Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
dasmiller said:
Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump after discussing with Trump exactly what Cohen was going to say to Congress, and it's not credible that Trump suggested that Cohen lie? It's more credible that Cohen risked perjury charges against Trump's wishes, and that Trump simply forgot to set the record straight?

Nevermind. Let's simply accept that you and I simply live in different universes.
Click to expand...

Claims without evidence have a credibility problem.
 
Looks like Cohen is making a play for witness intimidation:

Michael D. Cohen, the former personal lawyer and fixer for President Trump, has indefinitely postponed his congressional testimony, his lawyer said in a statement on Wednesday, citing Mr. Trump’s verbal attacks on Mr. Cohen’s family in the days since he scheduled his appearance on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Cohen was to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 7 at the invitation of Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland and the chairman of the committee, but backed out because of ongoing threats against his family, his lawyer Lanny Davis said in a statement.

“By advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date,” Mr. Davis said in the statement. “Mr. Cohen wishes to thank Chairman Cummings for allowing him to appear before the House Oversight Committee and looks forward to testifying at the appropriate time.” He added, “This is a time where Mr. Cohen had to put his family and their safety first.”

Mr. Trump denied that he was outright threatening his former lawyer, telling reporters in the White House that Mr. Cohen has “only been threatened by the truth.”

Mr. Cummings said that Mr. Cohen had “legitimate concerns” for his family’s safety. “Efforts to intimidate witnesses, scare their family members, or prevent them from testifying before Congress are textbook mob tactics that we condemn in the strongest terms,” he said in a joint statement with Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress.”
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Looks like Cohen is making a play for witness intimidation:



Linky.
Click to expand...

I'm truly disappointed because I am really looking forward to his testimony but I think this is a good play on his part. It brings attention to Trump's witness tampering and it helps the case for obstruction of justice. Maybe his father in law is a criminal, I don't know but in that case, it would make any efforts to go after him appear political.
 
portlandatheist said:
I'm truly disappointed because I am really looking forward to his testimony but I think this is a good play on his part. It brings attention to Trump's witness tampering and it helps the case for obstruction of justice. Maybe his father in law is a criminal, I don't know but in that case, it would make any efforts to go after him appear political.
Click to expand...

He may have to testify anyway: Stephen Lynch, senior Dem on the House Oversight Committee, says, "The overwhelming consensus is that we should move forward with a subpoena."
 
BobTheCoward said:
Because it wasn't credible.
Click to expand...

I do not think you this word means what you think it means.

To be credible, it merely needs to be believable. I think that given current knowledge, that Trump told Cohen to lie, is believable.

What might not be, depending on your point of view, is whether of not Trump and co would be stupid enough to have documented such a thing in emails and memos (and tapes?)

BobTheCoward said:
Claims without evidence have a credibility problem.
Click to expand...

See here's your problem. You are moving from "Credible" to "Verifiable" and determining that they are the same thing, they aren't.

Credible is all about "if it might be true" or "does it sound as it it is likely true", does it pass the sniff test.

Verifiable means that there is some form of evidence to back it up, that it can be checked and determined to be accurate.

Demanding evidence just to get to the credibility of a claim actually undoes the entire thing about whether or not it's credible because credibility is about belief and trust. You can't "trust" a claim that has been verified by evidence because then it is proven to be true and there is no longer anything to trust.

So long story short, you are using the words wrong.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump after discussing with Trump exactly what Cohen was going to say to Congress, and it's not credible that Trump suggested that Cohen lie? It's more credible that Cohen risked perjury charges against Trump's wishes, and that Trump simply forgot to set the record straight?

Nevermind. Let's simply accept that you and I simply live in different universes.
Click to expand...

See, that's how easily it all bounces off them.

At this point, even if the report comes out and says "unindicted co-conspirator number 1 is President Donald Trump, it's all in the court filings being made as this briefing takes place, the pee tape video has been unhidden on our YouTube channel, the White House will have to be bulldozed and rebuilt because we can't find all the Russian bugs, and several bodies of witnesses and unwitting participants are being dredged from the Potomac River..."

I think the polls might move right around the margin of error from it.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Ah, CREEP. This brings back the days of my youth. Watergate was the first big news story I really paid attention to when I was a kid.
Click to expand...

Get off my lawn! I'm old enough to have VOTED for Nixon. And did. In my defense, McGovern was a bit of a loon.

We need an acronym for C.R.A.P.P.E.
Hmm...Committee of Republicans Against Pretty-much Practically Everything?
 
PhantomWolf said:
I do not think you this word means what you think it means.

To be credible, it merely needs to be believable. I think that given current knowledge, that Trump told Cohen to lie, is believable.

What might not be, depending on your point of view, is whether of not Trump and co would be stupid enough to have documented such a thing in emails and memos (and tapes?)



See here's your problem. You are moving from "Credible" to "Verifiable" and determining that they are the same thing, they aren't.

Credible is all about "if it might be true" or "does it sound as it it is likely true", does it pass the sniff test.

Verifiable means that there is some form of evidence to back it up, that it can be checked and determined to be accurate.

Demanding evidence just to get to the credibility of a claim actually undoes the entire thing about whether or not it's credible because credibility is about belief and trust. You can't "trust" a claim that has been verified by evidence because then it is proven to be true and there is no longer anything to trust.

So long story short, you are using the words wrong.
Click to expand...

Nothing is believable without evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom