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

[blackangst1]

You just said Democrats have been screaming collusion for 2 years, quite clearly implying that Democrats are the only ones that think there is collusion or are interested in whether or not there was collusion.

I never said there werent GOP that thought so either. In fact, Ive never said that none of the GOP are in agreement with the Dems. Its just the Dems scream the loudest. For you to disagree would would make you an idiot.

So take your quite clear implication and shove it up your ass.

 

[blackangst1]

You didn't answer my question.

What would collusion look like for you to accept it as such?

I prefer the legal definition:

A secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage is an example ofcollusion.

 

[jackstar7]

In his opening testimony, Cohen said, “questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.”

He also said nothing happens without Trump's knowledge/approval and then described a situation where Roger Stone was coming off direct communication with Assange... and I mean, if you want to be selective feel free.

Your "legal definition"... where does that come from?

So what would you need to see to believe that collusion had occurred? Why do you dance this dance?

 

[Meghan54]

In his opening testimony, Cohen said, “questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.”

You do understand that statement is NOT saying Cohen believes there was no collusion, right?

 

[blackangst1]

He also said nothing happens without Trump's knowledge/approval and then described a situation where Roger Stone was coming off direct communication with Assange... and I mean, if you want to be selective feel free.

Aaaaand he also said he made decisions on his own based on his knowledge of what Trump would want.

 

[jackstar7]

Aaaaand he also said he made decisions on his own based on his knowledge of what Trump would want.

Based on the code.

Why do you need Trump to either be clear of these charges, or for them to meet this incredible threshold you maintain for... some reason?

 

[blackangst1]

You do understand that statement is NOT saying Cohen believes there was no collusion, right?

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

 

[ecogen]

OK so Cohen straight up said he didnt think there was any collusion at the beginning of his testimony.

You do understand that statement is NOT saying Cohen believes there was no collusion, right?

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

Fucking lol.

Can you at least try to be consistent in your idiocy?

 

[fskimospy]

In his opening testimony, Cohen said, “questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.”

Yes, exactly! You claimed Cohen said that he did not think Trump colluded with Russia. What Cohen actually said was that while he personally did not have direct evidence of collusion he suspected it took place. This means Cohen DOES believe Trump colluded with Russia.

 

[Meghan54]

And despite y'all's best efforts, blackangst won't admit he's incorrect...at all, whatsoever, period.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, exactly! You claimed Cohen said that he did not think Trump colluded with Russia. What Cohen actually said was that while he personally did not have direct evidence of collusion he suspected it took place. This means Cohen DOES believe Trump colluded with Russia.

Direct quotes always work better when arguing with people about stuff like this.

Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...move-needle-collusion/?utm_term=.afa99238e77c

 

[fskimospy]

Direct quotes always work better when arguing with people about stuff like this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...move-needle-collusion/?utm_term=.afa99238e77c

I mean he provided the direct quote which is why I’m confused as to why he’s claiming Cohen thought there was no collusion when he clearly thinks the opposite.

 

[blackangst1]

Based on the code.

Why do you need Trump to either be clear of these charges, or for them to meet this incredible threshold you maintain for... some reason?

What threshold are you talking about

 

[jackstar7]

What threshold are you talking about

Whatever it is that you need to see. The mysterious and nebulous proof of the ethereal collusion.

You're playing games. Everyone is seeing it.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, exactly! You claimed Cohen said that he did not think Trump colluded with Russia. What Cohen actually said was that while he personally did not have direct evidence of collusion he suspected it took place. This means Cohen DOES believe Trump colluded with Russia.

Yep I misspoke. But does it really matter? What he thinks may or may not have happened won't convict

 

[Meghan54]

Fair enough. I didn't know that.

OK so Cohen straight up said he didnt think there was any collusion at the beginning of his testimony.

In his opening testimony, Cohen said, “questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions.”

You do understand that statement is NOT saying Cohen believes there was no collusion, right?

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

So, the first statement you made is indeed incorrect as you just admitted, right? You know, this part:

"Cohen straight up said he didnt think there was any collusion"

That's quoted directly from you. But that flies in the face of the statement you quoted, made by Cohen, presumably in defense of your inaccurate conclusion as to what Cohen said, the one in bold just above these sentences. (I'm trying to simplify this as much as I can for you...maybe it'll help you see the inaccuracy of your initial assertion as to what Cohen said.)

When someone says "I have my suspicions," that means that person does indeed think what is being talked about probably happened, such as in this case, Trump colluding with the Russians. You're correct, Cohen said he had no hard evidence, but that's not what you asserted.

C'est la vie....like so many others, just ignore inconveniences and soldier on, smug in your self-inflicted ignorance, almost wallowing in it.

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean he provided the direct quote which is why I’m confused as to why he’s claiming Cohen thought there was no collusion when he clearly thinks the opposite.

Oh he did. Then you're right, it's odd.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep I misspoke. But does it really matter? What he thinks may or may not have happened won't convict

I think it’s pretty significant when the president’s personal lawyer thinks he conspired with a hostile foreign power to become president.

 

[interchange]

Yep I misspoke. But does it really matter? What he thinks may or may not have happened won't convict

Cohen's testimony won't convict him on crimes related to Russia. That is clear.

What about the other crimes Cohen has offered evidence of, especially campaign finance violation?

What about this testimony says anything regarding the likelihood Mueller will have findings against Trump either in any conspiracy with them to influence the election or obstruction of those investigations?

While Cohen can't damn Trump relating to Russia, it is no excuse to diminish the value of the damming information he has on other crimes or the potential of information yet to come from a very active special counsel probe.

 

[brycejones]

Fucking lol.

Can you at least try to be consistent in your idiocy?

When you jerk from one half assed lie to another you can’t keep anything straight. This is the position @blackangst1 has worked itself into.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So Felix Sater is up on March 14th. Mobster and rent free occupant on Trump's 26th floor, right next to him in fact.

Allen Weisselberg on the House Intel list to appear and Cummings will "invite" the Trump kids or subpoena their asses if need be. Kids don't get immunity, sorry Donnie.

 

[Jhhnn]

I mean he provided the direct quote which is why I’m confused as to why he’s claiming Cohen thought there was no collusion when he clearly thinks the opposite.

Blackangst found a reason to believe-

 

[blackangst1]

He also said nothing happens without Trump's knowledge/approval and then described a situation where Roger Stone was coming off direct communication with Assange... and I mean, if you want to be selective feel free.

Your "legal definition"... where does that come from?

So what would you need to see to believe that collusion had occurred? Why do you dance this dance?

Are you trolling me or do you have 6 year old comprehension? If I posted my definition of collusion, which copy/pasted from Google, would you not conclude activities that for that definition would qualify as collusion? This isn't 400 level calculus man.

 

[blackangst1]

So, the first statement you made is indeed incorrect as you just admitted, right? You know, this part:

"Cohen straight up said he didnt think there was any collusion"

That's quoted directly from you. But that flies in the face of the statement you quoted, made by Cohen, presumably in defense of your inaccurate conclusion as to what Cohen said, the one in bold just above these sentences. (I'm trying to simplify this as much as I can for you...maybe it'll help you see the inaccuracy of your initial assertion as to what Cohen said.)

When someone says "I have my suspicions," that means that person does indeed think what is being talked about probably happened, such as in this case, Trump colluding with the Russians. You're correct, Cohen said he had no hard evidence, but that's not what you asserted.

C'est la vie....like so many others, just ignore inconveniences and soldier on, smug in your self-inflicted ignorance, almost wallowing in it.

Yes and I stated I misspoke. Luckily someones opinion doesn't convict.

 

[blackangst1]

I think it’s pretty significant when the president’s personal lawyer thinks he conspired with a hostile foreign power to become president.

So where's the proof? Certainly the personal layer of Trump for 10 years, who had already broken confidentiality, would have some of it existed, no?