoke to Cohen before his testimony, what do you think the subject was? 

[AUDub 11,151]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Got you quoting Mimi. Score! 

Even smart and accomplished people have biases sometimes. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

So this:

That's not a "so what" thing. It's actually pretty perilous.

Question: If Trump spoke to Cohen before his testimony, what do you think the subject was? 

I saw nothing perilous in Rudy's commentary today. You apparently did. We disagree. 

[homersapien 11,380]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I watched Rudy on CT's show and JT's. Did not come away with the same interpretation as you and homey. Thus the face palms from me. Not complicated. 

6:32 to 7:15

There is no "interpretation" necessary.  He said it, period.

 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Even smart and accomplished people have biases sometimes. 

I would say almost always, not sometimes.