Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Michael Cohen House Testimony

Michael Cohen House Testimony

Cohen has loads of documents, but none appear to show evidence of collusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T32jfE3V-4k

President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen has started his testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee.

Reports have shown that Cohen will show lawmakers documents that include “a check signed by the president as part of his reimbursement for the $130,000 Stormy Daniels payment — Mr. Cohen had paid the porn star from his home-equity line of credit — and financial statements intended to demonstrate how Mr. Trump manipulated his net worth for business and personal purposes, including to reduce his tax liability.”

However, his prepared remarks show he saw no direct evidence of collusion.

Rep. Tlaib Accuses Rep. Meadows for Using Lynne Patton as a Prop

Good Lord. Earlier when Cohen said Trump is a racist, Meadows brought up Lynne Patton, who worked for Trump, because she said she has not heard or seen any racist behavior from Trump.

Rep. Taliab accused Meadows of using her as a prop.

Rep. Kelly Asked About Process to Pay Stormy

From Fox News:

Cohen is asked why he used a complicated process to make the payment to Stormy Daniels.

“The reason I used the home equity line of credit is because I did not want my wife to know about it,” Cohen said.

“Did Mr. Trump know you were going through this process to hide the payment?” Kelly asked.

“Yes,” Cohen replied.

Cohen said the goal was to keep Trump as far away from the payments as possible.

Keith Davidson, Trump and Allen Weisselberg would know about it, Cohen said.

Kelly asked what was the purpose of growing the amount.

“When you live in New York where you have a 50 percent tax bracket then I would be out $60,000,” Cohen said.

He said he would have preferred getting the money in one shot but Weisselberg made the decision that it should be paid over the 11 months to look like a retainer. Cohen said Trump was aware of the payments.

Prague Comes Up

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) asked Cohen if he went to Prague. Cohen said that he has never been to Prague or Czech Republic.

The Christopher Steele dossier claimed that Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russians in 2016.

Revelation on the Southern District of New York Investigation

From WSJ:

Under questioning by Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D., Ill.), Michael Cohen testified that his last communication with Mr. Trump or one of his representatives was within two months after the FBI in New York raided his home, office and hotel room in April 2018.

Rep. Krishnamoorthi asked Mr. Cohen what they discussed. Mr. Cohen said he was unable to answer because it’s a topic under investigation by the Southern District of New York. “I’ve been asked by them not to discuss and talk about these issues,” Mr. Cohen said.

We’re not sure what this means exactly, but it’s certainly an interesting revelation. We know that the Southern District’s investigation into Trump Organization is continuing, and Mr. Cohen testified earlier in the hearing that he is still in constant contact with the Southern District about ongoing investigations.

“Catch & kill” With National Enquirer

From The Wall Street Journal:

Michael Cohen brought up “catch and kill scenarios” he carried out for Donald Trump. “Catch and kill” is the practice in the tabloid world of paying for a story, but not publishing it.

Mr. Cohen testified that David Pecker, the chief executive of the National Enquirer’s publisher, has had a long history of doing catch-and-kills for Mr. Trump. Mr. Pecker and Mr. Trump are longtime friends, with a relationship dating back to the 1990s when Mr. Pecker’s former employer put out a quarterly magazine for guests at Trump properties.

Mr. Pecker’s company, American Media LLC, made one of the hush-money payments before the 2016 election on behalf of the Trump campaign. Mr. Pecker told prosecutors about Mr. Trump’s involvement in the payment scheme and received immunity for testifying before a grand jury, the Journal has previously reported .

American Media wasn’t criminally charged for making the payment. The company cooperated with prosecutors and received a non-prosecution agreement instead.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked Cohen if Pecker did this for others and Cohen said yes.

Rep. Connolly Asks About Meeting With Trump Before House Intel Committee Testimony

Connolly wanted to know what Trump told Cohen when they met before his House Intel Committee testimony. Cohen confirmed that Trump only told him to cooperate. Of course, he tried to make Trump look guilty by insisting that he “knew exactly what he wanted me to say.”

Cohen Won’t Rule Out Book, Movie Deals

Rep. Virginia Foxx asked Cohen if he would rule out movie or book deals:

As the hearing resumed, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), pressed Mr. Cohen to promise under oath not to make money based on his experiences with Donald Trump through a book or a movie deal. Mr. Cohen declined her invitation.

She also asked him if he would promise not to run for political office, as he has previously done unsuccessfully in New York, or work as a television commentator.

“I will not do that, no,” answered Mr. Cohen, who has said he’s been approached about movie and television projects.

“So you don’t commit to changing your ways, basically, because you want to continue to use your background as a liar, a cheater, a convicted liar, to make money?” Ms. Foxx asked.

“And that’s going to get me a book deal and a movie deal and a spot on television?” Mr. Cohen said. “I don’t think so.”

Cohen Admits He Spoke to Democrats Before the Hearing

Cohen told Rep. Hice that he did speak to Rep. Cummings and Rep. Schiff before the hearing.

Trump Didn’t Think He’d Win So Why Collude?

The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti Skyles has an excellent point:

Exactly. If he didn’t think he would win the primary or general or even wanted to, why would he collude with Russia?

Jordan Questions Cohen’s Credibility

Rep. Jordan got Cohen to admit that he wanted to work in the White House:

“Here’s what I see. I see a guy who worked for 10 years and is here trashing the guy he worked for for 10 years, didn’t get a job in the White House, and now, now you’re behaving just like everyone else who got fired or didn’t get the job they wanted like Andy McCabe, like James Comey, same kind of selfish motivation after you don’t get the thing you want. That’s what I see here today and I think that’s what the American people see.”

He also reminded the committee that Cohen has lied consistently in the past and had his own financial problems, similar to those that he has said Trump has done.

Cohen Suggests Trump Family Compromised During Election

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz asked Cohen if the Trump family was “conflicted or compromised with a foreign adversary in the months before the election.” From CNN:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat from Florida, asked if the President’s son, daughter and son-in-law were involved in the Trump Tower Moscow project.

“Was Ivanka, Jared or Don Jr. still involved in the Russian tower deal at that time?” she asked.

“The company was involved in the deal, which meant that the family was involved in the deal,” Cohen said.

Wasserman Schultz followed up: “If Mr. Trump and his daughter Ivanka and son Donald Jr. are involved in the Russian Trump tower deal, is it possible the whole family is conflicted or compromised with a foreign adversary in the months before the election?”

“Yes,” Cohen said.

Michael Cohen Opening Statement

CNBC has Cohen’s opening remarks. Here is a snippet:

Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win. I regret the day I said “yes” to Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way.

I am ashamed of my own failings, and I publicly accepted responsibility for them by pleading guilty in the Southern District of New York.

I am ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty – of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him.

I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience. I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is.

He is a racist.

He is a conman.

He is a cheat.

He was a presidential candidate who knew that Roger Stone was talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails.

Jim Jordan Wanted to Delay Hearing

From The Wall Street Journal:

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), took his turn at the microphone for an opening statement in which he castigated Democrats on the committee for bringing Mr. Cohen in to testify.

“Certainly it’s the first time a convicted perjurer has been brought back to be a star witness in a hearing,” Mr. Jordan said.

He accused the Democrats of encouraging Mr. Cohen to violate attorney-client privilege and complained that they can’t ask questions about ongoing investigations. “The only things we can talk about are things you think are going to be harmful to the president of the United States,” Mr. Jordan said.

“They just want to use you Mr. Cohen, you’re their patsy today.”

Mr. Cohen has been sworn in and has begun his remarks.

Cummings Opening Statement

From The Wall Street Journal:

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.) in his opening statement acknowledged that Michael Cohen’s past lies and guilty pleas create credibility problems. But in light of his “deeply disturbing” allegations about President Trump relating to WikiLeaks and the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, Mr. Cummings said, Americans “can make their own judgments.” He cited the documents “and other corroborating evidence” Mr. Cohen has supplied to the committee.

“The president made many statements of his own, and now the American people have a right to hear the other side,” he said.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Someone wake me up when something interesting comes along.

Mean while…adults are in Vietnam working on solidifying world peace.

    casualobserver in reply to mailman. | February 27, 2019 at 11:38 am

    That’s the whole point. Networks and especially outlets like CNN have what they need to completely dilute if not ignore what is going on “far away”.

If this guy actually had evidence of something, he wouldn’t have to call Trump a racist. He’d just present evidence.

    Albigensian in reply to luagha. | February 27, 2019 at 2:33 pm

    If Cohen had serious, real evidence against Trump prosecutors would have offered him a better deal. The very fact that they didn’t indicates that he doesn’t.

So, Trump paid him back for the money he put out when acting as Trump’s lawyer? So standard practice, basically.

OMG, you mean Trump’s financial people actually tried to save him money on his taxes!! OMG……oh wait……nevermind.

Cohen has loads of documents, but none appear to show evidence of collusion.

Cohen’s open hearing testimony is limited by the Special Counsel’s office on Russian collusion because of the ongoing investigation. Some of those matters will be the subject of a closed hearing on Thursday.

    Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:10 am

    Define the crime of “Collusion” for me.

      Concise: Define the crime of “Collusion” for me.

      18 U.S.C. § 371

      Keep in mind, though, that impeachment doesn’t necessarily require a violation of statute, nor is such a violation necessarily sufficient, but requires a finding of high crimes and misdemeanors.

        Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:35 am

        Uh…That’s a big no I guess because that’s the statute defining a criminal conspiracy. I know the words both begin with a “c” so maybe that’s the source of your confusion.

          mailman in reply to Concise. | February 27, 2019 at 11:45 am

          Another C word Concise. I can think of one as well…which includes the letters U, N and T. Anyway, stop out pal as you are confusing little z (must be a relation to Rags).

          Concise: Uh…That’s a big no I guess because that’s the statute defining a criminal conspiracy.

          Criminal conspiracies are a subset of collusion. Impeachment does not depend on a violation of statute. A violation of the oath of office may be sufficient.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | February 27, 2019 at 12:18 pm

          No criminal conspiracies are a crime. The use of “collusion” on your part is simply an attempt to further a political narrative. Special Counsels should investigate real crimes, not political fantasies.

          Concise: No criminal conspiracies are a crime.

          Funny you should say that.

          Concise in reply to Concise. | February 27, 2019 at 12:44 pm

          I can only assume that by posting a link you lack the wit to formulate a response in your own words.

        Why does everyone say collusion, if they mean conspiracy?

          Carl: Why does everyone say collusion, if they mean conspiracy?

          Because collusion with a foreign power may be a violation of the oath of office, even if a criminal conspiracy is never charged.

          tom_swift in reply to Carl. | February 27, 2019 at 12:16 pm

          Because collusion with a foreign power may be a violation of the oath of office

          The oath of office applies to an office holder, not to a candidate who hasn’t taken office yet.

          Concise in reply to Carl. | February 27, 2019 at 12:26 pm

          Could be ignorance. But more likely they really don’t care and just want to fool a gullible public into believing that their political attacks have some legitimacy.

          tom_swift: The oath of office applies to an office holder, not to a candidate who hasn’t taken office yet.

          True enough, but if Trump had colluded with the Russians during the campaign, it could still lead to impeachment, though in that case, it might constitute a criminal conspiracy against the United States. Nonetheless, the standards of impeachment are different than the standards for criminal law.

          Concise in reply to Carl. | February 27, 2019 at 12:46 pm

          And just when I needed some ignorance and politics to prove my points, it appears in the above comment.

          Barry in reply to Carl. | February 27, 2019 at 10:48 pm

          Paid commie hack Zach is back, proving Trump is not guilty of any criminal activity. Trump is so clean even the commies can’t find the crime.

        Zachriel – you’re back! But don’t worry: one day, institutions will allow limited access to inmates and you won’t be missing so long.

        Internet Access for Patients on Psychiatric Units:
        http://jaapl.org/content/46/2/224

    Jackie in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:30 am

    Cohen said he has no records or knowledge of collusion. Even if Roger Stone told Trump he was contacting Wikileaks it is not a crime. If Wikileaks gave Roger Stone info on Hillary it is not a crime. If it was, reporters would be going to jail.

      Paul In Sweden in reply to Jackie. | February 27, 2019 at 11:55 am

      Didn’t everybody know there were new releases coming? Wasn’t it a fact that regular releases were expected? I think most of us were pissed off that Assange was dragging it out. We went through this once with Don jr. and the release they accused him of announcing was already know days before in all the newspapers.

      Jackie: Even if Roger Stone told Trump he was contacting Wikileaks it is not a crime.

      It would be if Trump had attested, which he reportedly did, that he had no advance knowledge. Why is everyone in Trump’s circle lying?

        tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 12:32 pm

        Attested how, and to whom?

        A press statement won’t do. Press statements aren’t made under oath.

          tom_swift: Attested how, and to whom?

          Trump answered written questions from the Office of the Special Counsel. His answers to the WikiLeaks question were leaked.

          “His answers to the WikiLeaks question were leaked invented.”

          FTFY.

          Do you ever wonder why the commie hack Zach shows up at times?

          He’s paid by the commie democrat party and they are desperate. Their show trial foundered upon reality today, so the legion of hacks are sent to the boards.

          He’s paid to lie.

Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney. He wasn’t an order taker. His job was to protect the president. It is probably safe to assume that whatever Trump did that Cohen is testifying was a crime, it was on the advice of Cohen himself. Hence his being forever known as “The Rat”.

What a scumbag.

    Pasadena Phil: It is probably safe to assume that whatever Trump did that Cohen is testifying was a crime, it was on the advice of Cohen himself.

    Yeah, it’s all Tom Hagen’s fault.

      Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:15 am

      Yeah, that’s really clever. what a sharp wit. But we don’t have to assume anything, other than that this is a political farce by democrats abusing there oversight authority in a rather unseemly way.

        Concise: Yeah, that’s really clever. what a sharp wit.

        It’s a valid response to Phil Pasadena’s point. Conspiring with an attorney doesn’t absolve one of responsibility for breaking the law.

          Its not a conspiracy if the lawyer indicates affirmatively or through omission that anything is illegal. Paying a mistress, if that happened, not to talk is NOT A CRIME. Even if the turds at SDNY say it is. The SDNY position is that to avoid the crime they claim happened the President would have had to pay with CAMPAIGN FUNDS. SDNY is basically claiming the payments were campaign expenditures and were illegal because the President used non-campaign funds to make these payments. That is so silly and unprecedented that no thinking person who isn’t blinded by partisanship could buy it.

          Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:39 am

          Maybe you really mean the high crime of collusion?

          mailman in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:48 am

          or the even worse crime of conspiracy?

          garybritt: Its not a conspiracy if the lawyer indicates affirmatively or through omission that anything is illegal.

          That is not necessarily the case. If both parties know it is illegal, but don’t discuss it in those terms, it’s still a criminal conspiracy.

          garybritt: The SDNY position is that to avoid the crime they claim happened the President would have had to pay with CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

          No. That would also be illegal. If Trump had paid her out of her own funds years before the election, it would have been legal. But only acting days before the election with the purpose of aiding his campaign, there’s no way to clean it up.

          It’s sort of like Al Capone. He was busted for tax evasion. So you might argue, he should have put extortion and bootlegging on this tax return with expenses for murder. That would absolve him of his tax problems.

          tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 12:21 pm

          It’s sort of like Al Capone.

          Hogwash. Capone was convicted of a crime. Not one of his bigger crimes, but one of his crimes nonetheless.

          Since paying off an extortionist isn’t a crime at any time, any parallel to DJT isn’t even an act of desperation, it’s an absurdity.

          tom_swift: Since paying off an extortionist isn’t a crime at any time

          Actually, yes, paying off an extortionist can be a crime. In this case, the evidence is that Trump was paying her off to influence the election.

          Zachriel, you are LYING (or ignorant if not lying). I think lying personally.

          Its NOTHING like Al Capoine.

          SDNY contends it was an expenditure to influence the campaign (NEWS FLASH all campaign expenditures are intended to influence the campaign). Campaign expenditures to influence the campaign are perfectly LEGAL. SDNY contends the hush payments were to influence the campaign (i.e., were campaign expenditures), but were illegal because they were not paid with campaign funds. The reason for being illegal would be that it is a campaign expenditure that was hidden from FEC reporting requirements. So as I said the SDNY is contending that hush money payments made from CAMPAIGN FUNDS would be legal but if paid not from campaign funds but from personal funds would be illegal.

          Just as another aside, these payments would not be reportable to the FEC until AFTER THE ELECTION because of when they were paid, SO FAILURE TO REPORT THEM IF THAT OCCURRED WOULD BE NO EFFECT ON THE ELECTION.

          So bottom line is as I stated and which you continue to lie about. SDNY contends these payments would be legal if paid with campaign funds instead of personal funds, and the nature of the illegality would be hiding the payments from an FEC report that wasn’t due until AFTER THE ELECTION. Again the SDNY position is so ridiculous that only a shill like you could buy it.

          tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 1:13 pm

          the evidence is that Trump was paying her off to influence the election.

          Every campaign is an attempt to influence an election. Speeches, tailored suits, baby-kissing marathons, returning campaign funds from shady sources . . . all are attempts to influence elections. And there’s nothing illegal or even unethical about any of it.

          garybritt: Campaign expenditures to influence the campaign are perfectly LEGAL.

          Not all expenditures from campaign funds are legal. Are you saying that the campaign can pay off mistresses? Like Al Capone’s taxes, there’s no good answer.

          Gangster, in cuffs: Where did I go wrong?
          Detective: When you became a gangster.

          The SDNY is saying that paying off a mistress from campaign funds is LEGAL. They say that when they claim that paying off a mistress from personal funds is a campaign expenditure that is illegal if NOT paid from campaign funds. You keep ignoring that the claimed illegal act is making a campaign expenditure that being from personal funds is not reportable to the FEC. If it was made from campaign funds it would be reported to the FEC. In this case however the report wouldn’t be filed until AFTER the election. So no effect on the election EITHER WAY.

          Obama and Hillary made lots of mistakes on their reporting. In their cases like all politicians they just file corrected forms after the fact and possibly pay a fine to the FEC. Its never treated as a criminal anything unless the candidate in question is Trump.

          Are you contending that paying a mistress is illegal if paid by personal funds AND ALSO illegal if paid from campaign funds? Is it your contention that paying mistress in any form is illegal ?? Do you have any statutory or case law support for such a position that payments to mistresses no matter how paid are illegal?

          And don’t say because it was to influence an election. Making a payment to influence an election is NOT illegal. It is making a payment that violates either the donation limits or evades reporting to FEC that can be illegal. Making a payment to influence an election is NOT in itself illegal. That’s the part you choose not to understand.

          garybritt: The SDNY is saying that paying off a mistress from campaign funds is LEGAL.

          They did? Where did they say that?

          garybritt: In their cases like all politicians they just file corrected forms after the fact and possibly pay a fine to the FEC.

          Fines are for inadvertent errors. If it was purposeful, then it is criminal.

          Commie Zach, if you’re getting paid more than about $0.25 an hour your employers are being cheated.

          You are an absolute idiot. And liar.

          The quarter an hour is only worth it as entertainment, watching a commie make a fool of himself in public.

Chairman Cummings announced as the proceedings began that in an effort to sandbag all the Republican members of the committee the Democrats received Cohen’s written testimony so that they could be fully prepared for question, posturing and grand standing during Cohen’s testimony.

The Republicans pointed out that withholding the written testimony was a violation of the rules.

At long last proof — that President Trump once paid a bill.

*facepalm*

Hard to imagine how this can possibly make Democrats look good, when contrasted with what the President is doing today.

As has been pointed out by Alan Dershowitz that he cannot talk about anything that Mueller has not made public and is a possible indictable offense. So basically he is going to just try to smear Trump as much as he can with lies and innuendoes. If anyone on this planet thought Trump was an upstanding guy before they pulled the lever for him I would like to meet him. We all knew what he was/is but the alternative was much worse. As it turns out no one will care what Cohen says because Trump is actually doing a pretty good job compared to GWB and obama.

    I thought President Trump was an upstanding guy before the election, and I think that even more since his election. No President, even Clinton, has been the subject of more detailed investigations and still they have NOTHING. Only an upstanding guy with a very strong will and a personality that refuses to lose could survive what has been thrown at Trump. The “insurance policy” traitors thought he would throw in the towel long before now.

    While Clinton had the Starr investigation he, unlike trump, had the media actively covering up for him. With President Trump he has not just a special counsel but the media seeking to destroy his presidency and him personally.

    Thank God that President Trump is such a fighter and strong willed winner. A more upstanding guy we have not had since Reagan !!!!!!!!

      Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | February 27, 2019 at 12:16 pm

      IF you actually believe that…which I doubt given your history of lying…you are literally insane.

        Like all the progressive pro-Hillary Clinton voters you project onto others, especially those like me who have stood up to your stupid lies and ad hominem attacks, descriptions that best describe you. Like you’re being a liar and a world class assh*le who only continues to exist on this site because you have been protected by Fuzzy Slippers who has demonstrated in the past she shares many of your worst traits.

        I take it back saying you are an assh*le is a discredit to assh*les. As assh*les go you have ALL UNIVERSE potential.

        For all your big talk, your support of anti-American government operators using stalinesque tactics, you cannot come up with a single crime committed by President Trump. Not one.

        Decent people like Mark Levin recognize their mistakes, and Levin says Trump is the most effective conservative president in 50 years.

        You’re a small petty loser.

      tom_swift in reply to garybritt. | February 27, 2019 at 1:22 pm

      I thought President Trump was an upstanding guy before the election

      I always thought so. Of course I’ve always been glad he didn’t live next door to me, as he’s a bit noisy, but that’s no great crime. And it’s not the same as thinking that he’d be good presidential material; that wasn’t apparent until the campaign got moving. But since then I’ve been surprised that Mueller has turned up nothing of any consequence. I didn’t realize DJT was that upstanding.

Question for the lawyers: I thought my lawyer could not be called to give evidence against me. I thought all of that was covered by lawyer-client privilege, legal ethics, etc.

Was I wrong? How can they have Trump’s personal lawyer testify about everything he did for Trump and everything they talked about?

    The thing that keeps a lawyer from revealing lawyer-client privileged material is the fact that doing so could get the lawyer disbarred and sued for damages. In this case Cohen is already a disbarred felon so no threat to him on that count. President Trump could sue to enforce the privilege and prevent his testimony on many things, but the press and democrats would howl that he is trying to hide something really bad. So President Trump is in a no win situation on this. The President could still sue Cohen for damages in the next couple of years, but unlikely to so do.

    Ragspierre in reply to OldProf2. | February 27, 2019 at 11:29 am

    Two answers…

    1. there is no attorney/client privilege when the attorney and client are adversaries, as when an attorney has to sue a client for fees or when a client lodges a complaint against an attorney

    2. there is no attorney/client privilege to commit or conspire to commit any crime and certain torts

      The never-Trumps have nothing on the never-Rags.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Rick. | February 27, 2019 at 4:50 pm

        Rags-Rump comes across as a really tight asshole who presenting it for all to see.

        Ragspierre in reply to Rick. | February 27, 2019 at 5:01 pm

        As a practicing attorney I gave a totally politically neutral answer to a legal question on a conservative legal blog.

        For this I was called names by idiots. Quite a commentary…

          Your response was politically neutral. Too bad it was completely irrelevant to the questions to which you attempted to respond. President Trump and Cohen are not adversaries in a court proceeding. So answer # 1 is totally useless, and answer #2 omits that it is NOT the lawyer who can decide years after the fact that there was a criminal conspiracy on something and then start ignoring privilege for the lawyer’s own benefit.

          I’d say that if you are a practicing lawyer, you need more practice !!

      “1. there is no attorney/client privilege when the attorney and client are adversaries,…”

      Incorrect and correct, in my limited knowledge of the law. If a client employs an attorney for a period of time, then at some point they become adversaries, AC privilege applies to all LEGAL communications and interactions up until the point where their relationship changes. Any attorney who attempts to use privileged communications against their former employer in court should expect a blistering response from the judge.

      (This of course does not apply if the attorney is acting in a criminal conspiracy with his employer, which in this case is something the SDNY is trying to claim without much substance)

    OldProf2: I thought my lawyer could not be called to give evidence against me. I thought all of that was covered by lawyer-client privilege, legal ethics, etc.

    There are a number of exceptions to attorney-client privilege, including where the attorney is party to a crime or fraud, when the attorney knows his client is committing or suborning perjury, destroying or concealing evidence, or if the communication is made in the presence of third parties.

      Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 11:45 am

      Don’t forget the exception for lying for the benefit of the democratic sludge conducting an “oversight” hearing to distract from the efforts of the President to de-denuclearize the Korean peninsula and score cheap political points in general.

        Concise: Don’t forget the exception for lying for the benefit of the democratic sludge conducting an “oversight” hearing

        There is no such exception. With regards to Cohen, the Special Counsel will know if Cohen lies, who has no reason to lie at this point.

          Concise in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 12:13 pm

          It really is true that wit is wasted on fools.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 2:05 pm

          He has plenty of reason to lie. For one thing, it scores him some political friends in the group corrupt enough to offer the right kind of protection for convicted criminals. Trump was done with him the moment he started flailing like a fish out of water when the cabal of political witch hunters got a hold of him.

          It’s truly sad that the resident hive mind would sign off on such a specious statement, suggesting there is no rationale for lying. Maybe the handful of you should start contributing more than 5% each to critical thinking.

          Oops. See response below.

          “With regards to Cohen, the Special Counsel will know if Cohen lies, who has no reason to lie at this point.”

          Incorrect. The SC will know if Cohen says something the SC doesn’t approve of, and can punish him with more charges or longer jail sentences if the SC wishes, therefore making Cohen have a very good reason to only say that which the SC wants him to say.

          Truth has very little to do with it.

          garybritt: The SC will know if Cohen says something the SC doesn’t approve of, and can punish him with more charges or longer jail sentences if the SC wishes, therefore making Cohen have a very good reason to only say that which the SC wants him to say.

          That ignores due process. Cohen is already going to jail. Lying will put him in more legal jeopardy.

“I love Big Brother.”

“Keep in mind, though, that impeachment doesn’t necessarily require a violation of statute, nor is such a violation necessarily sufficient, but requires a finding of high crimes and misdemeanors.”

What can be asserted for political reasons can be dismissed for political reasons. No president has ever been convicted in an impeachment trial.

Nixon and Clinton were re-elected in the midst of politically inspired investigations.

Meanwhile the subject of this political lynching (yes I used the word) is on the other side of the world trying to get something done with North Korea… but that’s not important or salacious enough and doesn’t help the “get Trump” attackers. What hypocrisy

I can’t believe he wrote that opening statement. If he did, it sure sounded like a$$ kissing to protect his butt.

Bang! Cohen has talked himself into possible new new criminal charges.

OMG, the Democrats groomed him for this. Shiffty is behind it.

Uh, folks, we have a propaganda troll here that sometimes refers to itself as “we.” We mostly don’t feed it.

I wasn’t aware that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels……

Cohen is such a sleazy individual
Each day I have more and more respect for Manafort

The Democrats may think this will help them. Listening to Cohen and how they laud him, perhaps a surprise is in store. The TDS is apparent.

He is a racist.

He is a conman.

He is a cheat.

He left out “poopy-head”. And no mention of the hair. This guy Cohen is an amateur. He can’t even shovel shit properly. Whatever DJT was paying him, I hope it wasn’t much.

His entire testimony is based on zero evidence of Russia collusion (but “suspicions”), unsubstantiated claims of “pay-offs” (legal) to “silence” claims of legal behavior, and his unsubstantiated opinion that Trump is a “racist”. So his testimony is nothing but name-calling and his unsubstantiated opinion.

Another leftist hoax with the entire establishment colluding to spread what everyone knows is a fraud.

Let me briefly go back to the beginning of everything.

1) The U.S.A. is not at war with Russia.
2) Political collusion is not a crime, it is the very basis of parliamentary democracy.
3) Campaign finance laws prohibit money from entering political campaigns from “foreign” sources. There is nothing about information… let alone against benefiting from information volunteered to the free press.
4) American politics is deluged on a Biblical scale with support for political candidates that is not, technically, on paper, “support for” political candidates but “issue advocacy”. None of this is a crime or even a misdemeanor, no matter how many people argue it should be.

And just generally, there is no law that criminalizes a conspiracy between metaphorical sunflowers that just happen to be facing the sun at the same time. Even in anti-trust law, collusion requires communication. Just breathing the same air and existing on the same planet are insufficient grounds.

    JBourque: 1) The U.S.A. is not at war with Russia.

    While there is no declaration of war, Russia has been engaging in a campaign of cyberwarfare against open democratic systems.

    JBourque: 2) Political collusion is not a crime, it is the very basis of parliamentary democracy.

    Colluding with a foreign government may be a conspiracy against the United States.

    JBourque: 3) Campaign finance laws prohibit money from entering political campaigns from “foreign” sources. There is nothing about information…

    Campaign finance laws prohibit “a thing of value”, which would include forms of information that require investment to produce. That would include the fruits of cyberwarfare, or an army of foreign trolls infesting social media.

    JBourque: 4) American politics is deluged on a Biblical scale with support for political candidates that is not, technically, on paper, “support for” political candidates but “issue advocacy”.

    Americans have wide latitude to support their favored candidates and issues. Foreigners are prohibited from an active role in elections.

    JBourque: Even in anti-trust law, collusion requires communication.

    That’s right. Just because Russia’s and Trump’s goals align doesn’t necessitate a conspiracy. Someone may have their position of power, not because they collude, but because they happen to take positions that align with a hostile foreign power.

    That’s one aspect of Russia’s cyberwarfare campaign to reverse engineer open societies. And when some Americans play interference for Russian interference for short-term political gain, it undermines democratic institutions.

      “Russia has been engaging in a campaign of cyberwarfare against open democratic systems.”

      And the Democrats, especially the progressive elements, sure fell for it. Dupes if there ever were. Predisposed. So they did the Russians’ work for them.

      “While there is no declaration of war, Russia has been engaging in a campaign of cyberwarfare against open democratic systems.”

      Condoned by Barack Obama and his entire flexible administration…. until Hildebeeste lost

      Petrushka in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 1:43 pm

      Oh Jeez. Cohen said he overheard Trump talking about the imminent release of Wikileaks emails on July 18 or 19.

      Problem is, Wikileaks announced the acquisition and intent to release the emails a month earlier. Public knowledge.

        Petrushka: Cohen said he overheard Trump talking about the imminent release of Wikileaks emails on July 18 or 19. Problem is, Wikileaks announced the acquisition and intent to release the emails a month earlier. Public knowledge.

        The first WikiLeaks dump was on July 22, causing chaos during the Democratic Convention. A few documents had been leaked previously by DCLeaks.

          f2000 in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 3:30 pm

          You’re conflating (intentionally, one supposes) the announcement of intent to release with the actual release. One happens before the other.

          Six weeks prior to the release of the stolen Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to signal that an upcoming leak was designed to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

          “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which are great. WikiLeaks actually has a very big year ahead,” Assange said in the June 12 interview on British TV.

          https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/289433-wikileaks-head-signaled-intent-to-damage-clinton-campaign-before-leak

          In other words, despite littering the thread with comments, you are not a trustworthy source of information.

          Kind of like Michael Cohen?

          Oldschool, commie Zach is paid to get on here and lie.

          Yes, it’s true he is overpaid.

          oldschooltwentysix: Six weeks prior to the release of the stolen Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to signal that an upcoming leak was designed to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

          That’s right. On July 18, WikiLeaks confirmed to a cutout for Russian military intelligence that it had received the stolen material and would make the documents public that week. Stone then informed Trump that WikiLeaks would be making a “massive dump” within a few days, which they did.

          This shows a communications conduit between Russia and Trump.

          Barry in reply to Zachriel. | February 28, 2019 at 2:34 pm

          Every single thing commie Zach writes is a lie.

          Every.Single.Thing

          He’s being paid to do it and his employer, while exceptionally cheap, is getting swindled.

      If it is truly your belief that the Alien and Sedition Acts were the crowning achievement of American lawmaking, and that their spirit is not respected with sufficient vigor and vengeance, and that anyone who looks amiably at Putin should be hauled into a cell, slapped, interrogated, and then charged with conspiracy against America, her flag, and her people, to await a swift trial, swift judgement, and a terrible and harrowing sentence–

      Hey, more power to you, but it makes you something of a jerk. What about The Crucible? Weren’t witch hunts supposed to be bad or something?

        JBourque: If it is truly your belief that the Alien and Sedition Acts were the crowning achievement of American lawmaking

        Huh? The laws at issue are modern campaign finance laws, which prohibit foreign expenditures on elections, and cyber security laws that prohibit hacking into computer networks. That includes Russian agents stealing DNC emails and polling data, and running troll farms out of Russian intelligence.

          And if the Russians stole emails and did hacking

          (no evidence of that which will stand up in court because FBI never inspected actual server and the hacking of Podesta’s email was done because the idiot clicked on a spear phishing email (Stupid Hillary did this as well with her email server))

          So if Russians broke law and stole emails and did hacking it is absolutely no crime for Trump or any one else to receive and publish those emails after the fact. Just like when New York Times published the stolen documents purloined by Daniel Ellsberg. They were stolen in violation of law and then turned over to others to publish.

          In this case if Russians stole emails and did hacks and then turned over stuff to wikileaks and wikileaks and Trump and the rest of the world published the material IT IS NOT A CRIME !!

          Thanks for playing and take one of beautiful parting gifts as you slink out the door.

          Rags, I’ll give your horsepucky above more credibility when criminal charges are filed against the New York Times and Washington Post. President Trump and the Trump campaign stand in the same shoes as protected members of the PRESS under the first amendment as does the New York Times and Washington Post.

          MarkSmith in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 6:22 pm

          graybritt, didn’t you the the Jacobin cat lover use to tangle before. Welcome back. Any chance the Zebra is a bot?

          Mark Smith. Yes I’ve wasted a lot of time on Rags BS in the past. No he’s not a bot. Bots are smarter.

      MarkS in reply to Zachriel. | February 27, 2019 at 7:14 pm

      You’re 100% wrong about the”thing of value”! Foreigners may participate in an American campaign as long as no money changes hands between them and the campaign. They may volunteer their time, knock on doors, etc. While we’re on the subject the “Dossier” was paid for through laundered money by the Clinton campaign to a foreigner

Apparently this happened. Candace Owens stated that Michael Cohen approached her to lie about racist Trump.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/boom-candace-owens-drops-bomb-michael-cohen-approached-her-to-lie-about-racist-trump/

Lots of BS being sprinkled in the comments here.

If Trump is colluding with Russia it must be through a psychic medium. No evidence can be found. Sheer genius! s Anybody keeping count of how many times Cohen has perjured himself in today’s testimony?

Connivin Caniff | February 27, 2019 at 1:37 pm

Does attorney client privilege apply to any of this?

This is huge. Mark Meadows just caught Cohen lying about failing to disclose this foreign clients on a questionnaire prior to his testimony and then testifying to disclose he does. Meadows has already filed charges to prosecute.

“Thirty years! Coolah!!!!!”

Something’s bothering me about this whole farce. What is Cohen getting out of testifying in front of Congress? Mueller already has the convictions, so he’s not getting any years off his sentence. He’s vulnerable to any congressional nitwit who wants to charge him with perjury *again* from this exposure, which is only made more probable with every wild accusation he makes. So he has nothing to win and everything to lose. Why not just refuse to testify, as he has the right to do?

My theory is he has foolishly gone from singing to composing. The Dems want to impeach Trump on something, so he is trusting the Dems (And Mueller) to stick up for him, support him, and save him from spending the rest of his life behind concrete and steel. He’s saying what they want to hear, and when he inevitably gets shafted again by them, he will have nowhere to turn, and his promised multimillion dollar book advance will evaporate the same way.

    georgefelis: He’s vulnerable to any congressional nitwit who wants to charge him with perjury *again* from this exposure, which is only made more probable with every wild accusation he makes.

    No. It doesn’t work that way. You have to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutors almost certainly know everything Cohen knows, and more. There’s no reasonable way for him to lie, otherwise, he’ll end up like Manafort.

    tom_swift in reply to georgfelis. | February 27, 2019 at 3:34 pm

    Lynne Patton says Cohen is cooperating with the rabid dogs in an attempt to keep his wife out of jail.

healthguyfsu: He has plenty of reason to lie. For one thing, it scores him some political friends in the group corrupt enough to offer the right kind of protection for convicted criminals.

The risk, of course, is being indicted for lying to Congress, again, which could mean years more jail time.

    No risk of that right now. He won’t be indicted by this Congress because he’s their golden boy by smearing Trump and by diverting attention from what is happening in Vietnam.

    “The risk, of course, is being indicted for lying to Congress…”

    Cohen conspired with congressional democrats prior to the testimony to tell lies, so no, they are not going to indict him further.

Perhaps we need a list of all the things Cohen said that are unhelpful for the democrats.

1. No evidence of collusion.
2. Trump knew about the Wikileaks emails at least a month after it became public knowledge. Maybe several months.
3. Cohen really liked working for a racist, cheating liar.
4. Cohen really didn’t want a White House job, even though everyone, including CNN, remembers otherwise.
5. Cohen was coached by Schiff and Cummings before his testimony.
6. Trump never told Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels.
7. Trump’s super secret code language saps and impurifies everyone’s precious bodily fluids.

8. Cohen testifies he never traveled to Prague. W e knew that, but it’s now under oath and easy to check. Further evidence that the piss dossier is BS.

    That dossier and this testimony are pure crap. These proceedings are a shit-show Democrat circle-jerk. In theory, it’s fun to watch Dems make idiots of themselves and systematically lose the 2020 election, but I have about 300 other better things to do.

What’s worse is that this shit show couldn’t wait a week while the grown ups are in Vietnam working on world peace and the end if the Korean war.

Michael Cohen: Boy Scout.

    Of course Cohen wasn’t and isn’t a Boy Scout.

    That’s why Mr. Establishment hired him, paid him lavishly, and used his services for a decade to clean up his shit, threaten people, and facilitate his pay-offs to cover his serial adultery.

    Cohen is a half-bright, unethical, scruple-less thug. Just exactly what his employer needed.

    Duh Donald needed him, just like he needed Roy Cohn to keep up expand his corruption in one of the most corrupt cities in the US.

    Cohen got his law degree from a buy a degree college, Cooley Law School. I think Trump felt sorry for him so he throw a few bones his way. Sounds like Cohen tried to do things to impress Trump but failed.

    Funny how nobody else wanted to use their money for the Stormy Daniels deal, so he did it his way without advising Trump.

    Wow, taped his clients and willing to release the tapes without their authorization.

The bulls*t from Cohen and the DemocRATs got so deep, I had to mute it until the lunch recess. Fortunately, I have other means of entertainment to use to counter the bile.

Is it my imagination or did the democrats get completely punked by this Cohen testimony today? When the dust settles, there is far more to help Trump than to hurt him today.

Trump is not guilty of ‘collusion.’ (Actually, Hillary Clinton is.)

But the useful idiots of the left ARE guilty of delusion and conclusion.

Rags I’m sure you have more experience with bar complaints than i do but again you fail to recognize that citing bar complaints is irrelevant to the question to which you replied.

I never said anything about statute of limitations so again irrelevant. Go back to my reply and read it again but this time for comprehension.

Good day for President Trump.

Normal people recognize the truth, with the entire power of the federal government criminally arrayed against the president, and the power of the communist press almost entirely facilitating the criminal conspirators,

They cannot come up with a single crime. Nothing, Nada, Zip. Even Lavrentiy Baria is weeping.

Baria’s comrades, Zach and “Ragspierre”* cry with him.

*two peas in a pod, notice the similarity

JusticeDelivered | February 28, 2019 at 9:20 am

“you ignorant slut”

Gee Rags-Rump, you sure are consistent.

How did you turn out this way?

No daddy present to teach you better?

    Yeah, that never-Trump, “I think I’m smarter than everyone and my sh!t don’t stink” schtick is super old, and exceptionally boring. A needless thread-clogger every time.

    For any down-voters or responders, know this in advance: The next time I care about anything you think, say or do will be the first. Dismissed.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend