Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

Belz... said:
It was either just seconds ago, or he was firing at the fleeing murderer, also seconds ago.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that defense, but maybe I should have said there's only one plausible, "beyond reasonable doubt" inference. The term simply refers to the strongest circumstantial evidence.
 
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Especially if the topic of the meeting was their price for a hit job.
 
The Big Dog said:
"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
Click to expand...

If you actually do believe that nonsense about "Mueller Gang of Thugs" then you are about to have a very tough time of things.

Because Cohen will be testifying next week as well and Cohen has already provided several new avenues of investigation that both the Congress, the Mueller investigation and some of the State authorities will be pursuing.

Therefore, Trump is going to have to deal with several very serious inquiries before too much longer.
 
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

The circumstantial evidence that she is the mafia is also equally explained by her not being the mafia.. That is the problem.
 
Crossbow said:
If you actually do believe that nonsense about "Mueller Gang of Thugs" then you are about to have a very tough time of things.

Because Cohen will be testifying next week as well and Cohen has already provided several new avenues of investigation that both the Congress, the Mueller investigation and some of the State authorities will be pursuing.

Therefore, Trump is going to have to deal with several very serious inquiries before too much longer.
Click to expand...

golly, I guess we will just go right ahead and take your word for it :rolleyes:
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay so what's the narrative been reduced to now? That Trump, the bestest at everything, is so monumentally bad at picking members of his most intimate inner circle that at this point damn near literally all of them have either turned evil or betrayed him?
Click to expand...

That and every one of them only got coffee and he really never met them more than once.
 
So, after all that, I see we all can still see that the lie Cohen pleaded guilty to telling was that Trump did nothing wrong.

Trump threatened Cohen's family, Gaetz threatened Cohen's family and now we are to believe the only reason Cohen testified against Trump is because Mueller threatened his family? Projection or just admitting that Mueller is better at this game than the GOP? (While also noting that Mueller is a Republican, just for extra laughs.)
 
Dr. Keith said:
So, after all that, I see we all can still see that the lie Cohen pleaded guilty to telling was that Trump did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

I am fascinated that one of our forum alleged "legal beagles" is intent of repeating that lie when it is trivially easy to smash that lie into tiny grains of nothing by the simple expedient of posting the plea bargain documents.

Oh well, here it is again:

Read and wonder why people are lying about it
 
BobTheCoward said:
The circumstantial evidence that she is the mafia is also equally explained by her not being the mafia.. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, she just happened to have information from the mafia and wanted to trade it for something the mafia desperately wanted.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Uh-huh, she just happened to have information from the mafia and wanted to trade it for something the mafia desperately wanted.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence she possessed the info. The email to Don jr said, "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia." That is not a description of the DNC or podesta emails. Abramović is Syrian.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
You have no evidence she possessed the info. The email to Don jr said, "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia." That is not a description of the DNC or podesta emails. Abramović is Syrian.
Click to expand...

And again, although there's no reason to believe Donnie Jr.'s "final" version of the story, but he said she had financial information that he didn't think was worth the asking price.
 
WilliamSeger said:
And again, although there's no reason to believe Donnie Jr.'s "final" version of the story, but he said she had financial information that he didn't think was worth the asking price.
Click to expand...

So we have a witness and an email against the conclusion that it was about the DNC hack.
 
BobTheCoward said:
So we have a witness and an email against the conclusion that it was about the DNC hack.
Click to expand...

We have evidence that Trump&Co was interested in colluding with Russia. I don't believe anyone has claimed that this meeting was about the DNC hack. Circumstantial evidence that isn't "smoking gun" level can still add up to "beyond reasonable doubt" if there's enough of it.
 
WilliamSeger said:
We have evidence that Trump&Co was interested in colluding with Russia. I don't believe anyone has claimed that this meeting was about the DNC hack. Circumstantial evidence that isn't "smoking gun" level can still add up to "beyond reasonable doubt" if there's enough of it.
Click to expand...

And there isn't enough of it that is my point. All of it equally supports an argument that they simply failed to successfully coordinate their activities.

ETA: we don't have a disagreement about the meaning of circumstantial evidence. I'm saying the circumstantial evidence in this case does not combine to eliminate inferences of non criminal behavior.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom