Michael Cohen postpones congressional testimony because of threats to family from Trump and Giuliani

[tres borrachos]

Wrong. The scandal arose after the existence of a nondisclosure agreement signed by Daniels and Trump was revealed by The Wall Street Journal in January 2018. I have never seen any tweet or photograph of Michael Cohen's daughter that he tweeted himself 'wearing black bra and panty hose; but you obviously have. Strange that it's not Michael Cohen you remembered from the photo on his own twitter account, that's odd.

January 2018 is 8 months after May of 2017.

Even your gotcha failed.

If you didn't see the picture, Google it. And learn some manners - and admit when you're wrong. Your attack on me was wrong.

And next time don't be rude to posters for no reason. If you didn't know what I was talking about, then you should ask instead of being obnoxious. It's what decent posters do.

 

[HumblePi]

January 2018 is 8 months after May of 2017.

Even your gotcha failed.

If you didn't see the picture, Google it. And learn some manners - and admit when you're wrong. Your attack on me was wrong.

And next time don't be rude to posters for no reason. If you didn't know what I was talking about, then you should ask instead of being obnoxious. It's what decent posters do.

You must be extremely insecure if you took my comment as an attack. "Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos
Stormy Daniels' and Karen McDougal's stories of the Cohen payouts broke in March of 2018. The picture of his daughter when I first knew of him was Tweeted in May of 2017. May of 2017 was 10 months earlier than March of 2018."

I just corrected your mistake by claiming the story broke in March 2018, it did not. It broke in January 2018. I am not wrong, you are. And you still haven't answered as to how you saw a photo of Michael Cohen's daughter in a black bra and panty hose that he tweeted himself when you say you didn't even know who he was?

 

[tres borrachos]

You must be extremely insecure if you took my comment as an attack. "Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos
Stormy Daniels' and Karen McDougal's stories of the Cohen payouts broke in March of 2018. The picture of his daughter when I first knew of him was Tweeted in May of 2017. May of 2017 was 10 months earlier than March of 2018."

I just corrected your mistake by claiming the story broke in March 2018, it did not. It broke in January 2018. I am not wrong, you are. And you still haven't answered as to how you saw a photo of Michael Cohen's daughter in a black bra and panty hose that he tweeted himself when you say you didn't even know who he was?

You asked me if I was living on the moon, and made fun of my user name. If you don't know that was an attack, then you are not worth posting to.

And as to your last, and extremely ignorant question, I said that was when I first heard of Cohen. That was when you attacked me. There were threads on this board when he Tweeted that picture. You better read my posts again before you start digging an even bigger hole. My posts are right there and they are crystal clear.

And it's against the rules to call me "extremely insecure". You should read the rules so you don't break them again.

 

[HumblePi]

You asked me if I was living on the moon, and made fun of my user name. If you don't know that was an attack, then you are not worth posting to.

And as to your last, and extremely ignorant question, I said that was when I first heard of Cohen. That was when you attacked me. There were threads on this board when he Tweeted that picture. You better read my posts again before you start digging an even bigger hole. My posts are right there and they are crystal clear.

And it's against the rules to call me "extremely insecure". You should read the rules so you don't break them again.

And you never heard of Michael Cohen before he tweeted a photo of what you wonder was his daughter in black bra and panty hose? That's not even logical. Before you bring erroneous information to a comment you should have the facts. Anyone who has a phone, television or internet and hasn't heard about Michael Cohen and the raid on his offices is either a shut-in or has willingly avoided any news for over a year.

 

[Plasmaball]

it wouldn't surprise me if some trump supporters threatened his daughter. They are vile people

 

[tres borrachos]

And you never heard of Michael Cohen before he tweeted a photo of what you wonder was his daughter in black bra and panty hose? That's not even logical. Before you bring erroneous information to a comment you should have the facts. Anyone who has a phone, television or internet and hasn't heard about Michael Cohen and the raid on his offices is either a shut-in or has willingly avoided any news for over a year.

Are you going to continue these idiotic posts?

The first time I heard of Cohen was in MAY OF 2017 when he Tweeted that picture and there was a thread on here discussing it.

The raids on his ****ing office happened in 2018. AFTER MAY 2017.

You're trolling and I'm so finished with you. I feel like I'm posting with my niece's 1 year old.

 

[Fishking]

Source: (CNBC) Michael Cohen postpones congressional testimony because of threats to family from Trump and Giulianil

This is freshly breaking, so I can't extensively comment due to not having a lot of information.

However, on the surface this appears problematic for Cohen. I can't imagine this will look good for him in the public eye. I do believe the circumstances involving his decision is more complex than we might easily recognize.

I'm going to need a little bit more than "threats from Trump". That's vague to the point of being meaningless. What, exactly, are they calling a threat? His tweets? If that's all he has then this is some kind of other play with a hidden intent.

 

[MTAtech]

It is a lie that Trump or Giulani threatened Cohen's family. What they said is the Cohen was involved in illegal conduct that should be investigated and implied that if Cohen violates attorney-client privilege he is subject to being sued.

How do you know neither threatened Cohen's family? Do you follow them around and listen to their conversations?

 

[Roadvirus]

How do you know neither threatened Cohen's family? Do you follow them around and listen to their conversations?

Well, so far no one has posted any evidence of real threats from Trump or Giuliani. And until someone does, many are going to call Cohen's claim "bull****".

 

[GDViking]

I thought of that too. Implied threats are still threats, even if they aren't actionable. Enough mistakes have been made by this administration that I find it hard to believe that the Mueller investigation will amount to nothing. Something tells me that all of this evidence is being compiled somewhere and once the investigation is officially concluded, the kraken will be released.

I have a feeling they have had to erect a warehouse such as the one at the end of the Indiana Jones movie to store all the evidence that is being compiled.

 

[GDViking]

I seem to recall that Sean Hannitty is/was also a client of Michael Cohen. Real Estate deals are Michael's specialty.

Shady illegal deals were his specialty...

 

[Mach]

I seem to recall that Sean Hannitty is/was also a client of Michael Cohen. Real Estate deals are Michael's specialty.

Cohen apparently talked to Hannity once or twice and also handled the other RNC guy Elliot Broidy's playboy model impregnation/abortion hush money ($1.6M).
So maybe 30 hours of work over a decade. Those are the only two other clients we're aware of, and they were for one-off things.

Trump's claim that he's got something to discuss about other clients, is just nonsense.

 

[calamity]

My initial reaction is that it's a good move for Cohen, if his goal is to damage Trump. He's playing the tampered witness card.

I believe that card has legs.

 

[Captain America]

I believe that card has legs.

View attachment 67248672

 

[Cardinal]

Absolutely. What a mess! The last thing Cummings needs is a hostile witness. But I believe he has no choice but to drag Cohen's butt down to Pennsylvania Avenue, one way or another.

And Cohen has been subpoenaed.

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/1088478847337746432

 

[Cardinal]

I'm going to need a little bit more than "threats from Trump". That's vague to the point of being meaningless. What, exactly, are they calling a threat? His tweets? If that's all he has then this is some kind of other play with a hidden intent.

The medium is irrelevant. He can make a threat via tweet, instagram, a mailed letter, text, morse code, pony express or smoke signals. The notion that tweets are "fake messaging" in some way is an amusing position to hold on a debate forum, but it doesn't work in the real world.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Mueller team never debunked the Buzzfeed story. They responded saying it was not 'accurate'. 'Debunking' and 'not accurate' are two separate things with entirely different meanings. Buzzfeed refuses to retract it and are sticking by their reporting as being factual.

Now here's the real reason that the Mueller lawyer Peter Carr responded to the Buzzfeed claim within 24 hours of the release of the story. The Mueller investigation has been absolutely unquestioningly close-mouthed about everything for the past two years. They haven't even hinted at a comment about any part of the investigation. Buzzfeed got their information from the court filing, not from any FBI agents associated with the Mueller investigation. This is precisely why Peter Carr made it clear that it did not come from Mueller's team or else the republican bloodsuckers would have jumped down the throats of the FBI and screamed and cried about leaks. Peter Carr laid the story to rest and let people believe it was all Buzzfeeds doing that they reported a story erroneously when in fact they reported it corrected, it was the source of their story that was put to rest by the FBI that it was not them that leaked it. The FBI would rather let Buzzfeed take the fall and let people go on believing it was fake news rather than risk their reputation of not leaking a word from the special counsel.

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,”

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way that I read a POSSIBLE interpretation is:

1. [**]"Statement X" is 100% correct.
2. "A" reports that "B" made "Statement X".
3. "A" actually got "Statement X" from "C".
4. "D" states that "A"'s report is "not accurate".
5. "E" then claims that "Statement X" has been proven to be false on the basis that "D" stated that "A"'s report was "not accurate".

If that is the case, and it could be, then the possibility remains that "Statement X" is true (but we don't know it yet because the source of "Statement X" hasn't given public testimony on that point).

PS - I see that a couple of the House committees have decided to subpoena Mr. Cohen. That makes him a "witness" who would be eligible for "protection" (as opposed to a "private citizen who is providing information voluntarily").

 

[Fishking]

The medium is irrelevant. He can make a threat via tweet, instagram, a mailed letter, text, morse code, pony express or smoke signals. The notion that tweets are "fake messaging" in some way is an amusing position to hold on a debate forum, but it doesn't work in the real world.

Of course, that's not what I'm saying, but you knew this and are purposefully trying to run with your own narrative. No tweets that I've seen constitutes a threat. You know what you didn't do here in your responses, and leaves my point as valid?...provide an example of an actual threat.

You still spoke in meaningless generalities. "He made threats." is proof of nothing. "He made threats when he tweeted, '$10,000 to the person who takes Cohen out'" would be proof as it's an actual event and threat being referenced.

 

[Cardinal]

Of course, that's not what I'm saying, but you knew this and are purposefully trying to run with your own narrative. No tweets that I've seen constitutes a threat. You know what you didn't do here in your responses, and leaves my point as valid?...provide an example of an actual threat.

You still spoke in meaningless generalities. "He made threats." is proof of nothing. "He made threats when he tweeted, '$10,000 to the person who takes Cohen out'" would be proof as it's an actual event and threat being referenced.

Okay, now write your post again, this time with the assumption that Trump is the President of the United States.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

The medium is irrelevant. He can make a threat via tweet, instagram, a mailed letter, text, morse code, pony express or smoke signals. The notion that tweets are "fake messaging" in some way is an amusing position to hold on a debate forum, but it doesn't work in the real world.

Do you think that he was afraid to testify because he didn't want to have to answer questions about his trip to Prague as reported in the Steele dossier?

 

[Cardinal]

Do you think that he was afraid to testify because he didn't want to have to answer questions about his trip to Prague as reported in the Steele dossier?

Why would he be afraid to answer questions about Prague?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Why would he be afraid to answer questions about Prague?

Steele reported that he was there meeting with Russian agents conspiring to steal the election. Did you forget?

 

[bubbabgone]

What would he talk about? Yoga?
Mueller wouldn't let him talk about the investigation and privilege wouldn't let him talk about anything else involving Trump.

But I was curious to see what a spoken "redaction" would look like.

 

[Cardinal]

Steele reported that he was there meeting with Russian agents conspiring to steal the election. Did you forget?

Yes, I'm well aware of the Steele dossier claim. But I'm still not clear on why he would be afraid to answer questions about Prague.

Pretend I'm stupid. And if you don't have to pretend, even better.

 

[HumblePi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way that I read a POSSIBLE interpretation is:

1. [**]"Statement X" is 100% correct.
2. "A" reports that "B" made "Statement X".
3. "A" actually got "Statement X" from "C".
4. "D" states that "A"'s report is "not accurate".
5. "E" then claims that "Statement X" has been proven to be false on the basis that "D" stated that "A"'s report was "not accurate".

If that is the case, and it could be, then the possibility remains that "Statement X" is true (but we don't know it yet because the source of "Statement X" hasn't given public testimony on that point).

PS - I see that a couple of the House committees have decided to subpoena Mr. Cohen. That makes him a "witness" who would be eligible for "protection" (as opposed to a "private citizen who is providing information voluntarily").