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
Who is online
49 visitors
The media is trying to create a Biblical story: Michael in the liar's den.
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.
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.
I care. My family cares. My friends care. My neighbors care.
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.
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]
Ditto. The "so who cares" or "so what, who cares" are the empty terms that those who don't want to think for themselves, or can't, use to try to deflect from their own lack of credibility and willingness to think beyond their own prejudices.
Trump was a known con man and liar long before he took over the WH, and there is even less reason for him to change into a stand up person when he has the world at his command.
Stupidity and ignorance, like cancer, do not discriminate, and it seems that there are indeed a lot of people who are afflicted and can't see the forest for the deflective trees.
Dear Friend SMAAB: Us too.
P&AB.
Enoch.
I care, everyone should care. Republicans spend the entire day whining about how much Michael Cohen lies, yet have no problem with Trumps lies, which dwarf Cohens. Forget we hear them every day? Nobody in the world trusts Trump, and Cohen has nothing to lose unless he lies now.
I rarely say anything about politics, but I have to agree with Lib. There is so much lying going on now, that it is almost refreshing to hear an honest word from a politician. Cohen and Trump were company for many years. Birds of a feather. Yes, Cohen has lied, but our President does plenty himself. Now the republicans care about lying? I realize that I am not a partisan, but this is exactly why I am not. If everyone cared about lying, they wouldn't accept it from their politicians, but they do, just the ones that fit their agendas.
That's why you're here everyday all day explaining his lies for us Wally.
For the campaign finance crimes, Cohen isn't the star witness, Weisselberg is...
Perrie, give us the names of a few Democrats who lie like Donald Trump does.
We tend to remember more about the more recent presidents. Presidents that we only know from history are substantially immunized by that.
But I can confidently say that Trump is the most dishonest president I have seen in my lifetime.
Thing is, the point really is not who is the biggest liar, but the fact that the truth seems to be the first casualty of politics - especially at the federal level. But we keep voting liars into office.
It is very tough to find a politician that one could comfortably label as generally honest. There are but a few in my estimation.
John... John... John!
You know that Perrie will sit on her "both sides do it" fence until hell freezes over.
And this is why I don't waste my breath on these kinds of articles. Thanks Bob and John for providing the proof I needed.
Hi, Perrie ...
I note than you don't dispute what I said. That's a pity. I'd be very happy to have you prove me wrong.
There is a difference between lying and PERJURY. What Trump and ALL politicians do are tell lies on the campaign trail and to the public. Some of those lies are designed to PROTECT American interests and security. Other lies are made to gain a political advantage over a political opponent and sometimes over a foreign entity. So, until Trump commits perjury and Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, et al stop lying about why they are taking certain actions; I will continue to support Donald Trump. Michael Cohen, on the other hand, committed perjury again multiple times in this latest farce of an "Oversight" aka "Get Trump At All Costs" hearing as shown by the Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows 30-page letter to William Barr stating where and when Cohen lied under oath and therefore committed perjury once again:
Okay, I don't know why the link is not showing as a link to the pdf of the letter.
I guess I don't understand that.
Not caring if an elected official lied right to ones face.
Unless they get caught and have to testify.
It's simple, Ender.
Tom cannot say the lies bother him, because that would be a tacit recognition that Tump is not perfect... which is impossible for God's anointed.
I hope Wally is getting the big bucks for that horrendous job
It looks like Jordon and Meadows have issues with reading comprehension in relation to the truthful testimony form.
BTFW, Cohen has the right to review and amend his testimony. He has yet to be given that opportunity.
In FACT, a couple of Trump's minions have amended their Congressional testimony long after it was given. Both Sessions and McFarland come to mind. NEITHER of them were referred to the DOJ for perjury by the GOP.
So you disagree with the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, which cited as a count:
Judging from prior comments, I don't think they do.
See Bob, I don't feel the need to justify my position in politics to anyone. That is what makes me an independent. I realize that you as a partisan don't get that and never will, but you see, I am fine with you, just the way you are, even if we disagree.
Perjury is unfortunate lying when you get caught in a court of law. Right now, no politician has testified. Maybe if they did, they would get perjury slapped on them. That is the sole difference between Cohen and most of the other mega liars in our government.
I 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.
The lack of real evidence says no.
Actually there is a presence of real evidence-- and that evidence says yes:
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....
Did you think it through before posting?
Okay, point out the memo that says what that check is for? Oh, wait, YOU CAN'T.
Funny, since I have said that Pelosi and Schumer have lied. Just about every single politician has lied during their campaigns to the public. Pelosi and Schumer and the rest of the Democrats are lying by using numbers that are from a different year and don't use the current reported numbers by the CBP for opposing the wall. But, you are okay with that and in fact you and everyone else here whom support the Democrats like to ignore that mote in your eye while pointing out the beam in ours.
You're right, because you are not holding the Democrats to the same standard as you are holding Trump. It is the hypocrisy in your side of the debate that bothers me.
My post was about Trump.
That's hilarious.
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.
What hypocrisy is that tom? Is it decrying one person's one time PERJURY while embracing another's pathological lying, like yours?
Seriously tom, you accept Trump's lie that there IS a WALL.
When you accept the FACT that there isn't one, we can talk...
The Democrats on the panel keep saying that Republicans are unreasonably trying to distract and discredit the proceedings by intimating that Cohen is a liar who shouldn't be believed. As I watch, John Sarbanes just did this two minutes ago.
The problem is it's not unreasonable. Cohen is a liar. He pled guilty to doing exactly that. Now we're just supposed to ignore that?
Obviously.
Facts, facts, everywhere but honesty can't be found.
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.
No one is trying to swear Trump in as the source of truth to uncover some critical heretofore hidden conspiracy. It takes quite a leap of imagination to imagine that Cohen is the guy who will reliably and unimpeachably bring truth to the public consciousness.
Okay, so when someone lies under oath, aka commits perjury, we are supposed to accept everything they say after they admit to committing said perjury without asking whether he is lying now after having lied before? Frankly, if he had documents to back up his current claims, that would be one thing; but my understanding is that everything he is saying cannot be independently verified from another source. That means, whatever he says cannot be trusted to be the truth AT ALL.
It takes a rat to rat out a rat.
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.
Well it seems a simple thing to check with the bank and verify the authenticity of the check he submitted from Trump's personal account.
BTW, Cohen merely provided documentation of the information in his charging documents. Mueller and the SDNY have the other side of that documentation, the bank withdrawals when the checks signed by Don Jr and Trump were cashed...
Dulay,
Cohen plead guilty to perjury, you know LYING UNDER OATH to the VERY SAME BODY he just testified to today. Anyone accepting his word for anything or that checks that have no memo written on them describing what they were for as being evidence of him telling the truth is at best an idiot. For all we know, those checks were written for installments on a retainer. Also, there is no crime in paying someone over a legal agreement, otherwise every single Class Action Lawsuit settlement would be criminal. Stormy Daniels agreed to an NDA in exchange to being paid a certain amount. Trump having his lawyer handle the payments is not criminal otherwise nearly every single member of Congress (as many are lawyers) and every practicing attorney for business or civil law would be in jail.
There has been no evidence that Trump has lied under oath at any time. However, there is plenty of evidence that Cohen will lie just to try to save his own skin or tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth. As I stated before, the Republicans should have asked, "Are you lying now, or were you lying then in your previous testimony; and if you are telling the truth now, can you prove it?" All he had was accusations without proof and those Democrats behind this hearing are asking all of us to believe Cohen because he admitted to committing perjury before and is, supposedly, telling the truth now.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump, NOT to 'save his own skin'. DO try to keep up.
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.
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.
Deflection? Sounds more like defecation.
Only the obtuse would characterize the campaign finance conspiracy as 'heretofore hidden'.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Only a sycophant would believe that.
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.
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?
Obama amended his financial records and paid a fine. Obama's violations were 'technical', NOT intentional. Trump's were intentional, included a conspiracy to commit and still ongoing. Your false equivalency is noted.
I love it!
The best defense for Trump is..."It's not illegal."
Cohen plead guilty to the crime because he claimed he made the payments as a campaign contribution. Trump has denied that he ordered Cohen to make the payments as part of his campaign. Trump has made many different similar arrangements in the past when he was not running for President, so therefore it is reasonable that Trump did not commit a crime or conspire to commit a crime when Trump did not make an unusual payment to someone that he had a settlement with. The fact that you conveniently ignore that fact is troubling as that means you cannot set aside your bias to come to an honest opinion or observation of an event, at all.
Yes, it is, since it is the reality. How much did you salivate over the accusation that Trump made an illegal campaign contribution by paying Stormy Daniels? Remember, Hillary insider Lanny Davis is Cohen's attorney. Frankly, I would love to see an ethics investigation into Lanny Davis for not working in his client's best interest and, instead, working for the best interests of his former employer and the Democratic National Committee.
Your choice of words is... interesting...
I do not "salivate" when I hear of yet another despicable act by Trump. I am nauseated and angry. Trump is the President of the United States, so each time, I feel sick for the country. I wonder if America will ever recover from Trump's wanton destruction of everything decent in this country.
I remember leading Republicans "hoping Obama would fail"; not caring that a President's failure is necessarily also the nation's failure. I don't make that mistake. Trump's errors and failures... and crimes... impact the nation. Perhaps irreversibly.
Cohen plead guilty 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Spot on. Unfortunately.
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?
In saying that, Wally... you are saying a LOT about yourself...
If you believe it, you have not been paying attention. And if you do not believe it, you're intentionally talking bullshit.
I worry about you Wally. I imagine you as a nice young man, looking for his way... and in the process of taking the wrong path...
I don't think you understand what I am saying. I think the whole shebang is ridiculous. Dems hated him as a liar, now love him because he's saying things they want to hear. How are we supposed to know whether a convicted liar is telling the truth? The Dems don't seem to care about that, though, as long as they hear things that they can use. I also believe that if things were reversed, I'd be saying the same things about Republicans. It's a contest of who can spin the best. The whole thing makes me sick. I think this country might do better if we fired everyone in Congress and the Whitehouse and just drew names out of a hat to replace them.
What do cops do? They listen to lies all day long. They weave bits from here with bits from there, and try to come up with a coherent story of what happened.
When AOC questioned Cohen, she didn't indicate in any way whether she believed him or not. She asked who could corroborate. Cohen named names. Now the committee will listen to those people....
We won't get "the truth" from any one single source, but we may get a pretty good version when all the testimony is in.
Not possible outside a courtroom. Trump either has to be indicted or impeached. Everyone is claiming there is a need to indict or impeach Trump but, apparently, no one is willing to actually do what is needed.
At some point the rubber has to meet the road. Otherwise all of this is just political theater.
Some of these Republicans are either total dumbasses or simply incredibly dense. Both.
I wonder if Donald Trump came before their committee to testify , for some reason, would they spend every second of their questioning time asking him why he lies so much, or why he is a known fraud and cheat, or why he paid off mistresses right before the election.
Somehow I doubt they would ask those questions. If Cohen is not believable because he is a liar, then please, what the fock is trump then?
It is LAUGHABLE to watch Republican after Republican sit there and call Cohen a liar, and ask no other questions.
How do YOU think these Republicans would treat Trump if he were in Cohen's chair?
If you believe he is a liar - and I don't know why you wouldn't - then what would be the point in asking him any questions? It's safe to assume you'll be getting some lies back.
Any Republican asking a question, really only has one question to ask: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now and can you prove that you are not lying now?"
do u understand there were consequences if he lied ?
Since Cohen said he saw no collusion, is that a lie as well? Considering he cannot be trusted to tell the truth...
Or do you believe that the convicted liar is telling the truth there and no where else?
Yeah, just more of the same consequences that he is already facing for lying to Congress in his original testimony, which he plead guilty to. And, he did not present any evidence that what he was saying now was the truth. He held up checks without memos saying what they were for and said that they were repayments for illegal payments to Stormy Daniels. Frankly, paying someone for a legal agreement, which is what a Non-Disclosure Agreement is, is not illegal, or every single company executive, lawyer, and human resource specialist would be in jail for having people sign NDAs and paying them for working there.
It is a common tactic of liars to throw actual truths into their bundle of lies. Bill Clinton did that quite often even after he was impeached for perjury, or do you not remember that?
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.
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'.
Is that so? How do you figure? Has Trump lied under oath? Has he been convicted of criminal fraud? Cohen has. If you're going to cite the standard, you better make sure you're actually using it right.
You said that before in this seed and it's still false.
If YOU'RE going to SET a standard, you better stick to it. This is the standard YOU set:
Now you pretend outrage AFTER trying to ADD 'lied under oath' or 'convicted of criminal fraud' to your standard.
BAD FORM, BAD FAITH.
What is false?
READ my comment @3.3.9 tom. I explained it to you quite clearly there.
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.
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.
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.
Yet you did NOT cite that as part of YOUR standard, did you?
As I said before, I am not taking Cohen's testimony on face value. I DO however take the context into account and the DOCUMENTS that he provided as evidence.
Those documents are easily verifiable and Cohen's statements about the campaign finance conspiracy is documented in his plea agreement. THAT conspiracy is documented based on Weisselberg's and Pecker's Grand Jury testimony, facts of which were signed off on by the prosecuting and defense lawyers and agreed to by the Judge.
THAT is what I rely on to come to the judgement that Trump LIED about the payoffs and entered into a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.
Your rebut is 'nu uh'.
So that is your excuse? He is not to be trusted, a compulsive liar and a scumbag but they always throw some nugget of truth in there.
Then have to use a Clinton as some sort of example.
The way people will twist themselves into knots to defend this president is amazing.
You 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.
As I said, if I meant that your comment was a lie, I would have said just that.
As for being intentionally deceptive...exactly. Hence my use of BAD FAITH.
BTFW Tacos!, IF you actually think I called you a liar, flag my post and stop whining...
I threw Clinton in there because he was the best example of what I was referring to. Just because you are too partisan and biased to form an honest opinion does not mean that I am not. You need to set aside your biases, particularly in cases like this. We have a known perjury committing even more perjury as shown by Jim Jordan's and Mike Meadows' letter to William Barr referring Cohen for even more perjury charges after yesterday's farce.
I am not the one saying that he is full of shit and his word cannot be taken, unless it is what I consider a nugget of truth.
Actually, Clinton isn't a 'convicted liar' so he isn't the 'best example'.
Ditto.
BTW, it's hypocritical to call for setting aside bias and then citing the machinations of Jordon and Meadows.
Nixon? Agnew?
oh, wait... Republicans...
IOKIYAR
yup
One of these dumbasses, Mr Higgins, repeatedly asked Cohen why he hadn't turned the check over to the authorities.
Cohen looked understandably dumfounded. The checks, along with a lot of other material , were seized by the government when they raided Cohen's office. The government used that material to get a guilty plea from Cohen. After the adjudication of that case the checks were returned back to Cohen by the prosecutors. That is why he has them.
The Republican Higgins , who evidently was a rural sheriff somewhere before he entered Congress, looks like a dumbass. Is there no one smarter in those areas that could be sent to Congress?
Not just Higgins John.
You gotta love Jordan jumping on his 'truthful testimony' statement. It's obvious that Jordan didn't understand the document himself but of course once that was explained to him, rather than apologizing, him kept on attacking.
That's a problem. There are of course some very smart rural sheriffs... but because they're smart, they keep their mouths shut.
And don't run for Congress
That too...
We have a convicted liar, swearing against a documented liar on questions from congressional liars.
I have to question the mind and motivation of anyone that finds these times and this situation tolerable.....
It’s been that way my entire life. You can best tolerate it by trying to keep it as small and unintrusive as possible. It is government not to be trusted and not to be expanded or you just end up with more of this. It’s hard to believe but some people want a national service program that forces people against their will to work for these people.
If we get better citizens, we will get better government. Its not about working for these people, but for the betterment of America as a whole.
These concepts I know will never register with you Dean. You always seemed look at anyone that has served in uniform, or in government service as "chumps" or "takers". Furthermore, since it doesn't have a financial add to your bottom line, the concept of country, or patriotism might as well not exist in your world.
I have nothing against those that choose to serve and I’m sure it has been a great choice for many of them. I am totally against government forcing people to serve. I believe Carter was right when the first thing he did as President was to pardon the draft dodgers.
And it's against the law to lie to Congress? They lie to us
Are you fine with Trump, who will most likely be indicted by NY
I'm fine with him ending up wearing a numbered jumper that matches his complexion for the next 30 years.....
The funniest if not saddest thing is some republicans crying, he is a convicted liar.
Nothing he says can be trusted. Then Cohen says, I saw no immediate proof that trump colluded with Russia.
Then all the sudden it is, see? I told you so.
After saying that every word he utters is bullshit, that one sentence is gospel and the absolute truth.
So everything he says is a lie except what they want to hear.
stop !!
making sense, damnet
why should i start now ?
If Trump doesn't have to...
I understand what he says. You...not so much
I understand igknorantzrulz very clearly and he makes perfect sense.
Trump retained Cohen as his personal lawyer for ten years. So there are a very few possibilities:
- Trump had a close relationship for ten years without ever realizing that Cohen is a sleazeball. That is to say, Trump is a gullible fool. Not likely.
- Trump knew perfectly well that Cohen is a sleazeball, and was comfortable enough with that to retain him for ten years. Possible.
- Trump retained Cohen because he knew Cohen is a sleazeball, and therefore would not hesitate to execute whatever sleazy actions Trump needed. Very likely.
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.
Good point.
It's fascinating!
Our conservative members are going crazy, trying to defend the indefensible... all the while wondering what will be the next facts that they will have to deny, forever defending the indefensible...
Three years of hair on fire Trump crap?
Thirty years of hair on fire Clinton crap?
Whatever. The Clinton's testified under oath. In a few cases, for hours.
Trump? Has never testified under oath. Wonder what he's made of? Not much I bet.
"Crooked Hillary, Mexico will pay for the wall and I've got the biggest brain." Well Trump, prove it.
So, impeach Trump already. Get on with it.
Republicans did impeach Clinton. Democrats never got around to impeaching Nixon. And looks like Democrats are trying to avoid impeaching Trump.
I never mentioned 'impeach'. You did.
But why will the Trump not testify under oath? The answer; he can't.
A lot of questions. Helsinki? What happened there?
Yes you did by bringing Clinton into the discussion. That thirty years of Clinton crap includes appearances before courts and an impeachment.
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.
Yes there are a lot of questions. But no one in Congress is doing what is necessary to obtain answers to those questions.
You must have missed the dust stains on Trump's knees.
And lied like a cheap rug.
Prove it.
Bill admitted he lied and paid a large fine, was impeached, and was disbarredfor it.
Hillary testified that there was no classified material on her home server. They found thousands.
She said she turned in all work related emails. I they found 30000 that she failed to submit
Prove it.
Prove that or is that comment just more republican claptrap
Prove what part?
Your comment only has ONE part.
Take your mittens off and count again.
I think we are looking for a link
oh boy, the Who cares - I care debate....
Lying politicians.....
One liar some cares about, another they couldn't care less.
T-rump shouldn't be in office cause he's a liar... But Hillary should (according to some) and she is just as big if not bigger liar....
Let the hypocrisy of who's whose liar be for a change and just accept that they ALL are liars?
Unless you really want to go down the great hypocrisy revealing path of who's lies are more believable than the others?
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....