Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen says to reveal president's 'skeletons' in upcoming book

[Sujo]

35 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Cohen has nothing. Last I read, he says Trump reports his property values as higher when getting a loan but lower for taxation purposes. Any real estate investor with even a slightest clue does the same. He's done. He's over.

Which is illegal

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your're beginning to write like a true left winger - "there will be consequences for daring to support anyone else but us".

 

Have you noticed btw, how countries and political organizations that incorporate the term "Democratic" in their names, usually aren't in the slightest bit actually democratic!

A little like "United" states

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Your're beginning to write like a true left winger - "there will be consequences for daring to support anyone else but us".

 

Have you noticed btw, how countries and political organizations that incorporate the term "Democratic" in their names, usually aren't in the slightest bit actually democratic!

Just another day in Thailand getting a trump supporter to lie that I  am a left winger. But if the tables were turned I would do the same . Your credibility here speaks volumes. Do you ever consider leaving? 

[joecoolfrog]

11 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You typify the sentiments and judgments of most, if not all, left wing sympathizers.

 

When Cohen was working for Trump the left pilloried him - lying, untrustworthy, can't believe anything he says.

 

Now he's trying to make money by "revealing" stories, he's suddenly Mr. Honest whose words can be trusted.

 

Left wing of politics - double standards, hypocrisy, u-turns and do as we say not as we do, in abundance.

Please show me any post that has described Cohen as trustworthy , he is a convicted liar !

What many of us are enjoying are seeing is seeing a rat turn on the king Rat 

Incidently both the vermin in question are on the political right , yet seem to share all the atributes you rail about.....hypocrisy you said ?

[Berkshire]

8 hours ago, bendejo said:

If nothing else, if there is one thing that has come out of this American nightmare it's we now have an approximate percentage of the dumb-as-[waste product] rednecks in the US:  35%

 

555555....so true.  Before Trump came along, I thought we were better than that.  Hopefully the next generation can do better. 

[Caldera]

Queue up and wait your turn, Michael. You obnoxious piece of lawyer scum.

 

Who is NOT writing a book on Trump these days?

[RJRS1301]

4 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Who is NOT writing a book on Trump these days?

Mrs Trump, until she becomes the "ex" Mrs.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 8/14/2020 at 11:13 AM, Opl said:

Donald J. Trump

 

@realDonaldTrump

I have done more for WOMEN than just about any President in HISTORY! As we celebrate the 100th Anniversary of women’s voting rights, we should build a BEAUTIFUL STATUE in Washington D.C. to honor the many brave women who made this possible for our GREAT COUNTRY...

6:20 PM · Aug 14, 2020

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/08/14/trump-women-president-history.html

 

 

I think what he meant to say was....

 

"I have done more WOMEN than just about any President in HISTORY!"  [Except perhaps for JFK]

 

"And I have the canceled checks and signed non-disclosure agreements to prove it!!!"

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

18 hours ago, Berkshire said:

555555....so true.  Before Trump came along, I thought we were better than that.  Hopefully the next generation can do better. 

 

Heading for 200,000+ dead Americans... The economy in shambles... The rich getting richer, and the common man getting poorer. No national health insurance coverage.... etc etc...

 

And yet the 35% still hang in with him...for what?  Outlawing abortion? Mandatory Christian prayer in public schools? Opposing civil rights for/discriminating against gays and minorities?  Right-wing idealogues packing the Supreme Court?  An imperial presidency like Putin or Duterte?  There's a real future for America....  

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Tippaporn]

Hey, did anyone ever consider that if Cohen actually had damning evidence against Trump that he would have told Mueller in order to get his sentence reduced?  Just wondering.

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, did anyone ever consider that if Cohen actually had damning evidence against Trump that he would have told Mueller in order to get his sentence reduced?  Just wondering.

It has already been reported that he not only cut a tell all plea deal with prosecutors but that he also handed over masses of documents and taped conversations.

 

Here’s some facts:

Large sections of the Mueller report remain redacted.

Mueller reported criminal activity which cannot be prosecuted while Trump

is in office.

There is at least one Grand Jury currently sitting in the process of examining criminal charges against Trump.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Chomper Higgot

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, did anyone ever consider that if Cohen actually had damning evidence against Trump that he would have told Mueller in order to get his sentence reduced?  Just wondering.

 

It's already been well and publicly reported that NY prosecutors are are investigating Trump and/or the Trump Organization, allegedly in connection with the tax avoidance / false valuation-representations issues that Cohen has previously and publicly outlined, including in his congressional testimony, AFAIK.

 

I'm not sure those kind of issues would have been within the realm of Mueller's investigation, but that doesn't mean they're not important and potentially criminal. Likewise, I'm not sure Las Vegas golden showers were part of Mueller's marching orders as special counsel, unless of course Putin was involved.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/nyregion/donald-trump-taxes-cyrus-vance.html

 

Quote

 

D.A. Is Investigating Trump and His Company Over Fraud, Filing Suggests

 

The Manhattan district attorney’s office suggested on Monday that it had been investigating President Trump and his company for possible bank and insurance fraud, a significantly broader inquiry than the prosecutors have acknowledged in the past.

 

The suggestion by the office of the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., came in a new federal court filing arguing that Mr. Trump’s accountants should have to comply with a grand jury subpoena seeking eight years of his personal and corporate tax returns. Mr. Trump has asked a judge to declare the subpoena invalid.

Until now, the district attorney’s inquiry had appeared largely focused on hush-money payments made in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.

 

 

 

And what contributed to the NY prosecutors pursuing this case?

 

Quote

The prosecutors cited newspaper reports, including one that concluded the president may have illegally inflated his net worth and the value of his properties to lenders and insurers. They also included an article on the congressional testimony of his former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who told lawmakers last year that the president had committed insurance fraud. 

 

[impulse]

On 8/14/2020 at 7:21 AM, IAMHERE said:

For near on five years the mass media has been raking POTUS over the coals, what possibly could be left to 'uncovere' ?  

 

While he's in office he has immunity on a lot of what they may discover.  I suspect that once that immunity goes away, the indictments will be fast and furious.  And every indictment will open yet another Pandora's box, implicating a whole bunch of people surrounding him, too.

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by impulse

[Pattaya Spotter]

A "tell all" book by a convicted felon (lying & perjury) who is bitter he didn't receive a Presidential pardon...not much credibility there. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Pattaya Spotter

[Sujo]

19 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

A "tell all" book by a convicted felon (lying & perjury) who is bitter he didn't receive a Presidential pardon...not much credibility there. 

So we will see trump suing him wont we. Or not,truth is a defense.

[mtls2005]

On 8/15/2020 at 8:16 AM, joecoolfrog said:

Please show me any post that has described Cohen as trustworthy , he is a convicted liar !

 

While he did admit guilt to one charge of "Making false statements to a financial institution", calling him a convicted liar seems like a pretty broad brush? 

 

Mr. Cohen was apparently trustworthy to/for trump. I mean he did employ him as a fixer for what, 15 years? If he were untrustworthy what does that say about trump? (OK, maybe he doesn't hire the "best and the brightest".)

 

Nearly every mob prosecution relies unsavory 'soldiers' to help prosecute the 'capos'. Most drug prosecutions work the same way. Do we ever ask how "reliable" they are? Spoiler alert: no, we don't.

 

 

 

 

[Motoko]

Quote

Mueller did not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia, but he did detail extensive contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.

In other words, normal geopolitics, and Trump is innocent. Trump is harmless, or at least not as bad as a Clinton or a Bush. He hasn't started any wars.

[jcsmith]

23 minutes ago, Motoko said:

In other words, normal geopolitics, and Trump is innocent. 

Not exactly. Some important notes:

- Mueller said many times that he would not be able to indict a sitting president. His investigation thus was more about gathering information and then passing that information to congress and allowing them to do as they would. 
- Trump refused to give an interview. He gave written answers, some of them which were lies and half-truths. And he then refused to have a followup interview when questions were raised on those. It was impossible for Mueller to judge intent without it.
- There were many counts of obstruction of justice, several pretty blatant ones. Why the obstruction?
- Evidence was destroyed and some questions remain unanswered.
- 199 charges, 37 indictments, 7 people in Trump's campaign where found guilty. 

[wabothai]

On 8/15/2020 at 6:05 AM, Caldera said:

Queue up and wait your turn, Michael. You obnoxious piece of lawyer scum.

 

Who is NOT writing a book on Trump these days?

better: why?

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, wabothai said:

better: why?

If liberals and Democrat Party types want to enrich Trump's former lawyer and a convicted felon by buying his book...let them.

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

If liberals and Democrat Party types want to enrich Trump's former lawyer and a convicted felon by buying his book...let them.

Naah! There's a friendly bay where pirates like to shore and it will be found there, same as Bolton's and Mary's books.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 8/14/2020 at 2:04 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Will it make a difference?

It seems for Trump voters there is nothing which changes their mind. Another book won't change their minds independent of whatever it will expose.

Cohen should make sure to leave evidence with the prosecutors so that they can send Trump to jail where he belongs.

As long as the swamp remains, voters will vote against the establishment candidate. Seems that many don't understand that Trump was a protest vote, not a vote for him per se.

 

Far as the book is concerned, IMO he just wants to sell a lot of books now, as he won't after the election.

I doubt he will reveal anything that actually makes a difference in November.

 

Cohen should make sure to leave evidence with the prosecutors so that they can send Trump to jail where he belongs.

Says it all. If he were intent on destroying Trump he'd give the evidence now, but he just wants, IMO, to make money from those gullible enough to buy his book, because he knows, IMO, it doesn't amount to enough to convict Trump of a crime.

Edited August 16, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Not exactly. Some important notes:

- Mueller said many times that he would not be able to indict a sitting president. His investigation thus was more about gathering information and then passing that information to congress and allowing them to do as they would. 
- Trump refused to give an interview. He gave written answers, some of them which were lies and half-truths. And he then refused to have a followup interview when questions were raised on those. It was impossible for Mueller to judge intent without it.
- There were many counts of obstruction of justice, several pretty blatant ones. Why the obstruction?
- Evidence was destroyed and some questions remain unanswered.
- 199 charges, 37 indictments, 7 people in Trump's campaign where found guilty. 

Still beating that tired old claim that Mueller didn't want to try and indict a sitting president. There was nothing to stop him providing the smoking gun to congress, but whatever he gave them it didn't amount to enough to impeach and convict.

Mueller failed because there was no evidence that he could find that amounted to sufficient to impeach and convict, not because of some fallacy that a sitting president can't be indicted.

[Pattaya Spotter]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Naah! There's a friendly bay where pirates like to shore and it will be found there, same as Bolton's and Mary's books.

These types like to steal Nikes and iPhones in the name of civil rights...why not books.

[OneMoreFarang]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Mueller failed because there was no evidence that he could find that amounted to sufficient to impeach and convict, not because of some fallacy that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Which part about obstruction of justice do you not understand?

[jcsmith]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Still beating that tired old claim that Mueller didn't want to try and indict a sitting president. There was nothing to stop him providing the smoking gun to congress, but whatever he gave them it didn't amount to enough to impeach and convict.

Mueller failed because there was no evidence that he could find that amounted to sufficient to impeach and convict, not because of some fallacy that a sitting president can't be indicted.

The Justice Office of Legal Counsel prevents indicting of a sitting president. Mueller made that clear on more than one occasion. Even if he had overwhelming evidence of a crime all he could do is write the report and then hand it over to congress. He made that clear. 

With regards to a conspiracy with Russia he concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to convict in either case, though made a point to note the same reasons that I outlined in my previous post. That he could not determine intent because Trump refused to answer his questions and they reached a point where the evidence trail was dead without additional testimony, some of it had been destroyed. That having been said, the fact that 7 members of his campaign were convicted, it's common sense that they didn't concoct this plan on their own. Does anyone think that his son, son in law, and campaign manager all attended a meeting with Russia and nobody bothered to tell Trump? Is there any reason why the same people had amnesia when it came to reporting that meeting and then denied it when the press asked until it became undeniable so they lied about it being a meeting about adoptions? Or why Trump went to the public and denied having any interests in Russia while at that very time he was in negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow, and reportedly ordered Michael Cohen to later lie about that fact to congress.

In terms of obstruction though there were several counts where Trump was pretty blatantly and obviously guilty but that wouldn't matter since it was not Mueller's job to determine guilt. He went out of his way to point out that he was not exonerating Trump when he said that if they had confidence that Trump had not committed a crime they would have said so. Trump very blatantly and obviously obstructed justice. Is that the act of an innocent man? 

Edited August 17, 2020 by jcsmith

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Even if he had overwhelming evidence of a crime all he could do is write the report and then hand it over to congress. He made that clear. 

No argument from me on that. However, either he never gave it to them or it wasn't enough to  convict at his impeachment trial.

 

22 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Trump refused to give an interview. He gave written answers, some of them which were lies and half-truths. And he then refused to have a followup interview when questions were raised on those. It was impossible for Mueller to judge intent without it.

I don't blame Trump for doing that. Why on earth would he give them the rope to hang him ( and that does not mean I think there was any rope in the first place ). It was, IMO, so obviously an attempt to stitch him up that no rational person would willingly co operate with them, even if having nothing to fear.

If he did not legally have to do more, then he was doing what most of us would have done in that situation.

 

22 hours ago, jcsmith said:

There were many counts of obstruction of justice, several pretty blatant ones. Why the obstruction?
- Evidence was destroyed and some questions remain unanswered.

It there were merit in that, it would have been produced at the impeachment trial. If so it wasn't sufficient to produce a conviction.

 

Where that argument fails is that one can beat the Mueller, Mueller, Mueller drum as much as one wants, but the reality is it produced nothing sufficient to convict him of in the trial.

 

Perhaps we can move on the the next stick with which to beat Trump.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

In terms of obstruction though there were several counts where Trump was pretty blatantly and obviously guilty but that wouldn't matter since it was not Mueller's job to determine guilt. He went out of his way to point out that he was not exonerating Trump when he said that if they had confidence that Trump had not committed a crime they would have said so. Trump very blatantly and obviously obstructed justice. Is that the act of an innocent man? 

Given none of us were in the room(s) when it happened, none of us are in a position to answer that.

Politicians have many, many crimes that they got away with, and if we wanted to we could tar them all with the same brush, but in most cases we have moved on.

eg the war crimes of bombing Cambodia- Nixon and Kissinger

Leaving a friend to die in a pond after causing an accident- Edward Kennedy

Illegally financing the Contras- Reagan

starting a war based on lies- Bush the younger

lying about having sex with an intern- Clinton

Etc.

 

IMO few clean hands in politics.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Motoko said:

In other words, normal geopolitics, and Trump is innocent. Trump is harmless, or at least not as bad as a Clinton or a Bush. He hasn't started any wars.

Apparently, starting a war and killing lots and lots of people is less wrong than being Donald Trump.

[KhunFred]

Sad times for America. The entire world is laughing at us.