Michael Cohen testimony's biggest bombshells. (A very bad look for Trump)

Michael Cohen testimony's biggest bombshells

• ✉️: Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks planned to release stolen emails damaging to Hillary Clinton and that Trump confidant Roger Stone confirmed it with WikiLeaks' founder.
• ?: The president personally reimbursed Cohen for an illegal hush-money payment to a porn star (Stormy Daniels, remember her?).
• ??: Trump indirectly encouraged him to lie to Congress about his pursuit of a Trump Tower development in Moscow.
• ?: Cohen brought documents that appeared to back up some of his claims, including a $35,000 check signed by Trump that Cohen called a hush money

Damn.

And that's not all, AOC got a lot out of him too,

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/aoc-michael-cohen-congressional-hearing

• Provided inflated assets not just to Forbes but also to insurance companies;

• Deflated his assets by many multiples in order to reduce his tax liability, schemes, that, essentially, left taxpayers to finance his golf courses;

• Had witnesses, like Trump Organization C.F.O. Allen Weisselberg, to the above; and

• Engaged in the actions laid out by last year’s New York Times investigation, i.e. “outright [tax] fraud.”

Damn, it seems like Trump might be a bigger gangster than we all thought.

"Yeah, but is it even legal to impeach the president?"
~Republicans

Regardless of how much of his testimony may or may not be true, you really have to ask yourself how credible a guy is that is currently awaiting a three year sentence for lying to Congress when he is testifying in front of them a second time. If any of Cohen’s testimony is used as grounds for impeachment, I can almost guarantee that fact will be bought up by Trump’s lawyers.

Looking at it from the Democratic point of view it’s like they are saying “Yeah, he lied the first time and is a dirtbag for doing so, but he’s totally telling the truth now since he is telling us what we want to hear and it may lead to impeachment...”

Spectacles aside... after a couple years of hearing all of this stuff in different degrees of severity and sources, I'm not even interested?

Now if anyone actually files charges and this goes before a court of law, THEN that is something of interest.

I figure some will think I am saying this because I don't believe it true, but in reality everything so far has lead nowhere, so why should I believe this will either?

AOC really showed her intelligence and savvy today with that line of questioning.

I like her because she is outspoken and aggressive, but today I really grew to respect her as a politician. She asked direct and simple questions and actually got results that might lead somehow (i.e. the whole tax fraud thing).

Your first sentence makes no sense. If it turns out his statements are true, or even false for that matter, why would I then ask how credible he is. Even Donald Trump is capable of saying the sky is blue, a known liar can still state a fact. And while testimony such as the president being a racist will hold no water, signed and dated documents and money do. As well, his schools are coming out confirming testimony that the organization threatened to sue over grades.

As for the rest, this 7-8 hour questioning session alone, despite the paper trail, is certainly not enough to start an impeachment. However, this will directly tie them to other lines of inquiry. The groundwork is fully laid for a tax subpoena, and Weisselberg and Trump Jr/Ivanka are almost certainly going to be brought before the House to testify on several matters. Stone will probably have to confirm or deny the story about the meeting and then phone records if possible will be brought in.

If you're hoping this goes away because Cohen is a terrible person, I'm afraid you are crucially mistaken.

Yeah, she was refreshing she doesn't sit on her hands like so many others.

Proven to lie under oath at court......testifies again and deliveries bombshell.

See a problem?

I saw one head line concerning the Cohen testimony, "The Bombshell That Didn't Explode".

I love watching Trump defenders call him a liar but a year ago they were defending him (along with Trump) as being a victim. He lied FOR Trump, at the behest of Trump, and now he's paying the price. If we're going to gauge someone's character on their propensity to lie, then the Trump the rottenist bastard of them all.

No surprise that there are trump apologists in here. I think If they were privy to trump's actions they'd still find excuses.

soooo the gop committee member spend all their time highlighting that cohen is a terrible person, a liar, only our for himself, etc...

but didn't trump HIRE this man and kept him employed and close for over 10 years? what happened to "i'll hire the best people"??

seems like more of a case of "i'll hire the shitty people to do shitty things FOR me so I don't have to"

More telling is that they didn't try to pick apart what he was saying.

When an admitted and proven liar is given testimony, shouldn't one take everything he says with a grain of salt? Certainly all of us know someone who lies through their teeth. Do we automatically believe what he/she says if it is something we support? I would say for that reason alone all of us are not politicians.

Just for fun, what is Cohen's motivation for lying under oath now?

Just for fun, let´s hear your expertise

"What happens to a deal someone made if it´s proven they got that deal under false pretences" (A deal which gave Cohen 3 years instead of 70)

But popcorn aside.

Unless Cohen can prove what he claims with actual physical evidence that cannot be open for interpretation, this is just a popcorn show, since the Democrats can´t really expect Cohen's word to be enough to prove anything? So my bet is that the Democrats are just about that famous public election opinion.

My memory is fuzzy, but at one point a Democratic Rep stated the way they brought down a big crime family was by having a criminal/liar testify before Congress once.

I could be completely wrong, but does any of you remember what the time stamp is on that? Or if it was true?

Regarding the bolded portion, such cooperation deals are invalidated (see Manafort). Doesn't that support the notion that Cohen has motivation to tell the truth at this point?

Many of Cohen's claims are verifiable, and a related investigation is currently underway. I don't think the Democrats are expecting Cohen's testimony to be enough on it's own to get the GOP to take action. Frankly, I'm skeptical they'll take action under any circumstances.

Funnily enough Cohen did bring physical evidence of many of his claims. Copies of checks for hush money payments, wire transfers to Stormy Daniels, documents on Trump's finances, etc.

You can read and see the stuff he brought here.

Ignoring Jacanuk's silly response basically confirming he hasn't watched or read anything about the hearing, the republican reps put forward two potential reasons.

1. Cohen was spiteful at Trump. Not just because the president wouldn't pardon him, but the president also smeared him over social media. Additionally, they pushed the idea that Cohen wanted a position somewhere as a white house executive, but didn't get the position, for which he was resentful. Cohen's response was that he was content being the president's personal lawyer, and didn't wish for a more direct staff position.

2. Cohen is interested in making bank on a book or movie deal, and is just here at the testimony giving the answers that will lead to that. Which, in fairness, Cohen admitted he would probably pursue. He said he has been approached, though agreed to nothing yet, but might do so later on, most likely once his time is already served.

I said actual physical evidence which is not open for interpretation.

If anyone hopes to get evidence to convict Trump of anything, it needs to be something else than vague checks and vague documents who show Trump is less rich than he claims.

Anyways this is so far nothing but popcorn and Democrats will believe Cohen because he confirms their already established ideas and Republicans will hold firm on theirs. What will be important is that first ironclad evidence where there is no room to interpret it, then we have something that warrants Cohen only going 3 years to jail.

Beside your strange logic, where you go "Cohen may have lied to get a deal, but Manafort so he will be motivated to tell the truth now and kill his deal?"

Nothing cohen said or claimed are verifiable by actual no-interpretable evidence that will be enough to convict anyone. But I get what you mean is verifiable by putting it up towards already established "truths" you and the Democrats believe. And as to the investigations, well in 2 years they are still ongoing and who cares about Trump once he is no longer president. He will be a note on page 10 if he is actually convicted of anything.

But it´s good to hear that you are not disagreeing with that this is all a show and only because Democrats want to use all their guns to make sure they do not lose in 2020. The problem in "Trump world" is that in years, most of what Cohen said will be behind so much other "dirt" that it will be drowned out.

@zaryia said:

My memory is fuzzy, but at one point a Democratic Rep stated the way they brought down a big crime family was by having a criminal/liar testify before Congress once.

I could be completely wrong, but does any of you remember what the time stamp is on that? Or if it was true?

He lied under oath when it was against democrats interests.....but is telling the truth when it’s not.

The Rep was just saying the guy was vital in taking down the crime organization from his Congressional testimony, and that he was still an absolute crook. Isn't this how many cases function? You use a crook to catch other crooks?

the righteous indignation of some members on him potentially getting a book deal later.

these people ( committee members ) worship at the alter of money.... and now suddenly they take issue w/ someone else potentially getting paid?

just stop it.

LOL. Cooperation deals are invalidated by lying/not fully cooperating.

Ok, so we are back to your normal standard avoidance. But just to be clear again if something got lost in translation,

"if Cohen "corroborated by telling the prosecutors what they wanted to hear, he can´t go on record in front of Congress and say anything else" So unless Cohen brings up concrete evidence, this is a Cohen/Trump said situation and that will be split partisan ways.

Ok, which could be true if he let them down a path to concrete evidence. After all, we have probably all seen Donnie Darko/Black Mass and heard the countless stories about former high profiled mobsters who turn "rats" and provide an inside view which leads to concrete evidence that is unrefutable.

But so far Cohen has not provided anything like that, he has confirmed some unverified stories which may be true like the stormy deal, but he has not provided the "blow" that will tip the scale and get any Republican senator to convict Trump or evidence that would not be overturned once it reaches supreme court (unless the lower courts surprises everyone)

That's not cooperation, and prosecutors are not kind when it occurs as it risks undermining their case.

You get that documents are physical evidence, right?

Now you are just stating your opinion and not looking at actual facts.

Manafort = same situation, got a deal, was later found out to be lying by his own stupidity.

Cohen = a Lawyer who is trained in certain tactics, knows the system and stands between making any kind of deal he can which allows him to get a min time in jail or no deal which could land him in jail for life without any chance of ever kissing his kids goodnight or living the high life."

So you ask "just for fun - why would Cohen lie" well....... But no need to answer, I am not trying to convince you to believe that Cohen is a liar since I know that impossible, you can´t know for sure he is not a liar, and I can´t know for sure he is not truthful.

All we can do is wait for concrete evidence that will hold up in a court.

You do know that it´s customary to read a full sentence right? "I said actual physical evidence which is not open for interpretation."

@Vaasman: I have little doubt that some of what he is saying is true, there are things out there that can be verified easily. Also, his physical evidence has the potential to be harmful to the president if it is verified to be accurate. But the issue I’m seeing is how so many are willing to believe everything he says right now because he’s telling them what they want to hear despite the fact that he is going to jail for lying to Congress.

You even have Alec Baldwin suggesting that he gets the Medal of Honor for the testimony because he is hoping Cohen’s testimony will be another step in impeaching Trump. You don’t have to be a veteran or a close family member of one to find that statement offensive.

Some of you may mock my posts, but I have a feeling many of you are setting yourselves up for disappointment if this ends up going nowhere or Trump still gets reelected. As for motivation? Revenge, a promise of a shorter sentence, book deals, etc. Maybe a presidential pardon from the next Democrat to enter the White House?

Cohen lied for Trump the first time, that's the difference. When you are in the employ of someone so morally bankrupt, it's disingenuous to then believe the same motivation that made him initially lie still applies here. Anyone that is reasonable and not blinded by partisanship understands Trump to be a chronic and pathological liar who, for God knows whatever reason, people get on their knees in front of to worship and follow. What makes me tend to believe Cohen now is not only that he is not testifying on behalf of a proven liar anymore, but that he says things such as Trump didn't explicitly tell him to lie to Congress, an impeachable offense, but made clear through his actions that he wanted him to do so. Which begs the question for those thinking he's lying to destroy Trump......if you're going to lie to do so, why take half measures? You're going to viewed and accused a liar anyway, so why not say he explicitly informed him to lie to Congress?

Aside, I've always wondered something. If Trump wasn't in a position to further peoples' agendas, their political ambitions, what about him would make them believe him? What, if they were honest with themselves and took some effort to research his past and fact-checked his continual lies, that makes them believe he is trustworthy and a person of integrity? Because him being president doesn't automatically absolve him of the nature of his character, the only thing that does that is a supporter whose reservations towards it have been steamrolled by their blind partisan ideological adherence.

I think many Trump supporters suspect he's very guilty, they simply don't care because it furthers their own interests. If he were proven to be a criminal, I don't doubt for a second that his cult would take to the streets in incredible violence to fight for him anyway.

Assuming everything you said it true, then it's another professional liar that Trump had in his employ for a decade. So how does this make the GOP and Trump look good?

He is not going to be trustworthy no matter who would be benefiting from it. It is completely partisan to assume he was telling the truth only when he says what we want to hear.

As for why he doesn’t go all out? Assuming for the sake of argument that he is lying, he is probably smart enough to lie about things that are hard to debunk. Say Trump is a racist and it is nearly impossible to say otherwise since the court of public opinion will agree, and it can help cause him to lose the small fraction of the minority vote he already has as well as white Republican supporters that don’t want to be seen supporting an alleged racist (the alt-right isn’t enough for reelection). Famous black Trump supporters such as Candace Owens, Kanye West, and others will be dismissed as Uncle Toms.

On the other hand, say that he was colluding with Russia? That requires actual, hard evidence that won’t get thrown out instantly during an impeachment trial. Evidence that is so overwhelming that Republican senators from states that went to Trump won’t put their re-elections in jeopardy for voting for removal. Senators from California, New York, and other states that went heavy for Clinton have nothing to fear as long as they don’t vote to acquit.

Also, I already listed some possible motivations for him to lie. That doesn’t mean he is lying, but the motivations can’t be denied. If something he said was sufficient to get both Trump and the Vice President impeached in a two for one deal, what is stopping newly inaugurated President Pelosi from pardoning him as gratitude? Andrew Cuomo, who also hates Trump, probably wouldn’t have any issues pardoning him for any state charges in New York as well If he had any come up.

The biggest thing you have to realize with Trump supporters is that their support has more to do with policy than morals. In other words, they would rather vote for a guy that cheats on his pregnant third wife with a porn star as long as he pushes for policies that they agree with than vote for a guy that is faithful to his wife but pushes for policies that they completely disagree with. In the military, soldiers would rather have a morally ambiguous (in their private life only, not a war criminal), asshole commander that will get the job done and keep them all alive than a Mr. Rogers-type commander that gets half of his men killed.

Stormy Daniels is paying Trump for defamation https://www.npr.org/2018/12/11/675872841/stormy-daniels-ordered-to-pay-trump-293-000-in-fees-in-defamation-lawsuit

Stormy Daniels Ordered To Pay Trump $293,000 In Fees In Defamation Lawsuit

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

But Cohen's testimony was very damning. I wonder if they will bring in all the people he named to be questioned by Congress.

So is Wikileak's counter argument against Cohen.

Stormy Daniels engaged in the damaging defamation. Without silencing Stormy Daniels, her defamation will be unrepairable.

The Stormy angle has nothing to do with those damning remarks.

But I'll talk about Wikileaks. They aren't very trustworthy on this Russia matter, they completely lied about Gucifer 2.0 and DNC leaks and Stone as Mueller discovered. Then again Cohen isn't trust worthy either, but neither is Trump. They are all a bunch of goons.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/16/mueller-searches-yielded-evidence-of-stone-wikileaks-communications.html

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180715/wikileaks-founder-assange-lied-to-protect-russia-charges-on-hacked-emails-suggest

https://apnews.com/69b28dd8fc034cb0a2528048638d7893

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/

We'll have to wait for more investigation, and more people to come in and testify to Congress (all those names Cohen gave during his bombshells!). Also to SDNY investigations which is looking into the Tax Fraud AOC+Cohen mentioned.

This isn't viewed in terms of personal immorality (such as cheating on one's wife), but of a professional one. At what point will Trump supporters consider morality into their calculations past the point of their own ideological predilections? This is the difference with Trump. The highest of immoral actions that would transcend personal failing into those that would bring detriment to the country as a whole would, by many Trump backers, I believe be overlooked and downplayed. There is no limit to these people in what they're willing to tolerate. Where is the line drawn? At what point do they place aside their partisanship in the absence of personal moral standing by those furthering their interests to stand by morals that serve interests far above their own?

Literally none of those things sound that bad.

Wanting a Trump Tower in Russia, is that what collusion is. What's funny, Democrats the one trying to make America a socialist state and they worried Trump is gonna take down America for Russia.

If anyone should go to jail, is the person who talks after receiving hush money, that's why its called hush money. Unless the president paid her for sex in form of prostitution, I don't think it matters he had sex with her, what old man wouldn't, you all would be high fiving your old man if he hit it with a pornstar.

I disagree with this opinion as does the SDNY.

You don't seem caught up on this issue. Having sex with a porn star isn't what is potentially illegal. It's the implicated/supposed campaign finance issues, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Read up on this matter more.

As far as collusion goes, I'm not sure what Cohen's statements about Trump and Wikileaks can lead to anything illegal but I'm sure they will further look into it.

That's mostly fictional fear mongering. They aren't advocating any more socialism than the Nordic countries, AUS, Canada, and UK have. Literally not a "socialist state", unless you consider those countries I listed to be ones as well. Mind you many of these countries have a higher QOL than USA (better places to live on average).

You're playing with semantics, like those goons at CPAC.

Why don’t you go into more detail into what “immoral” factors you are saying should turn staunch Republicans away, instead of assuming we should already know what you are talking about? Keep in mind what you may consider moral may be ridiculous to someone with different political views. Someone that is pro-life may see abortion as immoral while someone that is pro-choice may see denying a woman the right to have an abortion as immoral.

You’re not going to convince a pro-life Republican to vote for one of the Democrats that voted against the Born Alive Act in the 2020 presidential election just because you told them how much you think Trump is immoral for (insert personal reason you find him immoral here). Just like you aren’t going to convince a Democrat that believes we should grant amnesty to most immigrants that show up to our southern border to vote for Trump or another politician that is for building the wall.

How about Trump constantly attacking our own institutions when it doesn't suite his narrative or interests? Or taking shots at those who've made sacrifices in service of this country? Our judges? Generals? Or crapping over our values? Or taking the word of foreign powers over our own? These aren't policies, and they aren't concerning Trump's personal affairs either such as cheating on his wife. I couldn't give a **** about that, tbh. But I do care for this country, and all of these things Trump has (and continues to do) are 100% immoral for a supposed president who laughably proclaims he's "Making America Great Again" yet does nothing so well as to shit all over it at every opportunity he can.

So at what point will Trump supporters stand up for America against him, or will they continue to condone, encourage, or at best begrudgingly ignore his behavior towards it (and what's worse, for nothing but his own ego and immaturity) simply because, well, they want their political ambitions fulfilled above all else? I have no trouble nor blame people wanting to further their own agendas and am not arrogant enough to claim they're immoral or not in their positions. I do have a major problem when they view it acceptable in dismissing immoral actions and statements by a president towards what he's sworn to uphold defend above anyone else. It's incredibly depressing people don't seem to care one bit for how America is treated by its so-called leader when it comes at the cost of its integrity and respect. No, they just want to get theirs, America be damned. This is why I don't really consider Trump supporters American.

@LJS9502_basic: Yes

He has sad a lot of things that I don’t agree with. I have also said here more than once, to deaf ears, that if a candidate that I thought would be a better leader went against him in 2020 then I may consider voting for that candidate. Instead I’m just called alt-right and outside of the forum called an Uncle Tom. You will not always agree with the candidate but you will obviously be more concerned with what their publicly declared goals while in power are. In terms of holding his words about intel agencies and certain military leaders against him, I would consider that a serious criticism if nearly this entire forum didn’t do the exact same thing when leaders from the military and intel agencies said things they didn’t agree with. Most of this forum was ready to burn the NSA down when the Snowden leaks came out, for example. That doesn’t mean I don’t cringe and think that he needs to listen to them in most occasions.

If people want Trump supporters to “stand up” and turn against him for the reasons you posted, then they need to get the Democratic Party and their new de facto leader Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who says a lot of cringeworthy stuff on camera and on Twitter like Trump but she gets a pass from the media because she’s a Democrat) to act like they care what those people want, rather than to keep pushing them away, pushing the “Blame America First” narrative, and hoping that enough people vote Democrat to make their opinions irrelevant on Election Day. No amount of “Trump is immoral” speeches will overcome Democrats looking at them as flyover scum that doesn’t know what is good for them.

AOC threatening to put Democrats on a “list” to be primaried out over them voting for things they believe their constituents would want is not something that makes her look good. Let any Republican say that the people are “yelling from the cheap seats” or “I’m the boss, how bout that” and see how fast they would have been destroyed by Cooper, Maddow, Lemon, Morning Joe, etc. as well as all of the late night talk show hosts and SNL skits instead of it only being mentioned on Tucker Carlson, Hannity, and Laura Ingraham.

It also doesn’t help when Democrats intentionally schedule a hearing with Trump’s disgraced lawyer (the subject of this thread) the same week he is in Vietnam trying to cut a deal with Kim Jong Un because they knew Cohen’s testimony would dominate the news instead of the summit. In a way, they indirectly helped take some of the heat off of him when he walked away from Kim because the news was still talking about Cohen instead, and many Trump supporters see Democrats putting a guy about to start a three year sentence for lying to Congress in front of Congress again just because he promised to say some bad things about Trump as a joke. Did you know that we secured 21 billion dollars in deals with Vietnam’s aviation industry during Trump’s visit, with the deals being signed in the presence of both Trump and the Vietnamese President? Probably not, because the news was more concerned with how Trump may or may not have paid off a porn star he may or man not have slept with while Melania was pregnant with Barron.

For the people on this forum that are in their mid-30s or older, a lot of them probably voted for Al Gore instead of George W. Bush during the 2000 election. Gore’s running mate was THE face of the movement to ban violent video games in the 90s, Senator Joe Lieberman. There is no way that fact would have gone over their heads, because nearly every video game magazine popular in the 90s from GamePro to EGM were talking about his crusade, but they probably voted for Gore anyway because they felt that he would be a better choice than Bush. Until Democrats give Republicans a reason to abandon Trump that doesn’t involve calling him racist or a Russian spy they‘re probably going to feel the same way even when he does say some of his most cringeworthy statements.

Please refrain from posting fiction. That isn't how any of this works.

Well if Trump didn't threaten Cohen's family it wouldn't have been the same week as his failed and embarrassing Summit.

That was a long time ago. Republicans are now the anti-video game party over the last 2 years. Hell even Trump and his Whitehouse made many silly comments. And all to protect the NRA.

Do you, mean like the liberals taking potshots at a Republican veteran who lost an eye in battle? or the liberal mainstream media like the post who could have destroyed a kids life, but only by sheer luck was there someone looking into it and also looking the whole picture or about the Democratic congresswoman who publically called for violence and hatred towards normal people again just because they happen to be Republicans.

Or what about the smear campaign instigated by Democrats against a sitting conservative appointed Supreme court justice? Have you heard anything about that after he was appointed? And it´s not like you can´t legally remove a sitting justice if there are actual credible evidence.

So when will you stand up for America? when will you say enough with all the censorship especially at universities, which is supposed to be a bastion of learning, or enough with the liberal agenda to ridicule veterans because they happen to be republicans or enough with the fake political smear campaigns

She is in control whether people want to admit it or not. With the exception of Fox News and organizations to the right of them, the MSM is afraid to criticize her, and what happened with Amazon is only part of what she is capable of. Her popularity is part of the reason why almost all of the of the people running for the 2020 Democratic nomination are now embracing socialism, versus Bernie being the only one to do so during the 2016 election.

So far Trump has gotten farther with North Korea than any previous president, and over a year ago people were claiming he would bring us to nuclear war. It's been well over a year since the last missile test and we were having them a lot more often in the past. But nobody cares because Orange Man Bad. Cohen isn't going to jail for another month, so to believe that they just had to do it last week is almost laughable.

Your response shows that you totally missed the point of my post by bringing up how Republicans act around video games today. The point was that people will vote for someone they disagree with when they see them as the lesser of two evils, and trying to shame them into voting the way you want them to vote isn't always going to work. Just like gamers in the year 2000 probably didn't want to vote for a guy who's potential VP was trying to ban violent video games while a senator but did anyway because they would rather have him over another Bush, many Trump supporters in the year 2016 and 2020 may not agree with some of what Trump does but they would rather have him over what the Democratic party is offering them right now.

We've had this discussion numerous time to which I've made the same point. All the above examples are false equivalences because THEY ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT.

You continually and stubbornly believe Trump is on the same level as anyone else.....as Joe Blow on the street. He's not, his word and actions represent the country as a collective. Liberals and the media do not. In Trump's position, he should be above partisanship to hold the country in interest, leave the rest to grovel and sling shit.