Cohen Promises Testimony Willl be Explosive

[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/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

[benefactor]

Republican lawmakers ask Justice Department to investigate Michael Cohen for perjury


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/28/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

stop picking on dear leader

[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/bus...135187364.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/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

[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/bus...135187364.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.

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

[DMC]

Yeah. "Be a " 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.

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

Thanks for admitting you're full of , 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 subs uted 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.