The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[bwframe]

Thought that "impeach the mother****er" woman was interesting today. She called Mark Meadows a racist and got away with it...


[video=youtube;NhNJF86aDJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhNJF86aDJ4[/video]

 

[jamil]

Thought that "impeach the mother****er" woman was interesting today. She called Mark Meadows a racist and got away with it...

Apparently House ethics rules only apply to Republicans. Bat **** crazy democrats are free to say whatever they want as long as it's not against a Democrat.

 

[nonobaddog]

Now that is funny..... he said "House Ethics"...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So your opinion of the president is.....? It would seem that one is in a pickle if they make such a statement and still support the president, I mean the president essentially made the exact same lies, he just hasn't admitted to lying like Cohen, nor done so under oath. You need a rundown?

My opinion of Trump hasn't changed over this dog and pony show. Cohen went beyond just telling simple falsehoods to putting forth outlandish claims as "truth". Without corroborating evidence (witnesses), he's free to claim that Trump had him "threaten" over 500 people? So bring forth those people. I mean they're gonna need more chairs, and with 500 "witnesses" it's going to take awhile. Oh, and the doozy about saying that if Trump wins in 2020 "there will not be a peaceful transition of power." I'm not sure if that should be taken as a threat, or an indictment of the left and how they're likely to react if Trump wins again. There is certainly precedent for the latter after the way they reacted after the 2016 election. But that's rising to the level of those on the right that said Obama would never give up the presidency when his second term was over.

Cohen should testify under oath, with corroborating evidence if he is to be taken seriously.

 

[mmpsteve]

My opinion of Trump hasn't changed over this dog and pony show. Cohen went beyond just telling simple falsehoods to putting forth outlandish claims as "truth". Without corroborating evidence (witnesses), he's free to claim that Trump had him "threaten" over 500 people? So bring forth those people. I mean they're gonna need more chairs, and with 500 "witnesses" it's going to take awhile. Oh, and the doozy about saying that if Trump wins in 2020 "there will not be a peaceful transition of power." I'm not sure if that should be taken as a threat, or an indictment of the left and how they're likely to react if Trump wins again. There is certainly precedent for the latter after the way they reacted after the 2016 election. But that's rising to the level of those on the right that said Obama would never give up the presidency when his second term was over.

Cohen should testify under oath, with corroborating evidence if he is to be taken seriously.

Havn't had time to watch this latest circus. Is Cohen really not under oath?

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Havn't had time to watch this latest circus. Is Cohen really not under oath?

.

He was under oath, or he raised his right hand, and said all those words, for nothing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Apparently House ethics rules only apply to Republicans. Bat **** crazy democrats are free to say whatever they want as long as it's not against a Democrat.

Uhhhhh, I'm not sure. Matt Gaetz threatened Cohen before the hearing. And it does not appear House Ethics has taken action on that either.

 

[T.Lex]

Cohen is under oath for this testimony... or is at least supposed to be.

As a lawyer, when he answers the "have you threatened people" question, there's some nuance to it. Sending a letter threatening legal action when there isn't really a basis for it is still a threat. So, those letters Cohen wrote to Trump's schools threatening litigation if they released his grades would count as a "threat" to him. Of course, they aren't allowed to release his grades anyway, so it was a pre-emptive dick move to send it as a threat.

And yeah, yeah, yeah, Trump has said some offensive things in private. He's said offensive things in public.

I think Cohen was most believable when he was not interrupting himself with his own opinion. The factual things. Trump did this; Trump did that. It is plain to see his "Hell hath no fury to that of a [fixer] scorned" bit but put it aside. We get it. You feel betrayed. No honor among thieves and all that.

Here's the ultimate problem: it does look like the payments to the slam pieces would be considered campaign finance violations for any other candidate. Not a technical violation, a real we'd-better-not-get-caught violation. That is a potentially impeachable offense. Which would suck.

The Russian connection, though, is basically limited to Manafort. Yeah, Trump's people should've known better than to hire Manafort, but that's collusion by proxy.

The wikileaks thing is odd, and Stone's an idiot, but indirect collusion with a private leakification group probably doesn't get all the way to Trump.

Now, today may bring something different, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of new substance coming from Cohen.

 

[jamil]

The two main points I take away from the hearing, there are things that Cohen said that if true, could present some serious legal problems for Trump and there are some things he said that if true, paint a pretty bad picture of Trump's character.

The former though is just the testimony of a known perjurer. There's a much higher standard for being legally guilty of a crime than just on the testimony of a guy convicted of lying to the same body he testified in front of yesterday. There's very little if anything in the testimony that presents any real legal problems for Trump. Cohen's testimony was for public consumption. It may sway some people's opinions about whether or not Trump colluded with Russians. But if you're hard left, you already fervently earnestly believe with all your heart that he did to the point that you NEED for it to be true, or the whole world is just wrong. Similarly, if you're hard right, you already firmly, confidently, with all surety, know for a fact that none of it is true, to the point that it's just not possible that any of it could be true, because Trump is a winner.

For the people with nothing invested in his innocence or guilt, the testimony could make them lean more towards guilt in their estimation, depending on how credible Cohen seemed to be to them.

On the character issue, I think the same thing is true about the far left and the far right. The former just have their worst estimations of Trump further confirmed. The right is certain that every word out of Cohen's mouth is a lie. What I think about that area of testimony personally, is that any of it could be true. What is evident puts me in a place where it would not be surprising if it were true. But, I have some rules about taking people's word for it. First, do they have a reason to lie? If they do, then they need to present some evidence beyond just their word for it that these things are true. Cohen doesn't make it past the first rule. I have no reason to take is word for any of the testimony. Doesn't matter how believable it could be. It matters how believable he is. While I don't believe him, I also don't disbelieve him. I'm willing to say it's inconclusive. I'm not going to say he's lying or telling the truth for the reason that I want or don't want the character damning accusations to be true. I'm saying that he may be lying because he's a convicted liar and he has a reason to lie.

I have a friend who is far left. He's going to be unbearable when I next see him. I just wish people would believe or disbelieve things based something more real than ideological bias. He's so certain that Trump is a Russian operative and that's why he won the election. I think he'd still cling to it if he were shown absolute proof that it's not true. I'm going to estimate that I'll say the words "are there any supporting facts that connect the dots you've connected in your mind?" at least 12 times. You think it would **** him off if I suggest that he's delusional? I mean. I'm starting to get the feeling that people don't seem to respond very favorably to that.

 

[jamil]

Cohen is under oath for this testimony... or is at least supposed to be.

As a lawyer, when he answers the "have you threatened people" question, there's some nuance to it. Sending a letter threatening legal action when there isn't really a basis for it is still a threat. So, those letters Cohen wrote to Trump's schools threatening litigation if they released his grades would count as a "threat" to him. Of course, they aren't allowed to release his grades anyway, so it was a pre-emptive dick move to send it as a threat.

And yeah, yeah, yeah, Trump has said some offensive things in private. He's said offensive things in public.

I think Cohen was most believable when he was not interrupting himself with his own opinion. The factual things. Trump did this; Trump did that. It is plain to see his "Hell hath no fury to that of a [fixer] scorned" bit but put it aside. We get it. You feel betrayed. No honor among thieves and all that.

Here's the ultimate problem: it does look like the payments to the slam pieces would be considered campaign finance violations for any other candidate. Not a technical violation, a real we'd-better-not-get-caught violation. That is a potentially impeachable offense. Which would suck.

The Russian connection, though, is basically limited to Manafort. Yeah, Trump's people should've known better than to hire Manafort, but that's collusion by proxy.

The wikileaks thing is odd, and Stone's an idiot, but indirect collusion with a private leakification group probably doesn't get all the way to Trump.

Now, today may bring something different, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of new substance coming from Cohen.

The stuff about Trump tower and some quid pro quo could be damaging, except I don't see any credible dots connecting quid to anyone or the pro quo to anyone. It seems more like an alternate reality concocted rather than being the real thing. About all that part of the testimony does is confirm in the minds of delusional people that there must be something there.

This is what seems like a potential reality with at least as much evidence as the reality leftists want to believe. Cohen said Trump never believe he'd win, and was just exploiting it (my words). Trump continued to work on the Russian Trump Tower deal during the election because after the election he thought he'd be working on that project, not becoming the POTUS. That would explain Trump's Russia-friendly attitude as much as election collusion would. I think his own popularity really surprised him and he really enjoyed the ego pump the rallies provided. And you know, then you actually WIN the election, and holy ****! Then you think, oh well, to hell with Trump Tower Moscow. You can always try to put that deal together again after you're done pumping your ego doing the POTUS gig.

 

[T.Lex]

This is what seems like a potential reality with at least as much evidence as the reality leftists want to believe. Cohen said Trump never believe he'd win, and was just exploiting it (my words). Trump continued to work on the Russian Trump Tower deal during the election because after the election he thought he'd be working on that project, not becoming the POTUS. That would explain Trump's Russia-friendly attitude as much as election collusion would. I think his own popularity really surprised him and he really enjoyed the ego pump the rallies provided. And you know, then you actually WIN the election, and holy ****! Then you think, oh well, to hell with Trump Tower Moscow. You can always try to put that deal together again after you're done pumping your ego doing the POTUS gig.

Yeah, my opinion is a variation of that. The Russian oligarchs were courting favor with a wealthy, powerful American who happened to be running for POTUS. Being on his good side had no downside.

Then the deal just fell through. Probably neither side really had the appetite for it. As you say, Trump may have realized he could win during that same timeframe, so the real estate deal would be a distraction. So he lost interest.

From the Russian side, it was probably a longshot to begin with. But it provided a pretext to do their own perception-is-reality influencing in Russia. An oligarch courting Trump would probably win favor from Putin and jealousy from the other lapdogs.

Trump lied about the whole thing in the campaign, but the only people who believe Trump are the true believers.

All that said, part of the goal is to make his path to 2020 more difficult. I still think he'll bow out before then.

 

[BugI02]

Uhhhhh, I'm not sure. Matt Gaetz threatened Cohen before the hearing. And it does not appear House Ethics has taken action on that either.

Cohen participates in a hearing designed to function as a show trial for Trump in which he is tasked to repeat unsubstantiated rumors and self-serving versions of the facts

Gaetz reminded him that that knife cuts both ways, that there are plenty of areas of unsavoriness about him that have yet to be plumbed. He proffered no quid pro quo. By the standards of truth and conduct underpinning this whole farce Gaetz is on solid ground

 

[mmpsteve]

The stuff about Trump tower and some quid pro quo could be damaging, except I don't see any credible dots connecting quid to anyone or the pro quo to anyone. It seems more like an alternate reality concocted rather than being the real thing. About all that part of the testimony does is confirm in the minds of delusional people that there must be something there.

This is what seems like a potential reality with at least as much evidence as the reality leftists want to believe. Cohen said Trump never believe he'd win, and was just exploiting it (my words). Trump continued to work on the Russian Trump Tower deal during the election because after the election he thought he'd be working on that project, not becoming the POTUS. That would explain Trump's Russia-friendly attitude as much as election collusion would. I think his own popularity really surprised him and he really enjoyed the ego pump the rallies provided. And you know, then you actually WIN the election, and holy ****! Then you think, oh well, to hell with Trump Tower Moscow. You can always try to put that deal together again after you're done pumping your ego doing the POTUS gig.

I always thought Trump's canidacy was based on a one dollar bet with an equally rich friend. And I don't even freakin care. Cause he's doing some **** I want done. And I believe the American people want done. For instance, how long have we been hearing 'politicos' talk about illegal immigration. **** em all. Get it done already. Build the wall. Build it tall.

.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, my opinion is a variation of that. The Russian oligarchs were courting favor with a wealthy, powerful American who happened to be running for POTUS. Being on his good side had no downside.

Then the deal just fell through. Probably neither side really had the appetite for it. As you say, Trump may have realized he could win during that same timeframe, so the real estate deal would be a distraction. So he lost interest.

From the Russian side, it was probably a longshot to begin with. But it provided a pretext to do their own perception-is-reality influencing in Russia. An oligarch courting Trump would probably win favor from Putin and jealousy from the other lapdogs.

Trump lied about the whole thing in the campaign, but the only people who believe Trump are the true believers.

All that said, part of the goal is to make his path to 2020 more difficult. I still think he'll bow out before then.

I don't think Trump realized he could win until election evening. But I do think he was sidetracked by his ego-stroking cult following. Maybe he didn't put as much effort into it as he would have if he weren't running. And of course it's likely that the Russian oligarchs were courting his favor partly because he's running for POTUS.

I've thought sometimes that Trump might just call it quits and not run again. I kinda think he's gonna stick with it. I think he likes being the HDIC.

 

[jamil]

Cohen participates in a hearing designed to function as a show trial for Trump in which he is tasked to repeat unsubstantiated rumors and self-serving versions of the facts

Gaetz reminded him that that knife cuts both ways, that there are plenty of areas of unsavoriness about him that have yet to be plumbed. He proffered no quid pro quo. By the standards of truth and conduct underpinning this whole farce Gaetz is on solid ground

Except what Gaetz did was possibly illegal and broke the rules of the House. He was warned about that, notwithstanding that the rules only going one way. You guys sure can spin a **** sandwich into ham.

 

[BugI02]

Overall, a cogent position. One quibble, however, with Trump being as surprised as anyone when he won. I don't think the Russians reaction to the internal polling data Manafort gave them and their subsequent actions actually support the idea that no one thought he could win. I can see them wishing to damage Hitlery to the extent possible by stoking our internal divisions, but to me it just doesn't track like their usual sort of end game if they thought she would win anyway. I can see that they might want to weaken the US in a diffuse, general way but Putin seems more goal oriented than that and I think he would want a more definite and immediate payoff. My estimation is that if he expected her to win, at some point he would have sought some sort of realpolitik rapprochement

 

[T.Lex]

I had to google the Gaetz thing.

That was a dick move.

 

[jamil]

Overall, a cogent position. One quibble, however, with Trump being as surprised as anyone when he won. I don't think the Russians reaction to the internal polling data Manafort gave them and their subsequent actions actually support the idea that no one thought he could win. I can see them wishing to damage Hitlery to the extent possible by stoking our internal divisions, but to me it just doesn't track like their usual sort of end game if they thought she would win anyway. I can see that they might want to weaken the US in a diffuse, general way but Putin seems more goal oriented than that and I think he would want a more definite and immediate payoff. My estimation is that if he expected her to win, at some point he would have sought some sort of realpolitik rapprochement

I don't think Russians expected him to win, but I think they were willing to try. It's obvious they wanted to sow division in the US. They supported both sides. Division was probably the more obtainable goal, while Trump actually winning was just ****.

 

[jamil]

What? I can't say ****? Okay. Boobs.

 

[jamil]

I had to google the Gaetz thing.

That was a dick move.

Yeah, some heavy intimidation tactics going on there.