Cohen Promises Testimony Willl be Explosive

[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 bull . 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]

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 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 " 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 bull . 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 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 back quick.



GOP Congressman Threatens Michael Cohen on Twitter
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...n-twitter.html

My Ethics Complaint to The Florida State Bar Against Representative Matt Gaetz
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ive-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.

[RandomGuy]

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

[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

[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]

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 " 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 s to the oligarchy, and its voters are the major reason America is ed and un able.

yep, you conservatives/Repug voters/Bible humpers are ing 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 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