Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[logger]

But I already pointed out one important fact theconservativetreehouse story carefully omitted: any mention of the fact that what Comey and McCabe did hurt Clinton, not Trump. You should understand why they omitted that, given the silliness of your attempts to explain it in a way that fits your story.

They obviously omitted it because it’s irrelevant the the facts.

 

[WilliamSeger]

@logger


At what time?

No fair; first you have to tell him what time Cohen needs to be in California to keep the story straight.

 

[WilliamSeger]

They obviously omitted it because it’s irrelevant the the facts.

Maybe, to people who have crawled so far up Trump's ass that they can only see the world through his navel.

 

[logger]

Maybe, to people who have crawled so far up Trump's ass that they can only see the world through his navel.

No, because of facts. Remember we aren’t spinning here?

 

[CapelDodger]

No fair; first you have to tell him what time Cohen needs to be in California to keep the story straight.

logger has "seen" Cohen prove that he was in California at the time, so he must know what that time was. It's central to the proof.

Of course, if Cohen did go to Prague in 2016 he'd know what time he needs an alibi for. Since Cohen apparently does know, it strongly suggests he did go to Prague.

I'd like to see Cohen's "proof" myself, but I suspect it simply consists of Cohen saying he has it. That would be quite sufficient for logger, I'm sure.

 

[logger]

Of course, if Cohen did go to Prague in 2016 he'd know what time he needs an alibi for. Since Cohen apparently does know, it strongly suggests he did go to Prague.

That’s not exactly how an alibi works.

I'd like to see Cohen's "proof" myself, but I suspect it simply consists of Cohen saying he has it. That would be quite sufficient for logger, I'm sure.

It’s no different then people believing what McClatchy wrote.

 

[CapelDodger]

@logger

That’s not exactly how an alibi works.

If Cohen didn't go to Prague he wouldn't he know what time he needed an alibi for. Alibis are fundamentally time-dependent, after all.

It’s no different then people believing what McClatchy wrote.

I'll take that to mean your belief that Cohen has proved he was in California at the time is based purely on either Cohen saying he's proved it, or someone else telling you that Cohen has said he's proved it. I suspected as much.

If you have anything more substantial on Cohen's alibi I'd appreciate seeing it.

 

[logger]

@logger


If Cohen didn't go to Prague he wouldn't he know what time he needed an alibi for. Alibis are fundamentally time-dependent, after all.

Obviously he’s been asked where he was at this time.

I'll take that to mean your belief that Cohen has proved he was in California at the time is based purely on either Cohen saying he's proved it, or someone else telling you that Cohen has said he's proved it. I suspected as much.

There aren’t any provable bits to any of this. Obviously Cohen is the one saying it.

If you have anything more substantial on Cohen's alibi I'd appreciate seeing it.

Yes sure, that goes without saying. I’ll ask you the same if you come up with anything substantial on his alleged trip to Prague.

 

[acbytesla]

Cohen hasn't come close to proving he didn't go to Prague. Now that doesn't mean he did either. I have yet to see any compelling evidence. There is a good chance he was paying bribes laundering money and blackmailing hookers here in the States for Donny and the gang.

He sure wasn't providing anyone legal advice.

 

[Aridas]

If Cohen didn't go to Prague he wouldn't he know what time he needed an alibi for. Alibis are fundamentally time-dependent, after all.

That's pretty much a failure of an argument. While alibis are time-dependent, having records of and tracing one's general doings and whereabouts is exceedingly commonplace.

I'll take that to mean your belief that Cohen has proved he was in California at the time is based purely on either Cohen saying he's proved it, or someone else telling you that Cohen has said he's proved it. I suspected as much.

If you have anything more substantial on Cohen's alibi I'd appreciate seeing it.

I think that this is of relevance to this from McClatchy -

One of the sources said congressional investigators have “a high level of interest” in Cohen’s European travel, with their doubts fueled by what they deem to be weak documentation Cohen has provided about his whereabouts around the time the Prague meeting was supposed to have occurred.

Cohen has said he was only in New York and briefly in Los Angeles during August, when the meeting may have occurred, though the sources said it also could have been held in early September.

So, takeaway from that second part looks like Cohen's made a fairly strong claim about August, but the timeframe in question also includes September, and notes that he stated that his California trip was "brief." So the claim that Cohen was in California at the time just doesn't work, given how little of the time period in question that it covers.

 

[logger]

Cohen hasn't come close to proving he didn't go to Prague. Now that doesn't mean he did either. I have yet to see any compelling evidence. There is a good chance he was paying bribes laundering money and blackmailing hookers here in the States for Donny and the gang.

He sure wasn't providing anyone legal advice.

That has to be utterly false, he’s been under investigation. He would have had to give an accounting to the FBI.

 

[logger]

That's pretty much a failure of an argument. While alibis are time-dependent, having records of and tracing one's general doings and whereabouts is exceedingly commonplace.




I think that this is of relevance to this from McClatchy -



So, takeaway from that second part looks like Cohen's made a fairly strong claim about August, but the timeframe in question also includes September, and notes that he stated that his California trip was "brief." So the claim that Cohen was in California at the time just doesn't work, given how little of the time period in question that it covers.

McClatchy also mentions the sources have no idea how he actually got to Europe.

 

[acbytesla]

That's pretty much a failure of an argument. While alibis are time-dependent, having records of and tracing one's general doings and whereabouts is exceedingly commonplace.

I think that this is of relevance to this from McClatchy -

So, takeaway from that second part looks like Cohen's made a fairly strong claim about August, but the timeframe in question also includes September, and notes that he stated that his California trip was "brief." So the claim that Cohen was in California at the time just doesn't work, given how little of the time period in question that it covers.

You have to wonder if Cohen uses Credit Cards like the rest of us. A bank could easily provide a list of any transactions he made during a 3 month period. It probably would be fairly easy to track his whereabouts. The passport does little, because you can fly into other countries and then drive across European borders without having to present it again. Now, if Cohen was trying to cover his tracks he could have gone dark and paid with cash. But wouldn't a dark period be suspicious?

My guess is if Cohen kept using credit cards, the authorities KNOW EXACTLY if he was in Europe or Prague.

 

[acbytesla]

That has to be utterly false, he’s been under investigation. He would have had to give an accounting to the FBI.

Oh really? They have asked him about this?

 

[Aridas]

McClatchy also mentions the sources have no idea how he actually got to Europe.

Which is another matter entirely. I was simply addressing relevant points regarding alibis in general and the "Cohen was in California at the time" defense. I was not pushing a conclusion in any particular direction, but rather pointing out bad arguments that should be removed from the discussion and why.

 

[WilliamSeger]

That has to be utterly false, he’s been under investigation. He would have had to give an accounting to the FBI.

And since they haven't charged him yet, you deduce that he must have proved he couldn't have gone to Prague? That's a mighty skinny limb you're crawling out on.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You have to wonder if Cohen uses Credit Cards like the rest of us. A bank could easily provide a list of any transactions he made during a 3 month period. It probably would be fairly easy to track his whereabouts. The passport does little, because you can fly into other countries and then drive across European borders without having to present it again. Now, if Cohen was trying to cover his tracks he could have gone dark and paid with cash. But wouldn't a dark period be suspicious?

My guess is if Cohen kept using credit cards, the authorities KNOW EXACTLY if he was in Europe or Prague.

Mueller likely has phone records, too. It's more likely he used his phone in a given period than his credit card. Even if he took a "burner" phone to Prague, there would be a hole in his normal pattern.

(ETA: And of course if the whole period had a normal pattern of calls from within the US, that would be exculpatory.)

 

[Aridas]

You have to wonder if Cohen uses Credit Cards like the rest of us. A bank could easily provide a list of any transactions he made during a 3 month period. It probably would be fairly easy to track his whereabouts. The passport does little, because you can fly into other countries and then drive across European borders without having to present it again. Now, if Cohen was trying to cover his tracks he could have gone dark and paid with cash. But wouldn't a dark period be suspicious?

My guess is if Cohen kept using credit cards, the authorities KNOW EXACTLY if he was in Europe or Prague.

Also presuming, of course, that the credit cards used were actually under his name. It wouldn't be too difficult to use the credit card of another person who he had an "understanding" with. As it stands, though, as was just quoted, doubts among investigators are supposedly being fueled by "weak" documentation about Cohen's activities during the period in question, separate from the alleged evidence that he was where he claimed not to be.

 

[CapelDodger]

@logger

Obviously he’s been asked where he was at this time.

Why is that obvious?

There aren’t any provable bits to any of this. Obviously Cohen is the one saying it.

Saying it, not doing it. Your claim was that he's done it.

Yes sure, that goes without saying. I’ll ask you the same if you come up with anything substantial on his alleged trip to Prague.

If anything substantial comes out we'll all hear about it.

 

[logger]

You have to wonder if Cohen uses Credit Cards like the rest of us. A bank could easily provide a list of any transactions he made during a 3 month period. It probably would be fairly easy to track his whereabouts. The passport does little, because you can fly into other countries and then drive across European borders without having to present it again. Now, if Cohen was trying to cover his tracks he could have gone dark and paid with cash. But wouldn't a dark period be suspicious?

My guess is if Cohen kept using credit cards, the authorities KNOW EXACTLY if he was in Europe or Prague.

Oh really? They have asked him about this?

Come on! They would be the most incompetent investigators in the history of investigation if they haven’t asked to actually prove his whereabouts. Ditto with the credit cards.