Cohen testimony before Congress.

[SaltyTiger 7,916]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Cohen's testimony has nothing to do with Mueller report.  And it's not just about collusion.

You are the one that brought the Bob report up and I understand that it is not just about collusion. Collusion is history.....  yet all we read from CNN and Salon for two years.

You wasted a lot of time on it. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

13 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

Sorry couldn't resist the facepalm GT 

[augolf1716 21,435]

45 minutes ago, SaturdayGT said:

Is that ICHY?

[homersapien 11,513]

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

You are the one that brought the Bob report up and I understand that it is not just about collusion. Collusion is history.....  yet all we read from CNN and Salon for two years.

You wasted a lot of time on it. 

That's simply false.  Just BS hyperbole. Besides, didn't you once say you got all your news from Fox and Trump's twitters?

And IMO there is enough publicly-known evidence they colluded with Russia.  There may not be enough evidence to prove the legal case of conspiracy, but there will be enough evidence in total - for various charges - to justify impeachment.

Of course it will be for naught thanks to the MAGA Republicans (pretty much all of them) in the Senate.  My most likely hope is that Trump will get blown out in 2020. 

You spend way too much time fretting about the continuous bad news associated with the Trump administration.  And you care less about the fact we have a corrupt, incompetent president than you do liberals saying "I told you so".

 

[homersapien 11,513]

20 hours ago, japantiger said:

The central tenant of the Dossier  and resulting collusion investigation was Cohen being in Prague in 2016 on Trump's behalf.   Cohen was interviewed by the Mueller team extensively last fall.  But yeah, it has nothing to do with Mueller... I'm sure Mueller was just looking for  personal banking advice.

Screw the "dossier".  The case for Trump can be made without it.

[japantiger 4,052]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Screw the "dossier".  The case for Trump can be made without it.

And yet; it hasn't

[aubiefifty 17,111]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's simply false.  Just BS hyperbole. Besides, didn't you once say you got all your news from Fox and Trump's twitters?

And IMO there is enough publicly-known evidence they colluded with Russia.  There may not be enough evidence to prove the legal case of conspiracy, but there will be enough evidence in total - for various charges - to justify impeachment.

Of course it will be for naught thanks to the MAGA Republicans (pretty much all of them) in the Senate.  My most likely hope is that Trump will get blown out in 2020. 

You spend way too much time fretting about the continuous bad news associated with the Trump administration.  And you care less about the fact we have a corrupt, incompetent president than you do liberals saying "I told you so".

 

i weep that you did not mean hyper "bowl"'. thought i would jump in and let pt neg me as well as throwing in a little comedy.   waves

[homersapien 11,513]

15 hours ago, japantiger said:

And yet; it hasn't

Hah!

It's being made on an almost daily basis:

Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance.html

[Grumps 3,705]

On 2/28/2019 at 3:34 PM, AuCivilEng1 said:

I’m trying to figure out why it’s such a huge deal that people tell the truth, all of a sudden. Yea Cohens a liar. But Donald Trump is a bigger liar. Why aren’t any of you calling out his daily lies? Why doesn’t it bother you? If Cohen has no credibility, neither should Trump.

Cohen is a liar. Trump is a liar. What is your point? It doesn't matter is Trump is a liar and is a sleazebag. He has a Constitutional right to be both. What matters is has he done anything worthy of being impeached for. Things would be much better if everyone would accept the fact that Trump is POTUS and will be until he loses or serves two terms or dies. Seriously, the left should be preparing to defeat him next year instead of trying to unseat him now. The current plan of the left will result in being disappointed TODAY AND after the next election. What am I missing?

[homersapien 11,513]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

Cohen is a liar. Trump is a liar. What is your point? It doesn't matter is Trump is a liar and is a sleazebag. He has a Constitutional right to be both. What matters is has he done anything worthy of being impeached for. Things would be much better if everyone would accept the fact that Trump is POTUS and will be until he loses or serves two terms or dies. Seriously, the left should be preparing to defeat him next year instead of trying to unseat him now. The current plan of the left will result in being disappointed TODAY AND after the next election. What am I missing?

Congress has oversight responsibility which is a duty the Republicans ignored.

And every piece of information revealed about Trump's negligence, corruption, malfeasance, lying and incompetence will only help to defeat him next year.

That's what you are " missing".

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/1/2019 at 1:19 PM, homersapien said:

And IMO there is enough publicly-known evidence they colluded with Russia.  There may not be enough evidence to prove the legal case of conspiracy, but there will be enough evidence in total - for various charges - to justify impeachment.

Now you know this statement doesn't make sense. Void of any objective standard. 

Idc who is president, you have to require more than this before impeachment.... 

[homersapien 11,513]

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now you know this statement doesn't make sense. Void of any objective standard. 

Idc who is president, you have to require more than this before impeachment.... 

Well it makes sense to me. 

But I think you may have misunderstood me.  I didn't mean that impeachment will be justified because of the Mueller report. 

What I was trying to say is I think there will be enough evidence - in aggregate (in or out of the Mueller report)  - of other activities to justify impeaching Trump even if you take "collusion"  (conspiracy) off the table.

I originally predicted Trump would be impeached before the end of his first term but I am less sure now.  I based my prediction on the possibility of enough Republicans jumping the crazy wagon to take stand on principle.  It's looking more and more as if that won't happen, at least at this point.

The other reason I am less sure is the political calculus the Democrats must make.  Impeachment is as much of a political process than a legal one.  If you don't have enough support in the Senate there's really no point in proceeding with it.  It would certainly be premature at this point.  Pelosi apparently thinks even talking about impeachment is premature. And the timing is risky with the looming election.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, but I don't get your "objective standard" comment, what do you mean?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well it makes sense to me. 

But I think you may have misunderstood me.  I didn't mean that impeachment will be justified because of the Mueller report. 

What I was trying to say is I think there will be enough evidence - in aggregate (in or out of the Mueller report)  - of other activities to justify impeaching Trump even if you take "collusion"  (conspiracy) off the table.

I originally predicted Trump would be impeached before the end of his first term but I am less sure now.  I based my prediction on the possibility of enough Republicans jumping the crazy wagon to take stand on principle.  It's looking more and more as if that won't happen, at least at this point.

The other reason I am less sure is the political calculus the Democrats must make.  Impeachment is as much of a political process than a legal one.  If you don't have enough support in the Senate there's really no point in proceeding with it.  It would certainly be premature at this point.  Pelosi apparently thinks even talking about impeachment is premature. And the timing is risky with the looming election.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, but I don't get your "objective standard" comment, what do you mean?

 

All good. It just seemed to be an overly vague assertion at first glance. We have to be careful to keep the "bar" high across the board - be it national emergency declarations or impeachments (I assume you would agree with me on that). Does that make sense? Basically, if one thinks there is enough public evidence to show collusion, and the totality of it will justify impeachment, then the question that follows in my mind is: according to what objective standard? It just seems like in today's political climate, its easy to establish standards on the basis of bias. 

I do not imply that it is easy to articulate a bright-line rule. 

[homersapien 11,513]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

All good. It just seemed to be an overly vague assertion at first glance. We have to be careful to keep the "bar" high across the board - be it national emergency declarations or impeachments (I assume you would agree with me on that). Does that make sense? Basically, if one thinks there is enough public evidence to show collusion, and the totality of it will justify impeachment, then the question that follows in my mind is: according to what objective standard?

It just seems like in today's political climate, its easy to establish standards on the basis of bias. 

I do not imply that it is easy to articulate a bright-line rule. 

First, I agree the bar should be set high, precedent is important.

As far as an "objective" standard how about the accumulation of enough evidence that would justify an indictment? 

That's about all you can do short of convicting the president of a crime, which - as I understand - is problematic if not impossible.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

First, I agree the bar should be set high, precedent is important.

As far as an "objective" standard how about the accumulation of enough evidence that would justify an indictment? 

That's about all you can do short of convicting the president of a crime, which - as I understand - is problematic if not impossible.

 

I guess I don't quite follow you in terms of the particular public-known evidence, in the aggregate, you're referencing as it pertains to collusion and/or impeachment. 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,916]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Pelosi apparently thinks even talking about impeachment is premature. And the timing is risky with the looming election.

When did anyone with your intelligence start paying attention to Pelosi? 

Good Grief Brother Homer. You know damn well President Trump will not be impeached................better find you a 2020 candidate that beat him.  

[homersapien 11,513]

13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

When did anyone with your intelligence start paying attention to Pelosi? 

Good Grief Brother Homer. You know damn well President Trump will not be impeached................better find you a 2020 candidate that beat him.  

Pelosi will be remembered as one of the best Speakers in history.

[homersapien 11,513]

14 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I guess I don't quite follow you in terms of the particular public-known evidence, in the aggregate, you're referencing as it pertains to collusion and/or impeachment. 

 

Well I don't quite follow what you mean by "objective" standard.

What I mean is enough evidence that would justify an indictment on a particular criminal charge - say obstruction of justice, money laundering and/or campaign finance violations. I am assuming all of this will be publicly-known, so that's not really a factor.

 

[DKW 86 7,481]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well I don't quite follow what you mean by "objective" standard.

What I mean is enough evidence that would justify an indictment on a particular criminal charge - say obstruction of justice, money laundering and/or campaign finance violations. I am assuming all of this will be publicly-known, so that's not really a factor.

1

If anyone didnt know there were issues like this with Trump, they are crazy. Now all that other crapola? Even DiFi, Maxine Waters, Van Jones, et al have been saying since day one it was all just a nothing burger. And it appears they were 100% right. 

[SaltyTiger 7,916]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Pelosi will be remembered as one of the best Speakers in history.

I can see how you would believe that. 

[SaltyTiger 7,916]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

say obstruction of justice, money laundering and/or campaign finance violations.

 

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If anyone didnt know there were issues like this with Trump, they are crazy.

 

[augolf1716 21,435]

13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I can see how you would believe that. 

JMHO but Henry Clay was w/o doubt the best speaker

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

On 3/1/2019 at 8:21 AM, augolf1716 said:

Is that ICHY?

Always figured him to be a Schempf kinda guy.

[homersapien 11,513]

14 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

JMHO but Henry Clay was w/o doubt the best speaker

 

Good point. I should have said modern history.

[homersapien 11,513]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If anyone didnt know there were issues like this with Trump, they are crazy. 

While I agree that Trump supporters are crazy, I disagree with the assertion they really understood his history. 

For most of them, all they knew about Trump came from watching his reality shows on TV and accepting his self-manufactured image.  And even so, he would have lost the election had he ran against anyone except Hillary.