The media is trying to create a Biblical story:  Michael in the liar's den.

I believe everything Mr. Cohen said, EVERYTHING.  

I believe everything Mr. Cohen said, EVERYTHING. 

Well that's good because he stated there was no collusion much to the chagrin of the snowflakes in congress

Well that's good because he stated there was no collusion much to the chagrin of the snowflakes in congress

He stated that he wasn't aware of any.  That's not the same as his claiming that there was none.  Obstruction of justice is a far more likely outcome than collusion, anyway.  But the fact is, we do not yet know whether or not there was any collusion by Trump. 

So he's a liar except for that one statement?

Also, he didn't say THERE WAS  NO COLLUSION.  

I believe everything Mr. Cohen said, EVERYTHING. 

I believe him too.  He knows, first hand, what will happen to him if he lies.

Nuance escapes them...

I'd say it's more of a matter of comprehension.

Cohen says he saw no collusion therefore there must not have been collusion. I'm beginning to think some folks got C's in English

le sigh

I'm not gonna diagram this sentence for you

You should read Stone's indictment to dispel your illusion that there was no collusion. 

I suggest you READ it and answer those questions for yourself. I'm not here to spoon feed you information point by point. If you're not curious enough to go READ the indictment and come to your own conclusions, it would be a waste of my time to hold your hand and lead you through it. 

Go adult...

So you have no answer because there is no connection between Trump and Russia, period, end of story. 

So you don't really want the answers to your questions. Got ya. 

Stone knows Assange, OK now what, you failed to make any connection whatsoever to Russia. 

As I said, READ the Stone indictment. 

Mueller thinks Assange got the emails from the Russians, there's no proof of that.

Actually there is a whole fucking IC report that proves that. Of course, that too would require READING and you seem adverse to that. 

  He indicts a bunch of Russians, 

He and the DOJ indicted a bunch of Americans too and I'm pretty sure there are more to come...

Hell.........he should indict Bigfoot while he's at it.

Did Bigfoot work on the Trump campaign too? 

None of the indictments of Americans has anything to do with Russia interfering in the election.

Both Flynn and Cohen were indicted in part for their coordination with the Russian Government. 

Don't you find it strange that the 1st FISA warrant was against Carter Page for being some kind of Russian spy........ but no indictment.  They renewed the warrant 4 times and Loretta Lynch doesn't remember, hmm.  Renewed 4 times, no charges let me say that again renewed 4 times no charges Loretta Lynch can't recall it.  

You know what a FISA warrant is FOR right? They surveilled Page to collect FORIEGN INTELLIGENCE. There is NO claim that Page was under crime investigation. Most of the information indicates that the FBI thought that he could be an unknowing asset. 

Judging from the interviews I have seen of Page, he's too stupid to be a spy. 

You have no idea of what a FISA Warrant is, do some research and get back to me.

Total bullshit goose. 

A FISA warrant is authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was established to gather foreign intelligence information. It's in the fucking name...Sheesh. 

Carter Page foreign agent, Carter Page terrorist Ha ha ha !!!!!!

Now you left a little tid-bit out.

Carter Page was engaged with 'agents of a foreign power'. That is a documented FACT. The FISA warrant allowed the US to surveil Page's 'engagement' and gather foreign intelligence about what the Russians were doing here in the US AND in Russia. 

Y'all really need to make choice. Should the government get a FISA warrant if a US citizen's communication could be gathered in a counterintelligence investigation or should they just gather the information and unmask them latter? Y'all have raged against both. Unless you think that American's communication with foreign powers should NEVER be gathered in defense of the nation, please pick one...

Where's the indictment?

As I said, there has never been a claim that Page was under investigation for committing a crime. If we indicted people for being STUPID, few would be left on the street.

oth Flynn and Cohen were indicted in part for their coordination with the Russian Government

Why do you say things that aren't true?  Neither indictment has anything to do with coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election.

Why do you say things that aren't true?

Why do you keep asking me that question when every time you do it I've prove that what I said WAS true? 

Neither indictment has anything to do with coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election.

Strawman. 

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I say Sean? 

I didn't say a fucking thing about 'interfering with the election' DID I Sean? 

You know that members can READ my comment that you block quoted right?

You know that members can see for themselves that I didn't say anything about the election right? 

That's some weak shit...

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I say Sean

You posted Both Flynn and Cohen were indicted in part for their coordination with the Russian Government" in response to the statement "None of the indictments of Americans has anything to do with Russia interfering in the election."    I assumed you were trying make a rational response, not just post random words unrelated to the post you were supposedly responding to.  Since, "None of the indictments of Americans has anything to do with Russia interfering in the election" is 100% accurate, your response was at best irrelevant, if looked at charitably.  

Sadly, not only does your statement fail to address the accurate post it is supposed to be responding  to, it also is false. Neither Flynn nor Cohen were indicted for coordinating with the Russian government.  One can only speculate why you would bother to so blatantly distort the crimes they admitted to. 

Neither Flynn nor Cohen were indicted for coordinating with the Russian government. 

Flynn was indicted for lying about coordinating with the Russian Ambassador. 

Cohen was indicted for lying to Congress about Trump Tower Moscow and only delusion would lead anyone to believe that did not entail coordinating with the Russian government. One hint would be the gift of the tower's Penthouse suite to Putin. 

One can only speculate why you would bother to so blatantly distort the crimes they admitted to.

One can only speculate why you would bother to so blatantly to ignore both men's documented coordination with Russian officails. 

Here we go again. You were presented with the unfavorable and undeniable fact that "None of the indictments of Americans has anything to do with Russia interfering in the election." Rather than simply admit the manifest truth of that statement, you begin dissembling.  In response to a direct statement about "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" you throw around the words "Russian Government" "coordination" and "indictments" to create the false suggestion of what you can't prove in reality. None of the indictments have anything to do with election interference and the "coordination" was not illegal or relevant to the election that is at issue.

I know this sort of disingenuous argument works with your ignorant fellow travelers, but to a person with basic reading comprehension skills it's a transparently pathetic attempt to mislead. What do you gain by this sort of transparent shilling for Democrats? Internet points?

Flynn was indicted for lying about coordinating with the Russian Ambassador. 

He was indicted for lying to the FBI. I wonder why you failed to mention the content of his discussion with the Russian ambassador? Oh, that's right. It had nothing to do with the election interference that is the actual issue at hand. 

Cohen was indicted for lying to Congress about Trump Tower Mosco

Again, the indictment had nothing to do with election interference. You know, the actual topic, you were responding to. The only relevance of Cohen and his indictment to the actual topic is the critical fact that he wasn't indicted for his testimony to Congress that he did not collude with the Russians to interfere in the election.  He's admitted all sort of crimes but denies colluding with the Russians to interfere in the election. 

I know this sort of disingenuous argument works with your ignorant fellow travelers

Stopped reading there Sean. Stay classy.

You can't obtain a FISA warrant unless the person your a surveilling is suspected of being engaged in espionage or terrorism which is a crime, they renewed the warrant 4 times where are the charges.

Page was engaged with foreign agents. I presume that you agree with that since you haven't denied it. In order to gather Page's side of the communication, they had to have a FISA warrant. The communications they gathered OBVIOUSLY proved to the FBI that Page isn't just an idiot in interviews. 

You seem to be under the misconception that all FISA warrants result in indictments. Perhaps you can explain what lead you to that ridiculous conclusion. 

To get the warrant they showed the judge the Steele dossier which was total bullshit and they never told the Judge where it came from. 

What's total bullshit are the unfounded claims that the Steele dossier was the sole basis of the warrant. 

Oh and BTFW, the Page parts of the dossier were found to be accurate. 

The dossier claims that Page met with Russians and discussed quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions and Russia's interference in the election.

It does? What page of the dossier is that on? Please be specific. 

Company Intelligence Report 2016/94

That page doesn't mention ANY quid pro quo nor does it mention Russian interference. Why post a comment that is a lie? 

It shouldn't Page had nothing to do with Russian Interference or are you trying to say that he did? Prove it!

Wait WHAT? YOU said it DID:

The dossier claims that Page met with Russians and discussed quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions and Russia's interference in the election

YOU claimed that was in the dossier. YOU told me to look @ Company Intelligence Report 2016/94. I did and stated: 

That page doesn't mention ANY quid pro quo nor does it mention Russian interference. Why post a comment that is a lie?

Now you tell me to look @ page 134 which STILL doesn't say anything about 'quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions and Russia's interference in the election.'

It says:

PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.

The quid pro quo is a percentage for Page in the Rosneft deal, NOT for Russia's interference in the election. 

READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

OH and BTFW, either Page was just a bag man and Trump was to be the recipient of the 500 Million or Page was in it for his own monetary gain. Russia give Trump/Page 500 Million, Trump removes sanctions. That wouldn't be a quid pro quo for interference in the election, that would be a BRIBE.

goose, YOU  are the one that stated:

The dossier claims that Page met with Russians and discussed quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions and Russia's interference in the election.

You've had 4 days to support that statement and failed.

You've ALREADY cited parts of the dossier that are accurate. In interviews, Page denied that he met with SECHIN in Russia. He LIED. A YEAR after the dossier was written, once confronted at a hearing in Congress, UNDER OATH, Page FINALLY admitted that he DID meet with him. 

He LIED. A YEAR after the dossier was written, once confronted at a hearing in Congress, UNDER OATH, Page FINALLY admitted that he DID meet with him. 

Really? Please provide a link. 

I was replying to your BS claim that - Oh and BTFW, the Page parts of the dossier were found to be accurate.

Actually, what you were doing is deflecting. You're STILL defecting. 

annotateddossier

When I searched Google, quid-pro-quo and Russian interference are the only things to came up, they are both false.   

YOU are the one that made that claim, not I. YOU are the one that cited 2 different pages that FAIL to support your claim. 

This has nothing to do with whether the information in the dossier is accurate about Page.

You just contradicted the first sentence of your comment. 

Show me something that ties Page and the Trump Campaign to Russia interfering in the 2016 election, stop dancing around the issue.

STOP changing the issue. WHERE did I EVER claim that he did?

YOU claimed that the dossier stated that and STILL haven't proven that it did. 

scribd

No, your link doesn't support your claim.

Hello.........that was your comment, I was replying to.

I was replying to your BS claim that the Page parts of the dossier were found to be accurate.

So it WAS about the accuracy of the part about Page. 

This has nothing to do with whether the information in the dossier is accurate about Page.

So is it about the accuracy in the dossier or NOT?

Get back to me when you make up your mind...

Can you please cite the page where Page admitted meeting Sechin in his testimony?

Strange that all of the summaries of his Congressional testimony report he continued to deny he met Sechin as claimed by the dossier.  So can you cite the source of your claim? 

'It’s laughable that anyone would take a convicted liar like Cohen at his word and pathetic to see him given another opportunity to spread his lies.'

It's laughable anyone believes a word out of the turd Rump's mouth.  

It's laughable anyone believes a word out of the turd Rump's mouth.  

Yes.  But then the media would have nothing for their own unbiased commentary.  The fact checkers wouldn't have justification to promote their editorial opinions.  Activists wouldn't have snippets taken out of context for their propaganda.

So, you see, any political activity in the United States depends upon lies.

[Removed]

Removed for context

I do not agree.

The word "far" is erroneously restrictive.

After three years of relentless hair-on-fire Trump

I often wondered how he came to possess that absurd do of his.

That to one side, Mr. Trump created his own storyline, Cohen is just one of the actors filling in the blanks. I suppose it comes down to who one finds more believable, Mr. Cohen who admittedly lied to Congress or Mr. Trump who has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days as of Nov. 2018 according to the Washington Post.

But I suppose we shall have to wait and see, by the by they are all liars to one degree or another this latest batch has just brought it to the nth degree.

That to one side, Mr. Trump created his own storyline, Cohen is just one of the actors filling in the blanks. I suppose it comes down to who one finds more believable, Mr. Cohen who admittedly lied to Congress or Mr. Trump who has made 6,420 false or misleading claims over 649 days as of Nov. 2018 according to the Washington Post.

Trump is a liar.  There isn't any need to convince people; everyone knew Trump was a liar when he defeated the other liar on the ballot.

The fact checkers have been lying about honesty for the last three years.  More lies won't tell people any more than they already know.

So what? Who cares?  It isn't relevant in today's partisan politics.

I care.  My family cares.  My friends care.  My neighbors care.

The big question is did Trump commit crimes? The lack of real evidence says no.

Lack of evidence?  Who needs evidence?  There is only a need to show Trump lied to the FBI or lied to Congress.  That's a low bar; especially when the FBI. Congress, and talking heads on the TV defines whatever is 'truth'.

All of this is about politics.

I care.  My family cares.  My friends care.  My neighbors care.

sorry sis, Wally doesn't care.

he doesn't care about me as well, and this is a heavy burden for me to bear, cause 

[deleted]

I care.  My family cares.  My friends care.  My neighbors care.

Ditto. The "so who cares" or "so what, who cares" are the empty terms that those who don't want to think for themselves, or can't, use to try to deflect from their own lack of credibility and willingness to think beyond their own prejudices.

Trump was a known con man and liar long before he took over the WH, and there is even less reason for him to change into a stand up person when he has the world at his command. 

Stupidity and ignorance, like cancer, do not discriminate, and it seems that there are indeed a lot of people who are afflicted and can't see the forest for the deflective trees.

Dear Friend SMAAB: Us too.

P&AB.

Enoch.

The "so who cares" or "so what, who cares" are the empty terms that those who don't want to think for themselves, or can't, use to try to deflect from their own lack of credibility and willingness to think beyond their own prejudices.

So what? Who cares?  It isn't relevant in today's partisan politics.

I care, everyone should care.  Republicans spend the entire day whining about how much Michael Cohen lies, yet have no problem with Trumps lies, which dwarf Cohens.  Forget we hear them every day?  Nobody in the world trusts Trump, and Cohen has nothing to lose unless he lies now. 

I rarely say anything about politics, but I have to agree with Lib. There is so much lying going on now, that it is almost refreshing to hear an honest word from a politician. Cohen and Trump were company for many years. Birds of a feather. Yes, Cohen has lied, but our President does plenty himself. Now the republicans care about lying? I realize that I am not a partisan, but this is exactly why I am not. If everyone cared about lying, they wouldn't accept it from their politicians, but they do, just the ones that fit their agendas.  

I don't care.

That's why you're here everyday all day explaining his lies for us Wally.

For the campaign finance crimes, Cohen isn't the star witness, Weisselberg is...

If everyone cared about lying, they wouldn't accept it from their politicians,

Perrie, give us the names of a few Democrats who lie like Donald Trump does. 

We tend to remember more about the more recent presidents.   Presidents that we only know from history are substantially immunized by that.   

But I can confidently say that Trump is the most dishonest president I have seen in my lifetime.   

Thing is, the point really is not who is the biggest liar, but the fact that the truth seems to be the first casualty of politics - especially at the federal level.   But we keep voting liars into office.

It is very tough to find a politician that one could comfortably label as generally honest.   There are but a few in my estimation.

John... John... John!

You know that Perrie will sit on her "both sides do it" fence until hell freezes over.

And this is why I don't waste my breath on these kinds of articles. Thanks Bob and John for providing the proof I needed. 

Hi, Perrie ...

I note than you don't dispute what I said. That's a pity. I'd be very happy to have you prove me wrong.

There is a difference between lying and PERJURY.  What Trump and ALL politicians do are tell lies on the campaign trail and to the public.  Some of those lies are designed to PROTECT American interests and security.  Other lies are made to gain a political advantage over a political opponent and sometimes over a foreign entity.  So, until Trump commits perjury and Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, et al stop lying about why they are taking certain actions; I will continue to support Donald Trump.  Michael Cohen, on the other hand, committed perjury again multiple times in this latest farce of an "Oversight" aka "Get Trump At All Costs" hearing as shown by the Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows 30-page letter to William Barr stating where and when Cohen lied under oath and therefore committed perjury once again:

republicans-oversight.house

Okay, I don't know why the link is not showing as a link to the pdf of the letter.

I guess I don't understand that.

Not caring if an elected official lied right to ones face.

Unless they get caught and have to testify.

It's simple, Ender.

Tom cannot say the lies bother him, because that would be a tacit recognition that Tump is not perfect... which is impossible for God's anointed.  

That's why you're here everyday all day explaining his lies for us Wally.

I hope Wally is getting the big bucks for that horrendous job

republicans-oversight.house

It looks like Jordon and Meadows have issues with reading comprehension in relation to the truthful testimony form. 

BTFW, Cohen has the right to review and amend his testimony. He has yet to be given that opportunity.

In FACT, a couple of Trump's minions have amended their Congressional testimony long after it was given. Both Sessions and McFarland come to mind. NEITHER of them were referred to the DOJ for perjury by the GOP. 

So, until Trump commits perjury

So you disagree with the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, which cited as a count: 

making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States

Tom cannot say the lies bother him

Judging from prior comments, I don't think they do. 

See Bob, I don't feel the need to justify my position in politics to anyone. That is what makes me an independent. I realize that you as a partisan don't get that and never will, but you see, I am fine with you, just the way you are, even if we disagree.

There is a difference between lying and PERJURY. 

Perjury is unfortunate lying when you get caught in a court of law. Right now, no politician has testified. Maybe if they did, they would get perjury slapped on them. That is the sole difference between Cohen and most of the other mega liars in our government. 

I don't feel the need to justify my position in politics to anyone.

I am more and more convinced that our politics are just an expression of deep-seated values acquired in childhood. For example, liberals are "we", while conservatives are "me". My wife is binary: yes/no, hot/cold, on/off,  ... She doesn't do sliding scales very well. We are all expressions of our childhood education.

I'll leave off here, to perhaps continue some day in a more private setting.

For example, liberals are "we", while conservatives are "me".

And WE, say the exact same thing about you guys....

Hows that for contradiction.... But your right I think we start out programmed in response to teachings but then we shift about until we get old and supposedly wise and decide for ourselves what we are....

And WE, say the exact same thing about you guys....

Did you think it through before posting?   

Okay, point out the memo that says what that check is for?  Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T.

Tom cannot say the lies bother him, because that would be a tacit recognition that Tump is not perfect.

Funny, since I have said that Pelosi and Schumer have lied.  Just about every single politician has lied during their campaigns to the public.  Pelosi and Schumer and the rest of the Democrats are lying by using numbers that are from a different year and don't use the current reported numbers by the CBP for opposing the wall.  But, you are okay with that and in fact you and everyone else here whom support the Democrats like to ignore that mote in your eye while pointing out the beam in ours.

You're right, because you are not holding the Democrats to the same standard as you are holding Trump.  It is the hypocrisy in your side of the debate that bothers me.

My post was about Trump.

You're right, because you are not holding the Democrats to the same standard as you are holding Trump.

That's hilarious.

You're right, because you are not holding the Democrats to the same standard as you are holding Trump. 

Following the thread, you're saying that I am right that Trump's lies, no matter how abhorrent, don't bother you. 

What 'standard' are you talking about tom? Since you accept everything Trump does, your standard is non-existent.

You claim that politicians lie to PROTECT America or for political advantage but you refuse to recognize that the vast majority of Trump's biggest lies are for PERSONAL gain. 

It is the hypocrisy in your side of the debate that bothers me.

What hypocrisy is that tom? Is it decrying one person's one time PERJURY while embracing another's pathological lying, like yours? 

Seriously tom, you accept Trump's lie that there IS a WALL. 

When you accept the FACT that there isn't one, we can talk...

The Democrats on the panel keep saying that Republicans are unreasonably trying to distract and discredit the proceedings by intimating that Cohen is a liar who shouldn't be believed. As I watch, John Sarbanes just did this two minutes ago. 

The problem is it's not unreasonable. Cohen is a liar. He pled guilty to doing exactly that. Now we're just supposed to ignore that?

The problem is it's not unreasonable. Cohen is a liar. He pled guilty to doing exactly that. Now we're just supposed to ignore that?

Obviously.  

Facts, facts, everywhere but honesty can't be found.

Well, see, it goes like this:

Some are willing to believe ANYBODY if they dish out some dirt on Trump. Anyone else should be ignored if it doesn't fit into their agenda of hating Trump.

And sure Cohen has lied, but now he is dishing dirt on Trump, so now magically he is a paragon of virtue and truth.

When the Mueller report is finished and presented, then I will read it if available and make an informed judgment then. I won't condemn someone without a trial, but, hey, that's just how I roll.

[deleted]

I won't condemn someone without a trial, but, hey, that's just how I roll.

Shall we set the "way back" machine for 3 - 4 years ago and read what you said about Hillary???

'Shall we set the "way back" machine for 3 - 4 years ago and read what you said about Hillary???'

Good one!!!!!

Such hypocrisy abounds.  Or outright lying?

Shall we set the "way back" machine for 3 - 4 years ago and read what you said about Hillary???

Go right ahead. Anything stopping you?

When the Mueller report is finished and presented, then I will read it if available and make an informed judgment then.

The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. In FACT, they made it clear that the Russia investigation was off limits. What you SHOULD be looking for are the indictments that will be coming out of the SDNY against Trump. 

I won't condemn someone without a trial, but, hey, that's just how I roll.

The hearing yesterday had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation.

Didn't claim it did

.What you SHOULD be looking for are the indictments that will be coming out of the SDNY against Trump. 

Thanks for your "advice".

Didn't claim it did

So you knew that your comment was irrelevant. Got ya. 

impasse

An "impasse" has been called. There are to be no more comments made on this subthread. All comments that came after this impasse have been removed. [ph]

Cohen is a liar. He pled guilty to doing exactly that. Now we're just supposed to ignore that?

Is there anyone that doesn't know that? Cohen admitted that, in court and in his opening statement. After the first couple of Republicans demanding that AGAIN admit to lying, that it would be enough. But right now Rep. Miller is doing it again. 

The irony of the GOP harping on Cohen lying while insisting that we're supposed to ignore that Trump lies multiple times every day. 

The irony of the GOP harping on Cohen lying while insisting that we're supposed to ignore that Trump lies multiple times every day. 

No one is trying to swear Trump in as the source of truth to uncover some critical heretofore hidden conspiracy. It takes quite a leap of imagination to imagine that Cohen is the guy who will reliably and unimpeachably bring truth to the public consciousness.

Okay, so when someone lies under oath, aka commits perjury, we are supposed to accept everything they say after they admit to committing said perjury without asking whether he is lying now after having lied before?  Frankly, if he had documents to back up his current claims, that would be one thing; but my understanding is that everything he is saying cannot be independently verified from another source.  That means, whatever he says cannot be trusted to be the truth AT ALL.

It takes a rat to rat out a rat. 

Okay, so when someone lies under oath, aka commits perjury, we are supposed to accept everything they say after they admit to committing said perjury without asking whether he is lying now after having lied before? 

Never said that but I will point out that THAT is what y'all do with Trump every day. 

I don't believe Cohen out of hand. Yet I DO take into account the FACT that he appeared voluntarily and that if is found to have lied, he will be crucified and LOOSE his deal with the SDNY and Mueller. That's a pretty good motivation to tell the truth. 

Frankly, if he had documents to back up his current claims, that would be one thing; but my understanding is that everything he is saying cannot be independently verified from another source.  That means, whatever he says cannot be trusted to be the truth AT ALL.

Well it seems a simple thing to check with the bank and verify the authenticity of the check he submitted from Trump's personal account. 

BTW, Cohen merely provided documentation of the information in his charging documents. Mueller and the SDNY have the other side of that documentation, the bank withdrawals when the checks signed by Don Jr and Trump were cashed...

Dulay,

Cohen plead guilty to perjury, you know LYING UNDER OATH to the VERY SAME BODY he just testified to today.  Anyone accepting his word for anything or that checks that have no memo written on them describing what they were for as being evidence of him telling the truth is at best an idiot.  For all we know, those checks were written for installments on a retainer.  Also, there is no crime in paying someone over a legal agreement, otherwise every single Class Action Lawsuit settlement would be criminal.  Stormy Daniels agreed to an NDA in exchange to being paid a certain amount.  Trump having his lawyer handle the payments is not criminal otherwise nearly every single member of Congress (as many are lawyers) and every practicing attorney for business or civil law would be in jail.

There has been no evidence that Trump has lied under oath at any time.  However, there is plenty of evidence that Cohen will lie just to try to save his own skin or tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth.  As I stated before, the Republicans should have asked, "Are you lying now, or were you lying then in your previous testimony; and if you are telling the truth now, can you prove it?"  All he had was accusations without proof and those Democrats behind this hearing are asking all of us to believe Cohen because he admitted to committing perjury before and is, supposedly, telling the truth now.

'Cohen coordinated with the democrats that means he is telling their truth or alternate facts if you like.' 

How did Cohen coordinate with the democrats?  What the what?

Cohen plead guilty to perjury, you know LYING UNDER OATH to the VERY SAME BODY he just testified to today.  Anyone accepting his word for anything or that checks that have no memo written on them describing what they were for as being evidence of him telling the truth is at best an idiot.

One could also be presumed an idiot if one hadn't READ the fucking charging documents in which the scheme is described in detail, Trump Org officials are cited, and the FALSE financial documentation is enumerated. 

In short, Weisselberg recorded the $35,000 as payments for a legal retainer that doesn't exist an he ADMITTED as much in Grand Jury testimony.

For all we know, those checks were written for installments on a retainer.

False, YOU may not know, I do. 

All of the GOP Congressmen that grilled Cohen read directly from the charging documents from the SDNY. That document states unequivocally that there was NO retainer agreement.  

Also, there is no crime in paying someone over a legal agreement, otherwise every single Class Action Lawsuit settlement would be criminal. Stormy Daniels agreed to an NDA in exchange to being paid a certain amount. Trump having his lawyer handle the payments is not criminal otherwise nearly every single member of Congress (as many are lawyers) and every practicing attorney for business or civil law would be in jail.

Blah, blah, blah. 

The CRIME was Cohen and Pecker paying hush money to Daniels and McDougal to protect Trump's campaign, I.E illegal campaign donations.

CONSPIRACY to commit that CRIME is a CRIME and Trump was part of that conspiracy, up to and including making reimbursements from his personal account. 

There has been no evidence that Trump has lied under oath at any time. However, there is plenty of evidence that Cohen will lie just to try to save his own skin or tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth.

Actually, Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump, NOT to 'save his own skin'. DO try to keep up. 

As I stated before, the Republicans should have asked, "Are you lying now, or were you lying then in your previous testimony; and if you are telling the truth now, can you prove it?"

Cohen already pled guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump tower Russia deal. So that question is redundant. 

As for the veracity of Cohen's testimony yesterday, as I said before, he has a strong motivation to be truthful. 

All he had was accusations without proof and those Democrats behind this hearing are asking all of us to believe Cohen because he admitted to committing perjury before and is, supposedly, telling the truth now.

He DID have documentary proof and he named names of others who could corroborate his statements. 

BTW, Weisselberg's and Pecker's testimony about the campaign finance conspiracy were LOCKED in by Grand Jury testimony. The findings from that testimony are documented by the SDNY in Cohen's charging documents. 

So you and the GOP Congressmen hang your hat on Cohen pleading guilty to lying to Congress but that means that you have to BELIEVE the details of charges that he pled guilty to. 

Oh and one more thing, by documenting those details in court documents, the lawyers involved, both prosecutors and defense, sign off on the veracity of those details and the Judge agrees to the evidence that supports those details. 

BTFW, even though the GOP Congressmen avoided the campaign finance charges like the plague, the DID enter the entire charging document into the record. They did the Committee a favor by doing so. 

So you're claim that Cohen had no proof is false.

'So you're claim that Cohen had no proof is false.'

Same shit, different day.  

'There has been no evidence that Trump has lied under oath at any time.'

When has Rump ever been under oath?

Deflection? Sounds more like defecation.

No one is trying to swear Trump in as the source of truth to uncover some critical heretofore hidden conspiracy.

Only the obtuse would characterize the campaign finance conspiracy as 'heretofore hidden'. 

It takes quite a leap of imagination to imagine that Cohen is the guy who will reliably and unimpeachably bring truth to the public consciousness.

His testimony about the campaign finance violations was corroborated by documents. When Weisselberg and Pecker are put on the stand to corroborate Cohen, their combined testimony will indeed bring truth to the public consciousness. Of course, about a third of the public won't believe that truth. 

Of course, about a third of the public won't believe that truth.

Trump's most truthful statement ever was that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone... and not lose a single supporter...

'Sounds more like defecation'.

I don't hear Rump speaking at the moment.  

The CRIME was Cohen and Pecker paying hush money to Daniels and McDougal to protect Trump's campaign, I.E illegal campaign donations.

No crime here, since there is a reasonable expectation that Trump would have paid the money anyways without being in a political campaign.  That statute regarding campaign contributions states it is only illegal if the person would not have paid except for being in a political campaign.  Also, it is a civil fine not an impeachable offense.  If it was, then Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have been impeached for accepting illegal donations.

Actually, Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump, NOT to 'save his own skin'. DO try to keep up.

Did I say had or has in my sentence?  I said WILL in other words, in the future.  You know the reasons that are there: to reduce his sentence since everyone involved seemed to be more interested in nailing Trump rather than actually investigating whether Russia was interfering in our elections.

So, you are relying on Grand Jury testimony as being everything needed to prove guilt?  Sounds like you are desperate, since Grand Juries only hear evidence that could be considered damning and no exculpatory evidence.  Locked in Grand Jury testimony are only good if you find out later that the person who gave the testimony perjured themselves.  Otherwise, it is nothing more than a piece of Confederate money, only good for those that are collecting it and others that want it.

No crime here, since there is a reasonable expectation that Trump would have paid the money anyways without being in a political campaign. 

Only a sycophant would believe that. 

That statute regarding campaign contributions states it is only illegal if the person would not have paid except for being in a political campaign. 

I won't even ask you to support that by posting the statute because it's ridiculous on it's face. READ Cohen's plea agreement tom. NO JUDGE would have allowed him to plead guilty to something that is not a crime. 

Also, it is a civil fine not an impeachable offense. 

Do you realize that the Trump campaign has yet to amend it's financial records to reflect those donations tom? Do you realize that those donations are felonies? Do you realize that conspiring to commit a felony is a felony? 

If it was, then Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have been impeached for accepting illegal donations.

Obama amended his financial records and paid a fine. Obama's violations were 'technical', NOT intentional. Trump's were intentional, included a conspiracy to commit and still ongoing. Your false equivalency is noted. 

I love it!

The best defense for Trump is..."It's not illegal."

Cohen plead guilty to the crime because he claimed he made the payments as a campaign contribution.  Trump has denied that he ordered Cohen to make the payments as part of his campaign.  Trump has made many different similar arrangements in the past when he was not running for President, so therefore it is reasonable that Trump did not commit a crime or conspire to commit a crime when Trump did not make an unusual payment to someone that he had a settlement with.  The fact that you conveniently ignore that fact is troubling as that means you cannot set aside your bias to come to an honest opinion or observation of an event, at all.

Yes, it is, since it is the reality.  How much did you salivate over the accusation that Trump made an illegal campaign contribution by paying Stormy Daniels?  Remember, Hillary insider Lanny Davis is Cohen's attorney.  Frankly, I would love to see an ethics investigation into Lanny Davis for not working in his client's best interest and, instead, working for the best interests of his former employer and the Democratic National Committee.

How much did you salivate over the accusation that Trump made an illegal campaign contribution by paying Stormy Daniels?

Your choice of words is... interesting...

I do not "salivate" when I hear of yet another despicable act by Trump. I am nauseated and angry. Trump is the President of the United States, so each time, I feel sick for the country. I wonder if America will ever recover from Trump's wanton destruction of everything decent in this country.

I remember leading Republicans "hoping Obama would fail"; not caring that a President's failure is necessarily also the nation's failure. I don't make that mistake. Trump's errors and failures... and crimes... impact the nation. Perhaps irreversibly.

Cohen plead guilty to the crime because he claimed he made the payments as a campaign contribution. 

Cohen plead guilty because a Grand Jury found that substantive evidence had been presented that PROVED that he, Trump, Weissleberg and Pecker conspired to catch and kill the stories of 2 women  that Trump fucked, from the electorate. THOSE donations were presented to the Grand Jury as campaign finance violations and Cohen WAIVED his right to be indicted by the Grand Jury and consented to being charged by information garnered during Grand Jury testimony and the investigation. 

Trump has denied that he ordered Cohen to make the payments as part of his campaign. 

Trump is a liar. You know it, I know it, EVERYONE knows it. Both Weisselberg's and Pecker's testimony to the Grand Jury refute Trump's LIE. 

The Judge in Cohen's case ACCEPTED Cohen's plea and elocution of his violation of campaign finance laws. Cohen cited 'Individual 1' in his elocution and the Judge KNOWS who the identity of 'Individual 1'. Cohen confirmed, under oath, that Trump is 'Individual 1'. 

NO Judge would accept such a plea if the evidence did not support the facts as elocuted by the defendant. 

Trump has made many different similar arrangements in the past when he was not running for President, so therefore it is reasonable that Trump did not commit a crime or conspire to commit a crime when Trump did not make an unusual payment to someone that he had a settlement with. 

You don't seem to have a grasp the fact that as a candidate for Federal office, Trump was controlled by campaign finance regulations. As a private citizen and serial adulterer, Trump can legally catch and kill stories, to keep his wife in the dark, all he wants. As a candidate, he cannot conspire to keep the electorate in the dark. 

The fact that you conveniently ignore that fact is troubling as that means you cannot set aside your bias to come to an honest opinion or observation of an event, at all.

Actually tom, YOU are the one who is 'conveniently ignoring facts'.

As a candidate for ANY Federal office, Trump's acceptance of monetary donations is REGULATED and Trump KNEW the limitations of those regulations. He accepted Cohen's donation, which violated to maximum amount and Pecker's donation which was over the maximum amount and also violated to prohibition for accepting corporate donations. Trump didn't report EITHER donation. 

The conspiracy and it's corrupt intent are CRIMINAL. 

In other words, he DID NOT coordinate with the democrats, for fucks sake

The problem is it's not unreasonable. Cohen is a liar. He pled guilty to doing exactly that. Now we're just supposed to ignore that?

If Trump is guilty of something I hope he gets justice. Having said that, the Dems are willing to take this guy as gospel not because they are convinced he's telling the truth. They couldn't care less about that. Cohen is saying what they want to hear and that's really all that matters. I think the Repubs would do the same damn thing if the situation was reversed. Our whole government is a clown show and it makes me sick to watch. 

Our whole government is a clown show and it makes me sick to watch. 

Spot on.   Unfortunately.

the Dems are willing to take this guy as gospel not because they are convinced he's telling the truth. They couldn't care less about that. Cohen is saying what they want to hear and that's really all that matters.

Trump chose to maintain Cohen as his personal lawyer for over a decade. If you're investigating Trump's behavior, isn't it necessary to call Cohen to testify?

If you must exclude all who have been charged or convicted... there's no one left. Do you find it significant that everyone close to Trump is a criminal? Do you imagine that he is pristine in the midst of all that filth?

That's not true, not even close.

In saying that, Wally... you are saying a LOT about yourself...

If you believe it, you have not been paying attention. And if you do not believe it, you're intentionally talking bullshit.

I worry about you Wally. I imagine you as a nice young man, looking for his way... and in the process of taking the wrong path...

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I think the whole shebang is ridiculous. Dems hated him as a liar, now love him because he's saying things they want to hear. How are we supposed to know whether a convicted liar is telling the truth? The Dems don't seem to care about that, though, as long as they hear things that they can use. I also believe that if things were reversed, I'd be saying the same things about Republicans. It's a contest of who can spin the best. The whole thing makes me sick. I think this country might do better if we fired everyone in Congress and the Whitehouse and just drew names out of a hat to replace them. 

What do cops do? They listen to lies all day long. They weave bits from here with bits from there, and try to come up with a coherent story of what happened.

When AOC questioned Cohen, she didn't indicate in any way whether she believed him or not. She asked who could corroborate. Cohen named names. Now the committee will listen to those people....

We won't get "the truth" from any one single source, but we may get a pretty good version when all the testimony is in.

If Trump is guilty of something I hope he gets justice.

Not possible outside a courtroom.  Trump either has to be indicted or impeached.  Everyone is claiming there is a need to indict or impeach Trump but, apparently, no one is willing to actually do what is needed.

At some point the rubber has to meet the road.  Otherwise all of this is just political theater.

Some of these Republicans are either total dumbasses or simply incredibly dense. Both.

I wonder if Donald Trump came before their committee to testify , for some reason, would they spend every second of their questioning time asking him why he lies so much, or why he is a known fraud and cheat, or why he paid off mistresses right before the election.

Somehow I doubt they would ask those questions. If Cohen is not believable because he is a liar, then please, what the fock is trump then?

It is LAUGHABLE to watch Republican after Republican sit there and call Cohen a liar, and ask no other questions.

How do YOU think these Republicans would treat Trump if he were in Cohen's chair?

It is LAUGHABLE to watch Republican after Republican sit there and call Cohen a liar, and ask no other questions.

If you believe he is a liar - and I don't know why you wouldn't - then what would be the point in asking him any questions? It's safe to assume you'll be getting some lies back.

Any Republican asking a question, really only has one question to ask: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now and can you prove that you are not lying now?"

do u understand there were consequences if he lied ?

Since Cohen said he saw no collusion, is that a lie as well? Considering he cannot be trusted to tell the truth...

Or do you believe that the convicted liar is telling the truth there and no where else?

Yeah, just more of the same consequences that he is already facing for lying to Congress in his original testimony, which he plead guilty to.  And, he did not present any evidence that what he was saying now was the truth.  He held up checks without memos saying what they were for and said that they were repayments for illegal payments to Stormy Daniels.  Frankly, paying someone for a legal agreement, which is what a Non-Disclosure Agreement is, is not illegal, or every single company executive, lawyer, and human resource specialist would be in jail for having people sign NDAs and paying them for working there.

It is a common tactic of liars to throw actual truths into their bundle of lies.  Bill Clinton did that quite often even after he was impeached for perjury, or do you not remember that?

'If you believe he is a liar - and I don't know why you wouldn't - then what would be the point in asking him any questions? It's safe to assume you'll be getting some lies back.'

Safe to assume?  Nonsense.  He is spending three years in prison.  He got in trouble for lying before.  HE'S NOT LYING NOW.  

Prove it.

Manafort is showing what happens if you lie after accepting a deal with Mueller.

You also need to keep one small detail in mind, Cohen is answering questions from Congress UNDER OATH, Trump runs away crying anytime anyone suggests he comes in for questioning UNDER OATH.

Cohen has already been caught and charged with lying to the FBI and Congress, if he gets caught again he may die in prison like Manafort most likely will.  He has nothing to gain for more lies.

If you believe he is a liar - and I don't know why you wouldn't - then what would be the point in asking him any questions? It's safe to assume you'll be getting some lies back.

By that standard, Trump shouldn't be asked another question in his natural lifetime. 

It's ironic that there are quite a few Trump aids and Cabinet members that lied to Congress and they are still believed by the right. 

Hell, K.T. McFarlan lied multiple times to Congress and Trump STILL nominated her to be the Ambassador to Singapore. After being caught in her lie, MONTHS LATER, she amended her Congressional testimony AND her statement to Mueller. I wonder why the 'law and order' Trump DOJ hasn't prosecuted HER. 

Bet y'all see her on Fox as a 'respected pundit'. 

By that standard, Trump shouldn't be asked another question in his natural lifetime. 

Is that so? How do you figure? Has Trump lied under oath? Has he been convicted of criminal fraud? Cohen has. If you're going to cite the standard, you better make sure you're actually using it right.

You said that before in this seed and it's still false. 

Is that so? How do you figure? Has Trump lied under oath? Has he been convicted of criminal fraud? Cohen has. If you're going to cite the standard, you better make sure you're actually using it right.

If YOU'RE going to SET a standard, you better stick to it. This is the standard YOU set:

If you believe he is a liar - and I don't know why you wouldn't

Now you pretend outrage AFTER trying to ADD 'lied under oath' or 'convicted of criminal fraud' to your standard.

BAD FORM, BAD FAITH. 

What is false?

[deleted]

READ my comment @3.3.9 tom. I explained it to you quite clearly there. 

BAD FAITH

What a great example of political bias, by itself, leading to accusations of lying. We see this every day with Trump and the leftist politicians and media. You do it, too. And feely. Without any respect for the people you accuse. Without any allowance for them simply having a difference of opinion.

Cohen has pled guilty in court to these things. That's a solid reason for treating him as an unreliable witness. That's a whole other level than you or some partisan congressman trying to push propaganda about the president being a liar simply because you want political power.

What a great example of political bias, by itself, leading to accusations of lying.

Bullshit Tacos!. You know me well enough to know that if I intended to call a statement a lie I would have done just that. 

We see this every day with Trump and the leftist politicians and media. You do it, too. And feely. Without any respect for the people you accuse. Without any allowance for them simply having a difference of opinion.

This isn't about a difference of opinion Tacos!. You set a standard, changed it and then whined about it. That's not opinion, that's a fact. 

You don't seem to want anyone to recognize that YOU accused ME of not using YOUR standard 'right'. YOU want ME to ignore the fact that you tried to change YOUR stated standard. I refused. Deal with it. 

Cohen has pled guilty in court to these things. That's a solid reason for treating him as an unreliable witness.

Yet you did NOT cite that as part of YOUR standard, did you? 

That's a whole other level than you or some partisan congressman trying to push propaganda about the president being a liar simply because you want political power.

As I said before, I am not taking Cohen's testimony on face value. I DO however take the context into account and the DOCUMENTS that he provided as evidence.

Those documents are easily verifiable and Cohen's statements about the campaign finance conspiracy is documented in his plea agreement. THAT conspiracy is documented based on Weisselberg's and Pecker's Grand Jury testimony, facts of which were signed off on by the prosecuting and defense lawyers and agreed to by the Judge. 

THAT is what I rely on to come to the judgement that Trump LIED about the payoffs and entered into a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws. 

Your rebut is 'nu uh'. 

So that is your excuse? He is not to be trusted, a compulsive liar and a scumbag but they always throw some nugget of truth in there.

Then have to use a Clinton as some sort of example.

The way people will twist themselves into knots to defend this president is amazing.

You know me well enough to know that if I intended to call a statement a lie I would have done just that.

You did. Maybe you should study the term "bad faith" a little bit. Accusing someone of it doesn't mean respectful, honest disagreement. You aren't observing that they are making a mistake. It means you are saying they are dishonest, intentionally deceptive - a liar.

It means you are saying they are dishonest, intentionally deceptive - a liar.

As I said, if I meant that your comment was a lie, I would have said just that.

As for being intentionally deceptive...exactly. Hence my use of BAD FAITH. 

BTFW Tacos!, IF you actually think I called you a liar, flag my post and stop whining...

I threw Clinton in there because he was the best example of what I was referring to.  Just because you are too partisan and biased to form an honest opinion does not mean that I am not.  You need to set aside your biases, particularly in cases like this.  We have a known perjury committing even more perjury as shown by Jim Jordan's and Mike Meadows' letter to William Barr referring Cohen for even more perjury charges after yesterday's farce.

I am not the one saying that he is full of shit and his word cannot be taken, unless it is what I consider a nugget of truth.

I threw Clinton in there because he was the best example of what I was referring to. 

Actually, Clinton isn't a 'convicted liar' so he isn't the 'best example'. 

You need to set aside your biases, particularly in cases like this.

Ditto. 

BTW, it's hypocritical to call for setting aside bias and then citing the machinations of Jordon and Meadows. 

Actually, Clinton isn't a 'convicted liar' so he isn't the 'best example'.

Nixon? Agnew?

oh, wait... Republicans...

IOKIYAR

yup

One of these dumbasses, Mr Higgins, repeatedly asked Cohen why he hadn't turned the check over to the authorities.

Cohen looked understandably dumfounded.  The checks, along with a lot of other material , were seized by the government when they raided Cohen's office. The government used that material to get a guilty plea from Cohen. After the adjudication of that case the checks were returned back to Cohen by the prosecutors. That is why he has them.

The Republican Higgins , who evidently was a rural sheriff somewhere before he entered Congress, looks like a dumbass. Is there no one smarter in those areas that could be sent to Congress?

Not just Higgins John.

You gotta love Jordan jumping on his 'truthful testimony' statement. It's obvious that Jordan didn't understand the document himself but of course once that was explained to him, rather than apologizing, him kept on attacking. 

Is there no one smarter in those areas that could be sent to Congress?

That's a problem. There are of course some very smart rural sheriffs... but because they're smart, they keep their mouths shut.

And don't run for Congress

And don't run for Congress

That too...

We have a convicted liar, swearing against a documented liar on questions from congressional liars.

I have to question the mind and motivation of anyone that finds these times and this situation tolerable.....

It’s been that way my entire life. You can best tolerate it by trying to keep it as small and unintrusive as possible. It is government not to be trusted and not to be expanded or you just end up with more of this. It’s hard to believe but some people want a national service program that forces people against their will to work for these people. 

If we get better citizens, we will get better government.  Its not about working for these people, but for the betterment of America as a whole.

These concepts I know will never register with you Dean.  You always seemed look at anyone that has served in uniform, or in government service as "chumps" or "takers".  Furthermore, since it doesn't have a financial add to your bottom line, the concept of country, or patriotism might as well not exist in your world.     

I have nothing against those that choose to serve and I’m sure it has been a great choice for many of them. I am totally against government forcing people to serve. I believe Carter was right when the first thing he did as President was to pardon the draft dodgers. 

We have a convicted liar, swearing against a documented liar on questions from congressional liars.

And it's against the law to lie to Congress? They lie to us

Are you fine with Trump, who will most likely be indicted by NY

I'm fine with him ending up wearing a numbered jumper that matches his complexion for the next 30 years.....

The funniest if not saddest thing is some republicans crying, he is a convicted liar.

Nothing he says can be trusted. Then Cohen says, I saw no immediate proof that trump colluded with Russia.

Then all the sudden it is, see? I told you so.

After saying that every word he utters is bullshit, that one sentence is gospel and the absolute truth.

So everything he says is a lie except what they want to hear.

stop !!

making sense, damnet

why should i start now ?

If Trump doesn't have to...

Maybe you could start.

I understand what he says. You...not so much

I understand igknorantzrulz very clearly and he makes perfect sense. 

Trump retained Cohen as his personal lawyer for ten years. So there are a very few possibilities:

- Trump had a close relationship for ten years without ever realizing that Cohen is a sleazeball. That is to say, Trump is a gullible fool. Not likely.

- Trump knew perfectly well that Cohen is a sleazeball, and was comfortable enough with that to retain him for ten years. Possible.

- Trump retained Cohen because he knew Cohen is a sleazeball, and therefore would not hesitate to execute whatever sleazy actions Trump needed. Very likely.

- Trump had a close relationship for ten years without ever realizing that Cohen is a sleazeball. That is to say, Trump is a gullible fool. Not likely.

- Trump knew perfectly well that Cohen is a sleazeball, and was comfortable enough with that to retain him for ten years. Possible.

- Trump retained Cohen because he knew Cohen is a sleazeball, and therefore would not hesitate to execute whatever sleazy actions Trump needed. Very likely.

Actually, I'd pick all 3. 

Trump is a gullible person who will accept anyone who pledges loyalty to him whether they're being honest about it or not.

Trump originally hired Cohen because he thought he was a sleaze ball to do his bidding.

Trump retained Cohen because he discovered just how big a sleazeball he is, and utilized him more and more for his questionable and out right illegal jobs.

Trump is a gullible person who will accept anyone who pledges loyalty to him...

Good point.

It's fascinating!

Our conservative members are going crazy, trying to defend the indefensible... all the while wondering what will be the next facts that they will have to deny, forever defending the indefensible...

Three years of hair on fire Trump crap?

Thirty years of hair on fire Clinton crap?

Whatever.  The Clinton's testified under oath.  In a few cases, for hours.

Trump?  Has never testified under oath.  Wonder what he's made of?  Not much I bet.

"Crooked Hillary, Mexico will pay for the wall and I've got the biggest brain."  Well Trump, prove it.

Whatever.  The Clinton's testified under oath.  In a few cases, for hours. Trump?  Has never testified under oath.  Wonder what he's made of?  Not much I bet.

So, impeach Trump already.  Get on with it. 

Republicans did impeach Clinton.  Democrats never got around to impeaching Nixon.  And looks like Democrats are trying to avoid impeaching Trump.

I never mentioned 'impeach'.  You did.

But why will the Trump not testify under oath?  The answer; he can't.

A lot of questions.  Helsinki?  What happened there?

I never mentioned 'impeach'.  You did.

Yes you did by bringing Clinton into the discussion.  That thirty years of Clinton crap includes appearances before courts and an impeachment.

But why will the Trump not testify under oath?  The answer; he can't.

Testify to who?  Trump hasn't been required to appear before a court.  And the only way Trump can be required to testify before Congress is to impeach Trump.

A lot of questions.  Helsinki?  What happened there?

Yes there are a lot of questions.  But no one in Congress is doing what is necessary to obtain answers to those questions.

Nothing.

You must have missed the dust stains on Trump's knees. 

The Clinton's testified under oath

And lied like a cheap rug. 

Prove it.

Bill admitted he lied and paid a large fine, was impeached, and was disbarredfor it. 

Hillary testified that there was no classified material on her home server. They found thousands. 

She said she turned in all work related emails. I they found 30000 that she failed to submit

Prove it.

Prove that or is that comment just more republican claptrap

Prove what part? 

Your comment only has ONE part. 

Take your mittens off and count again. 

I think we are looking for a link

oh boy, the Who cares - I care debate....

Lying politicians.....

One liar some cares about, another they couldn't care less.

T-rump shouldn't be in office cause he's a liar... But Hillary should (according to some) and she is just as big if not bigger liar....

Let the hypocrisy of who's whose liar be for a change and just accept that they ALL are liars?

Unless you really want to go down the great hypocrisy revealing path of who's lies are more believable than the others?

' and she is just as big if not bigger liar...'

BULLSHIT!

Should we believe a word he says?

Did you notice: None of the Republicans on the committee contradicted Cohen. Not one of them disagreed. Not one of them said we should believe Trump rather than Cohen.

Significant, I think....