Do You Think President Trump Will Be Impeached?

by minimus 242 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Coded Logic

  Cohen - under oath - stated Trump instructed him to make the payment for the campaign.
  

  Trump has the same opportunity to go under oath and try and deny it. But he refuses to. He's not afraid to lie to the American people but Trump's terrified to lie when the stakes are real. Cohen has the recordings and text messages to back up what he said in court. Trump has nothing but his forked tongue.

  Trump is a crook. Time for him to make a peace sign, get on marine one, and never be seen or heard from again.

  
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  He doesn’t need to go under oath. Did you listen to the former FEC chairman? You can spend money to help your campaign without it being a campaign expenditure. It all depends on whether there is even a chance the purchase could be for other reasons. Oh, and it helps if you spend you own money - which Trump did in this case. He could do it in cash, by check, by bitcoin, through a corporation, through a lawyer. It doesnt matter.

  It has been documented that this has been a topic with Stormy for years prior to the election.

  I know Cohen said what he said - it doesn’t matter. He can testify under oath that the sky is red. Does it make the sky red?

  Listen to the recording again, unless you never listened to it the first time.

  
  
• 

  minimus

  Don’t bother trying to reason with CL. He is part of the resistance and Trump needs to be impeached and convicted. Coded Logic the Parrot.
• 

  sir82

  A few thoughts on recent developments....

  -- Trump was quick to condemn Cohen, but continues to praise Manafort

  -- Trump quoted by NBC News in January 2018:

  https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2018-state-of-the-union-address/state-donald-trump-he-thinks-it-couldn-t-be-better-n842501

  He's decided that a key witness in the Russia probe, Paul Manafort, isn't going to "flip"

  and sell him out, friends and aides say.

  -- Trump is now "considering" pardoning Manafort:

  http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/paul-manafort-pardon-trump-fox-news.html

  While plugging the interview on Hannity, Earhardt said Trump “mentioned pardoning” Manafort

  — not because the conviction of Trump’s former campaign chairman reflects poorly on him,

  but because he’s a swell guy.

  -- Unlike Cohen, ‘Brave’ Manafort cannot flip without potentially double-crossing Putin and his oligarchs. Flipping on Trump is nothing compare to double-crossing Putin.

  Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride!
  
• 

  out4good4

  Cheat-0 has went from "I don't know dem whores" to "yeah.....I paid for pu$$y. It's OK cause I used my own money."

  And these Trumpsters adjusted accordingly.

  Cheat-0 has also vacillates between "there is no collusion" to "so what if I did......it's not a crime"

  And these Trumpsters adjusted accordingly.

  For a man who promised on the campaign trail to never lie to the american people, he's become pretty adept at it.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Cheat-0 has went from "I don't know dem whores" to "yeah.....I paid for pu$$y. It's OK cause I used my own money."

  I don’t think that is accurate. He still denies ever having the affairs. And legally, paying someone to hush up doesn’t imply the incidents occurred, just that you want the person to go away, even if they are liars.

  But if I had to put a probability on whether he actaually had the affairs, I would say high... 90%.

  Cheat-0 has also vacillates between "there is no collusion" to "so what if I did......it's not a crime"

  So? This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, it happens in debates and arguments all the time, and it’s a valid line of reasoning. You assume your opponent’s point is true and ask if that actually implies the conclusion they claim it implies.

  In other words, let’s grant for a moment that there was “collusion” what does that imply? Does it imply a crime? No.
• 

  darth frosty

  
  
• 

  minimus

  Cheat.O ... Where the hell did you come up with that one? Every time I see it I think of Obama
• 

  Simon

  Cohen - under oath - stated Trump instructed him to make the payment for the campaign.

  The question would be whether Cohen is a credible witness and whether that would be enough to convict Trump. I think if you step back for a minute and look at things objectively, without your "resistance" hat on, you'll realize it isn't.

  It would be very easy to suggest that Cohen made that statement as part of a plea deal to reduce his sentence for the tax-related crimes he's actually been convicted of.

  Even if Trump believed and said it was for the campaign, the FEC wouldn't consider it a campaign contribution so it's a moot point.
• 

  sir82

  The question would be whether Cohen is a credible witness and whether that

  would be enough to convict Trump.

  That is an important element, of course.

  If it were just "Cohen says X-Y-Z" then yeah, credibility is an issue. But if it's "Cohen says X-Y-Z" and you have a tape of X, electronic documents of Y, and a paper trail of Z, the tends to establish credibility.

  It would be very easy to suggest that Cohen made that statement as part of a plea deal

  to reduce his sentence for the tax-related crimes he's actually been convicted of.

  Yes, it would be, but the problem I have with that is

  -- Cohen was not arrested or arraigned - he walked into the FBI office and confessed. Why "make up stories" about something you did not do, when you haven't even been charged with anything yet?

  -- It's one thing to make a plea deal and say "I did [lesser thing] X instead of [bigger thing] Y". It's quite another to implicate someone else in the crime. If you implicate someone else, and your story is easily falsifiable, you've just blown your plea deal. Prosecutors aren't stupid. If you name names, your story better be independently verifiable. Lying to the FBI to try to get yourself a reduced sentence isn't going to work.