You seem to be suggesting that people don't just get "caught up in things".
Madoff? Worldcom? Enron? etc...
You are free to not find him credible but bad people do bad things and testify against other bad people fairly regularly.
Collusion
- Thread starter Merge
- Start date
You seem to be suggesting that people don't just get "caught up in things".
Madoff? Worldcom? Enron? etc...
You are free to not find him credible but bad people do bad things and testify against other bad people fairly regularly.
Wrong. You don’t “get caught up in it”. You know darn well what you’re involved in but you choose power and greed over doing what’s morally right. Nobody put a gun to Cohen’s head to work for Trump for that long. Especially if he was that good of an attorney he could’ve done anything that he wanted.
The executives of the organizations that you mentioned above were all willing participants.
No one is suggesting Cohen wasn't a willing participant. He is going to jail for it.
You said he lost credibility because he did bad stuff for Trump, but doing bad stuff for a long period of time doesn't mean you are not credible.
We have literally had members of the mafia who were all willing participants in mafia activity testify against other members of the mafia.
If you don't find him to be credible, that is fine.... but I think the reason you provided appears flawed.
Not flawed at all. I didn’t say he did bad stuff for Trump. Go back and read my post.
And comparing working for Trump to the mafia is laughable. Do you think anyone on the Enron executive team is credible?
Last edited:
Maybe you can clarify why you believe Cohen lost all credibility?
Before when you said
"Sorry, but Cohen loses all credibility because he had no problem accepting payment from Trump for over 10 years despite how he characterized him as a racist and fraud. "
I understood that as you believe Cohen losses all credibility because he had no problem working for Trump for 10 years despite characterizing him as a racist and fraud.
My Mafia analogy wasn't mean to mean that Trump is a mafia boss and Cohen is a member of that mafia.
My point was that a 10 year member of the mafia can testify against another member of the mafia... If they don't lose "all credibility" then clearly Cohen wouldn't automatically lose all credibility either.
lol, ok.
If you don't think Cohen was credible because he already lied to congress, that would make sense.
You didn't though.
You said he lost all credibility because he worked for Trump and went along with it for 10 years as if people can't get caught up in things.
I didn't think that made any sense which is why I commented.
That would be the same as saying that someone working at Enron going along with Fraud couldn't testify against other people at Enron, right?
Except they did, and there are many cases where people who "went along with something" testified against people that they worked with.
You could have just said you don't find him credible because of partisanship and that would have made more sense.
That person from Enron could certainly testify but I would feel the same way about them. Zero credibility.
He worked for this alleged racist, cheater, liar who demanded Cohen threaten people for over a decade (and made a lot of money doing so) and all of a sudden, he has an epiphany after Trumps comments in Helsinki. It goes to his character and credibility.
Michael Cohen came to Congress saying I have made my mistakes, but now I want to change my life. And you know, if we as a nation did not give people an opportunity after they’ve made mistakes to change their lives, a whole lot of people would not do very well.
Cohen is/was the kind of sleazy lawyer that gives lawyers a bad name.
Nothing he said was very damming in my opinion: Trump is a liar, fraud, cheat, nothing shocking there, sounds like 90% of all policiticians. And for Trump that is the opinion of many, probably even Trump supporters to some degree.
Racist, thst is an easy tag to throw out, especially against a white male like Trump, nothing others don’t say every day.
So nothing shocking, no real smoking gun, seemed to actual support Trump stance on criminal actions.
Nothing he said was very damming in my opinion: Trump is a liar, fraud, cheat, nothing shocking there, sounds like 90% of all policiticians. And for Trump that is the opinion of many, probably even Trump supporters to some degree.
Racist, thst is an easy tag to throw out, especially against a white male like Trump, nothing others don’t say every day.
So nothing shocking, no real smoking gun, seemed to actual support Trump stance on criminal actions.
I mean, you're free to that opinion but you are essentially saying that if you were a juror, no bad actor could ever testify against someone they were working with?
It happens all the time. You would be told to assess their credibility but their history doesn't automatically give them zero.
Like I said, I thought there were two things that I thought gave him some credibility. Lying at this point would remove any chance to reduce his sentence with the SDNY, and that he denied things about Trump that he could have just said that he didn't know. (Trump hitting Melanie and the love child)
The check is a problem, that will come up again.
Also, provided some leverage for Dems to call Wieselberg and Pecker in for questioning, as well as providing a reason to obtain Trump's tax returns.
You keep misrepresenting my POV. As I said before, he can certainly testify, but the veracity and credibility of his testimony will be weighed against his character and what he says during that testimony. He's lied under oath and his depiction of Trump and what led him to testify is laughable. IMO he helped Trump more than hurt him as far as what we saw.
My issue with your POV is what you said originally which was that he has zero credibility because he worked for Trump for 10 years.
I took issue with that because it doesn't make any sense.
If you think it's zero because he lied under oath previously, fine. Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, we already knew most of what he said. There were some items that will require follow up that could be problematic down the road but I can buy the argument that the testimony helped due to a lack of a bombshell that people were probably hoping for. We'll see if it moves the needle on Trump's approval in the next week or so.
Merge, this was my quote and it's pretty clear.
Sorry, but Cohen loses all credibility because he had no problem accepting payment from Trump for over 10 years despite how he characterized him as a racist and fraud.
His character and credibility as someone who remarkably found the light after hearing Trumps comments in Helsinki, ring hollow. And, as I also said he lied under oath previously which even brings more into question any credibility he has as a witness.
Hmm. How would prosecutors convict people without people snitching who operated within a criminal enterprise then testified against the boss of that criminal enterprise? Whether we talk about the mafia, street gangs or corporations like Enron.
Absolutely ridiculous thinking here. You may judge his credibility to see if it makes sense or not. But to disregard his testimony because he worked for trump for 10 years is ludicrous thinking. I’m sure if this was a prosecution for a Bloods street gang and their star witness was a long time member of the gang who is now a witness against the head of the gang, you would thing differently.
I understand what you said. It just doesn't make any sense.
Cohen can believe Trump is a racist fraud and also think he would not let that influence his actions as president.
Maybe Cohen actually believed that Trump would be a good leader despite his personal character flaws and was upset that he was wrong?
It doesn’t make sense to YOU.
How on earth could Cohen have thought Trump would be a great leader if He thought he was a racist, wire fraud who threatens people regularly? And you accuse me of not making sense? lol
I mean just last year a former congressman was found guilty of fraud and his staffer went along with it and testified against him. We have paid millions of dollars in sex related payoffs for members of congress and we don't know anything about them. There are horrible people in congress with a staff that know their transgressions.
It's really not that complex. Do you think its possible that there have been frauds in politics with a staff of people behind them that might believe in their politics?
You’re really reaching. This is supposed to be a high powered, intelligent an successful attorney who was not even on trumps staff, not some staff member that can be easily intimidated or worried about their career.
"Not you or anyone you know will embarrass me in front of Mr T when he asks me what is happening"
That is a direct quote from Cohen to Sater regarding why the Russia deal was taking so long. Cohen was intimidated and worried about disappointing Trump.
Southern State of NY will probably get Trump on tax evasion and if they do he deserves it. All the other stuff is noise and nothing will happen IMO with the collusion stuff or the Cohen testimony except for more theatre and posturing.
Meanwhile the economy is going gangbusters but no one is talking about that...
Meanwhile the economy is going gangbusters but no one is talking about that...
Felix Sater will be testifying soon. We don't know what he will say.
Can he credibly bring allegations of wrongdoing against Trump?
How about Allen Weiselberg?
No one should have ever supported a candidate that was unwilling to release their taxes. Hopefully that is a lesson we have all learned going forward.
Obviously I don't agree on collusion, but the Cohen testimony will be a problem, the copy of the check being the biggest issue. Trump will eventually be charged with conspiracy to violate federal election laws but not while in office.
Regarding the economy, there are still some signs of strength but there have been a few warning signs as well like delinquency rates... if borrowers are not meeting their debt obligations, consumer spending could be on the decline soon as well. There could be something else driving that as well like the government shutdown and people looking to defer payments but that should prove out over the next couple months. Wages have improved and there are still a ton of job openings nationally, so I am hoping the warning signs are temporary.
I agree but this should also include college and military records, they’re all hiding something.
They discussed what he would be allowed to talk about in an open hearing.
Everyone who has every testified before congress has done the same thing.
I’ll tell you that when they testify and observe what they say. Just like I did with Cohen.
I know little about Felix Sater but apparently he is a former Russian-American mobster and convicted felon who became an FBI informant. He has also worked with known scoundrel Michael Cohen. Based on the standard set by Hall85, nothing he says will be credible, unless it exonerates the President.
Indeed that is what I was alluding to.
Back when Cohen was believed to have flipped months ago, there was a story about his conversations with his father (a holocaust survivor) who didn't want his son to stand up for Trump anymore. We knew Trump's response to Charlottesville was part of that. We knew Cohen claimed Helsinki as one of the reasons Cohen flipped on Trump since last summer.
Everything 85 used as his reason why Cohen wasn't credible was known before Cohen testified. His mind was made up before he spoke.
Keep trying Merge, but you’re still wrong. “There was a story about a conversation”...lol.
It really doesn’t matter anyway. Point of the original comment was that Cohen’s testimony didn’t really move the needle on collusion (in fact, he helped Trump’s cause) and whether there would be any added pressure on the Senate to act on impeachment from the House (which we know is likely). He’s a liar that worked for a liar. Good luck with that.
I was actually surprised to see that NBC poll this weekend that showed Trumps approval higher now AFTER Cohen’s testimony and the NK summit.
It's fine. You didn't find him credible, but it was all based on stuff we already knew and your mind was made up beforehand.
Nothing wrong with that opinion. Just own it.
You also might want to check the actual survey dates on that poll. Polls are typically over the course of a few days.
I haven't seen the one you are referring to but I doubt it was a post testimony poll. Not enough time yet.
Hall85 has an airtight case in defense of the President. Anyone who testifies will either support a claim of non-collusion or will be a liar.
Here's the story.
https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-appro...und-after-cohen-testimony-north-korea-2770720
As I've said now numerous times, I found his testimony not to be credible based on what we all saw. You seem to think I have a rooting interest in Trump prevailing instead of the truth for some reason. Maybe you should be the one to own that statement.
