Not Just a Cohencidence (Mueller/Investigation Thread v.20)

[Andy Capp]

Hi, let me know when Trump is removed from office from cohens “flip”.


Oh wait, he won’t be.

Hi, let me know when Trump is removed from office from cohens “flip”.


Oh wait, he won’t be.

That's not really the point, is it, SpongeBob Shitpants?

What happened to "hahaha look at these guys who said Cohen would flip hahaha"? Tired of being wrong yet?

 

[wonderbread]

Th worst fear of these Trumpanzees is having to agree with a lib on something. LOL

 

[zebby23]

A plea agreement is not the same as a verdict. You should know better.

Yes people often plead guilty to things that aren’t crimes. I just walked into the courthouse last week and pled guilty to not eating both my slices of pizza last night for dinner, they arraigned me before telling me that’s not a crime

 

[zebby23]

That's not really the point, is it, SpongeBob Shitpants?

What happened to "hahaha look at these guys who said Cohen would flip hahaha"? Tired of being wrong yet?

That was shitpost bobs main argument. “Cohen will never flip” I’m surprised he still shows his face around here

 

[kpt018]

I think you're mashing up different conversations. To be clear about where I stand and have stood:

My position has always been that "Trump/Russia collusion" in the 2016 election is mostly likely a fantasy. Paul Manafort's trial had nothing to do with "Trump/Russia collusion". Trump paying off a couple of mistresses has nothing to do with "Trump/Russia collusion". Many people in this thread have moved the goalposts so many times that they have forgotten about the "collusion" narrative they used to push so vociferously.

The best "evidence" they have for this "collusion" is the Trump Tower meeting. I'm headed to bed soon and can't get into it now, but that meeting is unlikely to bear fruit for Mueller even if Cohen makes up a really good story.

We were talking about the level of corruption that Trump and his people are engaged in. And you made the comment that no one in his inner circle was found guilty of anything, to which I responded that your definition of inner circle is different than how most people use the term. I'm just sticking to my original point now that we know his personal attorney and campaign manager are crooks (that qualifies as inner circle). There was some disagreement about what corruption is as well. You prefer criminal activity as the qualifier, but I think it's much broader (as do most people).

To your post here, that's all fine. I've said from pretty early on and even made a thread about how much I hate the term collusion in this context. Based on how people use the term generally speaking we already know for a fact that his campaign "colluded" with Russian agents by meeting with them with excitement about getting dirt on Hillary. Now you'll take issue with that word and you'll get no disagreement from me. We'll see what the Manafort and Cohen cases lead to.

 

[Cooz]

I'm not sure what your standard is. It's unlikely that a jury would agree with you, given the Edwards precedent. If you don't care about precedent, you're of course free to interpret the laws any way you want. In the court of popular opinion, you're fighting a losing battle. Most non-partisans are not going to be convinced that paying hush money to a mistress is a serious crime.

But it is a crime when trying to influence an election. Look it up.

Look at me, I'm Waigu "But you can't prove he wanted to influence the election".

I don't have to prove $#it. It's on the tapes.

 

[HomerThompson]

...as part of a plea agreement to save himself from doing decades in prison. Cohen has an overwhelming incentive to lie, and SDNY wants Cohen to offer dirt on Trump. The fact that you don't even question the arrangement suggests anti-Trump tribalism on your part.


Then stop acting confused. Cohen was not found guilty of a crime. He pleaded guilty to save his own ass.

I never acted confused. You're the one that said he didn't commit a crime.

But, newsflash, he did. He admitted to committing the crimes in question.

 

[Cooz]

A plea agreement is not the same as a verdict. You should know better.

False yet again. Perhaps you needed the same explanation the judge gave to Cohen, that how he's pleading guilt.

Cohen acknowledged it, you should too.

Is this amateur hour? Why you post such nonsense?

 

[Higus]

what is weaboo? Is that a Pokemon?

lol, you're not fooling anyone. You come off as autistic as hell.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Counter. If our government had a shred of proof of a Russian collusion and didn't remove him from the presidency, they have failed the American public.

Agreed.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Then stop acting confused. Cohen was not found guilty of a crime. He pleaded guilty to save his own ass.

When you plead guilty (or no contest, in some jurisdictions), a judge enters a finding of guilt for the underlying charges being plead to. The Court 'FINDS' the defendant guilty. So, yes, he absolutely was 'found' guilty of crimes.

 

[HomerThompson]

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Did you just post a tweet from the guy who was busted for watching tentacle porn?

Not sure what his porn watching habits are or what they have to do with this. But, Ok

 

[waiguoren]

So is the principle that in ordinary conversation, we need proof of guilt before we comment on it? I think we need good evidence, but there is rightly a different standard for criminal convictions.

No.

Yes, I've heard this pathetic defense before. If North Korea dropped an atomic bomb on us, I'm sure you'd just say, "oh well, we dropped two on Japan so we shouldn't criticize," right?

Blatant strawman. Try again.

And Americans who aid the attack are inevitable. "Oh well, it is human nature to commit some crimes. We should just try to protect ourselves and not hold it against the criminals."

You've offered no evidence that Trump "aided" the phishing attempt, and the rest is a strawman.

"Trump imposed those sanctions." LOL. You're just trolling now.

White House Penalizes Russians Over Election Meddling and Cyberattacks

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

Like I said Jack, you're in bad form today.

But you also don't think he can be tried for a crime, right? So how can he be found guilty? Combining your positions on this issue, you're saying that impeachment is impossible.

I'm really starting to think someone hijacked your account. The House can vote on articles of impeachment. I have no idea how you concluded that I think impeachment is impossible.

 

[curryjunkie]

Pretty much.

And I am guilty of being part of that 'cause I'll still vote for him if he makes it to 2020.

But man...he's not helping his cause right now with these absurd tweets. He needs to stop and take a long tweet-break.

outstanding, i thought this thread wasnt gonna live up to the last one

 

[franklinstower]

I'm sure if Hillary's personal lawyer just plead guilty to a bunch of felonies, and personally implicated Hillary in a criminal conspiracy while under oath, while also signaling their willingness to work with the special counsel investigating her, he'd feel the same.

Im sure the guy in the shirt thinks Hilary is guilty without any of those things happening.

 

[Rational Poster]

Th worst fear of these Trumpanzees is having to agree with a lib on something. LOL

This is really all it comes down to.

Especially for guys like @waiguoren

Their fragile egos won't let them admit they poorly judged his character to themselves even. Let alone anyone else.

 

[curryjunkie]

Take notes. No makeup. No artificially enhanced features. Extremely masculine characteristics (pay careful attention to the jawline). Facial symmetry, hot fucking glasses. Wizened. Studious. Unassuming.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

 

[waiguoren]

So why is it not appropriate now?

Sure, the House can vote on articles of impeachment. I would vote "no", given that paying hush money cannot be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor".

You were just attacking Strok's morality on the exact grounds. This is just blatant tribalism.

Are you high today? Serious question. Are you using drugs?

When did Stzrok pay hush money to a mistress? I wrote that I do not find the paying of hush money to a mistress to be morally reprehensible. That has nothing to do with Stzrok.

I didn't run. I'm just anticipating a difficult adjudication process. I offered you a chance to clarify. Where on Earth does your confidence come from here if not tribalism?

I'm sure you would like to know the answer to that question. If you think my confidence is misplaced, take the bet.

I'll ignore the blatant trolling with the Russia stuff.

It's not trolling. I offered you a long list of the specific anti-Russia policies demonstrating that Trump has been tougher on Russia than any president since Ronald Reagan. You had no intelligent response.

What's the evidence that Trump has been effective on the Southern border?

Construction of new bollard-style fences/walls in Calexico, CA, Santa Teresa, NM, and San Diego, CA. Closing of asylum loopholes. Efforts to modify the Flores Settlement Agreement to allow families to be detained together to avert catch and release. Efforts to secure funding for "the wall". Efforts to modify TVPRA.

And is Trump really the only the guy who can do what he's doing? I don't see why you can't find a non-corrupt champion of your views.

This is a big difference between you and me. I don't have "champions". I like some of Trump's actions and dislike others.