Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

[cantonear1968]

I'd rather not, thank you.

Sorry. Should have known to add not to do it without a full body condom on.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry. Should have known to add not to do it without a full body condom on.

Well, we don't know where these posters have been, after all.

 

[cantonear1968]

If I could ask one question and it is an honest one:

I watched most of the Cohen testimony on Wednesday. I was struck by the draw-dropping behavior of the Republicans. They, in my opinion, were derelict of their congressional duty. They in no way were interested in uncovering possible crimes by the current President of the United States. In fact, quite the opposite; their interst lay in defending him and labeling Cohen a liar at every possible turn.

So my honest question is: did this same sort of behavior take place by democrats during the Clinton Benghazi hearings? I didn't watch any of it; a few clips from news reports is all. So I have no idea if the Democrats acted in the same partisan way.

Thank you.

 

[Steve]

Your jealous?

Your sentence is incomplete. His jealous what?

 

[The Big Dog]

You were actually writing “Ratsistance”, because you seemed to honestly think it was clever.

See also: “grifter”

Hi! I actually was writing both.

Ratsistance is bang on, spot on the money.

the Resistance is made up of grifters like Lanny Davis, and the mewling House Democrat Party members, etc.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

Avid readers of this thread will note that I have discussed in some detail the reason why Cohen became the rat of the day, and fell under the sway of Super Rat Fink and Clinton-Grifter Lanny Davis. the reason is that Mueller and his thugs threatened Cohen's wife.

From his former close friend:

Lynne Patton: […] 3) Many of you may already know that I considered Michael Cohen to be one of my very best friends. Countless people can confirm that we were virtually inseparable during my employment at Trump – and that he is, single-handedly – responsible for introducing me to the Trump family and effectively changing my entire life. I would be lying if I didn’t admit that my heart still breaks for him and for his family, with whom I had grown extremely close.

4) What many of you may not be aware of is the fact that I can personally confirm that the ONLY reason Michael Cohen “turned on” the President of the United States is because Mueller threatened to throw his wife in jail for up to 30 years. Period. She is the co-guarantor of a $20M personal loan that Mueller discovered Michael secured back in 2015 by falsely inflating the value of his taxi medallions – effectively making her part & parcel to the federal charge of “Making False Statements to a Financial Institution,” to which Cohen ultimately plead guilty. This is also the reason why Cohen’s longtime taxi medallion partner, Evgeny “Gene” Freidman, was granted immunity. (read more)

This should be chilling, but no doubt it will be gobbled down with relish by the Never Trumpers.

Sad. Link

 

[Thermal]

Hi! I actually was writing both.

Ratsistance is bang on, spot on the money.

the Resistance is made up of grifters like Lanny Davis, and the mewling House Democrat Party members, etc.

Whoo hoo!

 

[cantonear1968]

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.

Link appears broken.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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?

 

[cantonear1968]

Avid readers of this thread will note that I have discussed in some detail the reason why Cohen became the rat of the day, and fell under the sway of Super Rat Fink and Clinton-Grifter Lanny Davis. the reason is that Mueller and his thugs threatened Cohen's wife.

From his former close friend:



This should be chilling, but no doubt it will be gobbled down with relish by the Never Trumpers.

Sad. Link

You understand that there is nothing in that article which proves Cohen lied about what he knew. Even taken at face value, that this friend can personally confirm his actions, it does not make his testimony untrue. His wife can be threatened and that's why he chose to cooperate about his actions as Trump's fixer.

 

[jimbob]

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?

And surprisingly, a lot of them were also bad when he hired them in the first place.

I think the GOP is just hoping nobody remembers the cheques signed by Trump.

 

[Armitage72]

So my honest question is: did this same sort of behavior take place by democrats during the Clinton Benghazi hearings? I didn't watch any of it; a few clips from news reports is all. So I have no idea if the Democrats acted in the same partisan way.

The big difference is that there was no credible evidence presented during the several dozen Benghazi hearings.

 

[Matthew Best]

Avid readers of this thread will note that I have discussed in some detail the reason why Cohen became the rat of the day, and fell under the sway of Super Rat Fink and Clinton-Grifter Lanny Davis. the reason is that Mueller and his thugs threatened Cohen's wife.

I thought it was that bloke Gaetz who did that?

 

[Thermal]

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?

You'd think that pattern of discovering that once you scratch the surface of these cats they are rotten would maybe start ringing a bell by now...

 

[The Big Dog]

The big difference is that there was no credible evidence presented during the several dozen Benghazi hearings.

Guy who was convicted of lying to Congress puts on a dog and pony show for the Resistance; Credible? Hoo boy.

Although I do fully concede that there was no credible evidence during the Benghazi hearings on October 22, 2015 and January 23, 2013...'What Difference, Does It Make?'

 

[timhau]

You'd think that pattern of discovering that once you scratch the surface of these cats they are rotten would maybe start ringing a bell by now...

It looks like there's no bell to ring there.

 

[Belz...]

Hi! I actually was writing both.

Ratsistance is bang on, spot on the money.

the Resistance is made up of grifters like Lanny Davis, and the mewling House Democrat Party members, etc.

Yeah but are they bluepilled? That's what I want to know.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I watched most of the Cohen testimony on Wednesday. I was struck by the draw-dropping behavior of the Republicans.

I assume you meant "drawers-dropping".

So my honest question is: did this same sort of behavior take place by democrats during the Clinton Benghazi hearings? I didn't watch any of it; a few clips from news reports is all. So I have no idea if the Democrats acted in the same partisan way.

I don't remember anything similar, but I assume a few Democrats did and I've just forgotten about it. I hope someone will cite specific examples of Democrats behaving just as badly in hearings such as this.

Your question is a little unfair, since there were something on the order of six separate hearings on Benghazi, so there were more opportunities for misbehavior by members of both parties. If you're asking about the one in which Hillary Clinton testified, which lasted 11 hours, almost all observers who have retained any shred of credibility say Clinton handled herself admirably. Before the hearing, however, a couple of Republican representatives had made public statements suggesting that, in their mind, the hearings were at least partly about the political goal of diminishing Clinton's support among potential voters. Some of the Democratic representatives suggested repeatedly that the real goal of the hearing was primarily political. The following exchange between committee chair Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings was apparently one of the more noteworthy:

Cummings: "I move we put into the record the entire transcript of Sidney Blumenthal."
Gowdy: "We’re not going to take that up at a hearing."
Cummings: "You asked for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!"

 

[cantonear1968]

I assume you meant "drawers-dropping".


I don't remember anything similar, but I assume a few Democrats did and I've just forgotten about it. I hope someone will cite specific examples of Democrats behaving just as badly in hearings such as this.

Your question is a little unfair, since there were something on the order of six separate hearings on Benghazi, so there were more opportunities for misbehavior by members of both parties. If you're asking about the one in which Hillary Clinton testified, which lasted 11 hours, almost all observers who have retained any shred of credibility say Clinton handled herself admirably. Before the hearing, however, a couple of Republican representatives had made public statements suggesting that, in their mind, the hearings were at least partly about the political goal of diminishing Clinton's support among potential voters. Some of the Democratic representatives suggested repeatedly that the real goal of the hearing was primarily political. The following exchange between committee chair Trey Gowdy and Elijah Cummings was apparently one of the more noteworthy:

Yes. That is what I was specifically asking about and thank you for your response. I too have no doubt this was political theatre leading up to the 2016 election. And from your description it sounds like this was handled , for the most part, with more semblance of hearing decorum than what I witnessed on Wednesday. There was no doubt the GOP in the Cohen hearing were there as Trump's defense team. It was rather shameful to watch.