Convicted liar Michael Cohen is testifying about Trump – Should we believe a word he says?

  
Via:  nerm-l  •  3 weeks ago  •  232 comments

Convicted liar Michael Cohen is testifying about Trump – Should we believe a word he says?
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.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


After three years of relentless hair-on-fire Trump crap I don't believe anyone, anymore.

Come on, people, get off the crapper and flush it!

(Seeder's edit, just because ...)

Everyone already knows Trump is a liar.  People knew Trump was a liar when he defeated the other liar on the ballot.  

Another liar's 'truth' isn't going to tell people more than they already know.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Nerm_L
1  seeder  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @1    3 weeks ago

I believe everything Mr. Cohen said, EVERYTHING.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    3 weeks ago
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

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.2  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

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

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

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.1.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    3 weeks ago
I believe everything Mr. Cohen said, EVERYTHING. 

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

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.5  Dulay  replied to  katrix @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Nuance escapes them...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
Cohen says he saw no collusion therefore there must not have been collusion.

Are you aware of any collusion? Has anyone been charged with collusion? You can only look under so many rocks before you come to the collusion ( I mean conclusion) that collusion is just an illusion.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

le sigh

I'm not gonna diagram this sentence for you

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.7    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.10  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    3 weeks ago
Stone's indictment

Where in the Stone indictment is collusion with Russia mentioned?

Where in the Stone indictment is there conspiracy with Russia mentioned?

Where in the indictment does it state that the Trump campaign had anything to do with the emails from the DNC or Clinton?

Where in the indictment does it state the alleged emails in Wikileaks possession were from the Russians?

Where in the indictment does it mention any compensation to Russia or WikiLeaks for any emails?

Where in the indictment does it state the Trump campaign did anything wrong?

Where in the indictment does it state that Roger Stone is in control of stolen emails?

Where in the indictment does it state that Roger Stone released anyone's emails?

What is in the indictment that you feel is important to anyone?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.10    3 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.12  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
I suggest you READ it and answer those questions for yourself

So you have no answer because there is no connection between Trump and Russia, period, end of story.  Stone knows Assange, OK now what, you failed to make any connection whatsoever to Russia.  Mueller thinks Assange got the emails from the Russians, there's no proof of that.  He indicts a bunch of Russians, Hell.........he should indict Bigfoot while he's at it.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.13  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.12    2 weeks ago
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? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.14  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
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.

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

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.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.14    2 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.16  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
You know what a FISA warrant is FOR right? They surveilled Page to collect FORIEGN INTELLIGENCE

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

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.17  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.18  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.17    one week ago
It's in the fucking name...Sheesh. 

No shit it's in the name but WHY, you left this little tid-bit out or maybe you didn't know.. 

The authorization allows for wiretapping a "foreign power or an agent of a foreign power" (which could include American citizens) suspected to be engaged in espionage or terrorism.

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

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.18    one week ago
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...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.20  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.19    one week ago
Carter Page was engaged with 'agents of a foreign power'. That is a documented FACT

Where's the indictment?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.21  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.20    one week ago
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.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    one week ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.22    one week ago
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...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.23    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.24    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.26    one week ago
I know this sort of disingenuous argument works with your ignorant fellow travelers

Stopped reading there Sean. Stay classy.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.28  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.21    one week ago
As I said, there has never been a claim that Page was under investigation for committing a crime

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.29  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.28    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.30  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.29    one week ago
the misconception that all FISA warrants result in indictments

No not at all, but they have to show a criminal intent to get one. If they pick Page up on a FISA of a foreign agent that's fine, they have to show the court something to spy on an American, the government doesn't get to spy on every person that has talked to a bad actor overseas that's a ridiculous premise.  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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.30    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.32  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.31    one week ago
the Page parts of the dossier were found to be accurate

Ha!!!!! The dossier claims that Page met with Russians and discussed quid-pro-quo deals relating to sanctions and Russia's interference in the election. Show me ANYWHERE this has been proven!!!!! 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.33  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.32    one week ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.34  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.33    6 days ago
What page of the dossier is that on?

Company Intelligence Report 2016/94

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.36  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.34    6 days ago
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? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.37  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.36    6 days ago
doesn't mention Russian interference

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

That page doesn't mention ANY quid pro quo

OMG read the fucking dossier yourself. Look on page 134 same meeting more details!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#1265f7e68674

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/18/steele-dossier-michael-isikoff/2347833002/

https://nypost.com/2018/01/06/carter-page-rips-sleazeball-spy-behind-trump-dossier/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/17/carter-page-files-slander-lawsuit-over-russia-doss/

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.38  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.37    6 days ago
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.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.39  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.38    3 days ago
Oh and BTFW, the Page parts of the dossier were found to be accurate. 

Ok Einstein, show the parts of the dossier that are accurate, be specific note the pages. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.40  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.39    3 days ago

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. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.40    3 days ago
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. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.42  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.40    3 days ago

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

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

 once confronted at a hearing in Congress, UNDER OATH, Page FINALLY admitted that he DID meet with him. 

This has nothing to do with whether the information in the dossier is accurate about Page. I don't give a shit about Page meeting with some Russian, he met with many, many Russians before ever joining the Trump campaign. 

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

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.43  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.42    3 days ago
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. 

http://www.annotateddossier.com/documents.xhtml

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. 

 
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.44    3 days ago

No, your link doesn't support your claim.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.46  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.43    3 days ago
You just contradicted the first sentence of your comment. 

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

1.1.31 Dulay replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.30 

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. 

Blame me for deflecting when you are deflecting because you made a comment you can't back up, unless you want to try again.  Please tell me you have something relevant that shows "the Page parts are accurate".

                                       

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.47  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.46    3 days ago
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...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.48  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.47    2 days ago
So is it about the accuracy in the dossier or NOT?

If you could read it might help.

once confronted at a hearing in Congress, UNDER OATH, Page FINALLY admitted that he DID meet with him. This has nothing to do with whether the information in the dossier is accurate about Page. (Context matters)

Now that we are done with that deflection, provide the parts of the dossier that are accurate about Page and stop talking in circles this is the 4th request.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.49  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.44    2 days ago

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? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @1    3 weeks ago

'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.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
Removed for context

I do not agree.

The word "far" is erroneously restrictive.

 
 
 
luther28
2  luther28    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  luther28 @2    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.1  WallyW  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    3 weeks ago
Trump is a liar.

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

The big question is did Trump commit crimes?

The lack of real evidence says no.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
So what? Who cares?  It isn't relevant in today's partisan politics.

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

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
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]

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Enoch
2.1.6  Enoch  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

Dear Friend SMAAB: Us too.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Raven Wing @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
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.

     jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.8  lib50  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lib50 @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.11  WallyW  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
I care.  My family cares.  My friends care.  My neighbors care.

I don't care.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.12  WallyW  replied to  Raven Wing @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Whatever!

With this slug Cohen as their "star" witness, the Democrats have fired their last dud load. They gave it their best shot.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.1.13  SteevieGee  replied to  WallyW @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
I don't care.

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

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @2.1.12    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.9    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.15    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.15    3 weeks ago

John... John... John!

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

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.17    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.18    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.20  tomwcraig  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

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:

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-28-JDJ-MM-to-Barr-re-Cohen-DOJ-Referral.pdf

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

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.21  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.20    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ender @2.1.21    3 weeks ago

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.   jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.13    3 weeks ago
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

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.24  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.20    3 weeks ago
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-28-JDJ-MM-to-Barr-re-Cohen-DOJ-Referral.pdf

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.20    3 weeks ago
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
 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.22    3 weeks ago
Tom cannot say the lies bother him

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

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.27  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.19    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.20    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.27    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.30  Krishna  replied to  WallyW @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

The lack of real evidence says no.

Actually there is a presence of real evidence-- and that evidence says yes:

512

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
2.1.31  Nowhere Man  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.29    3 weeks ago
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....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.31    3 weeks ago
And WE, say the exact same thing about you guys....

Did you think it through before posting?    jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.33  tomwcraig  replied to  Krishna @2.1.30    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.34  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.22    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.1.35  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @2.1.26    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.36  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.34    3 weeks ago

My post was about Trump.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.37  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.35    3 weeks ago
You're right, because you are not holding the Democrats to the same standard as you are holding Trump.

That's hilarious.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.38  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.35    3 weeks ago
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? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.39  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.1.34    3 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks 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?

Obviously.  

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    3 weeks ago
Some are willing to believe ANYBODY if they dish out some dirt on Trump.

Again...some are willing to DISMISS anybody "if they dish out some dirt on trump." The guy is as dirty as they come. When all is said and done, some still believe that HIS incessant lies will be his undoing, regardless of the tiresome discounting of the litany of compatriots that have lied for him. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 weeks ago
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???

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.4    3 weeks ago
'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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.4    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    3 weeks ago
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.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.7    3 weeks ago
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".

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    3 weeks ago
Didn't claim it did

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

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.9    3 weeks ago

impasse

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    3 weeks ago

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]

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Dulay @3.3    3 weeks ago
The irony of the GOP harping on Cohen lying while insisting that we're supposed to ignore that Trump lies multiple times every day. 

Desperate times call for desperate deflection. Examples to follow...ad nauseam.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @3.3    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @3.3    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.4  MUVA  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.3    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.2    3 weeks ago

It takes a rat to rat out a rat. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.6  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.3    3 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.7  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @3.3.6    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.3.4    3 weeks ago
'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?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.9  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.7    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @3.3.9    3 weeks ago
'So you're claim that Cohen had no proof is false.'

Same shit, different day.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.7    3 weeks ago
'There has been no evidence that Trump has lied under oath at any time.'

When has Rump ever been under oath?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.3.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  r.t..b... @3.3.1    3 weeks ago

Deflection? Sounds more like defecation.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.2    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @3.3.13    3 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.12    3 weeks ago
'Sounds more like defecation'.

I don't hear Rump speaking at the moment.  

 
 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.16  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @3.3.9    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.17  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.16    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.16    3 weeks ago

I love it!

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

 
 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.19  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @3.3.17    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
3.3.20  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.18    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.20    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.22  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @3.3.19    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.23  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.8    3 weeks ago

He sure did just because you don't know he has doesn't mean it didn't happen for fuck sakes.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.3.24  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.3.23    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks 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?

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4    3 weeks ago
Our whole government is a clown show and it makes me sick to watch. 

Spot on.   Unfortunately.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.4.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
WallyW
3.4.3  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.2    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.4.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @3.4.3    3 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.4.5  Drakkonis  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.4.2    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.4.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.4.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Tacos! @4.1    3 weeks ago

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?"

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

do u understand there were consequences if he lied ?

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.3  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.1.5  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1    3 weeks ago
'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.  

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.7  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @4.1.7    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1    3 weeks ago
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'. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.10    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.1.13  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    3 weeks ago

What is false?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.13    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.13    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.12    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.16    3 weeks ago
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'. 

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.18  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.17    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.19    3 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.1.21  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.22  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.21    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.23  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.1.21    3 weeks ago
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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @4.1.23    3 weeks ago
Actually, Clinton isn't a 'convicted liar' so he isn't the 'best example'.

Nixon? Agnew?

oh, wait... Republicans...

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.24    3 weeks ago

IOKIYAR

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @4.1.25    3 weeks ago

yup

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago

What Cohen said, or says going forward, he has no corroborating evidence to back up his words. So we can assume, in good faith, that he is lying in the hopes of getting a shorter sentence.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.1  katrix  replied to  WallyW @4.2    3 weeks ago
So we can assume, in good faith, that he is lying in the hopes of getting a shorter sentence.

No, we can't.  He's already been sentenced.  His testimony to Congress will not do anything to get him a shorter sentence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
'No, we can't.  He's already been sentenced.  His testimony to Congress will not do anything to get him a shorter sentence.'

EXACTLY!  I think that's what the turd Rump said also.  He's doing three years.  Why would he lie now?

How would you know he has no corroborating evidence to back up his words Wally?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @4.2    3 weeks ago
So we can assume, in good faith, that he is lying in the hopes of getting a shorter sentence.

Wally, do you ever actually watch the news?  He's been sentenced, if he lies to Congress again it will INCREASE his prison time, not SHORTEN it.  He has nothing to gain from lying to Congress.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
His testimony to Congress will not do anything to get him a shorter sentence.

It absolutely could. And you better believe he will seek it.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 35(b): 

(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.
(1) In General. Upon the government's motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.
 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.4    3 weeks ago
It absolutely could. And you better believe he will seek it.

That would have to be based on TRUTHFUL testimony, wouldn't it Tacos!? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.5    3 weeks ago
That would have to be based on TRUTHFUL testimony, wouldn't it Tacos!? 

Cohen's testimony could be 99 44/100% pure bullshit. It could also be overly dramatic truthful testimony that doesn't prove anything. Or it could be invaluable truthful testimony leading to proof of serious criminal wrongdoing.

But who determines that? It sure won't be a judge or jury.

Remember that impeachment is a political proceeding. Things like "beyond a reasonable doubt" aren't really required. The Federal Rules of Evidence will not constrain Democrats. If Democrats end up happy with the result, they may well invite the SDNY prosecutor to cut Cohen a break. That's all he needs.

Cohen doesn't need Trump to be prosecuted in a criminal court. That's not a requirement of the statute. And that's a good thing because 1) There's no way he'd be indicted while still in office, and 2) I'd bet real money that even a Democratic president would pardon him for the good of the country.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.6    3 weeks ago
But who determines that? It sure won't be a judge or jury.

Actually, it sure as hell WILL be a Judge. Though you want to conflate Cohen's charges with Impeachment, I refuse and prefer to stay on point. 

A Judge WILL decide if the prosecution's filing for a reduction in sentence is based on Cohen's truthful statements, the evidence presented and whether it constituted 'substantial assistance'.

If you had READ the transcript of Flynn's sentencing hearing, you'd have a pretty good idea of the process that Federal Judges go through to evaluate whether a defendant provided substantial assistance to the government worthy of a sentence reduction.

Remember that impeachment is a political proceeding.

Yes I know but impeachment is irrelevant to our discussion. 

I'd bet real money that even a Democratic president would pardon him for the good of the country.

I'd take that bet. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2    3 weeks ago

And don't run for Congress

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.1    3 weeks ago
And don't run for Congress

That too...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6  FLYNAVY1    3 weeks ago

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.....

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Dean Moriarty @6.1    3 weeks ago

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.     

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
6.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6    3 weeks ago
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

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.3  Don Overton  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.3.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Don Overton @6.3    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Ender
7  Ender    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1  MUVA  replied to  Ender @7    3 weeks ago

He is a admitted liar no one had to cry or anything he admitted it.

 
 
 
Ender
7.1.1  Ender  replied to  MUVA @7.1    3 weeks ago

So when Cohen says that he saw no collusion with trump and Russia, that is a lie?

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Everything he says can be a lie so how can you know when he is telling the truth [?deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
7.1.3  Ender  replied to  MUVA @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

If nothing is to be trusted, then nothing is to be trusted.

One cannot say that everything that he says is a lie, then pick a certain sentence out as truth.

Just because that one sentence follows their narrative.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

removed for context [SP]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
So when Cohen says that he saw no collusion with trump and Russia, that is a lie?

Was Cohen a part of Trump's campaign?

When he said that he didn't see it, that's what it meant HE DIDN'T SEE IT, does not address whether there was any.  He was aware of the Trump Tower meeting, but did not know what had occurred in the meeting until much later.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.6  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ender @7.1.3    3 weeks ago
If nothing is to be trusted, then nothing is to be trusted.

One cannot say that everything that he says is a lie, then pick a certain sentence out as truth.

Just because that one sentence follows their narrative.

That's correct.  Michael Cohen cannot be relied upon to provide anything of merit on any matter.

The televised committee hearing was a political farce deliberately intended to only influence public opinion.  The political theater provided nothing but propaganda.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

What propaganda?  More nonsense

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ender @7    3 weeks ago

stop !!

making sense, damnet

 
 
 
MUVA
7.2.1  MUVA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.2    3 weeks ago

Maybe you could start.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
7.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @7.2.1    3 weeks ago

why should i start now ?

If Trump doesn't have to...

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @7.2.1    3 weeks ago
Maybe you could start.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @7.2.1    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  MUVA @7.2.1    3 weeks ago

I understand igknorantzrulz very clearly and he makes perfect sense. 

 
 
 
MUVA
7.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.4    3 weeks ago

I'll try harder your opinion means the world to me Cohen told me to say that.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8  Bob Nelson    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @8    3 weeks ago
- 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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1    3 weeks ago
Trump is a gullible person who will accept anyone who pledges loyalty to him...

Good point.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9  Bob Nelson    3 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
WallyW
9.1  WallyW  replied to  Bob Nelson @9    3 weeks ago
all the while wondering what will be the next facts that they will have to deny, forever defending the indefensible...

Uh....I don't think that any credible facts have been presented. This hearing amounted to just another desperate to find "something impeachable" left wing clown show.

They're still talking about Stormy Daniels and hush money?  Oh dear!   jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @9.1    3 weeks ago
Our conservative members are going crazy...

I was talking about NT, Wally. Please pay attention.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10  bbl-1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @10    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
WallyW
10.1.2  WallyW  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    3 weeks ago
A lot of questions.  Helsinki?  What happened there?

Nothing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10.1.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.4  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @10.1.2    3 weeks ago
Nothing.

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

 
 
 
arkpdx
10.2  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10    3 weeks ago
The Clinton's testified under oath

And lied like a cheap rug. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @10.2    3 weeks ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
arkpdx
10.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10.2.1    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
WallyW
10.2.3  WallyW  replied to  arkpdx @10.2.2    3 weeks ago
I they found 30000 that she failed to submit

And several of those were marked SECRET and above, as Comey pointed out.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.2.4  bbl-1  replied to  WallyW @10.2.3    3 weeks ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.2.5  Don Overton  replied to  arkpdx @10.2    3 weeks ago

Prove that or is that comment just more republican claptrap

 
 
 
arkpdx
10.2.6  arkpdx  replied to  Don Overton @10.2.5    3 weeks ago

Prove what part? 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.2.7  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @10.2.6    3 weeks ago

Your comment only has ONE part. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
10.2.8  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @10.2.7    3 weeks ago

Take your mittens off and count again. 

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.9  lib50  replied to  arkpdx @10.2.8    3 weeks ago

I think we are looking for a link

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
11  Nowhere Man    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
12  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

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

BULLSHIT!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13  Bob Nelson    3 weeks ago

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....    jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη
14  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη    3 weeks ago

I've been following closely. I checked off several comments during the hearing on my Russian Conspiracy Monopoly game board.

Unfortunately I just drew a Jim Jordan card. Hopefully I'll get $200 when I pass Adam Schiff go.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
14.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Badfish Hαηd ⊕Ƒ †Hε Ωuεεη @14    3 weeks ago
Unfortunately I just drew a Jim Jordan card.

Just don't draw a Chance card saying you've won a wrestling shocker. $10 prize.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
Trout Giggles
Veronica
Freefaller
mocowgirl
cms5
FLYNAVY1
Jack_TX
Nerm_L
cjcold

Save Me Jebus
CB "The Member Formerly Known as Calbab."
Gordy327
Snuffy
Sparty On


105 visitors