Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

Garrison said:
Whether he was lying before or he's lying now Cohen is clearly an unprincipled POS, which doesn't say a lot for the judgement of the man who hired him as his personal attorney. Even if one was willing to believe that Trump knew nothing about all the shady deals members of his staff and other employees were engaged in you have to conclude he's a terrible judge of character, which probably explains why he keeps getting suckered by the North Koreans.
Click to expand...

GOP trying to pretend that the problem of cooperating witness testimony is something brand new. Cooperating witnesses are always scumbags, because if they weren't scumbags, they wouldn't be in a position to inform on their scumbag colleagues in exchange for leniency.

The GOP can keep falling onto their fainting couches about Cohen being a criminal, the rest of us are ready to move forward.
 
The Big Dog said:
yeah, his family is infected with a bunch of lib-style grifters. Sad.
Click to expand...

So you went from "well that is totally false" to this.

Normally, when someone makes a statement like you did, and then implicitly acknowledges that it isn't totally false, they acknowledge the previous comment.
 
BobTheCoward said:
So you went from "well that is totally false" to this.

Normally, when someone makes a statement like you did, and then implicitly acknowledges that it isn't totally false, they acknowledge the previous comment.
Click to expand...

Normally, when someone makes a statement like you did, they actually read the posts and realize that what was originally said was indeed totally false.

I don't expect an apology, but an explanation to the thread would be appropriate.
 
The Big Dog said:
Amen, he is a total disgrace to the legal profession, he is waiving attorney client privilege...
Click to expand...
Attorney client privilege does not apply in cases here a lawyer and his client are co-conspirators in a crime.

Not that Cohen was a "good lawyer" in the first place, just that attorney-client privilege likely does not apply here.
 
The Big Dog said:
Normally, when someone makes a statement like you did, they actually read the posts and realize that what was originally said was indeed totally false.

I don't expect an apology, but an explanation to the thread would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

It wasn't totally false. It was partially false. He did have a set of close blood relatives turn against him, it just identified the wrong relatives. It would be totally false if it also got the turn against him part wrong.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Gosar just suggested that Cohen is lying to reduce his sentence, and Cohen replied that he knows of now way that appearing in front of Congress would give the SDNY information they don't already have, but if anybody in Congress thinks they can help reduce his sentence he'd gladly accept it.
Click to expand...
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Mark Green asked Cohen where he was going to get his income from going forwards (after a tirade about how he wasn't a credible witness, attempting to establish that Cohen is only testifying for the sake of a book deal), to which Cohen replied "I don't imagine I'll have much of an income in prison".
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I am really impressed with the way Cohen is handling some of these questions... a touch of humor, and a way that makes the questioner look like they hadn't thought things through.

I wonder if he had those particular responses pre-planned in case they were asked, or whether he made them up on the fly.
 
Segnosaur said:
Attorney client privilege does not apply in cases here a lawyer and his client are co-conspirators in a crime.

Not that Cohen was a "good lawyer" in the first place, just that attorney-client privilege likely does not apply here.
Click to expand...

there is a crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege, it does not operate as a blanket waiver of all communications, and it is not for the attorney to decide it has been waived.

Particularly when the attorney in question is a rat trying to hide his crimes that had nothing at all to do with any of his clients.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It wasn't totally false. It was partially false. He did have a set of close blood relatives turn against him, it just identified the wrong relatives. It would be totally false if it also got the turn against him part wrong.
Click to expand...

False. The post in question said his own children backed his opponent. Please do not mutilate the posts in question to try to hide your grievous errors.

SMFH
 
The Big Dog said:
False. The post in question said his own children backed his opponent. Please do not mutilate the posts in question to try to hide your grievous errors.

SMFH
Click to expand...

And it was siblings that backed his opponent. The statement that his own children backed his opponent is partially true.
 
The Big Dog said:
False. The post in question said his own children backed his opponent. Please do not mutilate the posts in question to try to hide your grievous errors.
Click to expand...
A republican politician was condemned by his brothers and sisters.

A poster here falsely identified that it was the politician's children. (A claim that they later corrected.)

Now, a reasonable/rational person would look at the circumstances, and say "Ok, the false identification was unfortunate, but we should be concerned about a politician who's got so many failings that his very own siblings are condemning him"

Instead, you seem to be more hung up on the unfortunate false identification part rather than the main point: republican politician is such a scumbag that even his siblings don't like him. Why is that?
 
The Big Dog said:
Hillary Clinton's emails were hacked? Wow, do tell....
Click to expand...

As usual, you lack the comprehension skills to understand what you are reading, so let be emphasise in the way that I would when teaching a 9th grader in English class.....

smartcooky said:
When Trump called on the Russians to "find Hilary Clinton's emails", it now seems obvious that he already knew they had been hacked, and that Wikileaks was in possession of them... that is very big!
Click to expand...

Previously, he denied this was so.
 
smartcooky said:
When Trump called on the Russians to "find Hilary Clinton's emails", it now seems obvious that he already knew they had been hacked, and that Wikileaks was in possession of them... that is very big!
Click to expand...
Minor point... And correct me if I'm wrong.

There were 2 email issues that the Democrats were dealing with: hacks into the Democrat's email server (which lead to information about how the leaders of the Democratic party preferred Clinton.) and controversy over Hillary's personal email server from when she was secretary of state (in which a bunch of personal emails were deleted).

If I remember correctly... Russia and Wikileaks were involved with the first one (the hacks into the Democratic servers). Trump, on the other hand, was asking for the Russians to find data related to the second case (i.e. personal emails that had been on Clinton's personal email server from the time when she was secretary of state, but got deleted).

Trump's actions were still questionable... he was asking for a foreign country to engage in cybercrime against American individuals (and possibly expose secret information).

ETA: Plus, apart from Trump asking the Russians to "find the emails", Trump had also made a claim about some big information release related to Wikileaks before the actual release, so its likely he did know what Wikileaks was doing, even if the "find the emails" wasn't part of what Wikileaks actually released.
 
Last edited:
Wow I am having a huge flashback to when I was 9 years old and we watched the Watergate hearings in class.....
 
Vixen said:
Urgh. Michael Cohen is the worst kind of sleazeball slimy unreliable witness. Disgruntled convicted-of-lying ex-attorney. What a snake in the grass.
Click to expand...
If you are trying to say "don't trust him on face value" you might be right.

The reason why he should perhaps be trusted is because he's actually providing at least some documentary evidence to back up his claims.

Oh, and as others have pointed out.... what exactly does it say about Trump and the Republicans if they would hire such a 'slimy sleazeball' to begin with?
 
Segnosaur said:
If you are trying to say "don't trust him on face value" you might be right.

The reason why he should perhaps be trusted is because he's actually providing at least some documentary evidence to back up his claims.

Oh, and as others have pointed out.... what exactly does it say about Trump and the Republicans if they would hire such a 'slimy sleazeball' to begin with?
Click to expand...

I would not trust Cohen at face value also;as much as I despise Trump I would demand more evidence before aacepting what Cohen says as the truth.

Most informers and people who turn state evidence are slimeballs who are doing so to save their skin. Sonny Gravano..the underboss who sunk John Gotti in court...as pretty slimy himself.
I think someone in Finland is being very naïve. Any D.A./Prosecutor will tell you that most witnesses you use in bringing down big time criminals are pretty slimy themselves.
 
Segnosaur said:
If you are trying to say "don't trust him on face value" you might be right.

The reason why he should perhaps be trusted is because he's actually providing at least some documentary evidence to back up his claims.

Oh, and as others have pointed out.... what exactly does it say about Trump and the Republicans if they would hire such a 'slimy sleazeball' to begin with?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Birds of a feather...

Why would a US president want to hire such an enthusiastically bent lawyer?

Popcorn tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom