The Official Michael Cohen Testimony Thread

[AM64]

The big news may still turn out to be whether Trump knew of the coming email dump. In the questions submitted by Mueller, Trump was asked if he had conversations with Stome about Wikileaks and Assange dumping emails. Trump has specifically denied that publicly.

But Cohen says he was there when Stone called and told him he had talked to Assange and the email dump was coming. Further, that Trump responded such was great news.

If Trump answered to Mueller as he has answered publicly - that he had no such communication -- and if Cohen's testimony is corroborated by Stone, other witnesses, or documentation -- then Trump will have categorically lied to Mueller and will be impeached and should be convicted if the GOP has any integrity left to salvage.

So what? If the worthless FBI had gotten of its collective butt and investigated Hiliary, Wikileaks wouldn't have been necessary or informative. If you want to discuss underhanded info gathering, then why are you neglecting the crap that started the Mueller witch hunt in the first place?

 

[1972 Grad]

Well, I was wrong. I predicted the over/under for the number of crimes that Cohen would implicate Trump in at 7. This guy counted 14.

YGHN!

 

[Matt2496]

So what did we get out of this testimony today?

Left wingers think Trump is bad and should be impeached.

Right wingers still think that none of what was said today rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

...which is exactly where we were before the testimony.

 

[AM64]

I think this was in the story I linked

For example, Cohen said Trump would frequently remark that he had no business ties in Russia. Cohen said he understood Trump to mean that he should deny any such connections.

Cohen also gave a theoretical example of Trump complimenting someone on a necktie and others feeling forced to agree, regardless of their opinion of the attire. Trump would use such statements to indicate how he wanted Cohen or others to portray the situation under discussion, Cohen said.

If corporations shield people running the corporation, and if a corporate bankruptcy doesn't also mean personal bankruptcy for the head of the corporation, then why would it be wrong for Trump to claim he had no dealings with Russia even if his corporation did? There's no inconsistency like legal inconsistency.

 

[Weezer]

Actually, not even all the Republicans voted to convict.

At any rate, you have to put it all in context. Combine obstruction and perjury with documented lies about so much else, it becomes a moral imperative to return the country to a semblance of respect and honor by dumping Trump.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction in a pretty clear cut case and still was not dumped from office. If that wasn't a "moral imperative", neither is this. I mean, holy hell, Clinton was dipping his cigar in a subordinate's vagina somewhere in the West Wing(possibly the Oval Office), and you guys want to talk about morals??!This really is a damn comedy. I'm not sure how much more idiotic you can be.

 

[Coug]

So just the possibility of collusion is now a crime? Damn, talk about moving the goal posts.

Reading comprehension apparently fails you. I said I wasn't tallying collusion as Cohen has no direct evidence of it.

Lol just finished reading up on it. What crimes are you talking about?

Hiring a straw bidder to buy a portrait is legal, paying back that person with charity finances is a crime.
Trump reimbursing Cohen for payoffs through checks using undisclosed funds to protect The Trump campaign is a crime.
Trump had prior knowledge of Roger Stone and Wikileaks, crime.
Trump was fully aware of Trump Tower meeting with Russians, crime.
Trump receiving a multimillion-dollar refund from the IRS after slashing wages for his employees, crime.

 

[Weezer]

Tax fraud? Bank fraud? Mail fraud? Collusion? Obstruction? That's called tightening.

I think that's called talking out of your ass. Any tightening you feel is your sphincter puckering up in disappointment.

 

[hUTch2002]

The big news may still turn out to be whether Trump knew of the coming email dump. In the questions submitted by Mueller, Trump was asked if he had conversations with Stome about Wikileaks and Assange dumping emails. Trump has specifically denied that publicly.

But Cohen says he was there when Stone called and told him he had talked to Assange and the email dump was coming. Further, that Trump responded such was great news.

If Trump answered to Mueller as he has answered publicly - that he had no such communication -- and if Cohen's testimony is corroborated by Stone, other witnesses, or documentation -- then Trump will have categorically lied to Mueller and will be impeached and should be convicted if the GOP has any integrity left to salvage.

Something doesn’t add up there though. Cohen said that conversation between Stone and Trump was in July but the fact that the email dump was coming was made public in June. So, if Cohen is accurate, that would mean Trump didn’t have some secret knowledge of the emails to come because it was public knowledge by then.

 

[Weezer]

Reading comprehension apparently fails you. I said I wasn't tallying collusion as Cohen has no direct evidence of it.



Hiring a straw bidder to buy a portrait is legal, paying back that person with charity finances is a crime.
Trump reimbursing Cohen for payoffs through checks using undisclosed funds to protect The Trump campaign is a crime.
Trump had prior knowledge of Roger Stone and Wikileaks, crime.
Trump was fully aware of Trump Tower meeting with Russians, crime.
Trump receiving a multimillion-dollar refund from the IRS after slashing wages for his employees, crime.

And common sense apparently fails you as none of that was proven today. You guys are doing a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[Matt2496]

Reading comprehension apparently fails you. I said I wasn't tallying collusion as Cohen has no direct evidence of it.



Hiring a straw bidder to buy a portrait is legal, paying back that person with charity finances is a crime.
Trump reimbursing Cohen for payoffs through checks using undisclosed funds to protect The Trump campaign is a crime.
Trump had prior knowledge of Roger Stone and Wikileaks, crime.
Trump was fully aware of Trump Tower meeting with Russians, crime.
Trump receiving a multimillion-dollar refund from the IRS after slashing wages for his employees, crime.

These are nothing more than assumptions.

If you or any other left-winger was even halfway honest, yall would wait until the Mueller report releases before making any conclusions.

It really demonstrates your desperation more than anything else.

 

[Coug]

And common sense apparently fails you as none of that was proven today. You guys are doing a lot of wishful thinking.

Cohen provided evidence in the form of checks, that's at the very least corroboration.

These are nothing more than assumptions.

If you or any other left-winger was even halfway honest, yall would wait until the Mueller report releases before making any conclusions.

It really demonstrates your desperation more than anything else.

As of today, yes, they are just accusations. It's only a matter of time before they're proven facts despite what you might think of Michael Cohen. Mueller's team as well as the Southern District of New York will sort it out. There is no desperation here on my part. What's coming to Donald Trump he brought on himself and he will deserve every bit of it. Perhaps I'm a little excited at an awful human being ultimately getting what they deserve. That I'll plead guilty to.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

FACT CHECK: Clinton Body Bags

 

[Vol8188]

The biggest thing I took from this is that attorney-client privilege is a joke because you can’t trust those thugs

 

[Vol8188]

Also picture this scenario. You’re on trial for murder. Your own lawyer comes in to testify against you. But the whole time he’s just talking about your sex life, your taxes, how he thinks you’re racist, and you make him like other people’s ties. Even when he didn’t like the tie to begin with.

Then when specifically asked “do you know anything about the murder?” He says “no”.

 

[Vol8188]

Reading comprehension apparently fails you. I said I wasn't tallying collusion as Cohen has no direct evidence of it.



Hiring a straw bidder to buy a portrait is legal, paying back that person with charity finances is a crime.
Trump reimbursing Cohen for payoffs through checks using undisclosed funds to protect The Trump campaign is a crime.
Trump had prior knowledge of Roger Stone and Wikileaks, crime.
Trump was fully aware of Trump Tower meeting with Russians, crime.
Trump receiving a multimillion-dollar refund from the IRS after slashing wages for his employees, crime.

Receiving a tax refund nor cutting wages are crimes.

Trump’s awareness of said meeting would have to be proven and so far there’s nothing to prove that. Even so, it’s a joke crime.

Having prior knowledge of Wikileaks nor roger stone are crimes.

You’re making a huge assumption that he paid these women off to protect his campaign. Not only is he married, but even Stormie admits he contacted her years before his campaign talking about hush money. So there’s no crime here.

You would have to prove the money came from his charity. Good luck with that.

 

[luthervol]

Also picture this scenario. You’re on trial for murder. Your own lawyer comes in to testify against you. But the whole time he’s just talking about your sex life, your taxes, how he thinks you’re racist, and you make him like other people’s ties. Even when he didn’t like the tie to begin with.

Then when specifically asked “do you know anything about the murder?” He says “no”.

A better scenario would be this. a close friend and associate of 10 years has been brought in to testify in a divorce proceeding about an alleged affair his friend had with Ruthie. The friend testifies that he has no direct proof or knowledge about the affair with Ruthie but he does know of at least 7 other affairs. He goes on to say, "my friend also has a meth lab in the basement; and oh yea, he has a cage down there with about 10 kids locked in it. I'm not sure if it'has anything to do with the Ruthie affair, but I thought you might like to know."

 

[GAVol]

The biggest thing I took from this is that attorney-client privilege is a joke because you can’t trust those thugs

That's the most unbelievable part to me. The man recorded privileged conversations with his clients and didn't even hesitate when asked if he'd turn the tapes over.

 

[luthervol]

That's the most unbelievable part to me. The man recorded privileged conversations with his clients and didn't even hesitate when asked if he'd turn the tapes over.

He was an unethical opportunist working for and with other unethical opportunists. You can't hire a guy because he is shady and then cry when his shadow is eventually cast upon you.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

He was an unethical opportunist working for and with other unethical opportunists. You can't hire a guy because he is shady and then cry when his shadow is eventually cast upon you.

And this is the guy you believe and put so much faith in currently.

 

[luthervol]

And this is the guy you believe and put so much faith in currently.

Yep. Once you get one to turn, they'll be happy to tell the truth to help save their own skin. Happens all the time. That's the only way to go after mob/gang types.

 

[0nelilreb]

He was an unethical opportunist working for and with other unethical opportunists. You can't hire a guy because he is shady and then cry when his shadow is eventually cast upon you.

Right just like you can’t believe the unethical oppertunist when he come to testify against anyone . That’s the whole point . Now was some of what he said truth ? Probably . Was some of what he said lies ? Also equally probable . There’s the rub , nobody knows which is which and taking the word of a man going to jail for lying while admittedly seeking a book deal is beyond illogical that’s why soild proof must be presented .
P.s.... don’t start on that but he showed a check crap either ( septic )

 

[InVOLuntary]

So we're two years into an investigation and the result so far is to parade a know lying, convicted felon, to say "Yea, he did all that stuff!"?

I'd say the dems have nothing, as in Kavenaugh and now they're just grandstanding. It smells of desperation to me. Can't legally get him so let's try our best to make him look as poorly as possible in the court of public opinion. 2020 is just around the corner.

Oh and by the way, have you seen the dems that are running? We've got a lot of work to do.

 

[0nelilreb]

Yep. Once you get one to turn, they'll be happy to tell the truth to help save their own skin. Happens all the time. That's the only way to go after mob/gang types.

They will be happy to tell you ANYTHING to save their own skin especially if they don’t have to prove it and can work a deal as just a witness saying that’s what happened .

 

[GAVol]

This kind of tap dancing is why people hate politics. He's a convicted liar who you wouldn't hire to mow your grass, but he's now telling the right story, so....

 

[luthervol]

Right just like you can’t believe the unethical oppertunist when he come to testify against anyone . That’s the whole point . Now was some of what he said truth ? Probably . Was some of what he said lies ? Also equally probable . There’s the rub , nobody knows which is which and taking the word of a man going to jail for lying while admittedly seeking a book deal is beyond illogical that’s why soild proof must be presented .
P.s.... don’t start on that but he showed a check crap either ( septic )

His motivations for lying were much less than his motivations for telling the truth. Everyone is fully aware of what type of witness he is. Everyone is also fully aware that pretty much everything he said is probably true, even though some will never be proven. Trump is absolute scum, a horrible person. He and his circle will be proven to be such. Will there be enough provable evidence of specific crimes to impeach? Probably. The more interesting questions for me at this point is how many people will continue to support him? and why? That's the fascinating part.