Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)
- Thread starter Quipling
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,200
- Reaction score
- 11,548
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Carlson: CNN is continuing to stand by a story that one of the people who sourced it says might be false. In July CNN broke news that Donald Trump was aware of that famous meeting with the Russian lawyer inside Trump Tower before the meeting happened. This would be potentially significant. Lanny Davis, the lawyer representing Michael Cohen says he was the source for that story and then he admitted he doesn't know if it's true and he can't back it up. CNN says it has other sources for the story though it hasn't revealed who they might be. Last night on this show journalist Glenn Greenwald explained CNN's reticence to backtrack on an obviously false story.
Greenwald: I find it to be---and obviously this is a high bar---one of the most humiliating and scandalous moments in the entire media behavior of the Trump/Russia saga.
....
They don't want to admit that they lied to the world so they can't retract the story and they can't admit they lied so they're just continuing to stick to what everybody knows is a lie but not many people care because people think---a lot of people anyway---that it was done for the right political agenda.
Carlson: Alan Dershowitz is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He's the author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump and he joins us tonight. Professor, thank you for coming on. So watching this CNN saga I keep...and by the way, lots of news organizations gets stories wrong, I've gotten stories wrong...my complaint is that they're not telling us what happened. But more than that, would it be significant if the story were true? In other words, if the president knew this meeting with this Russian lawyer was about to take place, should any of us care? Does that matter? Is that illegal? Is it unethical?
Dershowitz: It's certainly not illegal. The president was certainly entitled to know about a meeting between his son and somebody who wanted to give him dirt on a candidate or who wanted to talk to him about maybe changing rules involving sanctions. Those are perfectly proper meetings. CNN is in a box. I want to put the best possible light on it. Let's assume it has one or two other sources in addition to Lanny Davis---who did the right thing, by coming forward and acknowledging that he doesn't have any support for his story---but they can't reveal their sources and I have two suggestions for them on that. Number one that they tell us the nature of the sources without telling us the names. Are they eyewitnesses? Is it a hearsay source? Or second, that they give the source to their expert on journalism and let their expert decide whether or not they should stick with the story. Or some outside expert, like somebody from the Columbia School of Journalism who could learn the name of the sources and then go talk to the sources, still keep their names confidential, and then come forward and say, "there is a basis, we're standing behind CNN." They have to do something to preserve their credibility.
Carlson: Well sure. All news organizations call for transparency. That's our job. So they should provide it when asked, and they're not. You wrote a piece recently that reminded me that you're not---I know you have been typecast as a Trump defender but you're not, you're a liberal and I think you've got a lot of problems with Trump---but in the piece you made a really interesting point. You said that our system of checks and balances is out of whack because of the special counsel and his investigation. Tell us what you meant.
Dershowitz: That's absolutely right. Look, everyone's checking everybody else under the Madisonian system of checks and balances that has served us so well. The courts are striking down executive orders, sometimes upholding them, the president is checking Congress, the Congress---particularly if the Democrats get control---will check the presidency. But who is guarding the guardians? Who is overseeing the special counsel or other overzealous prosecutors? The courts aren't doing it. There's no process that exists today. I suggested the appointment of a permanent group to oversee prosecutorial overreaching. It could include great former prosecutors like Robert Morgenthau, the legendary D.A. of New York. It could include ethics experts like Stephen Gillers, the professor at Columbia, constitutional experts like Floyd Abrams. They would have the opportunity to at least file reports about prosecutorial overreach because today, the special counsel is the only institution of government outside our system of checks and balances.
Greenwald: I find it to be---and obviously this is a high bar---one of the most humiliating and scandalous moments in the entire media behavior of the Trump/Russia saga.
....
They don't want to admit that they lied to the world so they can't retract the story and they can't admit they lied so they're just continuing to stick to what everybody knows is a lie but not many people care because people think---a lot of people anyway---that it was done for the right political agenda.
Carlson: Alan Dershowitz is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He's the author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump and he joins us tonight. Professor, thank you for coming on. So watching this CNN saga I keep...and by the way, lots of news organizations gets stories wrong, I've gotten stories wrong...my complaint is that they're not telling us what happened. But more than that, would it be significant if the story were true? In other words, if the president knew this meeting with this Russian lawyer was about to take place, should any of us care? Does that matter? Is that illegal? Is it unethical?
Dershowitz: It's certainly not illegal. The president was certainly entitled to know about a meeting between his son and somebody who wanted to give him dirt on a candidate or who wanted to talk to him about maybe changing rules involving sanctions. Those are perfectly proper meetings. CNN is in a box. I want to put the best possible light on it. Let's assume it has one or two other sources in addition to Lanny Davis---who did the right thing, by coming forward and acknowledging that he doesn't have any support for his story---but they can't reveal their sources and I have two suggestions for them on that. Number one that they tell us the nature of the sources without telling us the names. Are they eyewitnesses? Is it a hearsay source? Or second, that they give the source to their expert on journalism and let their expert decide whether or not they should stick with the story. Or some outside expert, like somebody from the Columbia School of Journalism who could learn the name of the sources and then go talk to the sources, still keep their names confidential, and then come forward and say, "there is a basis, we're standing behind CNN." They have to do something to preserve their credibility.
Carlson: Well sure. All news organizations call for transparency. That's our job. So they should provide it when asked, and they're not. You wrote a piece recently that reminded me that you're not---I know you have been typecast as a Trump defender but you're not, you're a liberal and I think you've got a lot of problems with Trump---but in the piece you made a really interesting point. You said that our system of checks and balances is out of whack because of the special counsel and his investigation. Tell us what you meant.
Dershowitz: That's absolutely right. Look, everyone's checking everybody else under the Madisonian system of checks and balances that has served us so well. The courts are striking down executive orders, sometimes upholding them, the president is checking Congress, the Congress---particularly if the Democrats get control---will check the presidency. But who is guarding the guardians? Who is overseeing the special counsel or other overzealous prosecutors? The courts aren't doing it. There's no process that exists today. I suggested the appointment of a permanent group to oversee prosecutorial overreaching. It could include great former prosecutors like Robert Morgenthau, the legendary D.A. of New York. It could include ethics experts like Stephen Gillers, the professor at Columbia, constitutional experts like Floyd Abrams. They would have the opportunity to at least file reports about prosecutorial overreach because today, the special counsel is the only institution of government outside our system of checks and balances.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Reported Russia probe source at center of whistleblower complaint over Pentagon contracts
The professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe as a confidential source is at the center of a Defense Department whisteblower complaint that alleges government contractor abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and documents reviewed by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...blower-complaint-over-pentagon-contracts.html
The professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe as a confidential source is at the center of a Defense Department whisteblower complaint that alleges government contractor abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and documents reviewed by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...blower-complaint-over-pentagon-contracts.html
Reported Russia probe source at center of whistleblower complaint over Pentagon contracts
The professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe as a confidential source is at the center of a Defense Department whisteblower complaint that alleges government contractor abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and documents reviewed by Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...blower-complaint-over-pentagon-contracts.html
You meant spy.
Halper was paid to spy on the trump campaign.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 57,504
- Reaction score
- 30,507
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
At which point in the 11-minute interview did he say he did anything wrong?
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 57,504
- Reaction score
- 30,507
The part where he says I probably would have done things differently.
That's a clear admittance he regrets his actions. Why would he regret his actions if he didn't do anything wrong?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Because it gives ammunition to anti-Trumpers.
I'm not saying I think his actions were morally right or wrong. But based on the interview, it's pretty clear he doesn't think he did anything morally wrong. He means that he didn't play the game the right way, and was "wrong" only in that sense.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 57,504
- Reaction score
- 30,507
So you expect me to believe a man that has cheated on his wife repeatedly is capable of making morally right choices to begin with?
His belief isn't important.
He went to receive dirt on Hillary directly from the Russian government and he knew it. He didn't make a morally questionable decision, he made a stupid decision.
At best, this was a trap by the Russian government to muddy the waters and he was so damn dumb and fell right into it. At worst, Don Jr was willfully working with Russian operatives to benefit his father's campaign.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I do not.
Although I do think that a man who has cheated on his wife repeatedly could be capable of making morally right choices, I was not asking you to assume that Trump Jr. is an ethical person.
Not "directly".
Also, I'm surprised you don't think it was a morally questionable decision.
He admits that it was a "stupid decision", though not in those exact words.
What do you think about the reports that Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson shortly before and shortly after the Trump Tower meeting?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 43,577
- Reaction score
- 25,299
When he said, yes, I'll appear on Faux News.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
At what point in the 11-minute interview did Trump Jr. admit to having committed an immoral act by agreeing to meet with Veselnitskaya?
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,567
- Reaction score
- 82,219
What's this about trump now saying the Lester Holt interview was "faked?"
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 43,577
- Reaction score
- 25,299
?What's this about trump now saying the Lester Holt interview was "faked?"
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 41,443
- Reaction score
- 0
What's this about trump now saying the Lester Holt interview was "faked?"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lester-holt-interview-james-comey/1142245002/
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,463
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, I would have expected at least a perfunctory meeting for the chairman of the house intelligence committee, but Nunes has proven to be such a political goon that he can't even get that. And I would have expected Nunes to have his itinerary nailed down before he crossed the Atlantic.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Media Max Holloway Believes UFC Was Protecting Ilia Topuria From Him- Latest: Kowboy On Sherdog
