Michael Cohen will testify to House Oversight Feb 7 about his work for Trump

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jan 12, 2005
15,514
3,384
126
#51
So to be clear, you do not believe that sworn testimony implicating Trump in multiple felonies is meaningful? People get sent to prison on the strength of such testimony regularly. Do you apply this standard to other people?
This is a political witch hunt. It has been going on for years. The Democrats are still in full tantrum mode over losing in 2016.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,397
2,732
126
#53
This is a political witch hunt. It has been going on for years. The Democrats are still in full tantrum mode over losing in 2016.
Are you claiming that Michael Cohen lied under oath about Trump's involvement in multiple felonies? If so, what is your basis for this?

If not, can you explain why investigating and prosecuting felonies committed by the president is a 'political witch hunt'?
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
6,329
488
136
#54
This is a political witch hunt. It has been going on for years. The Democrats are still in full tantrum mode over losing in 2016.
"Individual-1 for President 2020!"
 
Feb 4, 2009
19,729
826
126
#56
No, there is some substance to Benghazi. This is more like Jade Hem level of silliness.
Ha substance with zero charges, zero guilty pleas.
How many have plead guilty how many have been charged
 
Jan 12, 2005
15,514
3,384
126
#57
Are you claiming that Michael Cohen lied under oath about Trump's involvement in multiple felonies? If so, what is your basis for this?

If not, can you explain why investigating and prosecuting felonies committed by the president is a 'political witch hunt'?

Let's talk when they press charges, ought to be any day (two years and counting) since it is so cut and dry. Cohen would never lie or anything.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,397
2,732
126
#58
Let's talk when they press charges, ought to be any day (two years and counting) since it is so cut and dry.
Why should we have to wait for an indictment in order to discuss it? After all, the Justice Department appears to be of the opinion that the president can't be indicted so that may never happen. It would have zero bearing on Trump's guilt for these multiple felonies, however.

Cohen would never lie or anything.
So in other words you are claiming that Michael Cohen perjured himself and exposed himself to additional criminal liability in that statement? The federal government has made a similar claim - are they lying too?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...aign-federal-campaign-finance-law-violations/
 
Last edited:

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,441
214
126
#59
If this is not a good thing for the country then we might as well pack it in as a country.

I never thought I would live to see a day where a president’s personal lawyer informing the public about the president’s criminal activity would be viewed as a bad thing.
I suppose I should clarify a bit by providing an alternative.

The house committee can see him in private session so that they may be able to get answers to things directly impacting national security and with less impetus for Republicans to make a spectacle of this to try and safe face with the public. Based on the findings of their private investigation, they can then start impeachment proceedings where Cohen can publicly testify to the matters. This is long overdue looking purely at the evidence publicly known for many charges against Trump worthy of impeachment consideration.

I worry that a public hearing will simply create more division. And either it will be woefully incomplete due to need to protect national security and the Mueller probe or it will expose things that might put the US at risk until Trump could be removed or some combination of both. And it seems like it will be met with the same outcome for all this crap. People dividing themselves even further into camps supportive of the President and opposed. And we know how Trump has reacted to unfavorable information coming out to the public in the past. We might not even have a funded government at the time of this testimony. Will this help settle the divide?

I want the information out and feel the institutions we have need to be able to hold public figures especially the President accountable. But given where we're at, I don't see much hope that adding fuel to the fire will settle any divide. Either it is part of a forcible settlement (impeachment) or accomplishes something to getting Republicans closer to seeing Trump as a problem needing urgent attention. I can't see how raising the stakes by putting public perception at the forefront will help that effort.

I might be totally wrong as to how things would/will go down. But this is why I raise concern.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,397
2,732
126
#60
I suppose I should clarify a bit by providing an alternative.

The house committee can see him in private session so that they may be able to get answers to things directly impacting national security and with less impetus for Republicans to make a spectacle of this to try and safe face with the public. Based on the findings of their private investigation, they can then start impeachment proceedings where Cohen can publicly testify to the matters. This is long overdue looking purely at the evidence publicly known for many charges against Trump worthy of impeachment consideration.

I worry that a public hearing will simply create more division. And either it will be woefully incomplete due to need to protect national security and the Mueller probe or it will expose things that might put the US at risk until Trump could be removed or some combination of both. And it seems like it will be met with the same outcome for all this crap. People dividing themselves even further into camps supportive of the President and opposed. And we know how Trump has reacted to unfavorable information coming out to the public in the past. We might not even have a funded government at the time of this testimony. Will this help settle the divide?

I want the information out and feel the institutions we have need to be able to hold public figures especially the President accountable. But given where we're at, I don't see much hope that adding fuel to the fire will settle any divide. Either it is part of a forcible settlement (impeachment) or accomplishes something to getting Republicans closer to seeing Trump as a problem needing urgent attention. I can't see how raising the stakes by putting public perception at the forefront will help that effort.

I might be totally wrong as to how things would/will go down. But this is why I raise concern.
In my opinion the entire reason Nixon was removed from office was the public watergate hearings. It was the shift in public opinion those caused when the president’s criminal activity became public that emboldened Republicans to put country over party. We will need the same here again.

The Republicans’ refusal to conduct any oversight over the last two years (bad), coupled with Mueller’s lack of leaks (good) has resulted in a situation where a large percentage of the country doesn’t even know that any wrongdoing has been found. Public hearings of this sort are exactly what we need to correct this misinformation.

Of course this will lead to more division, we have a president who is a criminal and he will fight removal as hard as he can. This will happen regardless of how this information comes out.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,441
214
126
#61
In my opinion the entire reason Nixon was removed from office was the public watergate hearings. It was the shift in public opinion those caused when the president’s criminal activity became public that emboldened Republicans to put country over party. We will need the same here again.

The Republicans’ refusal to conduct any oversight over the last two years (bad), coupled with Mueller’s lack of leaks (good) has resulted in a situation where a large percentage of the country doesn’t even know that any wrongdoing has been found. Public hearings of this sort are exactly what we need to correct this misinformation.

Of course this will lead to more division, we have a president who is a criminal and he will fight removal as hard as he can. This will happen regardless of how this information comes out.
I wasn't around for Watergate so I can't compare. Were pubs back then blatantly trying to attack the credibility of the hearings altogether? Was the public so rigidly divisive or just unknowing? I think importantly then the hearings were specific. Here it's Cohen testifying to the oversight committee, not part of a voted upon resolution to form a commission to conduct a specific investigation. Back then nearly everyone watched the Watergate hearings. Today? I doubt very much the average public is going to tune in and those who do already having formed a clear opinion on the matter. Importantly, I think there already exists ample evidence publicly known to take action against Trump on more than one separate reason for removal from office. Unless there's a bombshell, I don't see this moving the needle.

But it's not up to me. We'll find out when it happens
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,246
2,399
126
#62
Sounds like nothing more than more straws for TDS sufferers to grasp at. *THIS* time they'll find something! #politicalwitchhunt
Heh. Cohen wouldn't have taken a plea if the case against him were not overwhelming. He has excellent lawyers & a pretty sweet deal, all things considered. There are likely a lot of other misdeeds forgiven for his cooperation. That's how plea bargains work for rats & flippers. If Individual 1 were not President they'd already be under indictment.

That follows standard DoJ policy. It's now up to Congress to act on that through impeachment & removal from office. Then the DoJ can come back to an indictment. They'll be back anyway whenever he's out of office for any reason.
 

hal2kilo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2009
9,713
369
126
#63
I wasn't around for Watergate so I can't compare. Were pubs back then blatantly trying to attack the credibility of the hearings altogether? Was the public so rigidly divisive or just unknowing? I think importantly then the hearings were specific. Here it's Cohen testifying to the oversight committee, not part of a voted upon resolution to form a commission to conduct a specific investigation. Back then nearly everyone watched the Watergate hearings. Today? I doubt very much the average public is going to tune in and those who do already having formed a clear opinion on the matter. Importantly, I think there already exists ample evidence publicly known to take action against Trump on more than one separate reason for removal from office. Unless there's a bombshell, I don't see this moving the needle.

But it's not up to me. We'll find out when it happens
Spent as much time as I could in the summer between quarters watching them. Learned a lot about how the Senate works. Republicans can't hold back the tide any longer at least in the house.
 
Dec 12, 2000
19,724
500
126
#65
"Michael Cohen postpones plan to testify at Congress because of fear for his family’s safety"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/michael-cohen-postpones-plan-to-testify-at-congress-.html

it should be noted that the threat is coming directly from the President of the United States.
I'm skeptical. Seems like a stunt. Scuttlebutt on the Hill is that Cohen/his lawyers kept going back and forth with Dems on what he would be testifying to and Dems were saying his testimony would not be "satisfactory".
 
Aug 21, 2003
29,495
845
126
#66
Once upon a time it may have been considered unseemly, maybe impeachable, for an executive to engage in obstruction of congress by witness tampering.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,246
2,399
126
#67
Once upon a time it may have been considered unseemly, maybe impeachable, for an executive to engage in obstruction of congress by witness tampering.
It's outrageous on Trump's part. If he wants the committee to rip into Cohen over his FIL all he has to do is ask the GOP members to do the deed.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,441
214
126
#68
Any legal experts here want to comment? While I'm skeptical that Cohen actually is all that fearful of Trump's threats, Trump's tweets and public words provide confirmation that he made such statements. Looking at the statute for witness tampering, it uses words lacking precise definition so someone with expertise will need to help me out. If Trump threatens to reveal truthful information harmful to Cohen's father if Cohen provides testimony against him, is that still witness tampering? I would think so even if the information is true and does not pose direct physical threat.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,515
571
136
#69
Any legal experts here want to comment? While I'm skeptical that Cohen actually is all that fearful of Trump's threats, Trump's tweets and public words provide confirmation that he made such statements. Looking at the statute for witness tampering, it uses words lacking precise definition so someone with expertise will need to help me out. If Trump threatens to reveal truthful information harmful to Cohen's father if Cohen provides testimony against him, is that still witness tampering? I would think so even if the information is true and does not pose direct physical threat.
Gut feeling is that Cohen uses this to stick it to Trump. I think Cohen feels betrayed, so he uses this freebie to stick it to the man, maybe get something extra on his sentence, then testify anyway.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,246
2,399
126
#70
Any legal experts here want to comment? While I'm skeptical that Cohen actually is all that fearful of Trump's threats, Trump's tweets and public words provide confirmation that he made such statements. Looking at the statute for witness tampering, it uses words lacking precise definition so someone with expertise will need to help me out. If Trump threatens to reveal truthful information harmful to Cohen's father if Cohen provides testimony against him, is that still witness tampering? I would think so even if the information is true and does not pose direct physical threat.
It's perfectly clear that Trump's remarks are designed to prevent Cohen's testimony. That's witness tampering.

Offer an alternative explanation if you can.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
61,397
2,732
126
#74
Any legal experts here want to comment? While I'm skeptical that Cohen actually is all that fearful of Trump's threats, Trump's tweets and public words provide confirmation that he made such statements. Looking at the statute for witness tampering, it uses words lacking precise definition so someone with expertise will need to help me out. If Trump threatens to reveal truthful information harmful to Cohen's father if Cohen provides testimony against him, is that still witness tampering? I would think so even if the information is true and does not pose direct physical threat.
Yes, in exactly the same way that blackmail is a crime even if the information is true. (After all, blackmail usually only works if it’s true)

As for Cohen, why would he not fear Trump’s threats? I know I would. We already know he actively attempted to use federal law enforcement to attack his political enemies, after all. He failed, but that was with a DOJ and an FBI he had not yet purged. How much are you willing to bet he would fail again, your freedom?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY