Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes, that's what he said. So what makes you think there's an article?
Click to expand...

Because CNN has a website, as you know.

It appears clear that there is no article, and what we have is Seth Abamson claiming that there was a CNN “breaking news” segment (while cnn and every other channel was devoting coverage to the attacks in Syria) that said that A judge was “extremely frustrated” with Cohen’s lawyers.

Something I cannot find anywhere else on the internet.

Did you find it amusing because it is obviously bull **** from the idiot Seth Abramson?
 
The Big Dog said:
Because CNN has a website, as you know.
Click to expand...

I do. This does not imply that it is the only possible method by which they disseminate news.

It appears clear that there is no article, and what we have is Seth Abamson claiming that there was a CNN “breaking news” segment (while cnn and every other channel was devoting coverage to the attacks in Syria) that said that A judge was “extremely frustrated” with Cohen’s lawyers.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said, either.

You keep having to alter what he said in order to argue against it. Is this something you consider a valuable debating tactic? Are you even aware that you're doing so?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I do. This does not imply that it is the only possible method by which they disseminate news.

That's not what he said, either.

You keep having to alter what he said in order to argue against it. Is this something you consider a valuable debating tactic? Are you even aware that you're doing so?
Click to expand...

Really, that looks to be an extremely accurate summary of what Seth claimed. I notice that you don’t actually point out what was in accurate about it, and rather than supporting Seth’s claim you falsely claim that I have altered what he lied about. Lets take alook:

Seth's claim "This prediction from this morning has now been confirmed. CNN breaking news (8:15 PM EST) is that the judge in Cohen's case is now "extremely frustrated" with Cohen and his attorneys and spent the day chastising them in court."

My summary: Seth Abamson claiming that there was a CNN “breaking news” segment (while cnn and every other channel was devoting coverage to the attacks in Syria) that said that A judge was “extremely frustrated” with Cohen’s lawyers.

My summary is absolutely spot on. Do you think falsely claiming that my summary was not fair is a valuable debating tactic?

Make with some support about what Seth claimed because it is apparent Seth is full of ****.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
While amusing, perhaps the rest of us would be more interested in reading the cnn article. I have searched for it, but have not been able to locate it.

Can you link it?
Click to expand...

Avenatti was there watching it. Cohen claims he has all these protected attorney client communications and the US Attorney asked Cohen and his lawyers to produce a client list. A request the judge repeated which the lawyers failed to produce. The judge had other questions about Cohen's practice which were not or could be answered. The judge being frustrated with a lack of responses ordered that Cohen appear on Monday to fill in the blanks.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
My summary: Seth Abamson claiming that there was a CNN “breaking news” segment (while cnn and every other channel was devoting coverage to the attacks in Syria) that said that A judge was “extremely frustrated” with Cohen’s lawyers.
Click to expand...

If you have to add a word to what he said in order to make support your claim (which, incidentally, don't think I've noticed is different to your initial claim), then perhaps it's worth considering whether your claim is accurate.
 
The Big Dog said:
Because CNN has a website, as you know.

It appears clear that there is no article, and what we have is Seth Abamson claiming that there was a CNN “breaking news” segment (while cnn and every other channel was devoting coverage to the attacks in Syria) that said that A judge was “extremely frustrated” with Cohen’s lawyers.

Something I cannot find anywhere else on the internet.

Did you find it amusing because it is obviously bull **** from the idiot Seth Abramson?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he was referring to this segment:

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN JUSTICE & CRIME REPORTER: Well, I just walked out of the court. The judge adjourned this, yet again, to 4:00. And the question that the judge has, at this point, she wants to know what other clients Michael Cohen had that could be potentially affected by the seizure, by the search warrant that the FBI conducted at his home, at his office. And put it really to his attorneys, to Michael Cohen's attorneys, tell me what other clients does he have? Did he have that may have been affected by this. Or who could argue there's some privilege violation. And simply, Brooke, his attorneys, Michael Cohen's attorneys, could not do so. At one point, saying his attorney basically saying he doesn't know the answer to that. And that he thinks this is now Michael Cohen's attorney saying he thinks he had individual clients, other individual clients but he didn't have the answer for the judge. But the judge here was frustrated, and she basically said, well, maybe perhaps you should have your client here, Michael Cohen, so he can answer some of the questions.

Now we've adjourned to 4:00 because the judge, I mean, she's trying to move it along. She makes the point, the judge here, this is an emergency relief that was filed by Michael Cohen. They're the ones that are asking that the judge issue this restraining order. But, yet, all these answers and issues they say could come if the government started going through the documents they have yet to be able to answer.

So now we'll be back here at 4:00, hopefully, with some answers here from the judge as to what exactly is Michael Cohen asking for? We don't know. Because the judge seems certainly not getting the answers she wants -- Brooke?
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If you have to add a word to what he said in order to make support your claim (which, incidentally, don't think I've noticed is different to your initial claim), then perhaps it's worth considering whether your claim is accurate.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

No link, no explanation how my post substantively differs.

Blown away that at the extent of deliberate dissembling at this point.

Seth was lying
 
The Big Dog said:
:rolleyes:

No link, no explanation how my post substantively differs.

Blown away that at the extent of deliberate dissembling at this point.

Seth was lying
Click to expand...

I'm finding it a fascinating insight into how the information you're presented with changes by the time your process it. It's something I've seen from you before, but this is a strikingly clear and fascinating example of you believing reality to be what you'd like it to be, and altering the facts in order to allow yourself to believe that it is. It's especially interesting that in the space of a couple of posts you've managed to change from claiming Abramson was referring to one specific thing to claiming that he was referring to a different specific thing - and yet his words haven't changed and you're still claiming to be accurately summing up what he said.

And, if you really want to know how your summary of what Abramson said differs from what Abramson actually said, all you have to do is look at the information that's in your summary that isn't in what Abramson said. The things which are in your summary that aren't in what Abramson said are things that you've added.

I mean this completely sincerely and honestly - this is truly fascinating to observe.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm finding it a fascinating insight into how the information you're presented with changes by the time your process it. It's something I've seen from you before, but this is a strikingly clear and fascinating example of you believing reality to be what you'd like it to be, and altering the facts in order to allow yourself to believe that it is. It's especially interesting that in the space of a couple of posts you've managed to change from claiming Abramson was referring to one specific thing to claiming that he was referring to a different specific thing - and yet his words haven't changed and you're still claiming to be accurately summing up what he said.

And, if you really want to know how your summary of what Abramson said differs from what Abramson actually said, all you have to do is look at the information that's in your summary that isn't in what Abramson said. The things which are in your summary that aren't in what Abramson said are things that you've added.

I mean this completely sincerely and honestly - this is truly fascinating to observe.
Click to expand...

The only "fascinating" thing is that you have not supported Seth's claim in the slightest. I guess the substantive change you claim i made was the addition of the word "segment"? That is indeed fascinating.

Is it an article on the website? Nope
Is it something else? Who knows, you won't answer.

Another person here was kind enough to track down a transcript, which I do appreciate, as I did not find that despite looking in several different places. That was from mid-afternoon, and does not appear to be what Seth was relying on given the time frame. If it was, Seth was lying about the word "extremely frustrated."

Thanks to WilliamSeger however!
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Because you posted it in this thread, but next time let us know that you have no interest in supporting the links that you post here.
Click to expand...

I explicitly gave my reason for posting it when I posted it. You then quoted that reason. That you're now seemingly unaware of that reason seems like a you problem, not a me problem.

Perhaps if you paid more attention to what is, rather than what you think it ought to be, you'd fare better.
 
The Big Dog said:
That was from mid-afternoon, and does not appear to be what Seth was relying on given the time frame. If it was, Seth was lying about the word "extremely frustrated."
Click to expand...

Well, then, perhaps he was referring to an earlier, similar segment where the reporter said "extremely frustrated?" But are you changing your accusation from "lying" to "hyperbole?" It does sound to me that the judge was "extremely frustrated" that Cohen wasn't there and she wasn't getting the answers she needed to make a decision.
 
I was mistaken as to what can or cannot be passed on from the filter or taint team to the US Attorneys investigating Michael Cohen. Only relevant information to what is asked for in the search warrant that is not protected by attorney client privilege. So even if the taint team uncovered evidence to other totally unrelated crimes they may not pass it on. It's going to have to be related to what is requested in the warrant.

It cannot be a wild 'let's dig through his files and see what comes up. No, it's going to be somewhat specific. The taint team will know what they are looking for and what is not protected by privilege and that is all they may communicate back to the US Attorney.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Well, then, perhaps he was referring to an earlier, similar segment where the reporter said "extremely frustrated?" But are you changing your accusation from "lying" to "hyperbole?" It does sound to me that the judge was "extremely frustrated" that Cohen wasn't there and she wasn't getting the answers she needed to make a decision.
Click to expand...

Nope, Seth Abramson is a vainglorious self promoter who dissembles like a rug.

I read the judge’s order and it does not reflect frustration, it looks like she is doing her job and taking the motion seriously.

I trust that Kimba wood would be pissed off that someone, particularly a self promoting poet, described her as extremely frustrated.
 
The Big Dog said:
Nope, Seth Abramson is a vainglorious self promoter who dissembles like a rug.

I read the judge’s order and it does not reflect frustration, it looks like she is doing her job and taking the motion seriously.

I trust that Kimba wood would be pissed off that someone, particularly a self promoting poet, described her as extremely frustrated.
Click to expand...

Kimba Wood? Attorney General nominee under Bill Clinton? (Nomination withdrawn due to "nanny problem"?) That Kimba Wood? She's the judge?
 
The Big Dog said:
Nope, Seth Abramson is a vainglorious self promoter who dissembles like a rug.

I read the judge’s order and it does not reflect frustration, it looks like she is doing her job and taking the motion seriously.

I trust that Kimba wood would be pissed off that someone, particularly a self promoting poet, described her as extremely frustrated.
Click to expand...

Avenatti also said the judge was frustrated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom