Cohen hearing

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 12:27 PM)jj22 Wrote: Trump supporters spewing Russian talking points over Americas is a disgrace.

And they wonder why more and more consider them anti America.

Example?

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not if you're trying to prove intent.  Rudy could be expressing his personal opinion.

"Could be". that works both ways.

(03-05-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Enough people believe it to do what exactly?  Your use of the word "enough" implies that there is a tipping point regarding the number of believers that will allow some action or event to occur.  Or is your use of this word not intended to imply that?

Enough that there are people who believe it. Enough people believe she was responsible for "covering up" Benghazi that there were multiple congressional hearings on it too.

(03-05-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, no.  The Dems have been approaching impeachment since the day after the election.  They've been screeching "impeach" for well over a year.

You left out the words "a few" before "Dems". Given the shady past of the current POTUS, his numerous lies and frequently changing stories about things he has brought that on himself a great deal.

(03-05-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So what is Mueller doing?  I thought he was "looking at" Trump this whole time.

Aye. So is SDNY. And maybe there will be more now that congress is actually doing some oversight.

(03-05-2019, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're lending way too much credence to that one sentence.  Could he not be expressing his personal opinion?  I do find it interesting that Rudy is mocked as a mumblemouth who spouts inanities right up to the point that he says something people think they can use against Trump.  Logical inconsistencies annoy me.

RG does talk in circles. He also speaks for the President does he not? All I'm saying is that people are also quick to say it "could be" nothing when it "could be" something. Circumstantial that DJT authorized (perhaps) a payoff during the campaign rather than before? Probably. But it is not clear cut that he didn't do it for that reason either.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2019, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Could be".  that works both ways.

Exactly, which is why proving, actually proving, intent in this case is going to be near impossible without concrete proof.

Quote:Enough that there are people who believe it. Enough people believe she was responsible for "covering up" Benghazi that there were multiple congressional hearings on it too.  

Your expressing a rather nebulous concept here.  The number of people who believe it is not important on its own. 

Quote:You left out the words "a few" before "Dems".  Given the shady past of the current POTUS, his numerous lies and frequently changing stories about things he has brought that on himself a great deal.  

To an extent, sure.  However, even those "few" Dems making the case for impeaching almost immediately upon his election paint their party as being on a partisan witch hunt to rid us of a lawfully elected POTUS because they don't like him.  You're more concerned with what people believe and the number of people that believe it than I am, consequently it must concern you that these actions have cast the Dem effort in an insanely negative light for millions of people.

Quote:Aye.  So is SDNY.  And maybe there will be more now that congress is actually doing some oversight.

I don't think there's any maybe about that.  This will only fuel the perception of many that this is more about a vindictive effort to nail Trump than it is about finding any truth.  But, again, you're more concerned with what people believe, and how many believe it, than I am.

Quote:RG does talk in circles.  He also speaks for the President does he not?

At all times?  I doubt that.  Also, if I recall Trump has taken issue with several of Rudy's statements in the near past.


 

Quote: All I'm saying is that people are also quick to say it "could be" nothing when it "could be" something.  Circumstantial that DJT authorized (perhaps) a payoff during the campaign rather than before?  Probably.  But it is not clear cut that he didn't do it for that reason either.

It's not clear cut at all, I agree, which is why it's not likely to ever go anywhere.  The fact that we can debate it as much as we have with no clear result is proof that there is not a provable case here.  If further, concrete, evidence comes to light that changes things one way or another than this could, and should, be revisited.  It's going to have to be rather definitive proof for this to go anywhere though.

[*bfine32*]

(03-05-2019, 12:27 PM)jj22 Wrote: Trump supporters spewing Russian talking points over Americas is a disgrace.

And they wonder why more and more consider them anti America.

So is it America first or isn't it?

I've heard Trump Supporters getting slammed as Nationalist/Hitlerian because they in this motto

[GMDino]

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Exactly, which is why proving, actually proving, intent in this case is going to be near impossible without concrete proof.

We will see.

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your expressing a rather nebulous concept here.  The number of people who believe it is not important on its own. 

To that to any church or leader.

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To an extent, sure.  However, even those "few" Dems making the case for impeaching almost immediately upon his election paint their party as being on a partisan witch hunt to rid us of a lawfully elected POTUS because they don't like him.  You're more concerned with what people believe and the number of people that believe it than I am, consequently it must concern you that these actions have cast the Dem effort in an insanely negative light for millions of people.

Because people who believe things in large groups tend to make a lot of noise. And sometimes they do things like get people elected. ("Lock her up" and all that.)

So if enough people believe there is enough evidence (circumstantial or not) we run the real risk of consequences for Trump's actions.

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think there's any maybe about that.  This will only fuel the perception of many that this is more about a vindictive effort to nail Trump than it is about finding any truth.  But, again, you're more concerned with what people believe, and how many believe it, than I am.

Well DJT already portrays any and all investigations into him as partisan. He still rails about the 13 angry democrats that Mueller uses, for example.

And while I accept that that is part of the game of politics, smarter people should realize that these aren't investigations out of thin air. Some may think there is thin evidence to encourage them but have we not seen this before?

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: At all times?  I doubt that.  Also, if I recall Trump has taken issue with several of Rudy's statements in the near past.

Indeed. Usually when they are more incriminating and not simply criticizing the Democrats and the "haters and losers". But again Trump has an "evolving" story on the payments from "never happened" to "not a crime".
 

(03-05-2019, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not clear cut at all, I agree, which is why it's not likely to ever go anywhere.  The fact that we can debate it as much as we have with no clear result is proof that there is not a provable case here.  If further, concrete, evidence comes to light that changes things one way or another than this could, and should, be revisited.  It's going to have to be rather definitive proof for this to go anywhere though.

I guess we will see.