Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[A_bomb47]

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/china-hacked-clinton-server/

Is that article as truthful as this Daily Caller gem?
Imran Awan[edit]
The Daily Caller kept conspiracy theories surrounding Imran Awan alive with aggressive coverage.[65][66] Imran Awan was an IT worker for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Daily Caller sought to tie Awan to a wide range of alleged criminal activity, including unauthorized access to government servers.[67] The reporter behind the aggressive coverage of Awan told Fox News that the affair was "straight out of James Bond."[67] An 18-month investigation by federal prosecutors found no evidence of wrong-doing in Awan's work in the House and no support for the conspiracy theories about Awan. In the announcement of the conclusion of the investigation, investigators rebuked a litany of right-wing conspiracy theories about Awan.[65][66]

 

[waiguoren]

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

Glenn Greenwald
August 28 2018, 12:56 p.m.

CNN’s blockbuster July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.

CNN, however, has retracted nothing. All inquiries to the network are directed to a corporate spokesperson, who simply says: “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.” A newsletter sent Sunday night from CNN’s two media reporters, Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, contained the same corporate language, but addressed none of the questions raised about CNN’s report.

It’s certainly possible that CNN had other sources for this story besides Davis, who now repudiates it. It’s hard to see how CNN’s story could be true given that Davis, Cohen’s own lawyer, explicitly says that Cohen has no information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, that Cohen cannot and will not tell Mueller that this happened, and that Davis’ prior claims about Cohen’s knowledge and intentions are false.

...

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28...s-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

 

[Darkballs]

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

Glenn Greenwald
August 28 2018, 12:56 p.m.

CNN’s blockbuster July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.

CNN, however, has retracted nothing. All inquiries to the network are directed to a corporate spokesperson, who simply says: “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.” A newsletter sent Sunday night from CNN’s two media reporters, Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, contained the same corporate language, but addressed none of the questions raised about CNN’s report.

It’s certainly possible that CNN had other sources for this story besides Davis, who now repudiates it. It’s hard to see how CNN’s story could be true given that Davis, Cohen’s own lawyer, explicitly says that Cohen has no information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, that Cohen cannot and will not tell Mueller that this happened, and that Davis’ prior claims about Cohen’s knowledge and intentions are false.

...

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28...s-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

Do you really think that Cohen is going to plead guilty and then not cooperate?

And your whole article is bitching because Cohen's lawyer later said his confirmation (how dare CNN take his word!), was now "false." So the article is calling CNN's lack of a retraction as a serious ethical lapse in journalism.

Christ you're getting desperate.

 

[waiguoren]

Do you really think that Cohen is going to plead guilty and then not cooperate?

Where did you get that from? He has already entered a guilty plea for seven charges, and I've posted multiple times that I believe the plea agreement is part of an implicit cooperation agreement.

your whole article is bitching because Cohen's lawyer later said his confirmation (how dare CNN take his word!), was now "false."

"Bitching"......ok.

The point of the article is that CNN appears to have published fake news and refuses to retract its story. CNN's "anonymous sources" told Carl "worse than Watergate" Bernstein that Michael Cohen was present when Trump allegedly heard about the Trump Tower meeting in advance. Other outlets confirmed the story only to retract it and out the source as Cohen's very own lawyer. Now that lawyer (Lanny Davis) says it's not true at all.

Cohen probably lied to Davis, Davis leaked the lie to Carl Bernstein, and CNN published the lie. Now the credibility of all of them is in the gutter.

Furthermore, the "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory took another major blow. It's a great day for President Trump.

 

[vengeful]

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

Glenn Greenwald
August 28 2018, 12:56 p.m.

CNN’s blockbuster July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.

CNN, however, has retracted nothing. All inquiries to the network are directed to a corporate spokesperson, who simply says: “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.” A newsletter sent Sunday night from CNN’s two media reporters, Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, contained the same corporate language, but addressed none of the questions raised about CNN’s report.

It’s certainly possible that CNN had other sources for this story besides Davis, who now repudiates it. It’s hard to see how CNN’s story could be true given that Davis, Cohen’s own lawyer, explicitly says that Cohen has no information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, that Cohen cannot and will not tell Mueller that this happened, and that Davis’ prior claims about Cohen’s knowledge and intentions are false.

...

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28...s-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

How is CNN lying about the story when they reported that an anonymous source told them that?

Also

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/lanny-davis-trump-tower-michael-cohen/index.html


Stop following fake news

 

[44nutman]

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

Glenn Greenwald
August 28 2018, 12:56 p.m.

CNN’s blockbuster July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.

CNN, however, has retracted nothing. All inquiries to the network are directed to a corporate spokesperson, who simply says: “We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.” A newsletter sent Sunday night from CNN’s two media reporters, Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, contained the same corporate language, but addressed none of the questions raised about CNN’s report.

It’s certainly possible that CNN had other sources for this story besides Davis, who now repudiates it. It’s hard to see how CNN’s story could be true given that Davis, Cohen’s own lawyer, explicitly says that Cohen has no information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, that Cohen cannot and will not tell Mueller that this happened, and that Davis’ prior claims about Cohen’s knowledge and intentions are false.

...

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28...s-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

You mean the adoption meeting, or was it a meeting to get info on Shillary but did not get any.
The fucking stones on Trump advocates. The Trump administration has repeatedly lied about that meeting and has changed the story about that meeting. I think we are on official version 4 of that meeting.
Jr and Da Kush lied to Congress about that meeting but now CNN is the liar about reporting on that meeting.
The most dishonest administration of my lifetime and also the administration that calls everyone else liars.
Only @Lord Palis lies more than Trump.
Fucking A can’t sell the Rubes the adoption angle so once again attack the news for reporting that the Trump administration are big fat liars.
Look Trump Rubes, squirrel.

 

[waiguoren]

How is CNN lying about the story when they reported that an anonymous source told them that?

Use a bit of critical thinking. CNN's report was that Cohen says he was present when Trump heard about the Trump meeting. Now Cohen's lawyer says he was an anonymous source for that article and that Cohen was not present.

I'm not accusing CNN of lying; I'm saying someone (some or all of CNN, Bernstein, Cohen, Davis) is lying and they all look bad, plus this puts another bullet into the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory.

 

[waiguoren]

You mean the adoption meeting, or was it a meeting to get info on Shillary but did not get any.
The fucking stones on Trump advocates. The Trump administration has repeatedly lied about that meeting and has changed the story about that meeting. I think we are on official version 4 of that meeting.
Jr and Da Kush lied to Congress about that meeting but now CNN is the liar about reporting on that meeting.
The most dishonest administration of my lifetime and also the administration that calls everyone else liars.
Only @Lord Palis lies more than Trump.
Fucking A can’t sell the Rubes the adoption angle so once again attack the news for reporting that the Trump administration are big fat liars.
Look Trump Rubes, squirrel.

I think your post is a good example of what the anti-Trumpers like to call "whataboutism". I'm sure you've never used that term before.

 

[Quequeg]

Use a bit of critical thinking. CNN's report was that Cohen says he was present when Trump heard about the Trump meeting. Now Cohen's lawyer says he was an anonymous source for that article and that Cohen was not present.

I'm not accusing CNN of lying; I'm saying someone (some or all of CNN, Bernstein, Cohen, Davis) is lying and they all look bad, plus this puts another bullet into the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory.

Davis is a defendants lawyer, has no connection to CNN except giving them false info.

 

[waiguoren]

Davis is a defendants lawyer, has no connection to CNN except giving them false info.

If the info was false as you say, then why doesn't CNN retract the story?

 

[Quequeg]

If the info was false as you say, then why doesn't CNN retract the story?

Because they honestly reported what they were told.

 

[waiguoren]

Because they honestly reported what they were told.

Does CNN have any obligation to question the credibility of their sources, or should they just report whatever they are told by anyone?

 

[Quequeg]

Does CNN have any obligation to question the credibility of their sources, or should they just report whatever they are told by anyone?

Did CNN report on Davis walking back the claim? How many false claims have Trump's lawyers made?

 

[vengeful]

Use a bit of critical thinking. CNN's report was that Cohen says he was present when Trump heard about the Trump meeting. Now Cohen's lawyer says he was an anonymous source for that article and that Cohen was not present.

I'm not accusing CNN of lying; I'm saying someone (some or all of CNN, Bernstein, Cohen, Davis) is lying and they all look bad, plus this puts another bullet into the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory.

CNN's report was that sources close to Cohen says that Cohen was present when Trump heard about the Tower meeting.

CNN didn't lie, if Cohen's lawyer was the source, and they reported what an anonymous source said. Now Cohen's attorney is saying he was the source for that story, and is now claiming the opposite, then the only one that lied would be Davis (Cohen's attorney).

Does CNN have any obligation to question the credibility of their sources, or should they just report whatever they are told by anyone?

When the person you're getting your information from is an actual legal representative, you go with the story because that is a credible source that would have inside knowledge about their client.

 

[HereticBD]

Does CNN have any obligation to question the credibility of their sources, or should they just report whatever they are told by anyone?

You're talking to people who think that questioning the credibility of "anonymous sources" from all of these outlets, are somehow crazy for doing so. Here you have a case of a network getting busted pushing fake news, on the info from an "anonymous source", that has now been proven to be be Cohen's own fucking lawyer lying to them, and they're still flailing in defense.

Just let them have their fantasy. It's all they've got.

 

[waiguoren]

Did CNN report on Davis walking back the claim? How many false claims have Trump's lawyers made?

You just answered a question with a question. Here, I'll show you how it's done.

Yes, CNN has reported on Davis changing his story. However, CNN has not retracted the original story.

I do not know how many false claims President Trump's lawyers have made. Perhaps you could attempt to enumerate them for us.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

CNN wrote an article saying they're not retracting .One of their own sources for the original article was Lanny Davis . Nice troll attempt by wai again

 

[waiguoren]

CNN's report was that sources close to Cohen says that Cohen was present when Trump heard about the Tower meeting.

CNN didn't lie, if Cohen's lawyer was the source, and they reported what an anonymous source said. Now Cohen's attorney is saying he was the source for that story, and is now claiming the opposite, then the only one that lied would be Davis (Cohen's attorney).

When the person you're getting your information from is an actual legal representative, you go with the story because that is a credible source that would have inside knowledge about their client.

Again, I did not accuse CNN of lying.

However, publishing this crap and referring to it as a "blockbuster" story implies an endorsement of the credibility of the anonymous source(s). It should have been obvious that Davis's credibility was in question from the start. A responsible journalist would have looked for corroborating evidence before publishing.

Also, the "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory is on its death bed. The anti-Trumpers seem to be moving on, placing their hopes in the SDNY investigation. I expect that route to be much more fruitful for them, but they still look silly for promoting this "muhh Russia" witch hunt for two years.

 

[Joe]

Devin Nunes went to London to try talk to
the heads of their intelligence. They stood him up and fucked with him.

 

[waiguoren]

CNN wrote an article saying they're not retracting .One of their own sources for the original article was Lanny Davis .

I already posted all of the information contained in your post. Please try to make actual contributions to the thread. Thank you.


---------------


N.B. Davis and Dershowitz are long-time friends and big-time contributors to the Democratic Party. Davis was President Clinton's special counsel.



(partial transcript only)


Host: I've got to ask you about Lanny Davis, who is representing Michael Cohen. He has now admitted that he was the anonymous source for this story on the Trump Tower meeting and he's now sharing his regrets over his "error" as he's calling it. Alan, what are your thoughts on all this as it unfolds?

Dershowitz: Well, Lanny is a friend of mine and a terrific lawyer and it's commendable that he has admitted his mistake. Look, this is the problem that happens when you have a flipped witness who has an incentive not only to sing, but to compose. It may very well be that Cohen started to elaborate and embellish a little bit in an effort to get an even better deal and Cohen may have told Lanny Davis these stories, and Lanny has now checked them out and there's no corroboration for them. So he's performing a very important service in telling the public that no, he's withdraws that, he's walking it back, and you shouldn't presume that either the president knew about the meeting before it occurred or that the president knew about the hacking before it occurred. He's walked back both of those very serious accusations and I think he acknowledges that they probably shouldn't have been made. There's probably a dynamic going on between the client and the lawyer that we'll never know about. But these kinds of things happen. I've had it happen in my experience where a client has told me something and I've doubted it. And I've done some checking and sure enough, the client wasn't telling me the truth. He was trying to elaborate on the story to get a better deal and I've forbidden the client from making public any of those statements. So lawyers have to view with great skepticism stories that are told to them by clients that have flipped and clients who have an incentive maybe to make their stories a little bit better.