info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: need help figuring out what's going on with the Cohen testimony
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Sawfish
Feb 28, 2019, 7:31:35 PM2/28/19
to
I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
the rest of RST, as well.
1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
this correct?
2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
Thanks for any clarifications.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
the rest of RST, as well.
1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
this correct?
2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
Thanks for any clarifications.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
The Iceberg
Feb 28, 2019, 8:06:05 PM2/28/19
to
On Friday, 1 March 2019 00:31:35 UTC, sawfish wrote:
> I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
> to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
> that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
> the rest of RST, as well.
>
> 1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
> prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
> connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
> this correct?
>
> 2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
> essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
> the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
> he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
>
> 3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
> about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
> falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
>
> 4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
> that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
> yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
> and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
>
> 5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
> examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
>
> Thanks for any clarifications.
yep another big NOTHINGBURGER to quote the CNN editor! LOL
> I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
> to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
> that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
> the rest of RST, as well.
>
> 1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
> prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
> connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
> this correct?
>
> 2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
> essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
> the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
> he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
>
> 3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
> about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
> falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
>
> 4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
> that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
> yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
> and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
>
> 5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
> examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
>
> Thanks for any clarifications.
TT
Mar 1, 2019, 2:00:21 AM3/1/19
to
Sawfish kirjoitti 1.3.2019 klo 2:31:
> I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
> to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
> that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
> the rest of RST, as well.
>
> 1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
> prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
> connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
> this correct?
>
-The biggest attention from the testimony is about Stormy Daniels
> I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
> to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
> that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
> the rest of RST, as well.
>
> 1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
> prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
> connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
> this correct?
>
payments yes. Cohen submitted a check signed by Trump.
-Russia was also mentioned a few times but couple hard to prove
allegations from Cohen which would mean roughly that Trump knew about
Trump Tower meeting & about Russia leaking hacked documents. But this
hearing was not about Russia.
-I think there's one thing Cohen talked about (& provided some
documents) which may be easier to prosecute & convict than Stormy
Daniels case: Trump changed outrageously value for his properties
depending on what the figures were for, different figures for banks,
insurance & tax. For example Rachel Maddow talked about an estate which
was valued at around 25m dollars but Trump may have reported the value
of property to Deutsche Bank as 291m dollars! (This is just one example)
A house committee has now asked for records from Deutsche Bank, which
apparently gave a 1 billion dollar loan to Trump based on these false
values of his property. SO TRUMP IS LIKELY GUILTY OF BANK FRAUD,
INSURANCE FRAUD AND TAX FRAUD. These are probably easy to prosecute
clear cut cases. We don't know yet how much this has been investigated
and by whom. I guess that if SDNY is on the case Trump could face long
time in jail, whenever he does have to go to court about it.
> 2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
> essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
> the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
> he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
>
becomes criminal case because it (not reporting) was clearly done on
purpose.
They went their way trying to hide the payments from authorities.
> 4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
> that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
> yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
> and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
>
Also, Cohen told that SDNY has criminal investigations on Trump that
press doesn't know about.
> 5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
> examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
>
his sentence although that is up to SDNY - which Cohen is cooperating
with currently.
On the other hand it would be very unwise for Cohen to lie as getting
caught would result on definitely not getting his sentence reduced &
might add more to it... his aim to do these hearings is naturally to
show that he is cooperating & to reduce his sentence.
It looked to me that Cohen was talking the truth, chairman of the
committee said the same. No motivation to lie really.
Calimero
Mar 1, 2019, 2:41:55 AM3/1/19
to
You think Cohen is so dumb to lie about things where it can be proven that he lied?
No and no.
And you see - there goes your „all motivation to speak the truth“ argument out of the window.
Max
Sawfish
Mar 1, 2019, 9:34:09 AM3/1/19
to
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Guys
Mar 1, 2019, 10:00:53 AM3/1/19
to
Hey Guys
Mar 1, 2019, 10:14:49 AM3/1/19
to
I’m surprised no one brought up Hannity (Cohen’s client) or Cohen’s role as deputy finance chair of the RNC. If someone thinks Cohen is a liar/criminal, then what does that say about Hannity and the RNC?
Sawfish
Mar 1, 2019, 10:24:19 AM3/1/19
to
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <-----------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
Sawfish
Mar 1, 2019, 10:26:12 AM3/1/19
to
On 3/1/19 7:14 AM, Hey Guys wrote:
> I’m surprised no one brought up Hannity (Cohen’s client) or Cohen’s role as deputy finance chair of the RNC. If someone thinks Cohen is a liar/criminal, then what does that say about Hannity and the RNC?
Without evidence, it doesn't say anything.
> I’m surprised no one brought up Hannity (Cohen’s client) or Cohen’s role as deputy finance chair of the RNC. If someone thinks Cohen is a liar/criminal, then what does that say about Hannity and the RNC?
So we need to wait to see if evidence is presented and he is charged,
before we git the rope.
bob
Mar 2, 2019, 9:36:40 AM3/2/19
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:31:32 -0800, Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
>to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
>that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
>the rest of RST, as well.
>
>1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
>prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
>connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
>this correct?
the main question is did he pay her to keep it from the american
people solely - or from his family too.
>2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
>essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
>the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
>he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
he used his own money in the end.
>3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
>about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
>falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
>
>4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
>that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
>yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
>and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
>
>5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
>examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
>
>Thanks for any clarifications.
it's no different than what cohen said before, what was leaked to the
press, months ago, etc. just now they got another chance to say it in
front of congress and put it 24/7 on CNN while trump was dealing with
jim jong un on other "irrelevant" matters of state.
they've gone bonkers.
bob
wrote:
>I've stayed away from this but have noted that reported activity seems
>to be picking up again. I'm trying to figure out what's going on. I feel
>that some here might be able to help, and thereby clarify the issues for
>the rest of RST, as well.
>
>1) It seems like the entire Cohen involvement is about a payoff to a
>prostitute to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign. It has no
>connection to Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 election. Is
>this correct?
people solely - or from his family too.
>2) The concern is whether or not making this payment was legal: in
>essence is it lawful to pay blackmail? Or is the *source* of the money
>the main issue? That the money was somehow not Trump's money to spend as
>he saw fit--that there was a sort of legal earmark on it?
>3) It also seems like a part of the charges deal with subsequently lying
>about or misrepresenting the payments. If so, to whom were these
>falsehoods told and under what circumstance, and by whom?
>
>4) Is there any substantive event or action concerning the above issues
>that is entirely new-that no one knew about prior to revelation by Cohen
>yesterday? Or is it Cohen confirming prior testimony given in private,
>and that has been reported in earlier news stories as speculation?
>
>5) I assume that Cohen is under oath, but what is the nature of the
>examination, and to what degree is the oath binding?
>
>Thanks for any clarifications.
press, months ago, etc. just now they got another chance to say it in
front of congress and put it 24/7 on CNN while trump was dealing with
jim jong un on other "irrelevant" matters of state.
they've gone bonkers.
bob
0 new messages