Trump Jr.'s 2017 Testimony Conflicts With Cohen's Account Of Russian Talks

[Chomsky]

Trump’s denial of cohen’s claims would be a strong indicator.

Ordinarily that would be a flippant reply, but this is seeming a reliable indicator as of late!

 

[Chomsky]

How do we know Cohen is telling the truth?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

"We" don't know. But it could be assumed Mueller has the corroborating proof.

 

[azgreg]

Lately Avenatti seems to be a few trees short of a forest, so I hate to stand behind him too strongly. But in the instances above, I must admit: He's been near prescient.

If I were in politics I wouldn't come anywhere near that guy.

"We" don't know. But it could be assumed Mueller has the corroborating proof.

I don't think we know 99.9% of what Mueller knows.

 

[iguanaman]

So then what does this have to do with Mueller? Its political; not legal; make the argument in 2020.

The "argument" should of been made in 2016 but Trump is a big fat liar so he duped people into voting for him.

 

[Chomsky]

If I were in politics I wouldn't come anywhere near that guy.



I don't think we know 99.9% of what Mueller knows.

Yep. He's kinda' the Dem's "Trump", for lack of better words.

 

[PLizzy]

I don't recall making that claim, though the fact that you would ask me that in response to me saying that Republicans have shifted the goal posts to demanding evidence of collusion showing rigged election results is pretty funny.

That's because (and I could be wrong) it looks like Mueller has found some sort of evidence that the Trump campaign was encouraging Russian meddling some extent, so now they're prequalifying any revelations with "well, they had to help the Russians commit the crimes, not just encourage them!".

 

[PLizzy]

Yep. He's kinda' the Dem's "Trump", for lack of better words.

Well, lets not go that far.

 

[PLizzy]

Ordinarily that would be a flippant reply, but this is seeming a reliable indicator as of late!

An even bigger indicator will be what kind of sentence Cohen receives.

If Cohen gets a pretty standard sentence, then that means Mueller didn't get anything out of him, and he was just prosecuting Cohen for his crimes. However, if Cohen gets a slap on the wrist, then you can bet green money that Cohen gave Mueller something major.

 

[Chomsky]

An even bigger indicator will be what kind of sentence Cohen receives.

If Cohen gets a pretty standard sentence, then that means Mueller didn't get anything out of him, and he was just prosecuting Cohen for his crimes. However, if Cohen gets a slap on the wrist, then you can bet green money that Cohen gave Mueller something major.

Interestingly, Cohen's lawyer is asking for no time.

Based on nothing more than a hunch, I'm going to guess it's going to be a light sentence.

 

[azgreg]

Interestingly, Cohen's lawyer is asking for no time.

Based on nothing more than a hunch, I'm going to guess it's going to be a light sentence.

What did George Papadopoulos get? 14 days?

 

[Athanasius68]

Your missing the most salient issue: Trump being compromised by this. Remember, Putin knew all this (and whatever else we don't know).

But Trump's unexplained bizarre behaviours in relation to Putin, are now starting to look pretty logical.

It's Trump's being compromised, that's the large issue here.

The salient issue is that it is basically 2019 and it really no longer be plausable to talk about 'being compromised' as a theoretical possibility.

 

[Chomsky]

What did George Papadopoulos get? 14 days?

Yes.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, though. Cohen would seem to have many possible years of criminal association, where I suspect Georgie Boy had shorter and more minimal criminal association.

 

[PLizzy]

Interestingly, Cohen's lawyer is asking for no time.

Based on nothing more than a hunch, I'm going to guess it's going to be a light sentence.

Only time will tell.

 

[azgreg]

Yes.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, though. Cohen would seem to have many possible years of criminal association, where I suspect Georgie Boy had shorter and more minimal criminal association.

I hope Cohen goes away for awhile. He's a sleazy son of a bitch.

 

[Cardinal]

Ordinarily that would be a flippant reply, but this is seeming a reliable indicator as of late!

Thing is, I wasn't being flippant.

Okay...maybe a little flippant. But there was a genuine and obvious point in there.

 

[Cardinal]

Well, lets not go that far.

I will. Without reservation. The fact that Avenatti presents himself as intelligent is a cosmetic difference at best.

 

[Chomsky]

The salient issue is that it is basically 2019 and it really no longer be plausable to talk about 'being compromised' as a theoretical possibility.

Not true.

Through this specific incident, it was an issue until it's now been revealed this week. However if Putin has more nasty stuff concerning this incident - he may - it will continue to be an issue. Even if only because Trump demonstrably cannot be trusted.

Now what we don't know, but Mueller may, is are there other compromising incidents? Looking at this entire multi-faceted hot-mess globally, as a whole, if I had to bet - I'd bet 'yes'.
.

 

[Chomsky]

Thing is, I wasn't being flippant.

Okay...maybe a little flippant. But there was a genuine and obvious point in there.

I know. I agree.

 

[Cardinal]

Not true.

Through this specific incident, it was an issue until it's now been revealed this week. However if Putin has more nasty stuff concerning this incident - he may - it will continue to be an issue. Even if only because Trump demonstrably cannot be trusted.

Now what we don't know, but Mueller may, is are there other compromising incidents? Looking at this entire multi-faceted hot-mess globally, as a whole, if I had to bet - I'd bet 'yes'.
.

It's funny how we allow trump supporters to hook and drag us along to their ever changing standards. At first it was there were no lies. Then it was lies but but there were no ethical breaches (as if the two could somehow be separated). Then there were multiple ethics violations but were they illegal? Then there were crimes but they were merely "process crimes." Then it was crimes are fine but what about collusion? Then it was "sure there was collusion but what about collusion that resulted in election tampering?" This will go on forever because Trump was a protest vote; it was an expression of hatred against Clinton, and nothing will change that.

Trying to chase after trump supporters' ever-changing standards is a fool's errand.

 

[Chomsky]

I hope Cohen goes away for awhile. He's a sleazy son of a bitch.

I agree in your personal assessment of Cohen; he is sleazier than sleaze.

But if he is cooperating with investigators in the full expanse of the Trump family and organization, at all the levels that have been purported (Mueller, SDNY, NY State, Manhattan), for that voluminous amount of work the guy is going to have to get his deal; and a big one at that.

We'll see Dec 12th.

 

[Chomsky]

Only time will tell.

11 days, to be exact.

 

[Chomsky]

It's funny how we allow trump supporters to hook and drag us along to their ever changing standards. At first it was there were no lies. Then it was lies but but there were no ethical breaches (as if the two could somehow be separated). Then there were multiple ethics violations but were they illegal? Then there were crimes but they were merely "process crimes." Then it was crimes are fine but what about collusion? Then it was "sure there was collusion but what about collusion that resulted in election tampering?" This will go on forever because Trump was a protest vote; it was an expression of hatred against Clinton, and nothing will change that.

Trying to chase after trump supporters' ever-changing standards is a fool's errand.

Pretty soon, I'm waiting to see it get to:

"It was only a little collusion"

After that, it will probably end with:

"He can't be indicted, and my Republicans Senators will not remove him. So there! MAGA!"

 

[PLizzy]

I will. Without reservation. The fact that Avenatti presents himself as intelligent is a cosmetic difference at best.

No, no man, Avenatti is nowhere near as stupid as Trump.

 

[Cardinal]

No, no man, Avenatti is nowhere near as stupid as Trump.

I believe the intelligence difference is actually cosmetic. But that notwithstanding, would you prefer a stupid Trump or a smart Trump?

 

[Cardinal]

After that, it will probably end with:
"He can't be indicted, and my Republicans Senators will not remove him. So there! MAGA!"

Although not yet ubiquitous, we've already hit that point here.