Fox News Hosts Dismiss Cohen Bombshell: Why Should We Believe Someone With History of Lying?

[DonViejo]

by Ken Meyer | Nov 29th, 2018, 12:55 pm

The hosts of Fox News’s Outnumbered dismissed Thursday’s bombshell news about Michael Cohen — arguing he lost his credibility the first time he was caught lying.

Cohen is the center of a new political firestorm after it was revealed that he is cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump’s longtime former lawyer and fixer also pleaded guilty Thursday morning to lying to Congress in his testimony about President Trump‘s real estate dealings with Moscow.

Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright was Thursday’s #OneLuckyGuy, and he stressed that the new development highlights Trump’s dishonesty about his connections to Russia.

Fox News host Harris Faulkner interjected to defend the president from Cohen — who she said has a “history of lying.”

“You believe Michael Cohen, who has lied about other things, talking about the president and being a witness?” Faulkner asked Seawright incredulously. “So there are different points that you believe from somebody who has a history of lying?”

Harris did not question whether the president — who has lied more than 6,000 times in his 600 days in office, per the Washington Post fact checker — has a history of lying himself.

more
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-hosts-dismiss-cohen-bombshell-why-should-we-believe-someone-with-history-of-lying/

[GusBob]

1. Irony can be so ironic, hey?

The jokes write themselves sometimes

[Jersey Devil]

2. Except that Cohen documented everything and recorded his phone calls

Mueller knew that when he raided Cohen's home last year and seized everything.

[Glimmer of Hope]

16. Yes! Corroborating evidence is a thing.

[Shell_Seas]

3. I was wondering if they were going to spin this or completely ignore it.

I guess now we have our answer.

[arthritisR_US]

4. Someone needs to remind them that long before Cohen was speaking

to Mueller and his team they had already executed a legal raid on his home and office. They did not need to rely on his spoken words to them as they had documents, mobile recordings and other recordings.

[Downtown Hound]

5. Why Should We Believe Someone With History of Lying?

Oh I literally could write a book on the irony of Faux News making that statement, but why bother?

[GWC58]

6. Believe liars, like

the current president? 🤪😱

[Jarqui]

7. Unbelievable

Trump is going to go down in history as one of the all time biggest liars

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Time to introduce Fox to the Epimenides, or Cretan, paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

[RockRaven]

9. The only appropriate response to that question: "You mean Trump?"

That's certainly an awkward question to ask on FOXNews...

[beachbum bob]

10. What else can trump defenders say....then the audio tapes show up

[libdem4life]

11. As I'm now understanding it, The Feds don't believe ANYONE straight away.

Even if proved to be a liar (The Cretin aside for now), if some of the things they say is corroborated by,say the raid on the other attorney's office today or other of the millions of facts they already have, then the evidence mounts. Until then, one statement does not create a yeah or nay ...just another nail in the coffin.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. Yet they will believe Trump. SMH.

[OAITW r.2.0]

13. Cohen lied to protect Trump, now he is telling the truth to protect himself.

None so blind as those who refuse to see...

[Blue Owl]

14. Wow they really are... that stupid

n/t

[allgood33]

15. Same reason you believe the serial liar, Trump

[Turbineguy]

17. This thesis is based

on the idea that trump tells the truth.

You can fabricate anything you want from that thesis.

[SWBTATTReg]

18. The courts, prosecutors, etc. catch people lying all of the time...that's why they offer plea ...

deals and the like, to obtain truthful information from those caught lying while testifying in court, when those caught are brought face to face with actual proof/evidence that they lied under oath by prosecutors.

The evidence, sometimes admitted in court as evidence of such lying could be anything, emails, phone msgs, etc. so sure Fox can claim Cohen lied (he did) but they can't prove (Fox) afterwards that Cohen is lying currently, and prosecutors and law enforcement personnel probably have strong evidence for the actual truth.

This is my opinion, I am not by far a legal guy. Just from history I'm aware of e.g., during the Nixon years, the 'tapes'...

[mac56]

19. Hmm

[Initech]

20. I counter that with: why do *THEY* believe someone with a history of lying?

Oh wait - he's the liar in chief.

[Firestorm49]

21. Good One. LMAO