Cohen Promises Testimony Willl be Explosive

[Nbadan]

http://oi66.tinypic.com/biqg1.jpg

[baseline bum]

https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1100969377296539648

It's almost as if the teabaggers are a white identity movement.

[rmt]

When a Repug asks Cohen - "why should we believe you?"

Cohen should answer, "you believe and defend the guy who has lied over 8,000 times to the American people - why should I take your Pearl-clutching seriously?"

It's Cohen who's testifying - not the Repug.

[Spurs Homer]

https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1100822378093969408

Meadows must just be outraged beyond belief that Jared Cuckner - did this same violation


86

times!!!!!

[midnightpulp]

I believe him, but don't know how he proves any of his statements, unfortunately.

[Winehole23]

You post like someone who got schooled on DEFCON use and is trying to get even tbh.DMC also claimed the US census doesn't count "iilegals"

Strikingly ignorant for such a smart idiot.

[Winehole23]

You're an idiot and naive as fuck if you think anything Cohen did was for Trump, or anything the GOP does is for Trump. It's all for party power and/or individual gain. No one gives a shit about Trump. They care about having the Whitehouse.Spurs Homer's evident idiocy totally notwithstanding, you're an idiot if you think Michael Cohen wasn't Trump's legal myrmidon until he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[rmt]

Cant believe debbie wassershits is still around :lmao

After she threw election against bern

Probably Miami Beach Jews

[Winehole23]

Probably Miami Beach JewsWhat's wrong with Miami Beach Jews?

[Pavlov]

:lmao da jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos

[DMC]

Spurs Homer's evident idiocy totally notwithstanding, you're an idiot if you think Michael Cohen wasn't Trump's legal myrmidon until he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Although I think you're trying to remove culpability from Cohen as if he's gullible, I don't think that detracts from anything I said.

[Will Hunting]

:lmao da jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos
:lmao

[Will Hunting]

Probably Miami Beach Jews
:lol the closet anti-Semite comes out

[DMC]

DMC also claimed the US census doesn't count "iilegals"

Strikingly ignorant for such a smart idiot.

Being undocumented, there's no way to know if they are legal or not without requiring citizenship evidence. Therefore there is no "illegal immigrant" category in the US Census.

You're another of the "infer without asking" group who prefers your own narrative over dialogue.

The 2010 census asked the following ten questions:

How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
What is your telephone number?
Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1's name?
What is Person 1's sex?
What is Person 1's age and Date of Birth?
Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
What is Person 1's race?
Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

How do these question equate to "counting" anyhow? You could list however many people you want, or omit everyone.

[RandomGuy]

https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1100969377296539648

"i'm not racist, look at my black friend"

That was some cringeworthy shit.

[RandomGuy]

Being undocumented, there's no way to know if they are legal or not without requiring citizenship evidence. Therefore there is no "illegal immigrant" category in the US Census.

You're another of the "infer without asking" group who prefers your own narrative over dialogue.

The 2010 census asked the following ten questions:

How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
What is your telephone number?
Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1's name?
What is Person 1's sex?
What is Person 1's age and Date of Birth?
Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
What is Person 1's race?
Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

How do these question equate to "counting" anyhow? You could list however many people you want, or omit everyone.

Translation:

"Counting, how does that work?"

I would not have figured you for a Juggalo. Moved on from the great magnet mystery, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Apparently ma noga Ocasio Cotez got in 5 minutes what Muller and the entire FBI couldnt get in 2 years

:lmao :lol :lol

Case closed :lol

Saw her questioning. No grandstanding, no lecturing. Just hammered away narrowly at what she wanted.

Concise and smart. I haven't read much else in the last few pages, but have little doubt that some conservative will parrot the "dumb" trope that the right-wing propaganda machine has settled on. Any mention of AOC invariably brings this up as a knee-jerk response, like a dog fetching a stick, and proudly dropping it at your feet, as if it is some sort of accomplishment, "look I can say and think exactly what I am told to" (ding?)

Things like that don't fit into that narrative.

[RandomGuy]

That would be hilarious. I love the stupid shit that comes out of her mouth. It's like Trumps tweets.

:lmao

Not disappointed. Good dog.

[RandomGuy]

Probably because the easiest way to negate testimony is to discredit the witness. Cohen isn't dropping any bombs. He's merely doing a 180 where loyalty is concerned, and is now 100% saying whatever the other side wants, all conjecture and speculation of course.

Pearl clutching at the slimyness, greed, and corruption of someone who worked for the president for 10 years. Yet Trump kept him on, and he stayed.

Almost as if there was some "tone at the top" of that relationship that created an environment for that to fester in.

"allconjecture and speculation" is laughable. Prosecutors had him dead to rights, with all sorts of documentary evidence that would likely still be relevant. This lawyer looked at the evidence against him, and decided his case was a losing one, and confessed entirely.

I'm sure they made it all up, and were only guessing about him lying.

[RandomGuy]

The problem of course, is that the evidence and testimony Cohen can provide proves Trump is a criminal several times over.

1) Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Cohen confirmed that Trump knew ahead of time about the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

2) Lying to the FBI and the Department of Justice. In his letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump claimed that he did not know about the release of hacked emails. That was a lie, according to Cohen.

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress.

4) Campaign finance violations. Trump ordered Cohen to pay off his mistress in order to keep information about their affair from going public -- a clear violation of campaign finance laws.

5) Tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump devalued his assets in order pay less in state and local taxes.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Not disappointed. Good dog.

I will take her seriously when she puts a cost on her green dream and explains exactly how she plans to pay for it. Until then I am well within my right to call it stupid shit. If you want to add 50 -93 Trillion dollars of programs over the next ten years that is a reasonable request.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Org about to undergo a deep examination that will make shady execs ‘household names’

he believed President Donald Trump had committed insurance fraud and he listed Trump Organization executives who would know more about such schemes.

Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports (https://www.axios.com/michael-cohen-hearing-trump-organization-executives-119c11fc-e84e-4796-8e07-da631e140f3e.html) that Cohen’s revelations will give Congress all the justification it needs to launch a deep probe into the Trump Organization for the first time.

Swan believes that things are about to get very uncomfortable for top Trump Organization executives Allen Weisselberg, Ron Lieberman, and Matthew Calamari.

“Unless you’re a student of The Trump Organization — the thinly-staffed Trump family business — you may never have heard of

Weisselberg,

Lieberman or

Calamari,”

Swan writes.

“But over the next year, these men and their colleagues may become household names as they endure

a far-reaching, multi-armed investigation into Trump’s family business and personal finances.”

“This organization has never had a proctology exam like it’s about to get,” he said.

“It’s going to surface records that’s going to become problematic for all of them to keep their stories straight.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/trump-org-undergo-deep-examination-will-make-shady-execs-household-names-reportv/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[DMC]

Pearl clutching at the slimyness, greed, and corruption of someone who worked for the president for 10 years. Yet Trump kept him on, and he stayed.

Almost as if there was some "tone at the top" of that relationship that created an environment for that to fester in.

"allconjecture and speculation" is laughable. Prosecutors had him dead to rights, with all sorts of documentary evidence that would likely still be relevant. This lawyer looked at the evidence against him, and decided his case was a losing one, and confessed entirely.

I'm sure they made it all up, and were only guessing about him lying.

But he wasn't testifying about his own indiscretions, those were already known. He went to great lengths to paint himself as misled. I have no idea what you're even talking about.

[DMC]

Saw her questioning. No grandstanding, no lecturing. Just hammered away narrowly at what she wanted.

Concise and smart. I haven't read much else in the last few pages, but have little doubt that some conservative will parrot the "dumb" trope that the right-wing propaganda machine has settled on. Any mention of AOC invariably brings this up as a knee-jerk response, like a dog fetching a stick, and proudly dropping it at your feet, as if it is some sort of accomplishment, "look I can say and think exactly what I am told to" (ding?)

Things like that don't fit into that narrative.

I think we should have all new streets with hoverboards and everyone should have a beach front home in their neighborhood.

[DMC]

Translation:

"Counting, how does that work?"

I would not have figured you for a Juggalo. Moved on from the great magnet mystery, I guess.

Anytime you want to compare career or academic notes, let me know.

[CosmicCowboy]

The problem of course, is that the evidence and testimony Cohen can provide proves Trump is a criminal several times over.

1) Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Cohen confirmed that Trump knew ahead of time about the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

2) Lying to the FBI and the Department of Justice. In his letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump claimed that he did not know about the release of hacked emails. That was a lie, according to Cohen.

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress.

4) Campaign finance violations. Trump ordered Cohen to pay off his mistress in order to keep information about their affair from going public -- a clear violation of campaign finance laws.

5) Tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump devalued his assets in order pay less in state and local taxes.

:lmao

Not surprised. Good Dog!

[RandomGuy]

I will take her seriously when she puts a cost on her green dream and explains exactly how she plans to pay for it. Until then I am well within my right to call it stupid shit. If you want to add 50 -93 Trillion dollars of programs over the next ten years that is a reasonable request.

Ah. That is reasonable indeed. The statement of policy goals that has everybody talking.

Rolling back the tax giveaway for corporations and the hyper-wealthy would probably be a fair start, a solid carbon tax would be the other.

No one harbors any illusion that this was anything other than aspirational, and AOC has admitted as much.

I'm sure you found broad policy goals making people stupid when it was Paul Ryan stating them. :lol

[RandomGuy]

But he wasn't testifying about his own indiscretions, those were already known. He went to great lengths to paint himself as misled. I have no idea what you're even talking about.

You said his testimony was "ALL" conjecture and speculation.

I point out that there was documentary evidence, both what he brought, and what Mueller's team has, that support his assertions of criminal behavior on his part. Criminal behavior that directly implicates his former client in multiple felonies.

[DMC]

The problem of course, is that the evidence and testimony Cohen can provide proves Trump is a criminal several times over.

1) Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Cohen confirmed that Trump knew ahead of time about the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. conjecture

2) Lying to the FBI and the Department of Justice. In his letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump claimed that he did not know about the release of hacked emails. That was a lie, according to Cohen. conjecture

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress. conjecture

4) Campaign finance violations. Trump ordered Cohen to pay off his mistress in order to keep information about their affair from going public -- a clear violation of campaign finance laws. conjecture

5) Tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump devalued his assets in order pay less in state and local taxes. conjecture


You said his testimony was "ALL" conjecture and speculation.

I point out that there was documentary evidence, both what he brought, and what Mueller's team has, that support his assertions of criminal behavior on his part. Criminal behavior that directly implicates his former client in multiple felonies.

If what you're saying is true then Cohen would not need to testify. What did Cohen offer that doesn't require you to believe he's telling the truth? What real evidence did he present?

Cohen lied to congress, he's a notorious liar. You now want to take his comments as factual because they fit your narrative. He could be telling the truth, but there's nothing substantial in anything he presented. It all requires you to believe he's telling the truth and when it comes to believing a convicted liar and the POTUS, POTUS will win out.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ah. That is reasonable indeed. The statement of policy goals that has everybody talking.

Rolling back the tax giveaway for corporations and the hyper-wealthy would probably be a fair start, a solid carbon tax would be the other.

No one harbors any illusion that this was anything other than aspirational, and AOC has admitted as much.

I'm sure you found broad policy goals making people stupid when it was Paul Ryan stating them. :lol

Might as well aspire to giving everyone a rainbow unicorn to ride to work.

Also surprising you would support a totally regressive tax like a carbon tax.

[RandomGuy]

#4 is valid and probably proveable. The rest are bullshit charges you cant prove. You really should fact check your sources.


5) Tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump devalued his assets in order pay less in state and local taxes.


"i pay zero taxes, because I'm smart"

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress.

Lordy, I hope there are tapes. (you know like the other times he taped himself with his client)

We will get to find out, I guess.

Once the other oversight committees get around to the Trump Organizations overseas development projects in places like Azerbaijan we will get to see how they laundered money for the Iranian Republican Guard.

I can walk you through that if you want. You don't get to do business in the kinds of places Trump has, and not get yourself dirty. There is a reason that Baku project was shut down in fucking hurry when Trump won the presidency.

[RandomGuy]

Might as well aspire to giving everyone a rainbow unicorn to ride to work.

Also surprising you would support a totally regressive tax like a carbon tax.

Carbon Taxes tend to be the most market friendly taxes, because it simply imposes a cost, and lets the markets determine the solution to reducing costs. This is partly the reason that the fossil fuel companies themselves are advocating for it.

https://qz.com/964499/which-fossil-fuel-companies-support-a-carbon-tax/

And two, it is fairly easy to mitigate any damage to the poorest through social safety nets, i.e. tax credits, and benefits.

When one realizes that the costs of climate change will be borne out by the poorest, as is sadly the case for most social ills, we are left with figuring out what the lesser of the evils is.

Not doing anything results in regressive costs as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

"i pay zero taxes, because I'm smart"

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress.

Lordy, I hope there are tapes. (you know like the other times he taped himself with his client)

We will get to find out, I guess.

Once the other oversight committees get around to the Trump Organizations overseas development projects in places like Azerbaijan we will get to see how they laundered money for the Iranian Republican Guard.

I can walk you through that if you want. You don't get to do business in the kinds of places Trump has, and not get yourself dirty. There is a reason that Baku project was shut down in fucking hurry when Trump won the presidency.

Cohen specifically said Trump didn't ask him to lie to congress. You need to find more reliable sources to copy and paste BoutonsII.

and I am not defending Trump, I am just paraphrasing actual congressional testimony.

[RandomGuy]

Might as well aspire to giving everyone a rainbow unicorn to ride to work.



Increasing green energy, high speed rail, and electric vehicles is hardly a "unicorn" solution, as much as conservatives want to paint it as such.

Other countries have made pushes for all of the above, and the US has barely tapped its solar and wind potential, meaning there is still a lot of economically viable megawatt hours out there to build. Quite frankly, I would LOVE to see more small ranchers and farmers benefit from energy production.

https://www.aweablog.org/checking-nebraska-wind-boom/


“Wind energy, the fastest-growing source of electricity in the U.S., is transforming low-income rural areas in ways not seen since the federal government gave land to homesteaders 150 years ago,” the Omaha World-Herald reported. “As commodity prices threaten to reach decade lows and farmers struggle to meet debt payments, wind has saved family farms across a wide swath of the heartland.”

Over 99 percent of the American wind fleet is based in rural communities. These wind projects bring huge economic benefits to towns across the country, like job creation, lease payments for farmers hosting turbines, and new tax revenues that support local infrastructure and fund law enforcement.

I think the knock on effect of this will be to help keep food prices low. Farmers will have a lot more of a steady income, and get to use that income to not go under, with the costs that entails, and to invest in the other aspects of their operations that allow for increased productivity.

[RandomGuy]

Cohen specifically said Trump didn't ask him to lie to congress. You need to find more reliable sources to copy and paste BoutonsII.

and I am not defending Trump, I am just paraphrasing actual congressional testimony.

Trump specifically didn't ask Comey to stop the investigations into him either, right up until he fired him.

As fucking dumb as Trump is, he has enough experience with legal fights to know how to suggest the illegal things he wants to do, and have others do for him, without being explict, so he can have plausible deniability.

I think Trump is an idiot, but I am also willing to accede that he has a lot of experience in lawsuits to know better than to be direct.

The people involved in these conversations knew exactly what they were being asked to do.

[RandomGuy]

If what you're saying is true then Cohen would not need to testify.

So, if a president's personal lawyer is convicted of multiple felonies, Congress shouldn't figure out if any high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the president?

[DMC]

Trump specifically didn't ask Comey to stop the investigations into him either, right up until he fired him.

As fucking dumb as Trump is, he has enough experience with legal fights to know how to suggest the illegal things he wants to do, and have others do for him, without being explict, so he can have plausible deniability.

I think Trump is an idiot, but I am also willing to accede that he has a lot of experience in lawsuits to know better than to be direct.

The people involved in these conversations knew exactly what they were being asked to do.

This is all he needs.

[DMC]

So, if a president's personal lawyer is convicted of multiple felonies, Congress shouldn't figure out if any high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the president?

By asking the guy who was just convicted of lying to them multiple times?

[DMC]

How to speak Australian


Jesus fucking Christ you’re stupid.

Strong woman are scary to you aren’t they? That’s why you stick with little boys



Conversationalist ^

[RandomGuy]

Jim Jordan crying about how "We're better than this!"

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-V1TKGVCynng/Wz0uvkMAj7I/AAAAAAABauc/ziArW31sO_4jS8ULX5iqAMzGU4XQSxQEgCLcBGAs/s620/jordan2.jpg

Only in America can you cover up sex abuse for a decade... then have the gall to question someone else's credibility.

Welcome to the modern GOP.

[DMC]

hes as big of a fraud as you are. Just keep swallowing

Isn't that how you got to be so big you need a scooter?

[RandomGuy]

So, if a president's personal lawyer is convicted of multiple felonies, Congress shouldn't figure out if any high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the president?


By asking the guy who was just convicted of lying to them multiple times?

Answering a question with a question.

In my experience that tends to be the response when someone is attempting to deflect.

So I would assume the answer is no.

You do not think that if a president's personal lawyer is convicted of multiple felonies, Congress shouldn't figure out if any high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the president.

Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive.

Should we not have any checks on the president then?

[DMC]

Answering a question with a question.

In my experience that tends to be the response when someone is attempting to deflect.

So I would assume the answer is no.

You do not think that if a president's personal lawyer is convicted of multiple felonies, Congress shouldn't figure out if any high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed by the president.

Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive.

Should we not have any checks on the president then?

Mueller is investigating Trump and has been for years. Are you suggesting Cohen's testimony was anything other than a left wing attempt to drum up support for impeachment?

[RandomGuy]

[plausible deniability] is all he needs.

Indeed. That is what gets you "not guilty" in a court of law, yet still be guilty in fact, which is why people who want to break laws work so hard for it.

[CosmicCowboy]

You’re such a lying piece of shit.

If askef, you would swallow trumps load like he’s 13 year old boy.

:lmao

Hi Boner.

I see you finally rolled your fat ass out of bed and made it to the computer where you can pretend to be a manly man on the internet.

[RandomGuy]

Mueller is investigating Trump and has been for years. Are you suggesting Cohen's testimony was anything other than a left wing attempt to drum up support for impeachment?

Answering a question with a question.

In my experience that tends to be the response when someone is attempting to deflect.

So I would assume the answer is no. Again.

You do not think that Congress should any checks on the president then.

I guess that is where we will have to disagree. If I wanted to live under a repressive monarchy, I would move to Thailand or Saudi Arabia.

Personally, I would want Congress to be a check on the executive. That seems to work well to protect rights and freedoms. Democrats have been too willing to give power to Democratic presidents, and Republicans do the same no matter who is president. That should stop.

[DMC]

Bend over I’ll show you how big I am.

Actually, check that, you’ve been pounded so many times it would be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway

You'd never throw away a hotdog.

[RandomGuy]

Mueller is investigating Trump and has been for years. Are you suggesting Cohen's testimony was anything other than a left wing attempt to drum up support for impeachment?

I think there is a mix of goals on the part of those involved. drumming up support for impeachment being part of it, yes.

Is that the ONLY motivation? No. I think there is some genuine concern for potential wrong-doing and subversion of democracy and the rule of law on the part of the chief executive as well.

Further, there is also a desire to embattle the president, with an eye towards the next election. Seems like a strategy that will have some modicum of success, especially with the types of venal asshattery that gets through Republican primaries these days. They can't help but shit themselves at these hearings, with today being front and center as prime example.

The GOP has become the Trump party. Now they get to live with the consequences of that.

[Will Hunting]

Seriously though Bonnerific, why are you so angry?

[CosmicCowboy]

Seriously though Bonnerific, why are you so angry?

It's his pathetic schtick. It's all he's got.

[Will Hunting]

It's his pathetic schtick. It's all he's got.
Doesn’t seem like a shtick. He seems genuinely angry :lol

[DMC]

Doesn’t seem like a shtick. He seems genuinely angry :lol

Beetus

[Will Hunting]

Beetus
0i6HkV_jO0o

[DMC]

0i6HkV_jO0o

:lol

[Will Hunting]

I really wish CNN didn't give a platform to corrupt Democrats like Bob Menendez.

[Fabbs]

I really wish CNN didn't give a platform to corrupt Democrats like Bob Menendez.
Did you say something upline about more hearings today?
Schiff?

[CosmicCowboy]

Pathetic? You know what’s pathetic, and evil, molesting innocent children

Like I said. Your pathetic make believe schtick, transferring your sick fantasies to others.

[hater]

I really wish CNN didn't give a platform to corrupt Democrats like Bob Menendez.

You sound surprised this is the same network that handed put jobs to corrupt Brennan, Clapper, etc

[boutons_deux]

Did you say something upline about more hearings today?
Schiff?

security hearing, closed

[boutons_deux]

How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won the Cohen Hearing


https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F02 %2F28%2Fopinion%2Falexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.html

[CosmicCowboy]

How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won the Cohen Hearing


https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F02%2F 28%2Fopinion%2Falexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.html

copy and paste the text. I'm not going to pay to read the NYT.

[RandomGuy]

How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won the Cohen Hearing


https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F02%2F 28%2Fopinion%2Falexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.html

Eyup. What is funny is that the all Cortez channel, aka Fox "news" won't be airing her questions.

I would be willing to bet people like Cosmicowboy haven't even seen it.

[CitizenDwayne]

how else can you continue on a false narrative that both sides are the same
Good point

[RandomGuy]

copy and paste the text. I'm not going to pay to read the NYT.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuVSk_IUAc

She kept it quick and to the point, finishing before her time was up, and yielded back the balance of her time.

[RandomGuy]

Democrats: We are concerned the president may have committed treason, bank fraud, tax fraud, charity fraud, laundered money for Russian mobsters and committed campaign finance violations.

Republicans: We are worried Michael Cohen may get a book deal.



I think that sums up the entire day's worth of testimony.

[RandomGuy]

Also Republicans: I can't believe Cohen when he says Trump is a crook, because he was convicted of lying to congress when he told them Trump isn't a crook.

:rollin

You just can't make this shit up. It is self parody of the most unselfaware sort.

[DMC]

Also Republicans: I can't believe Cohen when he says Trump is a crook, because he was convicted of lying to congress when he told them Trump isn't a crook.

:rollin

Everyone here knows Trump is a crook. They also know Cohen is a crook. You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability. Accusations from a convicted liar about to serve prison time are just reasons to investigate, not smoking guns.

[DMC]

Democrats: We are concerned the president may have committed treason, bank fraud, tax fraud, charity fraud, laundered money for Russian mobsters and committed campaign finance violations.

Republicans: We are worried Michael Cohen may get a book deal.



I think that sums up the entire day's worth of testimony.

No.

Democrats: We believe Cohen will say things we can use to enter into impeachment discussions which would really help us in 2020.

Stop pretending any of this is about the nation or justice of any kind. Surely you're not that fucking childish and naive.

[CitizenDwayne]

Everyone here knows Trump is a crook. They also know Cohen is a crook. You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability. Accusations from a convicted liar about to serve prison time are just reasons to investigate, not smoking guns.
Not everyone here thinks he’s a crook, or should be investigated. You shouldn’t speak for your less rational comrades

[DMC]

Not everyone here thinks he’s a crook, or should be investigated. You shouldn’t speak for your less rational comrades

I didn't say they would admit it. They all know he's a crook though. They just don't care. They didn't elect him to be a beacon of virtuosity. This is what the left doesn't seem to understand. Customer friendly /= effective customer service.

[TSA]

The problem of course, is that the evidence and testimony Cohen can provide proves Trump is a criminal several times over.

1) Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Cohen confirmed that Trump knew ahead of time about the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

2) Lying to the FBI and the Department of Justice. In his letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Trump claimed that he did not know about the release of hacked emails. That was a lie, according to Cohen.

3) Encouraging perjury. Cohen testified that Trump encouraged him to lie to Congress.

4) Campaign finance violations. Trump ordered Cohen to pay off his mistress in order to keep information about their affair from going public -- a clear violation of campaign finance laws.

5) Tax fraud. Cohen testified that Trump devalued his assets in order pay less in state and local taxes.

You tried this yesterday and were shot down.

1) lol no. Assange announced in June, Cohen said he heard in July. Also see Mueller’s statement of offense for Corsi where Corsi was forced to admit he had no back channel with Wikileaks. Corsi has no back channel therefore Stone had no back channel therefore Trump had no back channel.

2) see 1. The whole back channel thing is total bullshit. Mueller never indicted nor even mentioned anyone having a back channel to Wikileaks.

3) false, Cohen testified Trump did not direct him to lie

4) not a clear violation of campaign finance law violatio as Trump has paid off women to kill stories before the campaign so it would have been done regardless of campaign. Cohen also testified he killed the fake Melania abuse tape story.

5) When asked for proof Cohen had no evidence

[RandomGuy]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-questions-cohen-on-trump-tax-documents-assets

Fox did indeed post the footage, with a factual, dry article.

One would be very hard pressed to find it on their website though. Lots of breathless coverage over some cheeseburger photo. Above link nowhere to be found.

Commentary was what one might expect. "who wrote that for her, she is too dumb to come up with them herself".

None of the talking head opinion pieces talk about the questions she asked. It's almost as if Fox "News" doesn't want to delve into the subject closely.

[TSA]

You tried this yesterday and were shot down.

1) lol no. Assange announced in June, Cohen said he heard in July. Also see Mueller’s statement of offense for Corsi where Corsi was forced to admit he had no back channel with Wikileaks. Corsi has no back channel therefore Stone had no back channel therefore Trump had no back channel.

2) see 1. The whole back channel thing is total bullshit. Mueller never indicted nor even mentioned anyone having a back channel to Wikileaks.

3) false, Cohen testified Trump did not direct him to lie

4) not a clear violation of campaign finance law violatio as Trump has paid off women to kill stories before the campaign so it would have been done regardless of campaign. Cohen also testified he killed the fake Melania abuse tape story.

5) When asked for proof Cohen had no evidence

1101118024835366917

[RandomGuy]

You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability.

I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.

If you are really concerned about good critical thinking skills, you will personally try to help others with theirs. Otherwise, I would have to conclude you don't care about critical thinking skills.

[DMC]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-questions-cohen-on-trump-tax-documents-assets

Fox did indeed post the footage, with a factual, dry article.

One would be very hard pressed to find it on their website though. Lots of breathless coverage over some cheeseburger photo. Above link nowhere to be found.

Commentary was what one might expect. "who wrote that for her, she is too dumb to come up with them herself".

None of the talking head opinion pieces talk about the questions she asked. It's almost as if Fox "News" doesn't want to delve into the subject closely.
Nothing said yesterday changed your opinion on Trump or any other GOP member. Working from that angle, what exactly to you have, really?

[RandomGuy]

You tried this yesterday and were shot down.

1) lol no. Assange announced in June, Cohen said he heard in July. Also see Mueller’s statement of offense for Corsi where Corsi was forced to admit he had no back channel with Wikileaks. Corsi has no back channel therefore Stone had no back channel therefore Trump had no back channel.

2) see 1. The whole back channel thing is total bullshit. Mueller never indicted nor even mentioned anyone having a back channel to Wikileaks.

3) false, Cohen testified Trump did not direct him to lie

4) not a clear violation of campaign finance law violatio as Trump has paid off women to kill stories before the campaign so it would have been done regardless of campaign. Cohen also testified he killed the fake Melania abuse tape story.

5) When asked for proof Cohen had no evidence

Hand-wavy assertions to dismiss what you call hand-wavy assertions. (Shrugs)

Each of those points will either have actual evidence provided over the course of the hearings and ending report, or not.

I will trust the outcome of actual investigation into each of these lines of inquiry over your handwaving dismissals. Happy to wait and see.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing said yesterday changed your opinion on Trump or any other GOP member. Working from that angle, what exactly to you have, really?

On the contrary. I did find out a bit more about Trumps conflicts of interest and potential cheating on his taxes. That changed my opinion on both, since there seems to be some reason to look into them, especially since there seem to be some rather critical conflicts of interest involved, with potentially criminal implications.

My opinion of the Trump party members in congress is unchanged. They offered the kinds of morally and intellectually bankrupt statements I have grown to expect from Trump party officials.

[RandomGuy]

1101118024835366917

Mob boss to hitman: It would be a shame if something were to happen to that witness.

Hitman at trial: Mob boss never directed me to kill anyone.

"If you read this exchange as anything other than a flat contradiction that the mob boss ever ordered anyone killed, you're simply being dishonest. "


Plausible deniability, shielding the fact that the unspoken order wasn't explicit, but merely understood by both parties.

Did I miss something, DMC?

[DMC]

On the contrary. I did find out a bit more about Trumps conflicts of interest and potential cheating on his taxes. That changed my opinion on both, since there seems to be some reason to look into them, especially since there seem to be some rather critical conflicts of interest involved, with potentially criminal implications.

My opinion of the Trump party members in congress is unchanged. They offered the kinds of morally and intellectually bankrupt statements I have grown to expect from Trump party officials.

These gradients of hate are pointless for practical purposes. Since your views haven't changed on the folks in red, you really haven't changed your opinion on Trump. Not really.

[RandomGuy]

the entirety of this incarnation of the dying party is to force suffering on others, and revel in it.

That’s why you see the level of shit people on here semen shielding. They’re worthless and ineffectual in their everyday lives, but get to watch betters than them made to suffer.

Yeah. "Be a dick" seems to have been incorporated into the Trump Party platform.

The greater the liklihood any given policy has of increasing human misery, the greater the chance that the Trump party and its members will be for it.

[DMC]

Mob boss to hitman: It would be a shame if something were to happen to that witness.

Hitman at trial: Mob boss never directed me to kill anyone.

"If you read this exchange as anything other than a flat contradiction that the mob boss ever ordered anyone killed, you're simply being dishonest. "


Plausible deniability, shielding the fact that the unspoken order wasn't explicit, but merely understood by both parties.

Did I miss something, DMC?

If you're a remote viewer watching the show and you witness mob boss making that statement, and the subsequent act of the witness, sure. You weren't and you didn't.

[Spurs Homer]

You tried this yesterday and were shot down.

1) lol no. Assange announced in June, Cohen said he heard in July. Also see Mueller’s statement of offense for Corsi where Corsi was forced to admit he had no back channel with Wikileaks. Corsi has no back channel therefore Stone had no back channel therefore Trump had no back channel.

2) see 1. The whole back channel thing is total bullshit. Mueller never indicted nor even mentioned anyone having a back channel to Wikileaks.

3) false, Cohen testified Trump did not direct him to lie

4) not a clear violation of campaign finance law violatio as Trump has paid off women to kill stories before the campaign so it would have been done regardless of campaign. Cohen also testified he killed the fake Melania abuse tape story.

5) When asked for proof Cohen had no evidence

there is no legal reason that;

corsi no back channel =stone no back channel


Wont even waste time on the rest of your garbage

[RandomGuy]

These gradients of hate are pointless for practical purposes. Since your views haven't changed on the folks in red, you really haven't changed your opinion on Trump. Not really.

No, the hearings did not change my mind on the Trump party, or the man himself. Should they have?

[RandomGuy]

there is no legal reason that;

corsi no back channel =stone no back channel


Wont even waste time on the rest of your garbage

Pretty much my take as well. It is garbage, and the truth will come out eventually. Susan Rice will be indicted with Podesta any second... or not.

[Spurs Homer]

Pretty much my take as well. It is garbage, and the truth will come out eventually. Susan Rice will be indicted with Podesta any second... or not.

[RandomGuy]

Nothing said yesterday changed your opinion on Trump or any other GOP member. Working from that angle, what exactly to you have, really?


I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.

If you are really concerned about good critical thinking skills, you will personally try to help others with theirs. Otherwise, I would have to conclude you don't care about critical thinking skills.

Feel free to walk me through what you think I am missing. I'm still waiting. Unless, of course, you said some shit just to have some words on the screen to make you feel better about yourself. Is that what happened? Do you feel better about yourself because you said some bad words about some random guy on the internet?

[RandomGuy]

Gaetz at risk to be debarred

He walked that shit back quick.

https://images.dailykos.com/images/648636/story_image/GaetzTweet.png?1551277174

GOP Congressman Threatens Michael Cohen on Twitter
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/gop-congressman-may-have-threatened-michael-cohen-on-twitter.html

My Ethics Complaint to The Florida State Bar Against Representative Matt Gaetz
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/27/1838080/-My-Ethics-Complaint-to-The-Florida-State-Bar-Against-Representative-Matt-Gaetz



I’ve personally apologized to @MichaelCohen212 4 referencing his private family in the public square. Regardless of disagreements, family members should be off-limits from attacks from representatives, senators & presidents, including myself. Let’s leave the Cohen family alone.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZthoCV2aS4BERJS/giphy.gif

[RandomGuy]

Took a bit to get that post together. Worth it though. :lol

[djohn2oo8]

CROFL. Meadows and Jordan two dumbasses referred Cohen to the DOJ for possible perjury charges when the things he lied about will further implicate Trump :lol

[TSA]

Hand-wavy assertions to dismiss what you call hand-wavy assertions. (Shrugs)

Each of those points will either have actual evidence provided over the course of the hearings and ending report, or not.

I will trust the outcome of actual investigation into each of these lines of inquiry over your handwaving dismissals. Happy to wait and see.

The only one up in the air is #4 and that is going to be tough to prove it was a campaign finance violation as Trump had made those payments before running for President so he would have made the payment regardless of if he was running for President.

Everything else has been debunked by Mueller or Cohen admitting he had no evidence (#5)

[DMC]

No, the hearings did not change my mind on the Trump party, or the man himself. Should they have?

Since you were convinced he was guilty of something and just needed to find what he's guilty of, you'll believe whatever fits your bias.

[TSA]

there is no legal reason that;

corsi no back channel =stone no back channel


Wont even waste time on the rest of your garbage

It’s pretty simple. Stone claimed Corsi was his back channel to Wikileaks. Wikileaks said he lied and had no back channel. Mueller said Corsi lied to Stone about having a back channel.

Can you point me to any indictment from Mueller saying anyone from Trump’s campaign had a back channel to Wikileaks?

[KenMcCoy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuVSk_IUAc

She kept it quick and to the point, finishing before her time was up, and yielded back the balance of her time.

I'll give her props on this questioning and in another one that I've seen. She handles these congressional hearings very well.

[DMC]

Yeah. "Be a dick" seems to have been incorporated into the Trump Party platform.

The greater the liklihood any given policy has of increasing human misery, the greater the chance that the Trump party and its members will be for it.

Really? How much has your personal life changed since Trump took office. Be specific.

[boutons_deux]

OTOH, every single Repug conspired to defend Trash by prosecuting Cohen

The Repug party, cheap whores to the oligarchy, and its voters are the major reason America is fucked and unfuckable.

yep, you conservatives/Repug voters/Bible humpers are fucking up America, have been for decades.

[KenMcCoy]

On the contrary. I did find out a bit more about Trumps conflicts of interest and potential cheating on his taxes. That changed my opinion on both, since there seems to be some reason to look into them, especially since there seem to be some rather critical conflicts of interest involved, with potentially criminal implications.

My opinion of the Trump party members in congress is unchanged. They offered the kinds of morally and intellectually bankrupt statements I have grown to expect from Trump party officials.

By "potentially cheating on taxes" are you referring to deflating the value of his properties?

[DMC]

Feel free to walk me through what you think I am missing. I'm still waiting. Unless, of course, you said some shit just to have some words on the screen to make you feel better about yourself. Is that what happened? Do you feel better about yourself because you said some bad words about some random guy on the internet?

I didn't mean you don't understand the definition of plausible deniability. I meant you lack critical reasoning skills to understand the concept and the implications of it existing. If Trump has it, what else could he possibly need? It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally. But as I said, this wasn't about legality. It was about perception - a dog and pony show. Both sides do it, but let's not pretend it means anything where legality is concerned. Trump isn't on trial. It could lead to investigations, but it's not an investigation to take simple baseless accusations from a convicted perjurer.

And still, no Russian collusion.

[RandomGuy]

Since you were convinced he was guilty of something and just needed to find what he's guilty of, you'll believe whatever fits your bias.

(shrugs)

The risk factors are all there. Type of business, publicly available statements, "tone at the top", rapid employee turnover, etc.

Any one thing is meaningless in and of itself, but taken together paint a fairly coherent picture.

I will not believe whatever "fits my bias". I have my own biases, to be sure, but prefer good reasons to hold something as true, and try to apply some skepticism to everything.

Again, if it makes you feel better about yourself to say bad words about some random guy on the internet, I'll be your huckleberry.

Ironically, you are convinced I am too biased to employ critical thinking skills you just find whatever you can to re-enforce that, while ignoring anything that might indicate otherwise. smh

Plumbing the depths of your biases is a fascinating study in obliviousness and rank hypocrisy.

[koriwhat]

gotta love how the demons become the angels in the left's psyche when they're trying to bring down a duly elected president. lmao oh how explosive!

[RandomGuy]

The only one up in the air is #4 and that is going to be tough to prove it was a campaign finance violation as Trump had made those payments before running for President so he would have made the payment regardless of if he was running for President.

Everything else has been debunked by Mueller or Cohen admitting he had no evidence (#5)

5 shocking things that conspiracy theorist claims debunks the official narrative --click here

[RandomGuy]

By "potentially cheating on taxes" are you referring to deflating the value of his properties?

Yes.

[RandomGuy]

I'll give her props on this questioning and in another one that I've seen. She handles these congressional hearings very well.

As one might expect from any intelligent and articulate person. It takes so little independent sifting to see the propaganda ("she is dumb") for what it is, that it is ultimately self-defeating, damaging credibility. Good propaganda has some kernel of truth, and this... doesn't.

[KenMcCoy]

Yes.

Cohen's words @ 3:10 in the AOC video: "What you do is deflate the value and put in a request to the tax authority for the deduction."

Anyone that owns a home in Texas (or pretty much anywhere for that matter) knows that you want the house valued as low as possible for property tax assessments. You can work with the tax appraiser to show that the value should be lower based on recent comparable sales, cost of construction, etc. That's not cheating on taxes, it's just tax planning.

[RandomGuy]

You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability.


I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.


I didn't mean you don't understand the definition of plausible deniability. I meant you lack critical reasoning skills to understand the concept and the implications of it existing.

(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?

[ducks]

Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/house-criminal-referral-michael-cohen/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[benefactor]

Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/house-criminal-referral-michael-cohen/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
:cry stop picking on dear leader :cry

[RandomGuy]

Cohen's words @ 3:10 in the AOC video: "What you do is deflate the value and put in a request to the tax authority for the deduction."

Anyone that owns a home in Texas (or pretty much anywhere for that matter) knows that you want the house valued as low as possible for property tax assessments. You can work with the tax appraiser to show that the value should be lower based on recent comparable sales, cost of construction, etc. That's not cheating on taxes, it's just tax planning.

(nods)

Indeed.

The question then, is it :

1)"the house you say is worth 240,000, is really only worth 220,000 if I sold it on the market"

or

2) "the house you say is worth 240,000, is really only worth 20,000 if I sold it on the market"

One will fly... the other is a criminal misstatement to most tax authorities. How would one determine which is which?

Given actions like his very odd overpayment from the Russian oligarch for that property in Florida, one has to wonder. You may remember:

“What do I have to do with Russia?” he replied to reporters’ questions at a press conference in Doral last summer. “You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach … for $40 million, and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million.”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html

In this case the wild overpayment for the property over any credible market valuation, would indicate something amiss. Data points... pattern.

[Blake]

Since you were convinced he was guilty of something and just needed to find what he's guilty of, you'll believe whatever fits your bias.

Lol. Was there something in this dog and pony show that should have convinced anyone that Trump is completely innocent?

[Blake]

Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/house-criminal-referral-michael-cohen/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Lol. Was there something in this dog and pony show that should have convinced anyone that Trump is completely innocent?

+1

[boutons_deux]

Every single person, so far, in Trash's employ is guilty. I expect the Dems and FBI will find that Trash org capos are also guility,

but in you rightwingnutjob assholes fantasy world of fellating Trash, Trash is totally innocent.

All y'all's gonna get kicked in the balls, teeth, and head when Trash goes down.

[KenMcCoy]

(nods)

Indeed.

The question then, is it :

1)"the house you say is worth 240,000, is really only worth 220,000 if I sold it on the market"

or

2) "the house you say is worth 240,000, is really only worth 20,000 if I sold it on the market"

One will fly... the other is a criminal misstatement to most tax authorities. How would one determine which is which?

Given actions like his very odd overpayment from the Russian oligarch for that property in Florida, one has to wonder. You may remember:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html

In this case the wild overpayment for the property over any credible market valuation, would indicate something amiss. Data points... pattern.

The value is whatever the appraiser agreed that it is. The property tax process goes: initial appraisal > valuation protest > re-appraisal > assessment. Whatever paperwork they submitted to get the values down was looked at by the appraisal district.

Real estate is funny/shady like that...a company I used to work for listed an old building for sale a while ago. It sat on the market for almost a year with no good prospects. A realtor came to us and offered 75% of what we were asking and stated that it was going to be hard to sell because of the size, location, etc. It would need a very particular kind of client. So we agreed to sell it because we were close to what we thought was fair market value and didn't want to maintain it anymore. Two weeks after we finalized the paperwork with the realtor, he sold it for two times our original asking price.

[baseline bum]

copy and paste the text. I'm not going to pay to read the NYT.

You can get past those paywalls in Chrome by opening in incognito mode for any newspaper site that gives you X number of free articles per month.

[RandomGuy]

Really? How much has your personal life changed since Trump took office. Be specific.

Fishing for more personal details, so you can endlessly bash them with logically and morally flawed attacks? No. Find some other way to ironically dodge my critical thinking questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability.


I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.


I didn't mean you don't understand the definition of plausible deniability. I meant you lack critical reasoning skills to understand the concept and the implications of it existing.

(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?

---------------------------

Your claim, your burden of proof. Happy to walk back anything false, and admit any fault, fairly presented. I always welcome the opportunity to improve my thinking, and abandon ideas or beliefs that don't hold up.

[Spurs Homer]

It’s pretty simple. Stone claimed Corsi was his back channel to Wikileaks. Wikileaks said he lied and had no back channel. Mueller said Corsi lied to Stone about having a back channel.

Can you point me to any indictment from Mueller saying anyone from Trump’s campaign had a back channel to Wikileaks?

stones indictment

[TSA]

stones indictment

Stone’s indictment doesn’t say he colluded or had a back channel with Wikileaks.

[RandomGuy]

Every single person, so far, in Trash's employ is guilty.

What is the implication of any company, or group of people, not just Trumps, wherein you have multiple people in very important positions convicted of crimes that imply dishonesty? What does that say about any CEO or leader, not Trump specifically?

[TSA]

What is the implication of any company, or group of people, not just Trumps, wherein you have multiple people in very important positions convicted of crimes that imply dishonesty? What does that say about any CEO or leader, not Trump specifically?

Welcome to business in America.

Let’s have some fun with whataboutism

What is the implication of any government department, or group of people, wherein you have multiple people in very important positions convicted of crimes or under federal investigation for crimes that imply dishonesty? What does that say about about previous heads of the FBI/DOJ/CIA?

[DMC]

Fishing for more personal details, so you can endlessly bash them with logically and morally flawed attacks? No. Find some other way to ironically dodge my critical thinking questions.


So then nothing has changed.


(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?

Right there in the next sentence that you purposefully omitted: "If Trump has it, what else could he possibly need? It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally"

Get your formatting right and stop trying to be clever with your edits. You're not good at it.


Your claim, your burden of proof. Happy to walk back anything false, and admit any fault, fairly presented. I always welcome the opportunity to improve my thinking, and abandon ideas or beliefs that don't hold up.
You're noted here for your reasoning and open mindedness.

[DMC]

Lol. Was there something in this dog and pony show that should have convinced anyone that Trump is completely innocent?

Innocence is supposed to be presumed until proven otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

Find some other way to ironically dodge my critical thinking questions.


So then nothing has changed.

:rollin

No, no it hasn't. At least you got nutz enough to admit it. ;)

[DMC]

Yeah. "Be a dick" seems to have been incorporated into the Trump Party platform.

The greater the liklihood any given policy has of increasing human misery, the greater the chance that the Trump party and its members will be for it.


:rollin

No, no it hasn't. At least you got nutz enough to admit it. ;)

Thanks for admitting you're full of shit, even if you tried and failed to be clever. Anyone who cares to look (that audience you seem to think you have) can see I answered your question, twice actually.

[Blake]

Innocence is supposed to be presumed until proven otherwise.

Lol yeah, in a criminal trial.

I'll just chalk this up to you doing your usual no substance pseudo intellectual dog and pony show

[RandomGuy]

Really? How much has your personal life changed since Trump took office. Be specific.

Fishing for more personal details, so you can endlessly bash them with logically and morally flawed attacks? No. Find some other way to ironically dodge my critical thinking questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability.


I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.


I didn't mean you don't understand the definition of plausible deniability. I meant you lack critical reasoning skills to understand the concept and the implications of it existing.

(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?

---------------------------

Your claim, your burden of proof. Happy to walk back anything false, and admit any fault, fairly presented. I always welcome the opportunity to improve my thinking, and abandon ideas or beliefs that don't hold up.



So then nothing has changed.

Right there in the next sentence that you purposefully omitted: "If Trump has it, what else could he possibly need? It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally"

Get your formatting right and stop trying to be clever with your edits. You're not good at it.

You're noted here for your reasoning and open mindedness.


"If Trump has it, what else could he possibly need? It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally"

That isn't really an implication. That is merely a statement, which is why I left it off. I preferred that you spell things out a bit more clearly, which you have yet to do. I'm sure it makes sense in your head.

An implication generally requires an "if.. then" statement.

"if Trump is lying, then that implies he is hiding something."

"if Trump is a human, then that implies he lives on planet earth"

Fill in the blank:

If Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, then that IMPLIES...__________________?

(edit)


If Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, then that IMPLIES... "It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally".

That isn't a construct. That is merely definitional. You have merely substituted the definition of "plausible deniability" and claimed that is an "implication". It doesn't build on the statement, such as "lives on planet earth".

[RandomGuy]

Innocence is supposed to be presumed until proven otherwise.

DMC lacks the critical thinking skills to understand the implications of exculpatory evidence. :lol

[RandomGuy]

The value is whatever the appraiser agreed that it is. The property tax process goes: initial appraisal > valuation protest > re-appraisal > assessment. Whatever paperwork they submitted to get the values down was looked at by the appraisal district.

Real estate is funny/shady like that...a company I used to work for listed an old building for sale a while ago. It sat on the market for almost a year with no good prospects. A realtor came to us and offered 75% of what we were asking and stated that it was going to be hard to sell because of the size, location, etc. It would need a very particular kind of client. So we agreed to sell it because we were close to what we thought was fair market value and didn't want to maintain it anymore. Two weeks after we finalized the paperwork with the realtor, he sold it for two times our original asking price.


It is less clear whether Trump broke laws during his years-long crusade to skirt taxes. In an investigation published last year, the New York Times accused Trump of fraud, saying he and his siblings inherited the majority of their father’s real estate business in 1997 and claimed on tax filings that the holdings were worth only $41 million. According to the newspaper, the properties ended up selling for more than 16 times that amount. By undervaluing them, the Trump family reportedly avoided hundreds of millions in taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/02/28/michael-cohen-explains-the-real-reason-trump-is-hiding-his-tax-returns/#122b63bcad85

[Chris]

That Lanny Davis speech though.

[DMC]

DMC lacks the critical thinking skills to understand the implications of exculpatory evidence. :lol

Talking to your audience again?

Trump wasn't on trial. Who is the beneficiary of this exculpatory evidence and what does it have to do with presumption of innocence or Blake thinking somehow a hearing has ever been called to prove innocence?

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1101219922133299200

[DMC]

Fishing for more personal details, so you can endlessly bash them with logically and morally flawed attacks? No. Find some other way to ironically dodge my critical thinking questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?

---------------------------

Your claim, your burden of proof. Happy to walk back anything false, and admit any fault, fairly presented. I always welcome the opportunity to improve my thinking, and abandon ideas or beliefs that don't hold up.






That isn't really an implication. That is merely a statement, which is why I left it off. I preferred that you spell things out a bit more clearly, which you have yet to do. I'm sure it makes sense in your head.

An implication generally requires an "if.. then" statement.

"if Trump is lying, then that implies he is hiding something."

"if Trump is a human, then that implies he lives on planet earth"

Fill in the blank:

If Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, then that IMPLIES...__________________?

(edit)



That isn't a construct. That is merely definitional. You have merely substituted the definition of "plausible deniability" and claimed that is an "implication". It doesn't build on the statement, such as "lives on planet earth".

Trump wasn't on trial.

Plausible deniability doesn't imply anything. It simply frees Trump of the legal action that could ensue had he not had plausible deniability. Why is that so difficult to understand? You muddy the waters so much with your autism.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/02/28/michael-cohen-explains-the-real-reason-trump-is-hiding-his-tax-returns/#122b63bcad85

As CC says, everybody cheats at property taxes, so what's the big deal?

A couple years ago, Lindsay Graham said it's everybody's patriotic duty to screw the IRS.

IIRC, Trash paid off a NY appraiser to get a lower valuation. The appraiser was caught and went to jail. Reverse Midas Trash?

[Blake]

Blake thinking somehow a hearing has ever been called to prove innocence?

I never thought, said or implied that.

But nice dunk on your straw man. Make a poster tbh

[RandomGuy]

You seem to lack critical reasoning skills to understand plausible deniability.


I am pretty sure I understand plausible deniability.

Feel free to outline what specifically you think I am missing. Provide a working definition, and then find what specifically in my statements shows a lack of understanding.


I didn't mean you don't understand the definition of plausible deniability. I meant you lack critical reasoning skills to understand the concept and the implications of it existing.


(shrug)

What specific implication am I missing, and what statement leads you to think that I lack the critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion of implication?


So then nothing has changed.

Right there in the next sentence that you purposefully omitted: "If Trump has it, what else could he possibly need? It doesn't have to be believable by the opposition, just unactionable legally"



[patiently, respectfully, and clearly shows DMC didn't actually imply anything, merely having restated the definition of plausible deniability].



Plausible deniability doesn't imply anything..

:lmao

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1101219922133299200
:lol Gym Jordan

[DMC]

:lmao

You need to edit and move shit around to try to get a small w here, as if what I said isn't clearly visible to anyone who cares to read it.

:lol then you falsely paraphrase your own post.. why would I need to imply anything?

wtf is wrong with you?

What does "a conclusion of implication" mean? Are you drunk?

[DMC]

Lol. Was there something in this dog and pony show that should have convinced anyone that Trump is completely innocent?


I never thought, said or implied that.

But nice dunk on your straw man. Make a poster tbh

Yes you did, actually.

[Spurs Homer]

Stone’s indictment doesn’t say he colluded or had a back channel with Wikileaks.


#11
#12
#13

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-indictment-roger-stone

[RandomGuy]

You need to edit and move shit around to try to get a small w here, as if what I said isn't clearly visible to anyone who cares to read it.

:lol then you falsely paraphrase your own post.. why would I need to imply anything?

wtf is wrong with you?

What does "a conclusion of implication" mean? Are you drunk?

:cry "I pwned myself and you are a meanie for having pointed it out"

Need a hankie?

I would be happy if you made sense at all.

I understand what plausible deniability is, and how criminals use it to attempt to shield themselves from charges, just as more than one person in Trumps orbit have said he does.

Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.

[DMC]

When I said "implications" I was referring to the 2nd definition of the word. You are using the 1st.

1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.
"the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible"
synonyms: suggestion, inference, insinuation, innuendo, hint, intimation, imputation, indication; More
antonyms: explicit statement You
a likely consequence of something.
"a victory that had important political implications"
synonyms: consequence, result, ramification, repercussion, reverberation, effect me
"there was a meeting to discuss the implications of the ban"

[DMC]

:cry "I pwned myself and you are a meanie for having pointed it out"

Need a hankie?

I would be happy if you made sense at all.

I understand what plausible deniability is, and how criminals use it to attempt to shield themselves from charges, just as more than one person in Trumps orbit have said he does.

Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.

There's presumption of guilt and then there's being found guilty by a court of law. Presumption of guilt by the opposition isn't nearly as weighty as being found guilty, just ask Cohen who's going to jail, and ask Trump who isn't.

[rmt]

What's wrong with Miami Beach Jews?

There's nothing wrong with them except that they probably voted her in.

[boutons_deux]

“OH MY GOD”:

THE INSIDE STORY BEHIND COHEN’S DEPOSITION,

THE STORMY CHECKS, AND

HIS FINAL MONTHS OF FREEDOM

Cathartic musings on a legal pad, a trip to the basement, and a eureka moment all led Cohen, Trump’s disgraced former lawyer, to a moment of public triumph.

About nine boxes were there waiting for him. The first contained a bunch of junk. The second did, too. “Oh my god,” he said when he opened the third. He’d hit the mother lode.

In the third box were

three years of Trump’s financial statements, from 2011 through 2013,

which Cohen pointed to on Wednesday as

evidence that the president had purposefully inflated and deflated his personal assets when it suited him

—

to secure bank loans or

land a higher spot on the Forbes 400 list, for instance, or

to lower his tax liability.

Other documents were potentially more damaging.

The box also contained an e-mail with Trump Organization C.F.O. Allen Weisselberg, whose name came up almost as often as Trump’s in the House hearing on Wednesday.

as he made clear on Wednesday, he is still actively participating with investigators in ongoing inquiries out of the Southern District,

which many in Trump’s inner circle agree

poses the most dangerous, long-lasting threat to Trump, his business, and his family—

a point Cohen underscored in front of the committee.

“Is there any other wrongdoing or illegal act that you are aware of regarding Donald Trump that we haven’t yet discussed today?”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi asked him. “

Yes,” Cohen responded.

“Those are part of the investigation that’s currently being looked at by the Southern District of New York.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/inside-michael-cohen-deposition-the-stormy-checks-final-months-of-freedom?mbid=nl_th_5c78167cfaa84649abb66a9b&CNDID=43758549&utm_source=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=vyf_hive_news_20190228_Special_Cohen%2 0(1)&bxid=MzI5MjgzNzg1MjQ4S0&hasha=992d608214b505003aa04bf10a595031&hashb=542eb31d958e85ddd5a4c3ccf3faae18526a77bd&spMailingID=15206838&spUserID=MzI5MjgzNzg1MjQ4S0&spJobID=1582206532&spReportId=MTU4MjIwNjUzMgS2

[Pavlov]

There's nothing wrong with them except that they probably voted her in.Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooos!

[RandomGuy]

When I said "implications" I was referring to the 2nd definition of the word. You are using the 1st.

1.
the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated.
"the implication is that no one person at the bank is responsible"
synonyms: suggestion, inference, insinuation, innuendo, hint, intimation, imputation, indication; More
antonyms: explicit statement You
a likely consequence of something.
"a victory that had important political implications"
synonyms: consequence, result, ramification, repercussion, reverberation, effect me
"there was a meeting to discuss the implications of the ban"

(sigh)

Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a consequence, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a result, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the ramification of which is ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the repercussion of which is ________________?,

As I have noted, the "blank" is that is sometimes enough, but not always, one can avoid being convicted.


Mob boss to hitman: It would be a shame if something were to happen to that witness.

Hitman at trial: Mob boss never directed me to kill anyone.

"If you read this exchange as anything other than a flat contradiction that the mob boss ever ordered anyone killed, you're simply being dishonest. "


Plausible deniability, shielding the fact that the unspoken order wasn't explicit, but merely understood by both parties.

Did I miss something, DMC?

It is a rubber band that can be stretched, but also broken.

Feel free to fill in the blank with whatever you think I don't understand, if it makes you feel better.

[rmt]

:lol the closet anti-Semite comes out

Amazing how people jump to conclusions - I'm just responding to hater's post - maybe people in Texas don't know that a lot of Jews live in that area.

[Blake]

Yes you did, actually.

Lol no, idiot, that post was phrased in the form of a question directed at you because I have no idea what the point of your word salads here are.

[RandomGuy]

Honestly, I am not sure you understand the distinction between guilty in fact, and guilty in a court. You seem to lack the critical thinking skills to be able to do so.


There's presumption of guilt and then there's being found guilty by a court of law. Presumption of guilt by the opposition isn't nearly as weighty as being found guilty, just ask Cohen who's going to jail, and ask Trump who isn't.

Right over your head. You don't understand it. OK.

It is possible to be guilty in fact, but found "not guilty" at a trial? Simple yes or no here, no tricks.

[Pavlov]

Amazing how people jump to conclusions - I'm just responding to hater's post - maybe people in Texas don't know that a lot of Jews live in that area.So many Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos !

[RandomGuy]

There's nothing wrong with [jews] except that [they vote for Democrats?].

Ah. Maybe... she is a good representative?

Being a shitty DNC chair is not mutually exclusive to being a good representative, even granting the former for the sake of aruegment.

[DMC]

(sigh)

Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a consequence, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, as a result, ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the ramification of which is ________________?
Trump has plausible deniability about ordering someone to perjure themselves, the repercussion of which is ________________?,

As I have noted, the "blank" is that is sometimes enough, but not always, one can avoid being convicted.


I already answered this twice.

unactionable legally


It is a rubber band that can be stretched, but also broken.

Feel free to fill in the blank with whatever you think I don't understand, if it makes you feel better.
You're confusing your feelings for the truths behind this soap opera with the implications of the testimony. Your feelings are obviously that the court of public opinion should find Trump guilty, but you felt that way before the hearing as well (as you've already stated). So the hearing changed nothing in that regards, at least where you're concerned. Implications are basically that Trump insulated himself from prosecution by not telling people to commit crimes. The guy with the thing, you know..the guy... did you talk to the guy about the thing? This is the actual court, the only one that Trump cares about. The hearing did not sway Trump supporters. They saw a desperate man trying to take down someone he thinks betrayed him.

Again, why do I have to keep leading you to the truth only to watch to walk away chasing butterflies?

[RandomGuy]

T, just ask Cohen who's going to jail, and ask Trump who isn't.

Care to man up and say "Trump will not go to jail"?

I would guess you aren't that stupid, but hey you have a way of surprising me sometimes when it comes to that.

[DMC]

Care to man up and say "Trump will not go to jail"?

I would guess you aren't that stupid, but hey you have a way of surprising me sometimes when it comes to that.

Care to say Cohen isn't going to jail?

You need to keep in mind the context, you seem to stray from it often. "Going to jail" isn't a prediction. It's a fact. Cohen is going to jail. Trump isn't. That doesn't mean Trump won't ever, but he's not currently going to jail. Again, context. You take too many liberties with it so discussion with you is tedious.

[rmt]

So many Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos !

What does that mean?

[DMC]

Ah. Maybe... she is a good representative?

Being a shitty DNC chair is not mutually exclusive to being a good representative, even granting the former for the sake of aruegment.

Why must you edit someone's post then respond to that as if that's what they said? You're fairly dishonest in that regard. Does it make you feel more righteous about your response?

[rmt]

You people must not have enough going on in the news to be picking apart a simple INNOCENT comment.

[DMC]

What does that mean?

Since you said "Jews" you must be anti-Semitic. It's how Pavlov copes - by labeling.

[Blake]

Care to say Cohen isn't going to jail?

You need to keep in mind the context, you seem to stray from it often. "Going to jail" isn't a prediction. It's a fact. Cohen is going to jail. Trump isn't. That doesn't mean Trump won't ever, but he's not currently going to jail. Again, context. You take too many liberties with it so discussion with you is tedious.

Cohen is going to jail but Trump currently isn't but might some day?

It's a good thing you're here to break all that down for everybody

[RandomGuy]

Implications are basically that Trump insulated himself from prosecution by not telling people to commit crimes. The guy with the thing, you know..the guy... did you talk to the guy about the thing?



I understand what the intention of not being explicit is.

Insulated, yes.

Problem is that when it comes to insulation that plausible deniability can, and DOES get pierced.

"mob boss to hitman: it would be a shame if something happened to that witness".

When the underlying subtext is clear enough to be made, courts can, and do assume the unspoken implication for the "meeting of the minds".

When the president of the united states says "it would be nice if the investigation into this nice guy were to be over" to the FBI director, only an idiot would think that wasn't coercion.

[Blake]

You people must not have enough going on in the news to be picking apart a simple INNOCENT comment.

"There's nothing wrong with them except..."

:cry "but I've got friends that are them" incoming

[RandomGuy]

Why must you edit someone's post then respond to that as if that's what they said? You're fairly dishonest in that regard. Does it make you feel more righteous about your response?

If it was an unfair edit, then rmt is capable of saying so. I am happy to take it back, as the intention was not to distort.

You're fairly dishonest when it comes to describing my motivations.

[DMC]

I understand what the intention of not being explicit is.

Insulated, yes.

Problem is that when it comes to insulation that plausible deniability can, and DOES get pierced.

"mob boss to hitman: it would be a shame if something happened to that witness".

When the underlying subtext is clear enough to be made, courts can, and do assume the unspoken implication for the "meeting of the minds".

When the president of the united states says "it would be nice if the investigation into this nice guy were to be over" to the FBI director, only an idiot would think that wasn't coercion.

It didn't get pierced yesterday. Ergo still plausible deniability.

It has to be proven he said it. Jesus can't you grasp that?

[DMC]

If it was an unfair edit, then rmt is capable of saying so. I am happy to take it back, as the intention was not to distort.

You're fairly dishonest when it comes to describing my motivations.

If it was fair you wouldn't need to edit it. You respond to what you want people to have said. That's dishonest. rmt didn't say Jews are bad because they vote for democrats. You put those words in there. rmt only said Jews likely voted in DWS.

[Blake]

You're fairly dishonest when it comes to describing my motivations.

It's how DMC copes - narrating

[DMC]

It's how DMC copes - narrating
The next time you have an original take will be the first time. Back to your corner, the show is starting.

[RandomGuy]

Care to man up and say "Trump will not go to jail"?

I would guess you aren't that stupid, but hey you have a way of surprising me sometimes when it comes to that.


Care to say Cohen isn't going to jail?

You need to keep in mind the context, you seem to stray from it often. "Going to jail" isn't a prediction. It's a fact. Cohen is going to jail. Trump isn't. That doesn't mean Trump won't ever, but he's not currently going to jail. Again, context. You take too many liberties with it so discussion with you is tedious.

Merely wanting to see how much you are addicted to the cool aid. I have no idea whether Trump will ever see jail, and that is the reasonable statement. "I don't know".

Either you are a fanboy, ala TSA/Chris or not. Easy enough to step away form that crowd.

[DMC]

Merely wanting to see how much you are addicted to the cool aid. I have no idea whether Trump will ever see jail, and that is the reasonable statement. "I don't know".

Either you are a fanboy, ala TSA/Chris or not. Easy enough to step away form that crowd.

I don't do many predictions. So back to the facts: Cohen going to jail, not Trump

[RandomGuy]

It's how DMC copes - narrating

Pretty much. he starts from the assumption that I am dishonest, and can't see anything beyond that bias. Seems like projection to me. I tend to think people tell the truth generally.

[RandomGuy]

I don't do many predictions. So back to the facts: Cohen going to jail, not Trump

+1.

[CitizenDwayne]

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1101219922133299200
Almost as many as the president tells single every day, those don’t seem to bother you

[RandomGuy]

What does that mean?


There's nothing wrong with [jews] except that [they vote for Democrats?].

Was I too far off? If so, apologies. Just trying to see if I understood correctly.

[Blake]

The next time you have an original take will be the first time. Back to your corner, the show is starting.

Oh hey more narrating.

[Chris]

Almost as many as the president tells single every day, those don’t seem to bother you

Your Trump derangement syndrome has been noted.

[Blake]

I don't do many predictions. So back to the facts: Cohen going to jail, not Trump

Wow what an original take.

Seriously, show of hands of anyone disagreeing with that? Anyone? Anyone? Going once...

[DMC]

Pretty much. he starts from the assumption that I am dishonest, and can't see anything beyond that bias. Seems like projection to me. I tend to think people tell the truth generally.

Your actions indicate you don't wish to address what's being said. You prefer to change the narrative and then address that angle. You've done in plenty times in this thread already. It's a common tactic so you're not alone. In fact, it's probably 2nd most common tactic going, right behind inferring instead of quoting, or wrongly paraphrasing and responding to that instead of what was actually said.

[DMC]

Wow what an original take.

Seriously, show of hands of anyone disagreeing with that? Anyone? Anyone? Going once...

Once again you're just parroting what I said.

Mosquito cuck

[RandomGuy]

https://media.tenor.com/images/637f322056dc914ad5d853e0fc5f8bea/tenor.gif

:lmao

missed this gem.

[RandomGuy]

Not sure if I've ever heard a 4 minute speech with as much sanctimonious horseshit as that autistic screeching had.
How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won the Cohen Hearing
Too many representatives chose to bloviate instead of interrogate — except for one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-cohen-hearing.html


All of these areas offered fruitful avenues for exploration. But instead of asking probing questions and eliciting damning evidence from Mr. Cohen, too many committee members chose to make a speech. Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker tweeted in frustration, “Bipartisan incompetence in the questioning at #cohen hearing. All they do is make speeches, and fail to listen to answers or follow up.” He then tweeted sample follow-up questions, hoping desperately that someone might just try. He did give credit to several members who understand the art of questioning, including Representatives Katie Hill and Jackie Speier. But it is shocking how few members actually understand the basic function of a hearing — or chose to ignore collective goals in favor of showboating.

Eyup. Cortez got it. She came off as savvy and businesslike. The fact that she finished BEFORE her time was up was remarkable.

[RandomGuy]

Wow what an original take.

Seriously, show of hands of anyone disagreeing with that? Anyone? Anyone? Going once...

GONE.

[Chris]

She came off as savvy and businesslike.

:lol

[Blake]

Your Trump derangement syndrome has been noted.

No, the dude with documented evidence of horrible math and grammar skills doesn't get to diagnose anyone. Sorry.

[rmt]

"There's nothing wrong with them except..."

:cry "but I've got friends that are them" incoming

Nope - got no Jewish friends - why do people try to put words in my mouth? Where I live/work, it's mostly Hispanic but that's mostly Miami-Dade - except pockets like Miami Beach.

[Blake]

Once again you're just parroting what I said.

Mosquito cuck

Lol parroting? I'm making fun of you for thinking you're saying something profound when it's really just plan common factual information anyone can easily access.

You're a fucking moron.

[Will Hunting]

Since you said "Jews" you must be anti-Semitic. It's how Pavlov copes - by labeling.
Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them.

Female WC's comment had a resentment that she's now walking back as her simply pointing out that a lot of Jews live in the Miami Beach area.

The discussion was about a universally hated politician (Schultz) and how she's still in office, and female WC's reaction was to blame the Jews, despite the fact they represent 15% of the population in a congressional district she won by 22% of the vote in 2018. The numbers don't suggest there's any legitimacy to what she said. I interpreted her comment as "Something bad, must have been the joooooos!"

[rmt]

Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them.

Female WC's comment had a resentment that she's now walking back as her simply pointing out that a lot of Jews live in the Miami Beach area.

The discussion was about a universally hated politician (Schultz) and how she's still in office, and female WC's reaction was to blame the Jews, despite the fact they represent 15% of the population in a congressional district she won by 22% of the vote in 2018. The numbers don't suggest there's any legitimacy to what she said. I interpreted her comment as "Something bad, must have been the joooooos!"

smh

[Will Hunting]

smh
Excellent response. Will read again.

[Chris]

Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them.

Such a good goy ^

[Will Hunting]

Such a good goy ^
Do you know what goy means?

[Pavlov]

non-jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo

[Chris]

Do you know what goy means?

Do you even know where the "Star of David" comes from goyim?

[Pavlov]

Do you even know where the "Star of David" comes from goyim?Just say you saw it on stormfront and wanted to act cool.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Chris]

What is "stormfront"?

[Pavlov]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0cc82cca5aab759819aa177cea8a7a0a/tenor.gif

[Will Hunting]

Do you even know where the "Star of David" comes from goyim?
Knowing where the "Star of David" comes from isn't what determines one's Judaism :lmao

Calling someone who's Jewish "goyim" is retarded even by your standards.

[Chris]

Knowing where the "Star of David" comes from isn't what determines one's Judaism :lmao

Calling someone who's Jewish "goyim" is retarded even by your standards.

As long as you know when to be offended. I knew you didn't know anything about it.

[Will Hunting]

As long as you know when to be offended. I knew you didn't know anything about it.
Where did I say I was offended?

You clearly don't know anything about what goyim means :lol

[Chris]

Where did I say I was offended?

You clearly don't know anything about what goyim means :lol

I know what it means, and I call you a goyim.

lol

[Spurminator]

What is "stormfront"?

^ Definitely goes to stormfront.

No wannabe Infowars contributor like yourself would be oblivious to what Stormfront is, whether you go there or not. Your answer gives you away. You're a shitty liar, and now we know you're a wannabe Nazi. Good work, faggot.

[Will Hunting]

I know what it means, and I call you a goyim.

lol
Didn't answer the question about where I said I was offended.

Just more incoherent usage of the word goyim without any explanation.

[Pavlov]

^ Definitely goes to stormfront.

No wannabe Infowars contributor like yourself would be oblivious to what Stormfront is, whether you go there or not. Your answer gives you away. You're a shitty liar, and now we know you're a wannabe Nazi. Good work, faggot.Oh yeah?....well....go goy yourself! How about that?

[Will Hunting]

^ Definitely goes to stormfront.

No wannabe Infowars contributor like yourself would be oblivious to what Stormfront is, whether you go there or not. Your answer gives you away. You're a shitty liar, and now we know you're a wannabe Nazi. Good work, faggot.
It's like when TSA asks about what Breitbart is :lol

[Chris]

^ Definitely goes to stormfront.

No wannabe Infowars contributor like yourself would be oblivious to what Stormfront is, whether you go there or not. Your answer gives you away. You're a shitty liar, and now we know you're a wannabe Nazi. Good work, faggot.

What is "stormfront"?

[Chris]

Didn't answer the question about where I said I was offended.

Just more incoherent usage of the word goyim without any explanation.

"Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them."

You know when to get offended.

I called you a goyim.

lol

[Spurminator]

What is "vagina"?

[Will Hunting]

"Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them."

You know when to get offended.

I called you a goyim.

lol
Didn't say anything about being offended, just know when someone is or isn't an anti-Semite.

You clearly are but don't need to be a Jew to figure that one out.

[Pavlov]

"Jews (like me) become pretty good at knowing which references to "Jews" are innocuous and which ones have a resentment/negative connotation behind them."

You know when to get offended.

I called you a goyim.

lolWhy did you call him a goyim?

[djohn2oo8]

1101265288077688837

:)

[Will Hunting]

Why did you call him a goyim?

I called him a goyim because goyim

lol

[Blake]

Didn't say anything about being offended, just know when someone is or isn't an anti-Semite.

You clearly are but don't need to be a Jew to figure that one out.

Careful or next he'll call you a nig nog goy

[Bleke]

:lol Gym Jordan

:lol

[weebo]

Can one of you Shiite Trumplicans explain why you so vehemently support/protect the POTUS? As someone who is middle of the road when it comes to politics, I really would like to know the answer to this question. What I got from yesterday's hearing was 1) Cohen is scum 2) Trump is bigger scum. And although Trump may not be responsible for any or all transgression he is still accountable for everything that he is being accused of.

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

smh
:lmao acting like you were informing people of the big mystery that there’s a lot of Jews in Florida. Every CBS sitcom ever made has a retired Jewish couple from Florida in it :lol everyone knows Florida is full of white trash dumbasses, Cubans, and Jews.

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

What is "stormfront"?
Doin the troll thing

[LkrFan]

What a moronic faggot:
1100959449219506178

Why do you continue to defend this asshat Chris? I just don't get it son.

[LkrFan]

Can one of you Shiite Trumplicans explain why you so vehemently support/protect the POTUS? As someone who is middle of the road when it comes to politics, I really would like to know the answer to this question. What I got from yesterday's hearing was 1) Cohen is scum 2) Trump is bigger scum. And although Trump may not be responsible for any or all transgression he is still accountable for everything that he is being accused of.
koriwhat (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3)
TSA (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3)
ducks (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3)
hater (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3)
Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3)

[benefactor]

:lol simple Chris

[spurraider21]

:lol simple Chris
https://imgflip.com/i/2uwzirhttps://imgflip.com/i/2uwzirhttps://i.imgflip.com/2uwzir.jpg

[benefactor]

:lol

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

https://imgflip.com/i/2uwzirhttps://imgflip.com/i/2uwzirhttps://i.imgflip.com/2uwzir.jpg

:lmao

[Chris]

What a moronic faggot:
1100959449219506178

Why do you continue to defend this asshat Chris? I just don't get it son.

"He gave lot of money to charity! Grrrrrr! Arggggh!"


Maybe you can tell me what "stormfront" is and why I should care.

[Chris]

oops :lol


https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1101286743955984384

[TSA]

oops :lol


https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1101286743955984384

:lol the Democrats star witness

[Chris]

:lol the Democrats star witness

:lol Trumpistas be nervous

:lol

When you're just trying to chill the air for the NoKo meeting, and you get hit with fresh perjury charges :lol

[djohn2oo8]

:lol the Democrats star witness
Yet you believed him about Prague. So what’s to say he didn’t lie about that?

[spurraider21]

"He gave lot of money to charity! Grrrrrr! Arggggh!"


Maybe you can tell me what "stormfront" is and why I should care.
what are you reading? :lol... he had his charity organization pay $60,000 for a painting that he kept himself :lmao

and he somehow "just found out" that it was sold for 60k when he directed his organization to set up that purchase

[djohn2oo8]

Dumbass just walked yourself right into a corner TSA

[djohn2oo8]

what are you reading? :lol... he had his charity organization pay $60,000 for a painting that he kept himself :lmao
:lmao

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

what are you reading? :lol... he had his charity organization pay $60,000 for a painting that he kept himself :lmao

and he somehow "just found out" that it was sold for 60k when he directed his organization to set up that purchase
:lol Simple Chris at it again.

[LkrFan]

what are you reading? :lol... he had his charity organization pay $60,000 for a painting that he kept himself :lmao

and he somehow "just found out" that it was sold for 60k when he directed his organization to set up that purchase

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Can one of you Shiite Trumplicans explain why you so vehemently support/protect the POTUS? As someone who is middle of the road when it comes to politics, I really would like to know the answer to this question. What I got from yesterday's hearing was 1) Cohen is scum 2) Trump is bigger scum. And although Trump may not be responsible for any or all transgression he is still accountable for everything that he is being accused of.

Pretty much. The larger question about why this guy has so many people willing to be greedy ass criminals around him begs the question about what kind of boss would encourage that environment, and what that means for the executive branch overall. "tone at the top"

[djohn2oo8]

Felix Sater testifying in an open hearing on March 14th. Gonna need some more popcorn

[Cuppycake Gumdrop]

https://i.imgflip.com/2ux6pf.jpg

[Trill Clinton]

what are you reading? :lol... he had his charity organization pay $60,000 for a painting that he kept himself :lmao

and he somehow "just found out" that it was sold for 60k when he directed his organization to set up that purchase

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

"He gave lot of money to charity! Grrrrrr! Arggggh!"


Maybe you can tell me what "stormfront" is and why I should care.

He "gave" the money to HIS charity (the one with his name on it, that he was CEO of) (for a tax write off) to buy a painting. That painting ended up in his office.

Self-dealing is a HUGE no-no and a clear tax law violation. You con't lie to the IRS about this kind of thing, and this was not the only instance.

This is why the state of new York is up his ass.

As for "stormfront"... jesus dude google that shit.

[RandomGuy]

:lol

When you're just trying to chill the air for the NoKo meeting, and you get hit with fresh perjury charges :lol

Saw the memo. Weak sauce.

[djohn2oo8]

https://i.imgflip.com/2ux6pf.jpg
:lmao

[TSA]

Dumbass just walked yourself right into a corner TSA


Not at all, it was you who just walked yourself into a corner. I believed Mueller about Cohen not being in Prague.

Now it’s time to watch you stuck in the corner you walked yourself into.

Do you not believe Mueller?

[Pavlov]

:lol

When you're just trying to chill the air for the NoKo meeting, and you get hit with fresh perjury charges :lol:lmao complete DPRK failure

[djohn2oo8]

Not at all, it was you who just walked yourself into a corner. I believed Mueller about Cohen not being in Prague.

Now it’s time to watch you stuck in the corner you walked yourself into.

Do you not believe Mueller?
You posted a video of Cohen saying he was never in Prague. :lmao

[TSA]

Not at all, it was you who just walked yourself into a corner. I believed Mueller about Cohen not being in Prague.

Now it’s time to watch you stuck in the corner you walked yourself into.

Do you not believe Mueller?

:lmao djohn bolted this thread in record time

Edit: he’s back

[TSA]

You posted a video of Cohen saying he was never in Prague. :lmao

Do you not believe Mueller?

[TSA]

poor fella stuck himself in the corner

[TSA]

You posted a video of Cohen saying he was never in Prague. :lmao

You posted a sentencing memo from Mueller saying Cohen was never in Prague :lmao

[djohn2oo8]

You posted a sentencing memo from Mueller saying Cohen was never in Prague :lmao
Show me the quote from Mueller.

[djohn2oo8]

Now. Not later.

[Will Hunting]

https://i.imgflip.com/2ux6pf.jpg
:lmao:lmao

[TSA]

Show me the quote from Mueller.

Sure thing. As soon as you show me the quote where you claimed I said Mueller was not investigating collusion.

[Spurs Homer]

1101265288077688837

:)

Yes -

this is dependent on what crimes are uncovered.

If there are serious crimes and the evidence is overwhelming - there is no reason why a president cannot be indicted.

There is a DOJ policy - and everyone just accepts that as gospel -but it is just a policy.
A prosecutor in the SDNY - can weigh everything and make a decision to indict.

I think even Mueller can break this policy if he chooses but all reports are that Mueller is "by the book" and would not dare - but I disagree -

I think if Mueller saw justice being perverted by Trump and his henchmen - he would step up and find a way to do his part to prevent it.

Rosenstein - he is a wild card - he could go either way.

[TSA]

poor fella walked himself into room with no exit

[Spurs Homer]

Can one of you Shiite Trumplicans explain why you so vehemently support/protect the POTUS? As someone who is middle of the road when it comes to politics, I really would like to know the answer to this question. What I got from yesterday's hearing was 1) Cohen is scum 2) Trump is bigger scum. And although Trump may not be responsible for any or all transgression he is still accountable for everything that he is being accused of.

A brainwashed person in a cult full of brainwashed zombies - are not even aware that they have been brainwashed they just believe in dear leader - no matter what.

Trump: "what you are seeing happening with your own eyes and ears - is not really what's happening!"

Zombie: "yes boss - I will refuse to believe my lying eyes!"

[TSA]

A brainwashed person in a cult full of brainwashed zombies - are not even aware that they have been brainwashed they just believe in dear leader - no matter what.

Trump: "what you are seeing happening with your own eyes and ears - is not really what's happening!"

Zombie: "yes boss - I will refuse to believe my lying eyes!"

When Mueller completes his investigation, submits his report, and no one is charged for colluding with Russia will you admit you were brainwashed by the MSM narrative? Yes or no.