Wow. So Mike says millionaires don't launder money. Lordy
The investigation is about the Russian Collusion, not fooling around until you find something.
There is no laundering all those guys are multimillionaires.
Lol thinking a billionaire/multi million man could give his all for 130k.
Madoff had 150 years for 50 billion, thats 3 billies a year, So Cohen could get UP TO 600 YEARS FOR 130 K.
Democrat dreams.
Wow. So Mike says millionaires don't launder money. Lordy
Actually the Special Counsel investigation is about Russian interference.
We don't really know much about what the Cohen case is about. You know even less.
Lol, the Cohen case is try to find something because liberals cant deal with a loss.
The only thing they will find is rich guys that got mutual agreements with s, so those ones will be ed (at a personal level).
Thats how Hoover grabbed people´s balls for 40 years, no one could touch him.
Nobody launders money by making mutual agreements with porn stars or playmates... Gawd.
oh yes and try to spin dat with a "close enough"
on top of that never owned it
dude is a freaking clown
Mueller who found the eividence and the DAG who passed on the evidence and the AUSA-SDNY who received evidence that triggered the investigation are all Republicans.
Why? Are they illegal agreements?The only thing they will find is rich guys that got mutual agreements with s, so those ones will be ed (at a personal level).
Mueller is a clown and has nothing, he is just a puppet from Dems and Rhinos, since when all dems/reps think the same? but republicans...
They will be ed at a personal level... married guys getting exposed, nothing illegal just a cheap way to extort them.
yeah, they need to indict someone soon or it won't look good.
no true Scotsman in Argentina
"colluded"
now if a lawyer makes an argument and a judge agrees, it's collusion?
if Judge Wood agreed to have the name revealed under seal, would that mean she would have colluded with Cohen's attorney?
Anyone with an ounce of dignity would have unfollowed True Pundit a long time ago for insulting his intelligence, but we are talking about Hannity viewers here. I guess some people are just impervious to insult.
Yes, that's called a successful legal argument.
Not collusion.
There was no compelling reason to hide the fact that Hannity is Cohen's client.
If you have a legal argument that it should, go ahead and find a grocer or poet to make it for you.
Here’s a little tidbit from yesterday’s Michael Cohen hearing that’s pretty interesting…
According to reports from inside the courtroom, Judge Kimba Wood was ready to allow Michael Cohen to submit the name of his 3rd client — who we now know is Sean Hannity — under seal, but an attorney for CNN and the New York Times convinced her otherwise.
liberals
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/...an-hannity/?dg
still see no legal right the public needs to know who his clients are right now
later maybe not right now
hannity can have any lawyers his money can buy
those lawyers have lots of clients
and he chose a fixer who does barely any legal work
It's embarrassing!
When did Michael Cohen represent Hannity?
It's Cohen's client list, white Chris.
It's a list that has the names of Cohen's clients.
Cohen made this list of Cohen's clients that Cohen provided to the court.
Do you understand now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)