• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 33 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Watch the video from Rational Nationa
the facts are there AOC and Rho Khanna asked questions that provided leads for the House to engage in further inquiries and showed that Trump Jr. (among others needed to be questioned on financial fraud in an efficient manner.

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


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.
Click to expand...
Then where's the convictions? Where's the Dems spine to impeach?

Ghost. That's where.
 
blankslate said:
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
Jhhnn-Bernie-Bro-01.jpg


https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...are-for-all-bill.2518634/page-2#post-39074427
Jhhnn-Bernie-Bro-02.jpg



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


_________
Click to expand...

Which is just more divisive negativity on your part serving as diversion from the topic at hand.
 
Jhhnn said:
Which is just more divisive negativity on your part serving as diversion from the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

yeah, just totally ignore your own divisiveness....

And provide yet again no rebuttal on my evidence.

thanks for even more of an argument that I shouldn't have expected any better from you.

*e2a*
And for showing me that there is no real reason to reply to you on this or any other subject in the future.
You do you.


_____________
 
Last edited:
Trump's goose is cooked, some of the financial documents that Cohen submitted include a Trump property valued at $25 to $50 Million for tax purposes but valued at nearly $300 Million for a loan from Deutsche Bank, and that is just one example.

Manafort and Cohen are going to prison for the very same offense.
 
LoL @blackangst1 hammering on that collusion word, just like Trump.

For those of us who can read, including blackangst1, here's a link to the Special Councils Directive:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

And 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) can be found here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4

And 28 C.F.R. § 600

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

The word collusion isn't mentioned. But since someone can't seem to get his head around it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion

: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums up how the Trump campaign interacted with a foreign nation. Including many lies to cover it up.
 
Last edited:
blankslate said:
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.


____________
Click to expand...

You do know that Trump has repeatedly "run" for president, right? Prior to the 2016 race, right?

He ran for the 2000 Reform Party nomination before he withdrew.

In 2011, he began rattling around with running as a Repub for the 2012 election, including speaking to Tea Party groups, but eventually bowed out.

Trump then spent over $1M in research for running for president in 2013.

And as Cohen said: “The electoral research was commissioned. We did not spend $1 million on this research for it just to sit on my bookshelf.”
https://pagesix.com/2013/05/27/trump-researching-2016-run/


While Clinton called Trump, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Clinton's phone call that swayed Trump....that path was already rather worn.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

It should also be pointed out that the illegal contributions, democrats emails, were also obtained via felony - computer crimes.
 
Do all conservatives think that calling Cohen a liar because he lied to Congress and to the FBI and to the Special Council, in defense of Trump (so, accepting that he lied about Trump not committing certain crimes, means that Trump did commit those crimes), and so he therefore can not be trusted when he is deal-bound to tell the truth about those crimes...is some kind of good argument?

Is this what all conservatives are clinging to, or just the idiots in here and in Congress?
 
blackangst1 said:
Then where's the convictions? Where's the Dems spine to impeach?

Ghost. That's where.
Click to expand...

Wait- I shoot someone in the head on Fifth Avenue in plain view and I didn't do it until I'm convicted? Well no, I did and Trump has done the equivalent.

Convictions are not necessary to have done an act, the act itself is sufficient. Having a trial is necessary to have punishment in our society but sure as hell Trump is on the hook for what he did.

Speaking of convictions, why would a case go to trial before the investigation is completed? With the House they've just begun and DOJ's are ongoing. Also, your position on "where's the convictions" suggests you agree Trump can be indicted, tried and imprisoned while in office because "conviction" is contingent on being able to have a criminal trial to begin with, something that has more support with Dems and none with Republicans who don't care what Trump does. Welcome to the Dem side.

"Spine to impeach"? Again no investigation of any kind just says "Yeah what the hell, we don't have all the witnesses in and haven't had an opportunity to even begin in earnest, but let's announce we're going to prosecute, what the hell".

You are reaching to protect Trump from facts already released, and not Cohen's testimony or hearsay. Yes, facts and we have not yet done with investigations to determine the full scope of the situation.

This line of defense does not serve you well.
 
zinfamous said:
Do all conservatives think that calling Cohen a liar because he lied to Congress and to the FBI and to the Special Council, in defense of Trump (so, accepting that he lied about Trump not committing certain crimes, means that Trump did commit those crimes), and so he therefore can not be trusted when he is deal-bound to tell the truth about those crimes...is some kind of good argument?

Is this what all conservatives are clinging to, or just the idiots in here and in Congress?
Click to expand...

What they are clinging to is the hope that by shouting and banging the table with their shoe will cause enough chaos that even the facts which cannot be factually denied are ignored.
 
zinfamous said:
Do all conservatives think that calling Cohen a liar because he lied to Congress and to the FBI and to the Special Council, in defense of Trump (so, accepting that he lied about Trump not committing certain crimes, means that Trump did commit those crimes), and so he therefore can not be trusted when he is deal-bound to tell the truth about those crimes...is some kind of good argument?

Is this what all conservatives are clinging to, or just the idiots in here and in Congress?
Click to expand...

No, they are counting on the fact that your sentence is too complex for the majority of their base to understand. It simply has too many secondary clauses and by the time they are at the second clause, (if what Cohen said in the previous testimony was a lie then that means the President did commit crimes) they have completely forgotten what the sentence is about. Following a trail of logic past "If A then B" is completely beyond anyone that voted for Trump, and about 75% of everyone that voted Republican in general.
 
soundforbjt said:
What good would it do to impeach him when the Senate republicans will never go along for partisan reasons?
Click to expand...

Don't bite. Dems have all options open including impeachment but they are going to get every bit of wrongdoing they can find out in the open. The Reps might reject removal but then they are the party of the Criminal President and while Trumpetts will embrace that, the 2020 election "will resemble an orchestra of scorched cats" to borrow a line from a movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top