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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 15, 2002
13,234
328
126
#76
Wow. I knew it was going to happen, but congress acting at light speed?
Unfortunately it’s the branch that wants to shape their narrative and protect Trump, not the House.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
51,752
2,107
126
#78
What? Are they going to ask him about Hilary's emails?
They're going to ask him about the taxi medallion racket along with anything & everything that leads away from Trump.

It's called discredit the rat.
 
Jan 25, 2011
14,009
1,203
146
#79
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...



Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
 
Nov 4, 2004
23,582
818
126
#80
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...



Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
/Facepalm
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#81
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...

Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
It's pretty interesting to see just how quickly Republicans have internalized the organized crime mentality. We are in fact seeing a member of Congress publicly threatening to blackmail a witness before Congress unless he shuts up about criminal activity by the president.
 

nOOky

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2004
1,240
34
106
#82
So what if there are some illegal revelations? Unless there is a bigly enough number of Repubs willing to even do anything about it, Pelosi likely won't go through the show of a dead end impeachment process. She's said as much. No one believes a sitting president can be indicted, so then what happens? probably nothing.
 
Dec 12, 2000
19,549
377
126
#83
Thought I'd bump this since Cohen started testimony today. Tomorrow will be open and televised. In case you are wondering how the GOP are feeling about this...



Just a little more witness intimidation before testifying before Congress. Not a big deal from a *checks notes* Congressman
Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.

There's got to be some recourse for Pelosi here, right? If not outright censure, then at least removing Gaetz from the hearing tomorrow?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#84
So what if there are some illegal revelations? Unless there is a bigly enough number of Repubs willing to even do anything about it, Pelosi likely won't go through the show of a dead end impeachment process. She's said as much. No one believes a sitting president can be indicted, so then what happens? probably nothing.
While the overall opinion probably falls more towards not being able to indict the president, lots of very accomplished and knowledgeable lawyers disagree.

After all, if you can’t arrest and indict the president what stops him from killing Congress? Really. If legally he can’t be arrested while he’s the president, the only way to remove him from the presidency is through Congress impeaching him and he can’t be arrested for killing Congress to prevent them from impeaching him...what?

Yes it’s an absurd result but it’s also the undeniable consequences of that line of legal thinking. Whenever a line of thinking reaches that sort of absurd conclusion it should be examined very closely. I for one think no one is above the law.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
51,752
2,107
126
#85
While the overall opinion probably falls more towards not being able to indict the president, lots of very accomplished and knowledgeable lawyers disagree.

After all, if you can’t arrest and indict the president what stops him from killing Congress? Really. If legally he can’t be arrested while he’s the president, the only way to remove him from the presidency is through Congress impeaching him and he can’t be arrested for killing Congress to prevent them from impeaching him...what?

Yes it’s an absurd result but it’s also the undeniable consequences of that line of legal thinking. Whenever a line of thinking reaches that sort of absurd conclusion it should be examined very closely. I for one think no one is above the law.
Ridiculous conjecture. The problem with you reasoning is that even if a President were charged, convicted & imprisoned they'd still be President unless removed from office via impeachment or the 25th amendment.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,408
199
126
#86
Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.

There's got to be some recourse for Pelosi here, right? If not outright censure, then at least removing Gaetz from the hearing tomorrow?
It won't happen, and that would cause Republicans to say that Pelosi was being partisan. But it ought to happen

More important to me than the blackmail threat is the purpose for it. Trying to cover up criminal activity by a President is basically becoming a co-conspirator. Of course there are a lot of those in Congress already...
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
18,849
249
136
#88
Wow, that's a whole other level of deplorable right there.

There's got to be some recourse for Pelosi here, right? If not outright censure, then at least removing Gaetz from the hearing tomorrow?
Saw a twitter reply to his tweet here: Hahahaha!



18 U.S.C. § 1512 (d)
Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from
— (1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding; or attempts to do so, shall be fined... or imprisoned not more
than 3 years, or both.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#89
Ridiculous conjecture. The problem with you reasoning is that even if a President were charged, convicted & imprisoned they'd still be President unless removed from office via impeachment or the 25th amendment.
That’s not a problem with my reasoning at all. Why would it be?

If you can offer a concrete, specific example as to how my reasoning is wrong I would love to hear it.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,947
680
136
#90
Ridiculous conjecture. The problem with you reasoning is that even if a President were charged, convicted & imprisoned they'd still be President unless removed from office via impeachment or the 25th amendment.
Would still be POTUS. Would not be able to continue to commit more crimes. An incarcerated president would be effectively incapacitated leaving the VP to stand in. If you look at his reasoning there is nothing faulty. He's correct - if we cannot incarcerate a POTUS then the POTUS can continue to commit crimes up to and including killing, or more plausibly, bribing/threatening Congress to prevent impeachment.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
51,752
2,107
126
#91
That’s not a problem with my reasoning at all. Why would it be?

If you can offer a concrete, specific example as to how my reasoning is wrong I would love to hear it.
Beyond what I offered earlier, there's no point to indictment w/o prosecution. Should the DoJ attempt to prosecute any President, he can fire them instead, thus invoking a Constitutional crisis that only Congress can address via impeachment. The answer to all of it is that any President must be removed from office prior to criminal proceedings against them. I'm confident the framers of the Constitution made it so by intention.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
51,752
2,107
126
#92
Would still be POTUS. Would not be able to continue to commit more crimes. An incarcerated president would be effectively incapacitated leaving the VP to stand in. If you look at his reasoning there is nothing faulty. He's correct - if we cannot incarcerate a POTUS then the POTUS can continue to commit crimes up to and including killing, or more plausibly, bribing/threatening Congress to prevent impeachment.
The Constitution & the law define the ways that power transfers to the Vice Prez & that's not one of them. The authority of the office stays with the person in office so long as they hold it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#93
Beyond what I offered earlier, there's no point to indictment w/o prosecution. Should the DoJ attempt to prosecute any President, he can fire them instead, thus invoking a Constitutional crisis that only Congress can address via impeachment. The answer to all of it is that any President must be removed from office prior to criminal proceedings against them. I'm confident the framers of the Constitution made it so by intention.
I will note that has held manifestly untrue for state governors charged with state crimes and that you haven’t provided a single legal argument as to why I’m wrong.

Similarly, what documents relating to the creation of the constitution make you think the founders intended to create a chief executive immune from law enforcement while in office? I suspect I can find a great deal that says exactly the opposite.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#94
The Constitution & the law define the ways that power transfers to the Vice Prez & that's not one of them. The authority of the office stays with the person in office so long as they hold it.
Incorrect. While improsoned the president could not perform the duties of his office. (25th amendment) More importantly, he could not prevent any other constitutional officers from removing him.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,947
680
136
#95
The Constitution & the law define the ways that power transfers to the Vice Prez & that's not one of them. The authority of the office stays with the person in office so long as they hold it.
The Constitution says, "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." Given the restrictions on outside communications from prison, I think that qualifies. Since it's never happened before, we might need a court ruling on it but that is how I think it would come out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
60,792
2,171
126
#97
So now the RNC is taunting it’s own former deputy finance chair? Lol.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
7,947
680
136
#98
So now the RNC is taunting it’s own former deputy finance chair? Lol.
The thing is, Trump himself is responsible for Cohen turning on him. After those tapes were released Trump went off on Cohen over twitter. It was after that Cohen decided to cooperate with Mueller. If Cohen is a threat to Trump and that is why they are saying this idiotic crap, then it was a self-inflicted wound anyway. A consequence of the fact that Trump can't control himself.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,324
482
126
#99

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
51,752
2,107
126
I will note that has held manifestly untrue for state governors charged with state crimes and that you haven’t provided a single legal argument as to why I’m wrong.

Similarly, what documents relating to the creation of the constitution make you think the founders intended to create a chief executive immune from law enforcement while in office? I suspect I can find a great deal that says exactly the opposite.
So, go ahead. Indict Trump. It won't change anything. He'll stay right where he is & do what he does until he dies, resigns, his term expires or until he's removed from office by the Cabinet or Congress. The power of the office cannot be transferred via any other mechanisms.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS