Cohen testimony
Comments
-
The people who testify against mob bosses are rarely pure as the driven snow.Dude61 said:
Kinda hard to bring someone before Congress after they have plead guilty to lying to Congress. Maybe this time will be different.GrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
CirrhosisDawg said:
For something “not objectively” credible, why would trumpartds mark meadows and Jim Jordan protest so vehemently.
They sound concerned and angry.
Jordan’s first attempt got swatted. -
Not my point. By objectively credible, I mean to a non-partisan viewer outside the room. Those with agendas inside the room are doing what is natural.CirrhosisDawg said:For something “not objectively” credible, why would trumpartds mark meadows and Jim Jordan protest so vehemently.
They sound concerned and angry. -
Jake Tapper is doing a good job with the piss break analysis.
-
Hammer is going drop any day now
-
What makes you say that?greenblood said:Hammer is going drop any day now
-
Not arguing with you because Daddy got elected President. But who are the people who aren’t embarrassed by the “Liar, liar, pants on fire” speech? Seriously. I really want to know. I mean someone actually wrote that and said, “You should say this!” Who’s the audience?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Not my point. By objectively credible, I mean to a non-partisan viewer outside the room. Those with agendas inside the room are doing what is natural.CirrhosisDawg said:For something “not objectively” credible, why would trumpartds mark meadows and Jim Jordan protest so vehemently.
They sound concerned and angry. -
This is spurious questioning
-
Still waiting on that Iranian nuke that was made technologically impossible by the JCPOARaceBannon said:
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this dayHHusky said:
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.MikeDamone said:
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?HHusky said:
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.89ute said:Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it. -
They're wrapped so far around Trump's finger that they will declare victory as long as no one gets nukedHardlyClothed said:
Still waiting on that Iranian nuke that was made technologically impossible by the JCPOARaceBannon said:
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this dayHHusky said:
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.MikeDamone said:
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?HHusky said:
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.89ute said:Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it. -
GrundleStiltzkin said:
Not my point. By objectively credible, I mean to a non-partisan viewer outside the room. Those with agendas inside the room are doing what is natural.CirrhosisDawg said:For something “not objectively” credible, why would trumpartds mark meadows and Jim Jordan protest so vehemently.
They sound concerned and angry. -
I'm not saying there is. But if there is evidence Trump directed Cohen to commit a crime. There's some in bucket 1 too.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honestly I think this plays out where nothing happens. And this is a tag line for Democrats for a few months then it's forgotten, on to the next Trump crisis. -
It’s hard to break a ton of news when Individual 1’s felonies have been hiding in plain sight for months.GrundleStiltzkin said: -
So you’re taking Cohen at his word that He is only doing this to shed light on the truth for the American people?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
I can only imagine the sort of white trash that Clay Higgins represents
-
I had never heard him speak before this clip but his voice sounds just like Woody AllenGrundleStiltzkin said: -
Good job on hitting all the internet comment cliches today!MariotaTheGawd said:
Tell yourself whatever you need to. I'm sure your kids are very proud of you.MikeDamone said:
So you don’t know what it was. Got it!MariotaTheGawd said:
If you're half as smart as you think you are, you would deconstruct the fallacy. It's morons who yell "logical fallacy!"MikeDamone said:
Imagine defending the use of logical fallacies. Using the term “smack talk, what are you,MariotaTheGawd said:
imagine going with logical fallacy smack talk. what are you, 20?MikeDamone said:
HondoFS with the logical fallacy for the win!MariotaTheGawd said:
man you really owned me with this hack job from a murdoch-owned tabloidRaceBannon said:Amid all the fuss over President Obama’s “ransom” payment to Iran to free US hostages, less scrutinized is the president’s justification for airlifting cash to Tehran: that we owed them the money. It deserves more attention, because the administration has failed to make its case.
To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments — all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.
It’s a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, it’s time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?
In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Iran’s claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved “billions of dollars” Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.
Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.
On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested “all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute” and a “detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.”
Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States “could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars,” because “Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest,” and “we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.”
But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.
The State Department’s response also noted that the United States “has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program” seeking “substantial damages.” But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Iran’s claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.
Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims — which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims “by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed” Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion — before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.
We currently don’t know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.
In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that “we were completely open with everybody” about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that “there was significant litigation risk” regarding Iran’s claim.
But the administration hasn’t disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.
Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administration’s repeated insistence that this was a good deal.
We need — to be specific — the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.
https://nypost.com/2016/09/08/no-we-didnt-owe-iran-that-1-7-billion-ransom-payment/
12? -
These congressmen sucking up to trump because they know he's watching are pitiful
-
I think anyone who doesn’t take his self-serving statements with a grain of salt is a fool. That said, I think he is genuinely horrified that this infomercial became a presidency and he’s pushing back so hard and specifically on this claim that he was a spurned job applicant that I would not be surprised to see this memo he referred to in the coming days.salemcoog said:
So you’re taking Cohen at his word that He is only doing this to shed light on the truth for the American people?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
Jake Tapper and two other CNN flacks disagreed. They seemed to think it's common knowledge in DC.HHusky said:
I think anyone who doesn’t take his self-serving statements with a grain of salt is a fool. That said, I think he is genuinely horrified that this infomercial became a presidency and he’s pushing back so hard and specifically on this claim that he was a spurned job applicant that I would not be surprised to see this memo he referred to in the coming days.salemcoog said:
So you’re taking Cohen at his word that He is only doing this to shed light on the truth for the American people?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
Don't forget the submarine launched missile that they are going to put it on. They tested it last week, That agreement sure held back their missile development.HardlyClothed said:
Still waiting on that Iranian nuke that was made technologically impossible by the JCPOARaceBannon said:
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this dayHHusky said:
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.MikeDamone said:
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?HHusky said:
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.89ute said:Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
Oh yeah they NEVER honored the agreement. Obunghole is a mooselimb sympathizer at best. He made this shit deal on purpose. -
Mark Meadows doesnt seem to know how microphones work
-
Imagine caring enough to watchMariotaTheGawd said:Mark Meadows doesnt seem to know how microphones work
-
You're a big talk radio guy, I can tellSledog said:
Don't forget the submarine launched missile that they are going to put it on. They tested it last week, That agreement sure held back their missile development.HardlyClothed said:
Still waiting on that Iranian nuke that was made technologically impossible by the JCPOARaceBannon said:
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this dayHHusky said:
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.MikeDamone said:
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?HHusky said:
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.89ute said:Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
Oh yeah they NEVER honored the agreement. Obunghole is a mooselimb sympathizer at best. He made this shit deal on purpose. -
It seems like this should be a red letter day for the impeachment cheer squad and this thread is filled with bickering about other nonsense.
I thought this was the day the hammer dropped? Team LIPO wants to know. -
It doesn’t seem to be a hill worth dying on for him, so the motive to lie about it seems absent. I would think at a minimum he’s going to offer or be asked the identity of the lawyer who prepared this memo he has referred to.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Jake Tapper and two other CNN flacks disagreed. They seemed to think it's common knowledge in DC.HHusky said:
I think anyone who doesn’t take his self-serving statements with a grain of salt is a fool. That said, I think he is genuinely horrified that this infomercial became a presidency and he’s pushing back so hard and specifically on this claim that he was a spurned job applicant that I would not be surprised to see this memo he referred to in the coming days.salemcoog said:
So you’re taking Cohen at his word that He is only doing this to shed light on the truth for the American people?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
I honestly think his campaign did start as a marketing ploy, and he thought he had zero chance of winning. I think his campaign adjusted once he realized his chances were real.HHusky said:
I think anyone who doesn’t take his self-serving statements with a grain of salt is a fool. That said, I think he is genuinely horrified that this infomercial became a presidency and he’s pushing back so hard and specifically on this claim that he was a spurned job applicant that I would not be surprised to see this memo he referred to in the coming days.salemcoog said:
So you’re taking Cohen at his word that He is only doing this to shed light on the truth for the American people?MariotaTheGawd said:
convenient that one of Dear Leader's closest associates for years isn't credible nowGrundleStiltzkin said:Reading the stuff last night from Cohen's testimony, I thought Trump would have some serious problems following his appearance before Congress. I've watched 30 minutes of the testimony. Michael Cohen is not objectively credible. Each side is going to believe or disbelieve what they want. Opponents have always thought Trump was a racist scumbag, and supporters either don't care or don't believe. I don't see how this testimony changes anything. Wasserburg-Schultz tried to get #Collusion out of Cohen and that didn't go anywhere.
-
You missed the launch test? You're a big Huffpo foxkin and they didn't want you to know. Glad you're for Iran nuking Israel.MariotaTheGawd said:
You're a big talk radio guy, I can tellSledog said:
Don't forget the submarine launched missile that they are going to put it on. They tested it last week, That agreement sure held back their missile development.HardlyClothed said:
Still waiting on that Iranian nuke that was made technologically impossible by the JCPOARaceBannon said:
Yet you defend the Iran give away to this dayHHusky said:
Personally I’m kind of horrified that our badass “businessman” President has given away things to N Korea without getting a fucking thing in return. But he’s on your team and you couldn’t fucking care less.MikeDamone said:
After Clinton, Bush and Obama, what’s left to give?HHusky said:
Good point. No telling what Daddy will give away.89ute said:Way more important than the North Korea - US summit. Keep this good stuff coming!
18 moths ago retards were saying we? were on the brink of nuclear war because of Trump. Now that that’s not the truth, retards are mad that Trump is talking to N Korea and is “freindly with a dictator”
JFC
You couldn't suck Obama's dick hard enough and he gave away the farm in cash and allowed Iran to build a nuke
Now you're concerned. Got it.
Oh yeah they NEVER honored the agreement. Obunghole is a mooselimb sympathizer at best. He made this shit deal on purpose.
