Cohen's Plea Deal and its Implications for Trump

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not when the other person in the discussion is being a hypocritical moron, it won't.

 

Or when said person has shown no desire to engage honestly about any subject. 

 

Because said person is GLOWING. 

[BeginnersMind]

I'm sorry to have fueled both of your anger. 

 

Lanny Davis said yesterday that Cohen has even more to discuss. We will see. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Glowing.

[snafu]

23 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

There are a couple problems with your response. Cohen's plea agreement had no written statement that he would give any future cooperation. Lanny Davis is a slimeball lawyer and his whole purpose for getting involved with Cohen is to trash Trump.

 

Davis trashing Trump can easily be seen as Cohen trashing Trump. Whether anything comes from the innuendo that Davis spews or not, it isn't a good look for Cohen or Trump.

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Also... 

 

So Cohen has nothing else to offer in terms of evidence... yet, keep clinging to the hope that this time, they got Trump. 

 

Aren't the smarter of you, the non-paid-trolls of you, a little tired of getting the rug pulled out from under you each and every time? They think you're stupid, and you just keep proving them right by buying into the narrative pushed by proven liars with agendas. 

I just read the entire transcript of his plea.  There is nothing in there that definitively says that Cohen has nothing more to provide the government regarding the Russia investigation.  Russia is mentioned nowhere. You are assuming because it was not part of this plea agreement that he must have nothing to offer.  That is incorrect.  

 

Because I have read and listened to experts there could be a number of reasons for this.  The special prosecutor no doubt has access to the materials obtained from Mr. Cohen's office.  They may need time to confirm materials therein.  They may need time to corroborate the claim made in the plea agreement about the president being involved; I doubt they will just take Mr. Cohen's word on it.

 

So in summary I took your advice and went to the source.  And objectively your claims are wrong from what I see.  You sure you're not trying to force things to fit your narrative?

 

Let the investigation be completed.  Then let the chips fall where they may.

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

I'm sorry to have fueled both of your anger. 

 

Lanny Davis said yesterday that Cohen has even more to discuss. We will see. 

Lanny Davis is a Clinton hack lawyer. Why would he get involved with Cohen?

[DC Tom]

14 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

I'm sorry to have fueled both of your anger. 

 

I'm not angry.  You're a hypocritical moron.  Why would I be angry about that?

 

14 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

Lanny Davis said yesterday that Cohen has even more to discuss. We will see. 

 

I thought we "didn't know." 

[BeginnersMind]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not angry.  You're a hypocritical moron.  Why would I be angry about that?

 

 

I thought we "didn't know." 

 

We don't know what exactly he will say. We do know that his attorney says there's more to come. 

 

And either way, when someone's personal attorney says he'll sing, it's not good for the someone. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You are assuming because it was not part of this plea agreement that he must have nothing to offer.  That is incorrect.  

 

Incorrect. It's a conclusion drawn from Cohen's own words, the plea, the timing of when the plea was drawn up (April) and the fact Mueller already had Cohen and released his case to SDNY. It's called contextualizing the facts. Actual facts, not sitting and waiting to be told what to make of the situation from people pushing an agenda. 

 

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Because I have read and listened to experts there could be a number of reasons for this.  The special prosecutor no doubt has access to the materials obtained from Mr. Cohen's office.  They may need time to confirm materials therein.  They may need time to corroborate the claim made in the plea agreement about the president being involved; I doubt they will just take Mr. Cohen's word on it.

 

The Special Counsel already released Cohen's case. That means everything you're listing above that "might still need to happen" has happened. And the best they could draw from Cohen was the plea and the tapes (released after the plea was agreed to in principle). In other words, the best Cohen has to offer against Trump with regards to any of this is the campaign finance charge and tapes of Trump telling him to do it by the books. 

 

Again, I'm not conjuring this information out of the air. It comes from doing the research and work on this issue for over two years, and paying attention to actual evidence rather than talking heads speculating about said evidence on cable news or radio or print. 

 

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So in summary I took your advice and went to the source.  

 

You got my conclusion wrong, and read the source devoid of context (expecting it to mention Russia? I've never made that claim and anyone who's paying attention knows there wasn't going to be any mention of Russia). 

 

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And objectively your claims are wrong from what I see.  You sure you're not trying to force things to fit your narrative?

 

See above. What you see is a limited view because you're trying to "be right" thinking I'm telling you you're wrong. I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm saying you're misinformed because you've deliberately taken a passive approach rather than an active one. That leaves you lacking in context, lacking in other relevant facts (like when the plea came together, when Cohen was raided, when the SC released his case to SDNY et al).

 

Reading the plea is important and a good step. Now go further. This isn't about me being right and you being wrong. This is about you breaking free from a pattern of intellectual laziness and developing the skills to hone your own discernment. 

 

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let the investigation be completed.  Then let the chips fall where they may.

 

That worked out well in 2002, right? "There are WMD in Iraq"... "Let the investigation be complete, let the chips fall where they may..." What was the result of that? Over a million dead, 15+ years of endless war, further destabilizing an already unstable part of the world, empowering both Iran and Russia in the region at the expense of our own geopoltical goals... 

 

See, that's why this **** matters. That's why I'm being a dick. It's not personal. I'm trying to wake you up to see that inaction has just as many consequences as action. And in this case, unlike in 2002 when the stakes were picking a fight under false pretenses with a meager Iraq, this time we're talking about picking a fight with the largest thermonuclear threat on the planet. 

 

I'm NOT arguing the investigation should be shut down. That's never been an argument I've made. You can't find a single post where I've said otherwise. What I am arguing is not just to trust the word of the investigators alone, especially devoid of evidence. To date they have not provided a single shred of evidence to make the case Russia and Trump conspired together. Not one. Every hint of evidence is hidden behind walls of classification and claims of wishing to protect sources and methods. That's not good enough, not when the stakes are this high and the charge is so serious. 

 

The only way to avoid mistakes of our recent past is to NOT just take them at their word, but rather inform ourselves with the evidence and information available in open source so we are better able to vet and determine the merit of the investigation's conclusions. 

 

That's what I'm advocating for. Nothing more. Yet you resist it with every post... might want to consider you're suffering from a painful bout of cognitive dissonance. 

2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

We don't know what exactly he will say. We do know that his attorney says there's more to come. 

 

And either way, when someone's personal attorney says he'll sing, it's not good for the someone. 

 

G

L

O

W

I

N

G

 

You're terrible at this. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lanny Davis is a Clinton hack lawyer. Why would he get involved with Cohen?

Hey! That's my question!

[B-Man]

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. It's a conclusion drawn from Cohen's own words, the plea, the timing of when the plea was drawn up (April) and the fact Mueller already had Cohen and released his case to SDNY. It's called contextualizing the facts. Actual facts, not sitting and waiting to be told what to make of the situation from people pushing an agenda. 

 

 

The Special Counsel already released Cohen's case. That means everything you're listing above that "might still need to happen" has happened. And the best they could draw from Cohen was the plea and the tapes (released after the plea was agreed to in principle). In other words, the best Cohen has to offer against Trump with regards to any of this is the campaign finance charge and tapes of Trump telling him to do it by the books. 

 

Again, I'm not conjuring this information out of the air. It comes from doing the research and work on this issue for over two years, and paying attention to actual evidence rather than talking heads speculating about said evidence on cable news or radio or print. 

 

 

You got my conclusion wrong, and read the source devoid of context (expecting it to mention Russia? I've never made that claim and anyone who's paying attention knows there wasn't going to be any mention of Russia). 

 

 

See above. What you see is a limited view because you're trying to "be right" thinking I'm telling you you're wrong. I'm not telling you that you're wrong. I'm saying you're misinformed because you've deliberately taken a passive approach rather than an active one. That leaves you lacking in context, lacking in other relevant facts (like when the plea came together, when Cohen was raided, when the SC released his case to SDNY et al).

 

Reading the plea is important and a good step. Now go further. This isn't about me being right and you being wrong. This is about you breaking free from a pattern of intellectual laziness and developing the skills to hone your own discernment. 

 

 

That worked out well in 2002, right? "There are WMD in Iraq"... "Let the investigation be complete, let the chips fall where they may..." What was the result of that? Over a million dead, 15+ years of endless war, further destabilizing an already unstable part of the world, empowering both Iran and Russia in the region at the expense of our own geopoltical goals... 

 

See, that's why this **** matters. That's why I'm being a dick. It's not personal. I'm trying to wake you up to see that inaction has just as many consequences as action. And in this case, unlike in 2002 when the stakes were picking a fight under false pretenses with a meager Iraq, this time we're talking about picking a fight with the largest thermonuclear threat on the planet. 

 

I'm NOT arguing the investigation should be shut down. That's never been an argument I've made. You can't find a single post where I've said otherwise. What I am arguing is not just to trust the word of the investigators alone, especially devoid of evidence. To date they have not provided a single shred of evidence to make the case Russia and Trump conspired together. Not one. Every hint of evidence is hidden behind walls of classification and claims of wishing to protect sources and methods. That's not good enough, not when the stakes are this high and the charge is so serious. 

 

The only way to avoid mistakes of our recent past is to NOT just take them at their word, but rather inform ourselves with the evidence and information available in open source so we are better able to vet and determine the merit of the investigation's conclusions. 

 

That's what I'm advocating for. Nothing more. Yet you resist it with every post... might want to consider you're suffering from a painful bout of cognitive dissonance. 

 

G

L

O

W

I

N

G

 

You're terrible at this. 

I'm glad we can discuss and keep it relatively civil.  I still disagree.  I think your conclusion depends on assumptions you are making about what Mueller has or doesn't have.  We don't know that and will not know it until his report comes out.  You mention him releasing Cohen to SDNY.  That is for charges most appropriate to that district.  It does not mean he has nothing else.

 

As for criticizing previous investigations, yes the 2002 wasn't a good moment for the country.  On the other hand Watergate was.  Truman's investigation into defense spending was.  What would be your alternative?  

 

One last question or two I've wanted to ask you:  do you believe the Russians interfered or tried to with the election?  And if so shouldn't we find out how so it doesn't happen again?  

[3rdnlng]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Hey! That's my question!

Great minds...………………………….

[oldmanfan]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I'm glad we can discuss and keep it relatively civil.  I still disagree.  I think your conclusion depends on assumptions you are making about what Mueller has or doesn't have.  We don't know that and will not know it until his report comes out.  You mention him releasing Cohen to SDNY.  That is for charges most appropriate to that district.  It does not mean he has nothing else.

 

As for criticizing previous investigations, yes the 2002 wasn't a good moment for the country.  On the other hand Watergate was.  Truman's investigation into defense spending was.  What would be your alternative?  

 

One last question or two I've wanted to ask you:  do you believe the Russians interfered or tried to with the election?  And if so shouldn't we find out how so it doesn't happen again?  

Oops, just saw you support the investigation continuing.  Answers my question 

[BeginnersMind]

What does glowing even mean. 

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Great minds...………………………….

 

.......think like me ?.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I'm glad we can discuss and keep it relatively civil.  I still disagree. 

 

 

For the record, disagreement is fine. I don't expect total agreement, so much of this is speculative because we are operating with only a sliver of the puzzle so I'm not claiming to have every corner of it figured out. All I can do is follow the evidence we do have access to, in its entirety, and constantly reassess my analysis. The problem is most of that evidence has been purposefully ignored/obscured, or otherwise so deep in the weeds that it takes serious effort to not just read but properly contextualize and analyze, that most are not aware of it.

 

Hence why I am pushing you to expand your scope just a smudge. Not to validate what I'm telling you about my analysis, but so that you can be better informed - even if ultimately you dismiss my conclusions or come to something different entirely. That's great, in fact, because it helps me improve my own understanding and test the mettle of my conclusions.

 

We - as citizens I mean - have to be in this together. That doesn't mean all agreeing in lockstep on every issue, it just means having the willingness to engage openly with contrary opinions in order to test the veracity of them. If we rely solely on the investigators, or talking heads, or whomever to "inform us" - we aren't doing our jobs as citizens.  

17 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

One last question or two I've wanted to ask you:  do you believe the Russians interfered or tried to with the election?  And if so shouldn't we find out how so it doesn't happen again?  

 

Yes and yes. For a more thorough answer, read the following (which is an excerpt from the larger write up I'm doing for you @Buffalo_Gal and the board... I got delayed this week with unexpected news - but it's coming!)

 

 

1.     POINTS OF AGREEMENT

 

The issues revolving around, and stemming from, the 2016 US Presidential election are some of the more contentious, politically divisive, and complex issues in modern American political history. As such, an unending swell of (dis)information and propaganda has been gushing across the airwaves and broadband networks around the globe for well over two years. This (dis)information comes from all sides, from all political parties, and takes many forms – but it only serves to divide and complicate an already divisive and complicated topic.

 

Due to the intense rhetoric and controversial nature of this subject, I think it’s important to begin with some basic statements of fact upon which most can agree:

 

Russia meddled in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

 

There is no debate on that point. There are boxes worth of evidence that substantiate this fact, all of which are publicly available in open source. Which brings us to an important second statement of fact upon which most can agree after examining all the available evidence:

 

To date, not one piece of evidence is available in open source which proves Russia collusion/conspiracy with then candidate Trump or his campaign was real.

 

Russia absolutely meddled in the 2016 election… just as they have done in every US Presidential election the past century and a half through ever evolving means. And they’re not alone in that distinction, “meddling” in elections is what nation states across the globe do to friends and foes alike.[1] It’s ugly, and divisive, but until 2016 it had never (seriously) been described as “an attack on our democracy”.

 

It is beyond a doubt that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. What has yet to be proven, or even supported by a single piece of open source evidence, is that meddling included conspiring with then candidate Trump or members of his campaign. This is an important distinction which, over the course of 24+ months has been purposefully obscured. The corporate/establishment media has conflated these two very distinct actions as being one and the same. Russian meddling was slowly made to become synonymous with Russian collusion/conspiracy.  

 

Ask yourself why. What purpose would it serve to purposefully conflate the two?

 

There are facts we can point to which prove meddling happened, such as Facebook ads purchased by Kremlin cut-outs which targeted US voters.[2] But to date, there has not been one single piece of open source evidence provided to the American public of collusion/conspiracy between Trump, or his team, and the Russians. Not one thing to back up that sensational accusation. None of Mueller’s indictments to date allege collusion or conspiracy – not even in the Manafort trial who, according to the “Steele Dossier” was at the center of the collusion. According to an in limine motion filed to keep collusion out of Manafort’s first trial, “the special counsel agreed with the defense, representing that the prosecution ‘does not intent to present at trail evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government.’” [3]

 

None of the information uncovered from multiple congressional, DOJ, and FBI investigations has provided evidence of collusion/conspiracy. And while we will cover in greater detail some of the more common talking points trotted out as evidence, such as the Trump Tower meeting and the DNC/DCCC hack(s), none of those stories provide evidence of conspiracy/collusion either.

 

President Trump won the election. Accusing him of working actively with Putin to do so is as serious of an accusation one can make against a sitting President. That kind of accusation requires strong evidence to back it up – evidence the public can see for themselves. Evidence hidden behind classifications or nameless sources in newspaper articles is not good enough, not when we are discussing a foreign nation colluding with a presidential candidate to tilt the election in their favor. And yet, to date, the American public has been given nothing to support the explosive allegations.

The bigger the accusation, the better the evidence needs to be. Conflating those two distinct acts, without evidence to support it, does nothing but feed into the “confirmation bias” of the collusion narrative itself. It becomes a self-sustaining (dis)information campaign. The kind the American public has seen before about a decade ago. It didn’t turn out so well for the world or the country in the end then, and this time the stakes are even higher.

 

---

[1] www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/

  www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

[2]www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

  www.recode.net/2018/5/10/17339864/congress-russia-advertisements-facebook-donald-trump-president

  www.c-span.org/video/?436454-1/facebook-google-twitter-executives-testify-russia-election-ads

 

[3] www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/robert-mueller-paul-manafort-collusion-evidence-wont-be-used/

 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

For the record, disagreement is fine. I don't expect total agreement, so much of this is speculative because we are operating with only a sliver of the puzzle so I'm not claiming to have every corner of it figured out. All I can do is follow the evidence we do have access to, in its entirety, and constantly reassess my analysis. The problem is most of that evidence has been purposefully ignored/obscured, or otherwise so deep in the weeds that it takes serious effort to not just read but properly contextualize and analyze, that most are not aware of it.

 

Hence why I am pushing you to expand your scope just a smudge. Not to validate what I'm telling you about my analysis, but so that you can be better informed - even if ultimately you dismiss my conclusions or come to something different entirely. That's great, in fact, because it helps me improve my own understanding and test the mettle of my conclusions.

 

We - as citizens I mean - have to be in this together. That doesn't mean all agreeing in lockstep on every issue, it just means having the willingness to engage openly with contrary opinions in order to test the veracity of them. If we rely solely on the investigators, or talking heads, or whomever to "inform us" - we aren't doing our jobs as citizens.  

I appreciate your perspective

[BeginnersMind]

32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

G

L

O

W

I

N

G

 

You're terrible at this. 

 

 

We agree that the information coming as a result the plea deal is as yet unknown. 

 

We agree that Cohen's attorney says there's more to come from Cohen, after the deal.

 

The only other thing I said is that the president's fixit man is talking, and that's not good for the president. 

 

You disagree with, what, then that I said? 

[reddogblitz]

11 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Anyone who hires Lanny Davis as their attorney has no facts on his side but needs a filthy partisan to make up a bunchofshit.

 

I do find Cohen hiring Clinton mouth piece Lanny David as his lawyer very interesting.