Once again, the "false news" decried by Trump has proven to be true

But there is There have been a number of cases in which the President or his – only for this refusal contradicts weeks or months later by new documents or statements – often, by then, the media coverage has pbaded to a new controversy.

The release of the recording between Trump and his former repairman, Michael Cohen, is only the most recent example of this dynamic. Here is a sample of denials of White House that ended up unraveling after the disclosure of new information. Strikingly, these examples often involve situations that could put the president at legal risk.

There are, of course, many other examples – such as denials that Trump contemplated dismissing Special Attorney Robert S. Mueller III or why Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey – but we kept this list in cases where the admitting administration or the official records showed that the initial denial was false.

Trump knew nothing about Daniels, McDougal or rewards

When the Wall Street Journal reported right before the 2016 elections, the company owning National Enquirer agreed to pay $ 150,000 to an old Playboy model for his story of an affair with Trump – but did not publish it – Trump's spokesperson, Hope Hicks, quickly dismissed it. "We do not know anything about this," she told the WSJ, adding that Karen McDougal's statement about a deal with Mr. Trump was "totally false."

Hicks' statements to the media were often dictated directly by Trump. 19659011] But this refusal to know anything about the transaction was made false by the publication on July 24 by Cohen 's lawyer of a recording of a conversation two months before the date. election between Trump and Cohen, secretly made by Cohen. Cohen says, "I need to open a company for the transfer of all this information regarding our friend, David," which is potentially a reference to David Pecker, president of American Media Inc. who owns the National Enquirer. Cohen mentions that he "spoke to Allen Weisselberg [of the Trump Organization] about how to put everything in place" and Trump asks, "So, what should we pay for that? One-fifty?

In other words, not only was Trump aware of the payment by AMI, he even knew the figure.

Similarly, when Trump in April was asked if he knew of a payment $ 130,000 for badgraphic star movie Stormy Daniels to buy her silence, hosted by Cohen, the president denied any knowledge of it. (The WSJ also broke that story, which included Cohen's statement about whether Trump had an affair with Daniels: "President Trump again vehemently denies such an event.")

"No. No. What else? Trump said in response to questions about Daniels' payment, saying that he did not know about it when it was done and that he did not know where Cohen got the money "Well, you have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my lawyer. And you have to ask Michael Cohen. … No I do not know. No. "

Cohen had also claimed to have acted on his own." In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a $ 130,000 payment to Ms. Stephanie Clifford, "said M Cohen in February. "Neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign were part of the deal with Mrs. Clifford, and neither one of them reimbursed me directly or indirectly." [19659015] But in May, Trump's lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, admitted that Trump had repaid Cohen for payment to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

"The payment was made to resolve a personal allegation and false in order to protect the family of the president, "said Giuliani .In a July interview, Giuliani dodged questions about whether Trump knew the payment when it was done." Even though he l & # 39; He had done, it would not necessarily be something. … it's something you can settle because you do not want your family to be embarrbaded.

In other words, the initial denials were "false news" – and the original report was correct.

Trump had no role in Trump When the New York Times reported in July 2017 that the president's son had been trying to obtain detrimental information about Hillary Clinton of Russia during the campaign, the president's attorney, Jay Sekulow, insisted that the president The initial statement was misleading – falsely claiming that Trump's son and a Russian lawyer had "mainly discussed a program regarding the adoption of Russian children" .and that the topic of the meeting was "not a problem of campaigning at the university." 39. time. "Under pressure, Trump's son issued a more complete, more precise description, including e-mails.

CUS on what the president was aware: nothing," Sekulow told CNN. "I was not involved at all in the drafting of the statement, nor was the president, I presume it was between Mr. Donald Trump Jr. and his lawyers, I'm sure his lawyer was involved, that's how you do it.I think imposing this on the president is quite incorrect. "

The Times reported that Trump had" signed "the statement, but Sekulow had insisted, "Well, they are incorrect." weeks later, the White House's history evolved, after the Washington Post reported that Trump had dictated the misleading statement. "The president weighed like any father, based on the limited information he had," said White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, about Trump's involvement. in the declaration

. Trump's lawyers admitted in a memo to special advocate Mueller that Trump himself had dictated his son's statement, a seemingly enforced disclosure because of documents obtained by Mueller's office: "You have received all notes, communications and testimonials indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr. "

So, again, the initial report was correct, despite all the denials.

Michael Flynn did not discuss sanctions against the Russians

Before the arrival of Trump, David Ignatius of The Post reported on January 12, 2017 that Michael T. Flynn, the new national security adviser, had spoken to Russia's ambbadador at a time when the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign. What did Fly say? And did he jeopardize US sanctions? "

The next day, Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, during a conference call with reporters, denied that the sanctions have been discussed. Other Trump administration officials made similar statements

. But on February 9, The Post reported that Flynn had discussed sanctions in phone calls. Flynn initially denied discussing sanctions in an interview with The Post, but then changed his comment. He "said that although he did not remember discussing sanctions, he could not be sure that the subject had never been raised." Flynn was fired in the following days

Trump denied at a press conference sanctions against the Russian ambbadador and denied that other officials were also involved. "I saw some people who were supposed to be involved in all this, they know nothing, nothing about it.They have never received a phone call from Russia.It's all from When Flynn pleaded guilty to misleading the FBI in December, the criminal information clearly showed that other members of the Trump Transition Team were involved in the discussion about what was wrong. It was necessary to tell the Russians about the sanctions The document described how Flynn was discussing with another official of the appeal, noting that the Trump officials did not want Russia to aggravate the situation and that it was not possible for him to do so. he then reported to the senior officials of the transitional team on Russia's positive response, in other words, the president's denial that other officials were involved was false [19659028] Trump did not give any inf clbadified to Russia

After The Post reported that Trump had revealed highly confidential information to the Russian Foreign Minister. At a White House meeting in May 2017, the then National Security Advisor said: "The story that was reported tonight is false."

But the next morning, Trump tweeted that he had an "absolute right". to disclose such information to the Russians.