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

[nutxo]

It was primarily about criminal activity by the president. What do you think about that?

Usually in hearings like this isnt there a scope? I mean this seems to have been all over the place.

 

[blackangst1]

That was what Republicans tried to do however it was about what happened, and Cohen was more credible than the Republicans themselves. In the end they came out the losers.

Fair enough. I guess I'm mincing words.

 

[GettyRoad]

Ridiculous revisionist history. It was the Bush admin who intervened to save the banking industry & the economy from ruin. It was their regulatory policy that allowed the top down class warfare looting spree in the first place. They let the bankers & the speculators run wild.

Yes, I know that, but Dodd-Frank financial regulation law was way too complicated. Had Obama and Biden explain it to Joe and Jane in Staten Island, in Lorain, Ohio, in inner cities and rural areas, he would have been a better economic president.

Government and presidents don't create jobs. The private sector does. The economic environment could have been much much better. Hence the rise of Sanders and Trump. I didn't like Bernie 2016. But heck, I underestimated Bernie.

Not this time. I'll listen to what Bernie has to say. Even if I disagree with him on some economics.

 

[fskimospy]

Usually in hearings like this isnt there a scope? I mean this seems to have been all over the place.

Regardless, the hearing seemed to focus on the multiple felonies the president was engaged in so is the scope of the hearing really relevant?

 

[kage69]

May I please ask a question? What exactly was the state purpose of this hearing? I thought it was about collusion with the Russians?

That means you still aren't paying attention. Cohen covered that in the very beginning of this testimony. You sure you watched or listened?

It's not your typical republican theater, confusing isn't it?

 

[blackangst1]

Cohen is going to jail. This is about what he can tell Congress about Trump and other criminal activity.

Get yer head out of your ass.

I heard maybe 1 question about Trump for every 6 about his own activities. *shrug*

Still waiting for this collision evidence though.

 

[blackangst1]

Getting the truth out in the open for starters.
We have a name for those people. Ignorant. I mean they don't give a shit about politics until one of the worst human beings on the planet joins the race, and then they are gung ho voting for him. What else would you call that?

American politics?

 

[dank69]

https://webcache.googleusercontent....-unemployment-rate+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Yeah I decided to look it up and it hovered around 3 from 51 to the middle of 54 and as I thought might be the case was down near 1 during WWII.

 

[nutxo]

Regardless, the hearing seemed to focus on the multiple felonies the president was engaged in so is the scope of the hearing really relevant?

So what did the question about a sex tape and him hitting his wife have to do with anything?

 

[fskimospy]

I heard maybe 1 question about Trump for every 6 about his own activities. *shrug*

Still waiting for this collision evidence though.

Cohen testified to how Trump knew about the Wikileaks dumps ahead of time. Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence.

Even if you don’t want to implicate trump himself (LOL) no sane person can deny collusion between the trump campaign and Russia considering it’s been public knowledge for a year.

 

[blackangst1]

You mean they "care" about the economy but know nothing about it yet think they know everything about it.

Sounds like P&N honestly

 

[Jhhnn]

It was primarily about criminal activity by the president. What do you think about that?

Yeh, the Russia thing is the other criminal activity. Trump is a multifaceted guy.

 

[fskimospy]

So what did the question about a sex tape and him hitting his wife have to do with anything?

Huh? We now have documented evidence of Trump engaging in felony campaign finance violations.

People have gone to prison for this. It’s not special, he should go to jail. Right?

 

[brycejones]

Usually in hearings like this isnt there a scope? I mean this seems to have been all over the place.

Yes the scope was the President’s criminal activity as Cohen knew about it. The fact that seemed to be all over the place to you should be a giant warning sign of just how corrupt the current president is.

 

[glenn1]

Regardless, the hearing seemed to focus on the multiple felonies the president was engaged in so is the scope of the hearing really relevant?

<shrug> Trump won't be convicted even if he's impeached so hearings like this are mainly red meat for the base. I think the guy's an idiot and shouldn't have gotten a single primary vote much less won the whole shebang but really spending time on further discussions about how Trump is a liar and a crook isn't doing anything to change current situation. i doubt it's going to change minds in 2020 either and that election is going to be completely about whether Dems can avoid running a disastrous candidate like they did in 2016. So far everyone who's announced to date seems like a credible upgrade over Trump to probably 60% of the electorate but it's not impossible for the Dems to still fvck this up and lose.

 

[dank69]

<shrug> Trump won't be convicted even if he's impeached so hearings like this are mainly red meat for the base. I think the guy's an idiot and shouldn't have gotten a single primary vote much less won the whole shebang but really spending time on further discussions about how Trump is a liar and a crook isn't doing anything to change current situation. i doubt it's going to change minds in 2020 either and that election is going to be completely about whether Dems can avoid running a disastrous candidate like they did in 2016. So far everyone who's announced to date seems like a credible upgrade over Trump to probably 60% of the electorate but it's not impossible for the Dems to still fvck this up and lose.

Still clinging to the belief that Hillary is just as bad as Trump, eh?

 

[Bitek]

I know job creation. Yes, there was a lot of jobs created under Obama, but there was too much excessive regulations. He overreacted to the Wall Street crash.

Unemployment could have been below 3%.

So, you are suggesting that Obama was too harsh to the banks for the great financial crash, perpetrated by their fraud, that destroyed trillions in wealth, cost millions their homes, and created a lost decade of economic prosperity?

How many went to jail for this? One person?

Over 1000 bankers went to prison for the S&L crisis in the 80s.

Yeah, Obama, really roughed them up. Thank God Trump is here to make their lives easier.

 

[blackangst1]

Cohen testified to how Trump knew about the Wikileaks dumps ahead of time. Wikileaks is a front for Russian intelligence.

Even if you don’t want to implicate trump himself (LOL) no sane person can deny collusion between the trump campaign and Russia considering it’s been public knowledge for a year.

Trump wanting evidence from WikiLeaks obtained from Russia is NOT collision with Russia. You know better.

 

[blackangst1]

Huh? We now have documented evidence of Trump engaging in felony campaign finance violations.

People have gone to prison for this. It’s not special, he should go to jail. Right?

Gonna answer the question? Because some enthusiastic senator asked about both these things.

 

[dank69]

Yes, I know that, but Dodd-Frank financial regulation law was way too complicated. Had Obama and Biden explain it to Joe and Jane in Staten Island, in Lorain, Ohio, in inner cities and rural areas, he would have been a better economic president.

Government and presidents don't create jobs. The private sector does. The economic environment could have been much much better. Hence the rise of Sanders and Trump. I didn't like Bernie 2016. But heck, I underestimated Bernie.

Not this time. I'll listen to what Bernie has to say. Even if I disagree with him on some economics.

You are all over the place. Dodd-Frank was no good but if Obama explained it better to Staten Island he would have been a better economic president? Wut?

 

[fskimospy]

<shrug> Trump won't be convicted even if he's impeached so hearings like this are mainly red meat for the base. I think the guy's an idiot and shouldn't have gotten a single primary vote much less won the whole shebang but really spending time on further discussions about how Trump is a liar and a crook isn't doing anything to change current situation. i doubt it's going to change minds in 2020 either and that election is going to be completely about whether Dems can avoid running a disastrous candidate like they did in 2016. So far everyone who's announced to date seems like a credible upgrade over Trump to probably 60% of the electorate but it's not impossible for the Dems to still fvck this up and lose.

So to be clear, you think the Democrats should have conducted no hearings of Nixon because he could not be re-elected?

I think if you have read my posts at all you know my big boner is for the institutions. The best thing we can do for institutions is impeach and remove this asshole. If he just loses an election it means all the bad things he did didn’t matter.

 

[GettyRoad]

You are all over the place. Dodd-Frank was no good but if Obama explained it better to Staten Island he would have been a better economic president? Wut?

It was too excessive on regulations. Obama is a good orator. If you can give a good speech, you gotta communicate better. Reagan was a good communicator. Obama was a good orator, but his message never got out to people as president effectively.

 

[fskimospy]

Gonna answer the question? Because some enthusiastic senator asked about both these things.

I don’t understand.

This is your country. We have a president, someone who I assume conservatives never wanted to be so powerful, who is using his office to become a kleptocrat.

I’m a liberal. Conservatives don’t care what I say. They do care what you say. This is a national emergency. Please help.

 

[glenn1]

Still clinging to the belief that Hillary is just as bad as Trump, eh?

She lost to him, isn't that prima facie evidence that she was a terrible candidate? Losing to the most unpopular nominee to ever run would seem by definition you were a terrible candidate.

So to be clear, you think the Democrats should have conducted no hearings of Nixon because he could not be re-elected?

I think if you have read my posts at all you know my big boner is for the institutions. The best thing we can do for institutions is impeach and remove this asshole. If he just loses an election it means all the bad things he did didn’t matter.

I'm not saying they shouldn't conduct hearings but ultimately they won't lead to removal of Trump from office as Nixon would have been for Watergate. if your point is simply to have hearings as a political spectacle to say one more time "see we told you Trump was a crook!" then have at it. Good luck with impeachment and actually getting the Senate supermajority to convict, I guess everyone needs a pointless project they'll never finish.

 

[fskimospy]

She lost to him, isn't that prima facie evidence that she was a terrible candidate? Losing to the most unpopular nominee to ever run would seem by definition you were a terrible candidate.


I'm not saying they shouldn't conduct hearings but ultimately they won't lead to removal of Trump from office as Nixon would have been for Watergate. if your point is simply to have hearings as a political spectacle to say one more time "see we told you Trump was a crook!" then have at it. Good luck with impeachment and actually getting the Senate supermajority to convict, I guess everyone needs a pointless project they'll never finish.

That’s the same argument Nixon supporters made about a year before he resigned.

Maybe it won’t succeed. Doesn’t mean we don’t try.