Michael Cohen is writing a book.

[Jhhnn]

If that's true then where is all this evidence proving it? Was all that evidence submitted during Cohen's trial? Can we access it publicly to verify your claim is true?

More dishonesty. Trump is obviously Individual_1 as named in Cohen's indictment. The SDNY is in possession of all of Cohen's records but they are simply forbidden from prosecuting a sitting President. A lot of it, I'm sure, falls outside of the statutes of limitation, as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats funny, Trumps entire social media campaign is build upon the opposite of that being true.

If it was legally actionable to say something that causes harm which you cannot verify Trump would have gone bankrupt one or two dozen more times than he already did.

 

[fskimospy]

More dishonesty. Trump is obviously Individual_1 as named in Cohen's indictment. The SDNY is in possession of all of Cohen's records but they are simply forbidden from prosecuting a sitting President. A lot of it, I'm sure, falls outside of the statutes of limitation, as well.

Yeah I'm not sure why he's pretending there isn't sworn testimony in federal court that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Quote yourself.

You're the one making the positive claim that I trust Trump. You bear the burden of proof.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Yeah I'm not sure why he's pretending there isn't sworn testimony in federal court that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

...from Michael Cohen... who was convicted of lying to Congress... No, no, he'd never lie, right? Trust him when it's convenient, I see

 

[ch33zw1z]

...from Michael Cohen... who was convicted of lying to Congress... No, no, he'd never lie, right? Trust him when it's convenient, I see

If you think Cohen's statements werent investigated by the prosecutors, then you're only fooling yourself. Cohen lied and got caught more than once, he's lucky he only got 3 years.

 

[cytg111]

...from Michael Cohen... who was convicted of lying to Congress... No, no, he'd never lie, right? Trust him when it's convenient, I see

What did Cohen lie about? I forget...

 

[fskimospy]

...from Michael Cohen... who was convicted of lying to Congress... No, no, he'd never lie, right? Trust him when it's convenient, I see

Huh? Where did you get that silly idea? I don't take his word on anything, in this case there is extensive documentary evidence of Trump's involvement and his intent to cover this up to help him win the election (this is a felony).

FBI documents point to Trump role in hush money for porn star Daniels

FBI documents unsealed on Thursday suggest that Donald Trump was actively involved in engineering a hush-money payment shortly before the 2016 election to a porn actress who said she had a sexual encounter with him, as his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, campaign team and...

www.reuters.com

The facts of the case here aren't generally in dispute - after repeatedly lying about it Trump eventually admitted to paying Stormy Daniels off, his defense is that he just so happened to pay her off immediately after the Access Hollywood tape came out for reasons totally unconnected to the campaign. It's hard to really quantify how stupid someone would need to be to believe that but I guess there's probably someone out there who does.

Interestingly enough, Trump claims that he never had sex with Daniels (lol), meaning that he is saying she extorted him. Oddly enough, this would appear to be a comment that caused Daniels harm and it is one he apparently cannot verify. I guess by your standard of defamation he's screwed.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

If you think Cohen's statements werent investigated by the prosecutors, then you're only fooling yourself. Cohen lied and got caught more than once, he's lucky he only got 3 years.

Pretty sure Cohen's statements were investigated, that he got caught lying, making him an unreliable witness which makes everything he writes out in his book to be suspect. It's amazing that people want to distrust Cohen when it's politically expedient to do so yet scream to trust him when he writes something that falls parallel with their political alignment.

The dude is a liar and shouldn't be trusted. His book will likely be full of bullshit just like he is. I can see why he and Trump got along.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pretty sure Cohen's statements were investigated, that he got caught lying, making him an unreliable witness which makes everything he writes out in his book to be suspect. It's amazing that people want to distrust Cohen when it's politically expedient to do so yet scream to trust him when he writes something that falls parallel with their political alignment.

The dude is a liar and shouldn't be trusted. His book will likely be full of bullshit just like he is. I can see why he and Trump got along.

The point, still standing thru your feels, is that the prosecutors verified his statements. If you think he gave false statements in court and got away with it, then provide evidence of it. We already know he lied and got caught. You can safely assume anyone with a relationship to Trump like Cohen had is a liar by trade.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're the one making the positive claim that I trust Trump. You bear the burden of proof.

Your whole schtick here of attacking Cohen is in defense of Trump. You're defending Trump's pandering to xenophobia in a current thread.

I figure Cohen's book will be as much a confession as an expose'. If we listen to what he said to Congress, I think we're hearing from a man who had an epiphany about the magnitude of his own malfeasance in service to Trump. This is just part of it-

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...suffer_the_same_consequences_i_am_facing.html

This country needs to own up to the fact that we made a catastrophic mistake when we made Trump President. His very nature prevents him from serving the American people. He serves only himself.

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

The point, still standing thru your feels, is that the prosecutors verified his statements. If you think he gave false statements in court and got away with it, then provide evidence of it. We already know he lied and got caught. You can safely assume anyone with a relationship to Trump like Cohen had is a liar by trade.

I'm not making the claim that he lied and got away with it.

You're pulling strawmen out of your ass or you're just not reading my posts.

Are you high or drunk right now, by chance?

 

[Printed Circuit Bro]

Your whole schtick here of attacking Cohen is in defense of Trump.

Wrong. Not defending Trump at all; correcting falsehoods. Cohen is a shitbag and went to prison for lying. If he writes a book about something, I have no faith that anything in his book is going to be true if he couldn't tell the truth under oath. Trump's a shitbag, too, an ignorant asshole, but if you're going to accuse someone of being racist try not to use examples like posting a WWF meme and other similarly intellectually dishonest stretches of the imagination.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm not making the claim that he lied and got away with it.

You're pulling strawmen out of your ass or you're just not reading my posts.

Are you high or drunk right now, by chance?

That's exactly what you're saying. You're trying to discredit everything Cohen said because he lied also. Except, the prosecutors picked thru all his statements.

Provide the evidence, or if you can't ...then what he claimed in trial stands

 

[pcgeek11]

Wow, talk about a horrendous violation of the first amendment. This is not how our country works, at all.

Imagine if Trump raped someone and there were no witnesses. According to you they shouldn’t be allowed to tell anyone.

He isn't going to understand that. Here let me try:

@pcgeek11 Imagine if Biden raped someone and there were no witnesses. According to you, they shouldn’t be allowed to tell anyone.

What I am referring to and should have said. I mean this in respect to the defamation laws against liable and slander.

You guys are just being obtuse. LOL

If it's not verifiable and if the target of that book can prove that they've suffered a loss because of the book's publishing, the author and publisher can be sued for writing and publishing it.

This ^^^.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why (if the information is true)?

How would you know if it's true or not if it cannot be verified? Talking in a general sense here.

If some one went around spreading horrid things about you and things that you didn't do them and you suffered a reputation loss, lost your job or many other things happened because of this with no recourse for you.

Is that OK?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong. Not defending Trump at all; correcting falsehoods. Cohen is a shitbag and went to prison for lying. If he writes a book about something, I have no faith that anything in his book is going to be true if he couldn't tell the truth under oath. Trump's a shitbag, too, an ignorant asshole, but if you're going to accuse someone of being racist try not to use examples like posting a WWF meme and other similarly intellectually dishonest stretches of the imagination.

Cohen originally lied under oath to protect Trump. He confessed to that, and to lying to protect Trump to a lot of people over 10 years. I thank him for trying to set right the terrible wrong we all suffer from too many of us having trusted Trump in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

What I am referring to and should have said. I mean this in respect to the defamation laws against liable and slander.

You guys are just being obtuse. LOL


This ^^^.

Do you seriously not realize that libel and slander all are subject to the exact same first amendment requirements as anything else?

Libel and slander laws simply do not say that if someone publishes something they cannot verify that such a thing is actionable. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s super clear. PCB just didn’t know what he was talking about.

 

[nickqt]

Where there's smoke, there's Michael Cohen and 20-30 other people saying the word smoke.

Because Donald Trump, Truthteller, says so.

MAGA2020

 

[fskimospy]

How would you know if it's true or not if it cannot be verified? Talking in a general sense here.

If some one went around spreading horrid things about you and things that you didn't do them and you suffered a reputation loss, lost your job or many other things happened because of this with no recourse for you.

Is that OK?

If they can’t be verified as true or false then you have no recourse because that speech is protected by the first amendment. ONLY if you can show it is false do you have a chance and as interchange mentioned maybe not then either. (For public figures the fact that it is false is also insufficient, you need to prove malice)

 

[pcgeek11]

If they can’t be verified as true or false then you have no recourse because that speech is protected by the first amendment. ONLY if you can show it is false do you have a chance and as interchange mentioned maybe not then either. (For public figures the fact that it is false is also insufficient, you need to prove malice)

Like this:

Elements

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:
1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

OK. I was incorrect.

I still think he is a Turd, and hate the idea of "tell all books" in general as they are usually 95% bull shit and sensationalism. I think you should buy a copy when it come out, you would probably enjoy it.
LOL

 

[Fenixgoon]

OK. I was incorrect.

see? that wasn't so bad. it's ok to say "i was wrong" and "i don't know". the world doesn't expect you to be right (or to immediately know the answer) 100% of the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Like this:

Elements

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:
1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

OK. I was incorrect.

I still think he is a Turd, and hate the idea of "tell all books" in general as they are usually 95% bull shit and sensationalism. I think you should buy a copy when it come out, you would probably enjoy it.
LOL

Yeh, Michael Cohen is a dirty stinking rat. I figure the SDNY furloughed him from prison into self imposed isolation during the pandemic to be sure he can rat some more once Trump is out of office.

 

[cytg111]

Pretty sure Cohen's statements were investigated, that he got caught lying, making him an unreliable witness which makes everything he writes out in his book to be suspect. It's amazing that people want to distrust Cohen when it's politically expedient to do so yet scream to trust him when he writes something that falls parallel with their political alignment.

The dude is a liar and shouldn't be trusted. His book will likely be full of bullshit just like he is. I can see why he and Trump got along.

what they said plus he was caught trying to lie on Trumps behalf. Trump Tower Moscow was a real thing that Trump also lied repeatedly about point blank into your faces.

 

[ch33zw1z]

what they said plus he was caught trying to lie on Trumps behalf. Trump Tower Moscow was a real thing that Trump also lied repeatedly about point blank into your faces.

As a non Trump supporter and clearly an independent thinker, I'm sure PCB won't ignore this or duhvert, lol....