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

[blackangst1]

Or the third, obvious answer, which is that they know Trump won’t be convicted in the senate and they don’t think it’s politically smart to impeach him if they can’t remove him.

I personally think they should impeach him anyway and force Republicans to take a stand with an obvious felon. America needs to see how corrupt the Republican Party has become.

That's not the obvious answer. Dems are all about making a statement which they don't have the balls to do. Period. When Clinton was impeached it wasn't clear he would be convicted in the Senate. And that message was loud and clear. The Dems are all bark and no bite which is the reason I left the party in the 90s.

 

[blackangst1]

I’m sure my congressman will vote to impeach when the time comes so I’m not worried about that.

You’ll very likely see that federal law enforcement agrees with me too. I fully expect Don Jr to be indicted before this all is over.

This isn't about Don Jr. He's a red herring. Trump is the prize and you know it.

 

[interchange]

How about this asshat. If the Dems won't hold impeachment hearings, which as of today they don't intend to, it can only mean one of two things. One, they know this is all just a wrap up smears and there's no evidence to proceed.... Or second, despite their theories and rhetoric they actually support Trump behind closed doors.

Whichever you're comfortable with is fine with me.

I am an asshat for logically refuting your position? And I noticed you didn't address the content of what I supplied at all.

As to your statement, it is first of all uncertain if and when Democrats are bringing impeachment hearings. They've had control of the house for less than 2 full months, much of which mired by the longest ever government shutdown and the refusal of Republican leadership to promptly fill their seats on the House intelligence committee.

Secondly, the reason for any delay is quite simply lacking the confidence that he will be convicted in the Senate, and that confidence hinges solely on support he has from Republicans who have shown active intent to avoid finding out the truth.

 

[blackangst1]

I am an asshat for logically refuting your position? And I noticed you didn't address the content of what I supplied at all.

As to your statement, it is first of all uncertain if and when Democrats are bringing impeachment hearings. They've had control of the house for less than 2 full months, much of which mired by the longest ever government shutdown and the refusal of Republican leadership to promptly fill their seats on the House intelligence committee.

Secondly, the reason for any delay is quite simply lacking the confidence that he will be convicted in the Senate, and that confidence hinges solely on support he has from Republicans who have shown active intent to avoid finding out the truth.

That's bullshit. Pelosi already said they wouldn't pursue impeachment before the new session began. As of now she hasn't changed her tune.

 

[fskimospy]

This isn't about Don Jr. He's a red herring. Trump is the prize and you know it.

In the words of Steve Bannon the odds that Trump Jr. had that meeting without Trump’s approval are zero.

 

[blackangst1]

In the words of Steve Bannon the odds that Trump Jr. had that meeting without Trump’s approval are zero.

A meeting to get info of a political opponent isn't collusion.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not the obvious answer. Dems are all about making a statement which they don't have the balls to do. Period. When Clinton was impeached it wasn't clear he would be convicted in the Senate. And that message was loud and clear. The Dems are all bark and no bite which is the reason I left the party in the 90s.

It really is the obvious answer. They saw how Clinton’s impeachment rallied Democrats and they don’t want to rally Republicans unless they can get Trump.

If I had to bet I would say that Trump will be impeached before his term is up. The amount of criminal activity that’s being uncovered will eventually simply be too large to ignore.

 

[fskimospy]

A meeting to get info of a political opponent isn't collusion.

Remember, ‘collusion’ isn’t a legal term as it relates to this. There is no criminal statute of ‘collusion’. There IS a criminal statute (well, several) that cover criminal conspiracy to violate federal election law.

Secretly meeting with representatives of the Russian government so they can make illegal contributions to Trump’s campaign is definitely conspiracy to violate those laws. These are felonies.

 

[Jaskalas]

"If another ignorant business mogul ran during the Republican Primary, Trump never would have made it." remains bullshit conjecture.

Regular Republicans had to split their base.
Trump's brand of crazy was uncontested. He got 100% of his base.

That provided a lead over the more fractured voting bloc.

The same way Fred Thompson entered the race in 2008 in order to spoil Huckabee VS McCain. Without run off elections, Primaries are complete and utter BS.

 

[blackangst1]

It really is the obvious answer. They saw how Clinton’s impeachment rallied Democrats and they don’t want to rally Republicans unless they can get Trump.

If I had to bet I would say that Trump will be impeached before his term is up. The amount of criminal activity that’s being uncovered will eventually simply be too large to ignore.

Whatever you say boss. I don't think Dems have the balls. We'll see.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Or the third, obvious answer, which is that they know Trump won’t be convicted in the senate and they don’t think it’s politically smart to impeach him if they can’t remove him.

I personally think they should impeach him anyway and force Republicans to take a stand with an obvious felon. America needs to see how corrupt the Republican Party has become.

The rubes would still vote them because the Demonrats want to see them all dead from abortion or some such bullshit.

It really is the obvious answer. They saw how Clinton’s impeachment rallied Democrats and they don’t want to rally Republicans unless they can get Trump.

If I had to bet I would say that Trump will be impeached before his term is up. The amount of criminal activity that’s being uncovered will eventually simply be too large to ignore.

The Reichwing and their rubes will still deny it and will continue to vote against themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

Cohen's final words to the Committee-

https://www.nbcnews.com/card/roger-stone-disputes-cohen-s-claim-trump-knew-advance-about-n976811

 

[interchange]

That's bullshit. Pelosi already said they wouldn't pursue impeachment before the new session began. As of now she hasn't changed her tune.

Give me quotes on what she has said that refutes what I wrote in any way whatsoever.

Your way of engaging in discussion seems to be abandonment of the last logical assertion to jump to a new claim. It's quite annoying. Thus, I'll cease my engagement with you here unless you provide something directly related to words I have shared here.

 

[Maxima1]

That's not the obvious answer. Dems are all about making a statement which they don't have the balls to do. Period. When Clinton was impeached it wasn't clear he would be convicted in the Senate. And that message was loud and clear. The Dems are all bark and no bite which is the reason I left the party in the 90s.

They're waiting until Mueller, which is likely sometime in the summer. i hope Republicans double down on this obvious lifelong conman and felon because they're going to lose badly supporting the grifting, kleptocratic crime family.

This isn't about Don Jr. He's a red herring. Trump is the prize and you know it.

Well, yes, but Donnie Jr. being in trouble undoubtedly means the orange buffoon is as well. Another big prize is Javanka. A lot of conservatives deserve a good punch to the face for their complete hypocrisy on this. This administration has made a complete mockery out of classified info and the security clearance process.

 

[blackangst1]

Give me quotes on what she has said that refutes what I wrote in any way whatsoever.

Your way of engaging in discussion seems to be abandonment of the last logical assertion to jump to a new claim. It's quite annoying. Thus, I'll cease my engagement with you here unless you provide something directly related to words I have shared here.

11/18
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ts-wont-impeach-trump-if-retake-house-2018-11

"I get criticized in my own party for not being in support of it," Pelosi said. "But I'm not. If that happens, it would have to be bipartisan, and the evidence would have to be so conclusive."

1/2019
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...control-democrats-impeachment-urge/index.html

"If there's to be grounds for impeachment of President Trump -- and I'm not seeking those grounds -- that would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it before I think we should go down any impeachment path," she said.





In other words, it's not happening.

 

[blankslate]

I think it's interesting that the Justice Democrats had among the most incisive lines of questioning with a minimal amount of grandstanding...

Yet we have had too many establo-bro dems trying to minimize their worth in the House.

On another topic...

Well, duh, sure it's Hillary's fault. She single handedly forced the GOP to nominate Trump...part of her lizard alien arsenal, which includes the Jedi mind trick she used on the GOP.

maybe not Hillary... but another Clinton?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...led-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016

Wrong, says The Washington Post, which revealed the supposed truth on Wednesday: it was former president and candidate spouse Bill Clinton all along.

According to several Trump sources (and one Clinton source) who spoke to the Post, the two men spoke over the phone in late May, shortly before Trump announced his run in June. During the call, the Trump sources said, Clinton “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party” and “analyzed Trump’s prospects and his desire to rouse the G.O.P. base.”

That conversation, said the anonymous Trump sources, certainly didn’t discourage the billionaire to run: while Clinton never outright told Trump to enter the race, he reportedly told Trump that he was “striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right,” and his tone was supposedly “encouraging.”

It's only speculation of course but, if this turned out to be true, for some it would be the highest form of schadenfreude irony.


____________

 

[interchange]

11/18
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ts-wont-impeach-trump-if-retake-house-2018-11

"I get criticized in my own party for not being in support of it," Pelosi said. "But I'm not. If that happens, it would have to be bipartisan, and the evidence would have to be so conclusive."

1/2019
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...control-democrats-impeachment-urge/index.html

"If there's to be grounds for impeachment of President Trump -- and I'm not seeking those grounds -- that would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it before I think we should go down any impeachment path," she said.





In other words, it's not happening.

You posted quotes supporting my reasoning.

 

[Maxima1]

11/18
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ts-wont-impeach-trump-if-retake-house-2018-11

"I get criticized in my own party for not being in support of it," Pelosi said. "But I'm not. If that happens, it would have to be bipartisan, and the evidence would have to be so conclusive."

1/2019
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...control-democrats-impeachment-urge/index.html

"If there's to be grounds for impeachment of President Trump -- and I'm not seeking those grounds -- that would have to be so clearly bipartisan in terms of acceptance of it before I think we should go down any impeachment path," she said.

We all know Mueller's report is going to be damning, and at the very least some Republicans will side with the Democrats (i.e. the "bipartisanship"). In fact, i think it'll be damning enough that the Republicans will drop him.

 

[blackangst1]

We all know Mueller's report is going to be damning, and at the very least some Republicans will side with the Democrats (i.e. the "bipartisanship"). In fact, i think it'll be damning enough that the Republicans will drop him.

Cool. We'll see.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's interesting that the Justice Democrats had among the most incisive lines of questioning with a minimal amount of grandstanding...

Yet we have had too many establo-bro dems trying to minimize their worth in the House.

On another topic...


maybe not Hillary... but another Clinton?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...led-donald-trump-before-presidential-run-2016



It's only speculation of course but, if this turned out to be true, for some it would be the highest form of schadenfreude irony.


____________

Workin' that back handed concern troll on the Dems, again. With bonus Clinton bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

We all know Mueller's report is going to be damning, and at the very least some Republicans will side with the Democrats (i.e. the "bipartisanship"). In fact, i think it'll be damning enough that the Republicans will drop him.

I won't go quite that far. If Trump can hold the base, the GOP will be hard pressed to move against him. If it causes Trump's support to wane, McConnell can keep Trump's balls as a souvenir.

 

[blankslate]

Workin' that back handed concern troll on the Dems, again. With bonus Clinton bullshit.

yeah yeah keep telling yourself that about a person who voted for the Democratic Party even in off-year elections when it wasn't a Presidential year.

maybe it'll make you feel more comfortable about the DNC farking up in 2016

All you have is snide replies but no fact based rebuttals...
but I guess I would be expecting too much if I thought you'd provide those.


______________

 

[Jhhnn]

yeah yeah keep telling yourself that about a person who voted for the Democratic Party even in off-year elections when it wasn't a Presidential year.

maybe it'll make you feel more comfortable about the DNC farking up in 2016

All you have is snide replies but no fact based rebuttals...
but I guess I would be expecting too much if I thought you'd provide those.


______________

Once you got past praise for Justice Democrats you didn't offer any facts in the first place, just derision for "establo-bro" Dems & Trumpian gossip about Bill Clinton. Standard divisive negativity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course. It means he has no proof of it.

No personal proof but if he has knowledge that would be in the hands of prosecutors who will scrutinize Cohen's statements.

Well we'll see. One thing we DO know is Cohen has proven himself a liar. Wouldn't surprise me to see purgery charges after this hearing settles down.

There's little of substance for perjury, but Cohen did something that doesn't matter in terms of lying and that is documents that Trump committed bank fraud on a larger scale than Manafort or Cohen. This was done within the statute of limitations, inflating a property worth perhaps 20 mil to over $291 mil for one year when he applied for loans and to get a break on insurance.

My my my. Cohen can lie left and right but bank fraud on a billion dollar scale? Republicans tried to prevent exposure but Waters now has Deutsche Bank cooperating.

We have the documents and Trump dead to rights. Trump is going away for the rest of his life, it's just a matter of whether the Feds will change their policy because of the magnitude of the crimes found or wait and let NY imprison Trump forever.

 

[blankslate]

Once you got past praise for Justice Democrats you didn't offer any facts in the first place, just derision for "establo-bro" Dems & Trumpian gossip about Bill Clinton. Standard divisive negativity.

spoken without irony by someone who called the more leftist wing of the democratic base "Bernie Bros" in the past in these forums...

forgive me if I don't buy your fake concern about diviseness...
"Bro"

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...y-clearance-form.2511035/page-3#post-38983456

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...are-for-all-bill.2518634/page-2#post-39074427

here is the evidence that Dems don't value AOC and implicitly Justice Dems of which she is one because she ran on the JD ticket and has not yet to my knowledge distanced herself from them....

Exasperated Democrats try to rein in Ocasio-Cortez
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-establisment-1093728

summed up almost perfectly in video form here

_________