Trump owns Russia

[DaBigTrain]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

[Phil Titola]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

Yes

https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1086109641803730944

That's two "lawyers"...I'm convinced.

[Spracne]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

[Spracne]

By the way, Trump is a worse witness, so don't get your panties all wadded up.

[DaBigTrain]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

No need for name calling. I think history of the lawyer in question speaks for himself.

[Phil Titola]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

[Spracne]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

[catastrophe]

FBI Agent: Boss we got him to admit to lying to Congress.

Mueller: Well if he’s such a liar why should we believe him?

[Phil Titola]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

[Spracne]

FBI Agent: Boss we got him to admit to lying to Congress.

Mueller: Well if he’s such a liar why should we believe him?

Oh no, TBT is gonna be all up on your ass for saying that . . .

[sys]

we're not talking about a criminal trial here so none of that crap matters.

[Spracne]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

Some jurors might in fact think that if you lie about one thing, you can't be trusted about other things. Yes. Especially if you have an incentive to lie, combined with the fact that you're already a known liar. It's not far fetched to assume at least one out of a group of twelve people could feel that way.

[DaBigTrain]

we're not talking about a criminal trial here so none of that crap matters.

Spracs is just laying the groundwork here

[Spracne]

we're not talking about a criminal trial here so none of that crap matters.

I'm sorry, I thought you said you wanted him to face criminal charges? But anyway, if they have other documentary evidence, then Cohen's testimony is not dispositive, and it's a moot point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Phil Titola]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

Some jurors might in fact think that if you lie about one thing, you can't be trusted about other things. Yes. Especially if you have an incentive to lie, combined with the fact that you're already a known liar. It's not far fetched to assume at least one out of a group of twelve people could feel that way.

I can see this.  As someone trying to "use" his testimony I would think you couldn't use his testimony alone to prove any point.  Of course if I was a juror I'd always think this.  I'd need more than one person's "memory" of a situation to be very impactful to my decision. 

Wouldn't any good lawyer or whatever have a person's testimony then backed up by some other evidence?  If not, lawyers aren't very smart, or jurors aren't.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Jurors aren’t very smart, Phil.

[sys]

we're not talking about a criminal trial here so none of that crap matters.

I'm sorry, I thought you said you wanted him to face criminal charges? But anyway, if they have other documentary evidence, then Cohen's testimony is not dispositive, and it's a moot point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i do.  but that's not what we're talking about with obstruction stuff.  dude is not going to finish his term without an impeachment trial and then face criminal prosecution for obstruction (obstruction alone, could get tacked onto something else).

[Spracne]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

Some jurors might in fact think that if you lie about one thing, you can't be trusted about other things. Yes. Especially if you have an incentive to lie, combined with the fact that you're already a known liar. It's not far fetched to assume at least one out of a group of twelve people could feel that way.

I can see this.  As someone trying to "use" his testimony I would think you couldn't use his testimony alone to prove any point.  Of course if I was a juror I'd always think this.  I'd need more than one person's "memory" of a situation to be very impactful to my decision. 

Wouldn't any good lawyer or whatever have a person's testimony then backed up by some other evidence?  If not, lawyers aren't very smart, or jurors aren't.

Yes, so if they do indeed have tangible evidence, that's way more important than whatever Cohen says.

[Phil Titola]

Jurors aren’t very smart, Phil.

I was super smart.  Then I was the alternate :(

[Phil Titola]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

Some jurors might in fact think that if you lie about one thing, you can't be trusted about other things. Yes. Especially if you have an incentive to lie, combined with the fact that you're already a known liar. It's not far fetched to assume at least one out of a group of twelve people could feel that way.

I can see this.  As someone trying to "use" his testimony I would think you couldn't use his testimony alone to prove any point.  Of course if I was a juror I'd always think this.  I'd need more than one person's "memory" of a situation to be very impactful to my decision. 

Wouldn't any good lawyer or whatever have a person's testimony then backed up by some other evidence?  If not, lawyers aren't very smart, or jurors aren't.

Yes, so if they do indeed have tangible evidence, that's way more important than whatever Cohen says.

This seems like a no brainer comment that everybody gets though?  So the original comment of cohen being credible is moot.  You'd always need better evidence even if Cohen was a choir boy?

[Spracne]

However, Cohen's credibility as a witness is questionable.

Straight from the Presidents mouth.

P sure any of the other lawyers on here would agree with me on this point, sport.

No doubt.  Your expedience to defend your dear leader on the other hand...

Think whatever you want, shitwit. Cohen is a bad witness.

not a lawyer -> so if cohen is found as a shady witness on one thing is he tainted on all things?  That would be pretty sly of trump to keep a crap lawyer so he could leak Cohen being shady on one thing and invalidate his testimony on all things Trump even being Trumps point fixer guy.  4d chess (or maybe just regular chess for a shady guy like DJT)

I'm talking about the prospect of a jury in a federal criminal trial. It only takes one juror.

this did not really answer my question.

Some jurors might in fact think that if you lie about one thing, you can't be trusted about other things. Yes. Especially if you have an incentive to lie, combined with the fact that you're already a known liar. It's not far fetched to assume at least one out of a group of twelve people could feel that way.

I can see this.  As someone trying to "use" his testimony I would think you couldn't use his testimony alone to prove any point.  Of course if I was a juror I'd always think this.  I'd need more than one person's "memory" of a situation to be very impactful to my decision. 

Wouldn't any good lawyer or whatever have a person's testimony then backed up by some other evidence?  If not, lawyers aren't very smart, or jurors aren't.

Yes, so if they do indeed have tangible evidence, that's way more important than whatever Cohen says.

This seems like a no brainer comment that everybody gets though?  So the original comment of cohen being credible is moot.  You'd always need better evidence even if Cohen was a choir boy?

My comment is that the fact Cohen says something is not much evidence of anything, despite the fact that media and other types immediately glom onto it as proof positive. The alleged other evidence is the more important story, but everyone will instead talk about Cohen.

[Phil Titola]

breaking the quote chain...


Unless Cohen dishing is getting to dear leader.  That's well worth the media attention that doesn't need any juror...which is probably the larger point to all of this, not just a criminal trial.

[Spracne]

breaking the quote chain...


Unless Cohen dishing is getting to dear leader.  That's well worth the media attention that doesn't need any juror...which is probably the larger point to all of this, not just a criminal trial.

Nixon wouldn't have resigned if they didn't have hard evidence against him (the tapes). Impeaching Trump is not legitimate on the strength of Cohen's word alone. The People, and by extension their representatives, will require more. If there is hard evidence showing it is very likely Trump suborned perjury while in office, then that would be legit grounds for impeachment, in my view.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney. He had his apartment raided while he was still working as Trump’s attorney. The idea that there wouldn’t be evidence to back up the claims he makes is laughable.

[Spracne]

Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney. He had his apartment raided while he was still working as Trump’s attorney. The idea that there wouldn’t be evidence to back up the claims he makes is laughable.

I'm not saying they don't. I'll be very interested to see what they have. All this supposing is annoying, though. Why don't we just wait until the evidence is presented and then we can all kill each other?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk