Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

Lets not turn this into a rehashing of the benghazi thread, which already exist, and was filled with useful information by actually forum superstars like 16.5.
 
The Big Dog said:
Fine article summing up Cohen and the house's failure.

Mr. Cohen, you are no Eva peron.

Fascinating for MSNBC viewers. But Cohen alleged no crime, and any journalist — and there are many — who used WikiLeaks information and published it over the past many years knows it is protected by the First Amendment.

Okay, so no Russian collusion. No trip to Prague. No direct instruction to lie. And no secret effort asking WikiLeaks to hack the Democratic National Committee.

Pretty good stuff … for the Trump defense team.
Click to expand...

Cohen implied somewhere around 17 crimes by Trump, but don't worry; the only ones that will stick are the ones that can be corroborated. Well, actually, I guess that means you should worry, since some already have been. Or do you really think the continued attacks of Cohen will distract from your Super Rat King's crimes? Do you have a Plan B?

But as for "no Russian collusion," Cohen testified that he believes Donnie Jr. told Trump about the Trump Tower meeting, and that he heard Roger Stone tell Trump about being in contact with WikiLeaks about distributing stolen emails. We already know there was collusion, without Cohen's testimony; we're just waiting to see who Mueller indicts.
 
"Michael Cohen, Trump's most trusted & intimate fixer who now hates him, was (a) never in Prague, (b) knows of no blackmail leverage the Kremlin has & (c) never heard any attempts to conspire with Russia over the election. The media silence over these crucial facts is deafening."

Glenn Greenwald

/not sure if Cohen hates "Mr. Trump" or that is an act designed to protect his wife from the Mueller Gang of Thugs
 
WilliamSeger said:
Cohen implied somewhere around 17 crimes by Trump, but don't worry; the only ones that will stick are the ones that can be corroborated. Well, actually, I guess that means you should worry, since some already have been. Or do you really think the continued attacks of Cohen will distract from your Super Rat King's crimes? Do you have a Plan B?

But as for "no Russian collusion," Cohen testified that he believes Donnie Jr. told Trump about the Trump Tower meeting, and that he heard Roger Stone tell Trump about being in contact with WikiLeaks about distributing stolen emails. We already know there was collusion, without Cohen's testimony; we're just waiting to see who Mueller indicts.
Click to expand...

All of your circumstantial evidence of collusion can also be used to support an explanation of no conclusion.
 
BobTheCoward said:
All of your circumstantial evidence of collusion can also be used to support an explanation of no conclusion.
Click to expand...

Nonsense; the only issue is whether or not Trump will personally get away with "plausible deniability." The Trump Tower meeting was collusion: Donnie Jr. and cohorts met with Russians to find out what kind of dirt they had on Hillary and what they wanted for it, and Donnie Jr. basically admits that he didn't think it was worth what they wanted: lifting Magnitsky Act sanctions. But then we know that Donnie Sr. did try to lift the sanctions without Congressional involvement, which is circumstantial evidence that a different deal was reached. And we know that Manafort gave private polling data to Russia right at the time they were targeting their anti-Hillary social media campaign.
 
Something I heard recently, that made me think. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. Whoa, dude.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Nonsense; the only issue is whether or not Trump will personally get away with "plausible deniability." The Trump Tower meeting was collusion: Donnie Jr. and cohorts met with Russians to find out what kind of dirt they had on Hillary and what they wanted for it, and Donnie Jr. basically admits that he didn't think it was worth what they wanted: lifting Magnitsky Act sanctions. But then we know that Donnie Sr. did try to lift the sanctions without Congressional involvement, which is circumstantial evidence that a different deal was reached. And we know that Manafort gave private polling data to Russia right at the time they were targeting their anti-Hillary social media campaign.
Click to expand...

Here is the alternative explanation: nothing came from the meeting because she misrepresented what she had.
 
carlitos said:
Something I heard recently, that made me think. A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. Whoa, dude.
Click to expand...

Yes, circumstantial evidence is any evidence that requires an inference to relate it to a crime, and when you see someone holding a smoking gun over a dead body, there's only one possible inference.
 
The Big Dog said:
Lets not turn this into a rehashing of the benghazi thread, which already exist, and was filled with useful information by actually forum superstars like 16.5.
Click to expand...

Wasn't attempting to. I asked an honest question about those hearings in relation to the Cohen hearings. I was actually hoping you would have answered.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yes, circumstantial evidence is any evidence that requires an inference to relate it to a crime, and when you see someone holding a smoking gun over a dead body, there's only one possible inference.
Click to expand...

And there is a non criminal inference based on. The circumstantial evidence.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Here is the alternative explanation: nothing came from the meeting because she misrepresented what she had.
Click to expand...

The very nature of the meeting makes it collusion, and anyway, we're only on version 5.0 or so of what happened at the meeting.
 
WilliamSeger said:
The very nature of the meeting makes it collusion, and anyway, we're only on version 5.0 or so of what happened at the meeting.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. If I try to get in touch with the mafia, but I only get in touch with someone lying about how well they know the mafia, I never actually colluded with the mafia.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, it doesn't. If I try to get in touch with the mafia, but I only get in touch with someone lying about how well they know the mafia, I never actually colluded with the mafia.
Click to expand...

However that isn't an accurate analogy for the Trump Tower meeting.

Trying to get in touch with the mafia and actually having a meeting with the mafia is a better analogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom