Cohen: Trump Knew I Called Kremlin for Help With Trump Tower Moscow

[Chillfolks]

Do you actually suspect you're fooling anyone by announcing that you would accept "some evidence" while claiming to define what counts as evidence? You think it creates the appearance of reasonableness without telegraphing that, like everything else that comes out, you are going to tell some silly lie to dismiss whatever 'evidence' is produced? (Nevermind that Cohen's testimony IS evidence).






I also have to note the unfortunate habit of some posts to sort of drop one line then attempt to re-argue the same point with someone else, as if nothing had been said previously. Is the idea that if enough thread pages are filled inbetween, the earlier points might as well not have been made?

I need more than just Cohen's word. When its presented we can go from there. I'm not believing what he says at fave value.

 

[Cardinal]

I need more than just Cohen's word. When its presented we can go from there. I'm not believing what he says at fave value.

We know there is literally nothing that could influence you to accept the word of anybody's testimony against Trump. Your facade is subatomically thin.

 

[Chillfolks]

Absolutely nobody expects you to believe him "at face value" because there's no reason to operate on such faith.

He's pleaded guilty to multiple crimes with barely any resistance to Mueller, unlike Manafort who has fought back at every conceivable turn. The judge will take Cohen's cooperation into consideration during sentencing. If he is shown at any point to be lying after sentencing, Mueller can go back to the judge and ask him to give Cohen the maximum sentence (and he would probably get it). It must also be taken into account that Cohen has been cooperating on multiple investigations and lawsuits against Trump, Trump Foundation, and at least one investigation we don't even know about yet. Mueller has metric ****tons of information, and he would be able to nail Cohen's ass to the wall if Cohen so much as lies about what he put on his cereal in the morning. In short, lying to Mueller and the courts would be several lifetime-sentences kinds of stupid. Lying to Mueller would also be completely pointless because in the highly unlikely scenario that Trump pardons him (will not happen), Cohen still has massive legal exposure to state crimes in New York. Also, New York is almost certainly going to close its double-jeopardy loophole when Democrats take over the state legislature in January.

There is every upside to telling the truth and every imaginable downside to lying.

But you'll only accept the testimoney of a person with a perfect moral history, as if Trump would ever hire such a person and as if such a person would ever work for Trump.

I don't need a person with perfect moral history. Just someone more believable than Cohen or some evidence Cohen can produce to back up what he says.

 

[Chillfolks]

We know there is literally nothing that could influence you to accept the word anybody's testimony against Trump. Your facade is subatomically thin.

Then you don't know ****

 

[Cardinal]

Then you don't know ****

I'm sure that somewhere down the road we'll find a nun who's been working for Trump for years, has never lied, has never done anything illegal, and will then testify against trump having been witness to multiple crimes over the years.

That's the standard you've set, you know the standard can't be met and that's why you created it.

 

[Mr Person]

I need more than just Cohen's word. When its presented we can go from there. I'm not believing what he says at fave value.

We know there is literally nothing that could influence you to accept the word anybody's testimony against Trump. Your facade is subatomically thin.

There's that....and then there's the fact that we're not seeing any threads about the horrors of jail snitches (or fraudsters) getting deals by turning an accused drug dealer in.....

Then you don't know ****

And there's the fact that the same people demanding hard evidence had no problems with seven+ investigations allegedly into Benghazi but used to probe an email server...

...and the utter disdain aimed by the same at the idea that Ivanka's private phone crap might even be so much as investigated....

....and really everything or anything else. Now that's not to say that any particular bad thing is not bad. But it is to say that certain people just plain do not have standing to complain about a certain set of potentially bad things, not that those things are even there. The only sense in that "witch hunt" is a valid complaint is if someone wants to hang their hat on a pointless semantic distinction between witches and warlocks.




I do find it truly frightening that X% of this country is now happiest when lie-attacking the other.

 

[JustHanging]

Cohen is an admitted liar many times over - who now claims people should be believe him when he says "believe me, everything I said was a lie" in exchange for reduced sentencing.

Worst witness ever.

Besides, even if everything Cohen said is true it does not implicate Trump (nor any WH staff or Trump managers of his businesses) in any illegal conduct. So the worst witness ever still has nothing to say harming President Trump.

Only idiots believe that talking to Russians or wanting to do business in Russia is a crime.

It's not a crime. But he lied about it, thus giving the Kremlin leverage, and that left Trump compromised.

I can't imagine anyone but a complete and utter idiot thinking that Putin would not use that leverage for gain. He may have used it get even more leverage, we'll likely never know, it's not like it would be hard to trick Trump. The one thing that seems certain is Trump was compromised, and the Kremlin had the leverage.



But hey, there's nothing illegal anyone can prove, so who cares if one of the USA's oldest enemies has leverage on the POTUS, a POTUS with an entire lifetime of questionable behavior...right? WITCH HUNT!!! SMH.

 

[Mach]

I don't need a person with perfect moral history. Just someone more believable than Cohen or some evidence Cohen can produce to back up what he says.

So how did they know Cohen was lying, if prosecutors couldn’t evidence what really occurred?

And how could prosecutors bring such claims, without the grand jury’s support in having agreed with prosecutions s claims after they too looked at the evidence?
You don’t believe those things already are significantly more substantial than Cohen’s willingness to agree...under penalty of perjury AND the loss of his plea deal?

Now that’s the evidence so far that we have.
What evidence are you using to believe that it’s false? It must meet a higher standard than the above, if you believe it more than the above? Then let us know...on what evidence are you basing this belief that what prosecutors state occurred...is a lie?

 

[JacksinPA]

So we are supposed to now believe someone who has admitted to lying in connection to this case already ?

It may well be true but I'm going to need something more than just Cohen's word to believe it.

If they have recordings of his calls to Russia or other evidence that he called them, yes.

 

[joko104]

Well I would say Manafort is the worst witness ever as he was trying to work both ends at the same time, lying to one or both parties (Mueller and the Trump team) at the same time.

At least Cohen kept that much straight. He was either truthful when he was covering for Trump or truthful now that he is no longer covering for Trump. But he has not been working both ends against the middle. Cohen's story now is diametrically opposed to what it was. So he is either lying now or was lying then. But he could not have been lying in both instances. You can decide for yourself at this date when Cohen was lying. But he was not lying in both instances.

Not as a partisan topic but I would never believe anyone whose testimony is in exchange for a lower sentence or immunity. Many people will lie to try to get a free meal from a restaurant and will shoplift for $10. Most people would lie to avoid or reduce prison time.

 

[joko104]

So how did they know Cohen was lying, if prosecutors couldn’t evidence what really occurred?

And how could prosecutors bring such claims, without the grand jury’s support in having agreed with prosecutions s claims after they too looked at the evidence?
You don’t believe those things already are significantly more substantial than Cohen’s willingness to agree...under penalty of perjury AND the loss of his plea deal?

Now that’s the evidence so far that we have.
What evidence are you using to believe that it’s false? It must meet a higher standard than the above, if you believe it more than the above? Then let us know...on what evidence are you basing this belief that what prosecutors state occurred...is a lie?

That's not even relevant. The question is not what Cohen did, but what Trump did. Yet even at that, there would be nothing illegal in it as it is not illegal to do business in Russia.

 

[Mach]

That's not even relevant. The question is not what Cohen did, but what Trump did. Yet even at that, there would be nothing illegal in it as it is not illegal to do business in Russia.

That's false. That was in reply to what I quoted:

I don't need a person with perfect moral history. Just someone more believable than Cohen or some evidence Cohen can produce to back up what he says.

So there appears to be more than just "cohen's word", as I wrote.

 

[akyron]

I am not sure there is an issue regardless. Russia is famous for having to consult their government for contracts. Who else would you ask for a permit to build? Has anyone here built a russian building lately?