Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

(02-27-2019, 04:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hillary was not convicted of crimes people have accused her of, yet people still say she broke the law.
Trump has not been convicted of crimes people have accused him of, yet people still say he broke the law.

Those that defended Hillary are also the ones accusing Trump. Those that accused Hillary are also the ones defending Trump. (Yes, there are exceptions to each). BOTH are being hypocritical.

It's not that difficult a point to understand.

Except one was thoroughly investigated, multiple times by the opposing party and one is still being investigated, by his own party.

And one has been found guilty of multiple things outside of the office...the other never has.

So let's see what the investigation comes up with.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2019, 04:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hillary was not convicted of crimes people have accused her of, yet people still say she broke the law.
Trump has not been convicted of crimes people have accused him of, yet people still say he broke the law.

Those that defended Hillary are also the ones accusing Trump. Those that accused Hillary are also the ones defending Trump. (Yes, there are exceptions to each). BOTH are being hypocritical.

It's not that difficult a point to understand.

Playing my outsider card for once, I have to disagree with that a bit. The accusations against Trump seem to be qay more grave and way broader corroborated - witnesses, events, indivcations, court filings etc. - then those against Hillary ever were. You can't just disregard that.

[BrownAssClown]

(02-27-2019, 04:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hillary was not convicted of crimes people have accused her of, yet people still say she broke the law.

"She has not even been charged with any crime. People can say what they want, "people" have known to be wrong."

Trump has not been convicted of crimes people have accused him of, yet people still say he broke the law.

"See above about people being wrong, the investigations are still ongoing in Trumps' case. Is Hillary under any current investigation(s)?"

Those that defended Hillary are also the ones accusing Trump. Those that accused Hillary are also the ones defending Trump. (Yes, there are exceptions to each). BOTH are being hypocritical.

"Some are using "Hillary", "Obama", any "excuse" really to deflect from the current presidential investigations."

It's not that difficult a point to understand.

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2019, 04:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's my fault. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in American politics using Hillary as an example and so many were rushing to prove me right by defending her, that it's kinda derailed the thread somewhat and for that, I apologize.

Actually we proved you wrong by pointing out that Hillary has been thoroughly investigated by Republicans and was found to have never broken any law.

Meanwhile Trump is under investigation and has not been cleared yet.

{ agree with you that people who say Trump is guilty should wait for the final findings, but your claim about hypocrisy was regarding Hillary failed.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 04:47 PM)jj22 Wrote: The Clintons have been investigated over 1500 times the last 50 years.

I know crazy right.

Someone tell my how the Republicans who ran both House and Senate and Presidency on multiple occasions over the last 50 years won't convict her of anything.... Not even against her associates.

Someone.... Anyone....

But it's the Clintons and they've been trying to find something on Hillary for years.

It only took Republicans less than a year to get Trumps campaign associates, and potentially Trump.

I'm wondering where "50" comes from. That's 1969. Woodstock.  It's about 27 years which would make your point stronger.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 04:44 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: As an european, I'm shocked of the rudeness of your congressmen.

One another thing I understood is that our craziest right wing politician would be considered in America as a democrat.

Have you never seen English politicians?

[*PhilHos*]

(02-27-2019, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Playing my outsider card for once, I have to disagree with that a bit. The accusations against Trump seem to be qay more grave and way broader corroborated - witnesses, events, indivcations, court filings etc. - then those against Hillary ever were. You can't just disregard that.

Yes, I can. The standard has been set by those that defended Hillary that since she wasn't convicted, she's not guilty of breaking the law. By that same standard, Trump is also not guilty of breaking the law.

Now, of course, that could change. But, until then ...

[BmorePat87]

(02-27-2019, 05:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, I can. The standard has been set by those that defended Hillary that since she wasn't convicted, she's not guilty of breaking the law. By that same standard, Trump is also not guilty of breaking the law.

Now, of course, that could change. But, until then ...

I think calling someone innocent AFTER all investigations were completed and the DOJ declined to charge is a bit different than making accusations during an investigation as evidence comes out. 

There's certainly an argument to make that we should wait for the investigation to end and see if there are charges, but your current comparison isn't valid. 

[BrownAssClown]

(02-27-2019, 04:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's my fault. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in American politics using Hillary as an example and so many were rushing to prove me right by defending her, that it's kinda derailed the thread somewhat and for that, I apologize.

No need to apologize, you're just voicing you opinion and I enjoy reading everyone's viewpoints.

[fredtoast]

(02-27-2019, 05:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, I can. The standard has been set by those that defended Hillary that since she wasn't convicted, she's not guilty of breaking the law. By that same standard, Trump is also not guilty of breaking the law.

Now, of course, that could change. But, until then ...

Actually my standard is that the investigations against Hillary are complete.

[BmorePat87]

I like how Meadows kept attacking him and calling him a liar over a form when in reality Meadows was wrong and Cohen filled it out correctly.

When the vice chair clarified during her time that Meadows was incorrect, you can see him on camera wink at another Republican.

Mark Meadows winks after he is caught in a lie about the disclosure form pic.twitter.com/cf6V8zbqe3

— (((yoni brander))) (@yonibrander) February 27, 2019

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 05:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like how Meadows kept attacking him and calling him a liar over a form when in reality Meadows was wrong and Cohen filled it out correctly.

When the vice chair clarified during her time that Meadows was incorrect, you can see him on camera wink at another Republican.

Mark Meadows winks after he is caught in a lie about the disclosure form pic.twitter.com/cf6V8zbqe3

— (((yoni brander))) (@yonibrander) February 27, 2019

What I want to know is did he throw up a white power sign. (Period or question mark? It's declarative, but it does end with a question.)

[GMDino]

(02-27-2019, 05:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What I want to know is did he throw up a white power sign?

What I want to know is how we can trust these men from the GOP when they are all liars.  Apparently being caught lying is supposed to keep you from being a truthful source of information ever again.  

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I want to know is how we can trust these men from the GOP when they are all liars.  Apparently being caught lying is supposed to keep you from being a truthful source of information ever again.  

"Objection. Outside the scope of direct. Beginning with the same words doesn't make it relevant."

[CJD]

I just don't see this hearing mattering at all.

The people who think Trump is a scumbag, racist conman will still think that after this hearing.

The people who don't think Trump is a scumbag, racist conman will still not think that after this hearing.

There was no solid evidence to prove anything, other than a check that could have technically been for any service, not necessarily the hush payment thing.

There was no new accusations that were not already out there.

The rest was just fluff regarding how much Cohen hates Trump now.

I understand why he didn't get a deal that waived prison time. Because all he's got is circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-27-2019, 05:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually we proved you wrong by pointing out that Hillary has been thoroughly investigated by Republicans and was found to have never broken any law.

Meanwhile Trump is under investigation and has not been cleared yet.

{ agree with you that people who say Trump is guilty should wait for the final findings, but your claim about hypocrisy was regarding Hillary failed.

If people who say Trump is guilty should wait, then my claim about Hillary is NOT wrong.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 05:38 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I just don't see this hearing mattering at all.

The people who think Trump is a scumbag, racist conman will still think that after this hearing.

The people who don't think Trump is a scumbag, racist conman will still not think that after this hearing.

There was no solid evidence to prove anything, other than a check that could have technically been for any service, not necessarily the hush payment thing.

There was no new accusations that were not already out there.

The rest was just fluff regarding how much Cohen hates Trump now.

I understand why he didn't get a deal that waived prison time. Because all he's got is circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

This isn't to determine some sort of criminal activity for a court of law. It's for impeachment purposes.  There is no level of proof needed for impeachment, but there is a level of legitimacy they'd like to establish.

[hollodero]

(02-27-2019, 05:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, I can. The standard has been set by those that defended Hillary that since she wasn't convicted, she's not guilty of breaking the law. By that same standard, Trump is also not guilty of breaking the law.

Now, of course, that could change. But, until then ...

Well, for one the investigations into Hillary took years and are over now. Her verdicts are in, the ones of the many investigations into Trump are not.
And the premises of these investigations were way more thin than in the case of Trump.

So while I of course agree with your statement (and most certainly, many choose their position out of partisan reasons), I question the premise of equality in those two situations.

[jj22]

(02-27-2019, 05:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm wondering where "50" comes from. That's 1969.  Woodstock.  It's about 27 years which would make your point stronger.  

No it's been 50. I know too crazy to believe given nothing was ever found but the Clintons were under attack by Republicans since the late 1960's early 1970's.

Republicans have been attacking Hillary with fake news and conspiracy theories since her college years. It really is a sickness/obsession never before seen, and likely never to be seen again.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-27-2019, 06:00 PM)jj22 Wrote: No it's been 50. I know too crazy to believe given nothing was ever found but the Clintons were under attack by Republicans since the late 1960's early 1970's.

Republicans have been attacking Hillary with fake news and conspiracy theories since her college years. It really is a sickness/obsession never before seen, and likely never to be seen again.

During law school?  I think you've been given some bad numbers.