Trump (Read 88349 times)

rklapp

Re: Trump
« Reply #1400 on: March 14, 2019, 05:27:42 PM »
In support of President Trump, Tim Cook has changed his name to Tim Apple.
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

Inspector

Re: Trump
« Reply #1401 on: March 15, 2019, 07:47:24 PM »
2016 video shows Michael Cohen lied to Congress about
not wanting a Trump administration job


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2016-video-suggests-michael-cohen-lied-about-not-wanting-a-job-with-the-trump-administration
Seems that this plus a few other lies might end up with a perjury charge.  :rofl:

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1402 on: March 17, 2019, 08:30:14 PM »
That's an opinion.

Please explain.  Making an untrue statement of fact to Congress is the very definition of perjury.

"To prove perjury, you must show that someone intentionally lied under oath."

And the committee members who referred Cohen to the DOJ for additional counts of perjury included that specific lie.

They wouldn't include it in the referral if they didn't think it was applicable.

Cohen was asking about a WH job through many people, and he's ON VIDEO say he expected to be offered a job there, since he was "The President's Lawyer".  He lied to Congress saying he never sought a job under the President.

A lie is a lie. Does Perjury have another meaning?

What is quoted is a statement of preference. It is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cohen clearly lied about a preference.

Say I testified that I don't really like chocolate ice cream but you found me eating it one day. Hard to prove I lied, I can always just say that what I meant was it wasn't my favorite flavor of something like that. Or maybe I found a brand I do like or maybe I just changed my mind. But even if you could prove that I was lying when I said the statement, is that really something worth congresses time? In this case I would say no, not for a statement of whether Cohen was being honest when he said he wasn't interested in a Trump Admin job.

rklapp

Re: Trump
« Reply #1403 on: March 18, 2019, 11:26:42 AM »
Poor Kellyanne...
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1404 on: March 18, 2019, 11:35:56 AM »
What is quoted is a statement of preference. It is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cohen clearly lied about a preference.

Say I testified that I don't really like chocolate ice cream but you found me eating it one day. Hard to prove I lied, I can always just say that what I meant was it wasn't my favorite flavor of something like that. Or maybe I found a brand I do like or maybe I just changed my mind. But even if you could prove that I was lying when I said the statement, is that really something worth congresses time? In this case I would say no, not for a statement of whether Cohen was being honest when he said he wasn't interested in a Trump Admin job.

False equivalent. One is a statement of observable fact: did, or did not, ask WH employees about a position (several said he did),
 versus your example: a statement of opinion - unable to be proven. Saying you don't like something then eating it doesn't prove you changed your mind. No way to prove an opinion. You could have been trying a bite to see what you're missing.

There are mechanisms for amending testimony. Cohen didn't do that. After you get caught lying is the wrong time to try to make amendments.

As for "worth Congress' time," this is all on the Liberal Democrats in Congress. They scheduled the hearing, because they wanted to smear Trump. They already knew ahead of time Cohen had no 'smoking gun" to impeach Trump with.

The fact he lied can't be ignored. If he'd been honest, there would be no time spent.  Blame Cohen, Schiff and Lewis, not the GOP members holding Cohen accountable -- again.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1405 on: March 18, 2019, 08:44:19 PM »
False equivalent. One is a statement of observable fact: did, or did not, ask WH employees about a position (several said he did),
 versus your example: a statement of opinion - unable to be proven. Saying you don't like something then eating it doesn't prove you changed your mind. No way to prove an opinion. You could have been trying a bite to see what you're missing.

There are mechanisms for amending testimony. Cohen didn't do that. After you get caught lying is the wrong time to try to make amendments.

As for "worth Congress' time," this is all on the Liberal Democrats in Congress. They scheduled the hearing, because they wanted to smear Trump. They already knew ahead of time Cohen had no 'smoking gun" to impeach Trump with.

The fact he lied can't be ignored. If he'd been honest, there would be no time spent.  Blame Cohen, Schiff and Lewis, not the GOP members holding Cohen accountable -- again.

On the same note, the fact he took the job doesn't prove he wanted the job either.

In my opinion this lie is just too manini  and would be too hard to prove so I don't think anyone should try to prosecute him for it no matter which side of the political aisle it helps/hurts. Historically speaking I think congress would have a hard time trying to justify prosecuting him for such a lie when other people have clearly made more significant lies and not been prosecuted.

Furthermore he is already in trouble for lying to congress and gonna face serious consequences, I don't think anything would be gained by prosecuting him for this "
lie".

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1406 on: March 18, 2019, 10:23:37 PM »
On the same note, the fact he took the job doesn't prove he wanted the job either.

In my opinion this lie is just too manini  and would be too hard to prove so I don't think anyone should try to prosecute him for it no matter which side of the political aisle it helps/hurts. Historically speaking I think congress would have a hard time trying to justify prosecuting him for such a lie when other people have clearly made more significant lies and not been prosecuted.

Furthermore he is already in trouble for lying to congress and gonna face serious consequences, I don't think anything would be gained by prosecuting him for this "
lie".

What job?  Who took a job?  You're confused.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1407 on: March 18, 2019, 10:26:18 PM »
On the same note, the fact he took the job doesn't prove he wanted the job either.

In my opinion this lie is just too manini  and would be too hard to prove so I don't think anyone should try to prosecute him for it no matter which side of the political aisle it helps/hurts. Historically speaking I think congress would have a hard time trying to justify prosecuting him for such a lie when other people have clearly made more significant lies and not been prosecuted.

Furthermore he is already in trouble for lying to congress and gonna face serious consequences, I don't think anything would be gained by prosecuting him for this "
lie".

When a statement of material fact is made under oath in response to a direct question, lying is not a "manini" thing. 

A lie is a lie is a lie.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

rklapp

Re: Trump
« Reply #1408 on: March 18, 2019, 10:38:13 PM »
Be sure to say this in front of the mirror to yourself at the start of each day.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1107273645196537857
Yahh! Freedom and justice shall always prevail over tyranny, Babysitter Girl!
https://ronsreloading.wordpress.com/

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1409 on: March 19, 2019, 08:38:11 PM »
When a statement of material fact is made under oath in response to a direct question, lying is not a "manini" thing. 

A lie is a lie is a lie.

Not really. The pertinent legal term is "lie of consequence" I believe.

But focusing on this just looks like people are trying to dig for something to discredit Cohen because he said something bad about Trump. Either that or just revenge for betraying Trump.



I heard a lawyer on a podcast today who said that the thing that really gave Cohen a bit of credibility was the allegations he denied. If Cohen were really just lying to frame Trump why wouldn't he have said Trump colluded with Russia or something other real crime? He could have told some fake story democrats would have drooled over if he just wanted to take down Trump.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1410 on: March 19, 2019, 10:03:06 PM »
Not really. The pertinent legal term is "lie of consequence" I believe.

But focusing on this just looks like people are trying to dig for something to discredit Cohen because he said something bad about Trump. Either that or just revenge for betraying Trump.



I heard a lawyer on a podcast today who said that the thing that really gave Cohen a bit of credibility was the allegations he denied. If Cohen were really just lying to frame Trump why wouldn't he have said Trump colluded with Russia or something other real crime? He could have told some fake story democrats would have drooled over if he just wanted to take down Trump.

Those are your opinions. Nothing you said has any basis in any reports, testimony or logic.  Cohen was already found guilty of perjury in front of Congress, and the Lewis-Schiff-Show paraded him out once again to smear the president. He offered no new evidence of anything, and he spent most of his time demeaning the President's character.

This man worked for Trump for 10 years, was recording his clients covertly, and he got caught lying to Congress in his second hearing and cheating on his taxes.

But, hey, you go ahead and defend him. Anything to oppose Trump, huh? 
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1411 on: March 20, 2019, 08:56:09 PM »
Those are your opinions. Nothing you said has any basis in any reports, testimony or logic.  Cohen was already found guilty of perjury in front of Congress, and the Lewis-Schiff-Show paraded him out once again to smear the president. He offered no new evidence of anything, and he spent most of his time demeaning the President's character.

This man worked for Trump for 10 years, was recording his clients covertly, and he got caught lying to Congress in his second hearing and cheating on his taxes.

But, hey, you go ahead and defend him. Anything to oppose Trump, huh?

Of course it is my opinion. We both listened to what Cohen testified to and formed our own opinions of how trustworthy he is. But yes, there is logic to my statement. If Cohen were just out to get Trump would you expect him to make more damning accusations but he didn't. Why do you think that is?

And what do you think is the true story? Trump's lawyer for many years got caught in a perjury charge for lying to protect Trump so he decided he would just betray his former boss and make up a bunch of false statements about Trump to please congress? And instead I am supposed to believe that Trump is really this nice clean guy who hasn't ever done anything illegal yet he just so happens to have surrounded himself with people doing illegal things? 5 of his lawyers and advisors have been convicted of crimes. I guess Trump just has bad luck in hiring people?

Your last comment is where you fail to understand my position. I am not for or against Cohen, I don't want to believe he is telling the truth or want to believe he is telling a lie. I am not looking at his testimony with an axe to grind, I am not finding excuses to justify belief or unbelief. I am neither a never-Trumper nor a Trump lemming. Just because I don't defend Trump blindly doesn't mean I am out to get him. I know it is a novel concept but I am truly interested in just the truth.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 09:15:56 PM by eyeeatingfish »

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1412 on: March 20, 2019, 09:17:10 PM »
Of course it is my opinion. We both listened to what Cohen testified to and formed our own opinions of how trustworthy he is.

Your last comment is where you fail to understand my position. I am not for or against Cohen, I don't want to believe he is telling the truth or want to believe he is telling a lie. I am not looking at his testimony with an axe to grind, I am not finding excuses to justify belief or unbelief. I am neither a never-Trumper nor a Trump lemming. Just because I don't defend Trump blindly doesn't mean I am out to get him. I know it is a novel concept but I am truly interested in just the truth.

On the same note, the fact he took the job doesn't prove he wanted the job either.

In my opinion this lie is just too manini and would be too hard to prove so I don't think anyone should try to prosecute him for it no matter which side of the political aisle it helps/hurts. Historically speaking I think congress would have a hard time trying to justify prosecuting him for such a lie when other people have clearly made more significant lies and not been prosecuted.

Furthermore he is already in trouble for lying to congress and gonna face serious consequences, I don't think anything would be gained by prosecuting him for this lie""
.


So, you're for the truth, but you're also not against him lying?   :wacko:
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Trump
« Reply #1413 on: March 20, 2019, 09:47:19 PM »

So, you're for the truth, but you're also not against him lying?   :wacko:

Non sequitur. I never said I was ok with him lying.

I said that the lie you alleged would be too hard to prove and it wouldn't be worth the time and money. Not prosecuting him for an inconsequential lie that would be hard to prove doesn't mean one isn't interested in the truth.

Cohen also claimed he was a good lawyer, are you gonna join the ranks of people wanting him charged with perjury on that too?

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1414 on: March 20, 2019, 10:10:57 PM »
Non sequitur. I never said I was ok with him lying.

I said that the lie you alleged would be too hard to prove and it wouldn't be worth the time and money. Not prosecuting him for an inconsequential lie that would be hard to prove doesn't mean one isn't interested in the truth.

Cohen also claimed he was a good lawyer, are you gonna join the ranks of people wanting him charged with perjury on that too?

Read your posts, not mine. Saying he should not be prosecuted for a provable lie is exactly the same as saying you're okay with him lying.

They have the evidence he lied. It's in the public domain. Look it up, or is your Googler still on the fritz?

You're either for punishing perjury, or you're against it.  Can't be wishy-washy, "not necessarily, it depends, . blah blah blah."
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1415 on: March 21, 2019, 11:05:18 AM »
New XO signed about Universities censoring conservatives.  Like how Ben Shapiro and his 5"6 135lbs person was denied the right to speak and police where there.

drck1000

Re: Trump
« Reply #1416 on: March 21, 2019, 11:41:04 AM »
New XO signed about Universities censoring conservatives.  Like how Ben Shapiro and his 5"6 135lbs person was denied the right to speak and police where there.
Trump signs executive order to promote free speech on college campuses

Quote
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to promote free speech on college campuses by threatening colleges with the loss of federal research funding if they do not protect those rights.

"We’re here to take historic action to defend American students and American values," Trump said, surrounded by conservative student activists at the signing ceremony. "They’ve been under siege."

"Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today," he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-signs-executive-order-to-promote-free-speech-on-college-campuses

Lets see how CNN, MSNBC, etc spin this one.  "We should defend the rights of universities to restrict free speech".  Uh. . .

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1417 on: March 21, 2019, 01:00:07 PM »
The fake news headline will read "Trump approves hate speech on college campuses".

But in reality, since they're a state run university, they cannot tell someone they can't have a speech as long as they fill out the necessary paperwork.  Even hate speech was ruled by SCOTUS to be protected under the 1A.  Private universities can do as they please.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Trump
« Reply #1418 on: March 22, 2019, 12:00:48 PM »
The Mueller report was released (late on a Friday during March Madness -- how appropriate).

That signals the end/completion of the Special Counsel. No more indictments or facts will be filed by Meuller.

Not one single indictment was ever filed in over 2 years pertaining to Russian Collusion/Conspiracy or interfering in the election by anyone on Trump's campaign or administration.

Nothing like a $35M witch hunt to say, "We hate Trump."

It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

changemyoil66

Re: Trump
« Reply #1419 on: March 22, 2019, 01:50:00 PM »
So now it's up to Bar (AG) to determine if any charges are filed?

Was this the same process when they indicted Cohen and Manafort?  Or did the FBI just show up to arrest them.

Everyone stay vigilant.  Even if in some no name town.  You all know why...