• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting

Chomsky said:
I don't think you and I are qualified to determine this. That's for the prosecutor, judge, and jury to determine.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I do peruse his Twitter for a good laugh. However, I find it odd that a prosector is building a case based on what is being said on Twitter...
 
I hate to say it, but I'm skeptical. This guy has been lying his balls off since, well, probably forever.
 
Hedgology said:
You're probably right. I do peruse his Twitter for a good laugh. However, I find it odd that a prosector is building a case based on what is being said on Twitter...
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way:

A hypothetical obstruction case based solely upon Twitter, surely isn't going to win the day!
 
Chomsky said:
Good find, and fair point.

However, there may have been other witnesses present. In addition, there were witnesses to his composing the fake letter on AF-1.

The noose is tightening, Captain.
Click to expand...

The noose always seems to be tightening Chomsky...so much so that he should have been hanged seven times over by now...but we're all still standing around an empty scaffold.

It has always been "This must be the final straw," or "this will be the be the meat for that nothing-burger," and yet it never is.

It may seem to some that I am defending a losing cause, but to me (as a defense attorney) I have yet to see any real evidence of anything that proves Trump did not win the election fair and square.

If that is the case, why do people keep trying to prove otherwise? My answer is they faced such a psychic shock in his election victory that they can't accept this reality and are desperately seeking some way, any way to prove they were right all along.

That's how I see this day-in, day-out anti-Trump rhetoric. He can do no right, and whenever he does anything "wrong" it's proof he does not deserve the White House.

You followed my posts during the campaign season 2016. Don't you recall my "don't count your chickens before they hatch" posts, arguing about that evident grass roots support he had being ignored in the media?

I was always honest about my understanding of this candidate, both good and bad. I see nothing different from my original analysis to date. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
exoplanet said:
I hate to say it, but I'm skeptical. This guy has been lying his balls off since, well, probably forever.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's one of the problems, here. It's a den of liars. All of them!
 
Chomsky said:
Let's put it this way:

A hypothetical obstruction case based solely upon Twitter, surely isn't going to win the day!
Click to expand...

If the courts failed to hold Trump accountable based on what he has said on the campaign trail, I doubt that they will hold a case against him based on what is said on Twitter...

We'll see what happens, I guess.
 
Hedgology said:
You're probably right. I do peruse his Twitter for a good laugh. However, I find it odd that a prosector is building a case based on what is being said on Twitter...
Click to expand...

It's funny that you'd have to convince yourself of that, as it's clearly not happening.

Mueller isn't building any case based on what's said on Twitter. He's merely reinforcing what he's already got.

But you already likely knew that.

Intellectual dishonesty serves no purpose.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
It's funny that you'd have to convince yourself of that, as it's clearly not happening.

Mueller isn't building any case based on what's said on Twitter. He's merely reinforcing what he's already got.

But you already likely knew that.

Intellectual dishonesty serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Well you don't know what Mueller is doing any more than I do; I'm not sure why you are pretending like you know more than you actually do.

Here is what we do know: A federal prosecutor is looking on Twitter for something(evidence, whatever). You desperately want to believe Trump's Twitter account is relevant so the case looks legitimate, when in reality it looks desperate. No amount of intellectual dishonesty is going to change that.
 
Chomsky said:
They'll spin it to hell or high water. Rudy's already at it. But it's going to be a hard sell to the Indies, I think.
Click to expand...
Oh, ****.

I'd rather have Lucy Ricardo as my lawyer.
 
Hedgology said:
If the courts failed to hold Trump accountable based on what he has said on the campaign trail, I doubt that they will hold a case against him based on what is said on Twitter...

We'll see what happens, I guess.
Click to expand...
He's not build a case with Twitter as the foundation.

Although Trumps public threats, intimidation, and confessions will probably be used as evidence.

We warned that idiot to shut his mouth, but he couldn't take the advise.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The noose always seems to be tightening Chomsky...so much so that he should have been hanged seven times over by now...but we're all still standing around an empty scaffold.

It has always been "This must be the final straw," or "this will be the be the meat for that nothing-burger," and yet it never is.

It may seem to some that I am defending a losing cause, but to me (as a defense attorney) I have yet to see any real evidence of anything that proves Trump did not win the election fair and square.

If that is the case, why do people keep trying to prove otherwise? My answer is they faced such a psychic shock that they can't accept this reality and are desperately seeking some way, any way to prove they were right all along.

That's how I see this day in, day out anti-Trump rhetoric. He can do no right, and whenever he does anything "wrong" it's proof he does not deserve the White House.
Click to expand...
Well you indeed are right here Captain, in that we ourselves personally are not privy to enough evidence for a legal conviction.

But there seems to be so many moving interconnecting pieces, and such guilty behavior by the subjects, that in my mind it's becoming a real possibility that criminal conspiracy occurred.

Of course I, like everyone else, cannot prove this. But 18 mos ago, I never in my wildest dreams believed we'd be here. Never.
 
MovingPictures said:
He's not build a case with Twitter as the foundation.

Although Trumps public threats, intimidation, and confessions will probably be used as evidence.

We warned that idiot to shut his mouth, but he couldn't take the advise.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anything you say on Twitter can and will be used against you in the court of law. LMAO...
 
Hedgology said:
Well you don't know what Mueller is doing any more than I do; I'm not sure why you are pretending like you know more than you actually do.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending that. Why lie about something so trivial?
Here is what we do know: A federal prosecutor is looking on Twitter for something(evidence, whatever). You desperately want to believe Trump's Twitter account is relevant so the case looks legitimate, when in reality it looks desperate. No amount of intellectual dishonesty is going to change that.
Click to expand...

Here is what we know: You made the bull**** claim that "a prosector is building a case based on what is being said on Twitter..."

You desperately want to pretend that that's what he's building his case on, and yet nothing, whatsoever, indicates that that's what he's actually doing.

Trump's Twitter account is clearly being analysed to dot i's and cross t's in order to establish corrupt intent, on top of what he already knows, including two public admissions by Trump, which is necessary to successfully prosecute an OOJ charge.

It doesn't look desperate at all to anyone familiar with how prosecutions work.

It's nothing you'd understand, clearly, so why are you trying to hold forth on this matter?
 
Hedgology said:
Yeah, anything you say on Twitter can and will be used against you in the court of law. LMAO...
Click to expand...

Twitter is public record. As such, it's perfectly admissible in court.

You're in so far over your head you can't even drown well.

What was your last handle here, btw?
 
Captain Adverse said:
The noose always seems to be tightening Chomsky...so much so that he should have been hanged seven times over by now...but we're all still standing around an empty scaffold.

It has always been "This must be the final straw," or "this will be the be the meat for that nothing-burger," and yet it never is.

It may seem to some that I am defending a losing cause, but to me (as a defense attorney) I have yet to see any real evidence of anything that proves Trump did not win the election fair and square.

If that is the case, why do people keep trying to prove otherwise? My answer is they faced such a psychic shock in his election victory that they can't accept this reality and are desperately seeking some way, any way to prove they were right all along.

That's how I see this day-in, day-out anti-Trump rhetoric. He can do no right, and whenever he does anything "wrong" it's proof he does not deserve the White House.

You followed my posts during the campaign season 2016. Don't you recall my "don't count your chickens before they hatch" posts, arguing about that evident grass roots support he had being ignored in the media?

I was always honest about my understanding of this candidate, both good and bad. I see nothing different from my original analysis to date. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Whether the vote count was tampered with is not what's being alleged at this point. Nobody disputes that the vote count was legitimate. This in no way excuses Trump and his inner circles conduct in any way, no more than Watergate itself having no effect on the actual 1972 election.

When some of us on the left speculated that Trumps camp and possible Russian hackers might have been in contact we were called "sore losers" and dismissed by the right out of hand. A year and half later and all kinds of evidence has turned-up from the Trump Tower meeting and George Papadopoulos, to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.

It all looks bad, very bad.

At this point I don't expect Trump supporters to come around. No matter what he does, no matter how many lies are apparent, and no matter how bad it gets, they're willing to go down with the ship rather than eat crow.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I'm not pretending that. Why lie about something so trivial?
Click to expand...

You are because you don't know what Mueller is trying to do.

Here is what we know: You made the bull**** claim that "a prosector is building a case based on what is being said on Twitter..."

You desperately want to pretend that that's what he's building his case on, and yet nothing, whatsoever, indicates that that's what he's actually doing.
Click to expand...

It's not a claim made by me; that is a claim made by the mainstream media.

Robert Mueller Reviewing Trump'''s Twitter Account for Evidence: Report | Fortune

As for whether or not he is building is the case based on what Trump is saying on Twitter: I don't know if he is or isn't. I know with so much evidence out there, the last place I would look is Twitter.

Trump's Twitter account is clearly being analysed to dot i's and cross t's in order to establish corrupt intent, on top of what he already knows, including two public admissions by Trump, which is necessary to successfully prosecute an OOJ charge.

It doesn't look desperate at all to anyone familiar with how prosecutions work.
Click to expand...

Maybe because prosecutions don't live in the same world as the jury, who is ultimately the people who are going to determine the innocence of guilt.

It's nothing you'd understand, clearly, so why are you trying to hold forth on this matter?
Click to expand...

Explain the value of Trumps Twitter account. Where is the evidence Mueller needs for his investigation?
 
Hedgology said:
Yeah, anything you say on Twitter can and will be used against you in the court of law. LMAO...
Click to expand...
Um ... yeah. Happens all the time.

Are you really that ignorant?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Twitter is public record. As such, it's perfectly admissible in court.
Click to expand...

No ****. I'm laughing at the idea of prosecuting someone based on what was said on a social media account.

You're in so far over your head you can't even drown well.

What was your last handle here, btw?
Click to expand...

You're really invested in this conspiracy theory. You're about a few post away from claiming that I am a Russian bot.
 
Hedgology said:
If the courts failed to hold Trump accountable based on what he has said on the campaign trail, I doubt that they will hold a case against him based on what is said on Twitter...

We'll see what happens, I guess.
Click to expand...
Actually though, I do seem to remember a legal precedent that it is not illegal for a candidate to lie.

However one of the articles of impeachment prepared against Nixon, was for "lying to the public". It of course never got as far as a Senate trial, due to Nixon's resignation, so it's never been proven out. I doubt "lying to the public" would have taken down Nixon, and there's no way I can see it doing so here with Trump.

The only thing I could think of here, is Mueller trying to use the Twitter account as a piece of corroborating evidence to other evidence he has. For example, if Mueller were to go after Trump for Obstructing in the AF-1 letter composed to obfuscate the Trump Towers Russian meeting.

If Mueller were to establish Trump had prior knowledge of the meeting, and if Mueller had witnesses on the plane while Trump composed the letter, say Hope Hicks or someone else, then I could see him bringing-in Tweets where he further obfuscated the truth.

Now I'm not saying this is indeed what happened, nor am I saying this is a winning technique. But I am saying I can envision scenarios where the Tweeting might possibly be considered evidential.
 
Hedgology said:
In Europe, sure.



What example can you show where someone in the United States was arrested and/or convicted of a crime based on what was said on Twitter, or in a case where Twitter post was used as evidence?
Click to expand...
Seriously, use Google.
 
Chomsky said:
Actually though, I do seem to remember a legal precedent that it is not illegal for a candidate to lie.

However one of the articles of impeachment prepared against Nixon, was for "lying to the public". It of course never got as far as a Senate trial, due to Nixon's resignation, so it's never been proven out. I doubt "lying to the public" would have taken down Nixon, and there's no way I can see it doing so here with Trump.

The only thing I could think of here, is Mueller trying to use the Twitter account as a piece of corroborating evidence to other evidence he has. For example, if Mueller were to go after Trump for Obstructing in the AF-1 letter composed to obfuscate the Trump Towers Russian meeting.

If Mueller were to establish Trump had prior knowledge of the meeting, and if Mueller had witnesses on the plane while Trump composed the letter, say Hope Hicks or someone else, then I could see him bringing-in Tweets where he further obfuscated the truth.

Now I'm not saying this is indeed what happened, nor am I saying this is a winning technique. But I am saying I can envision scenarios where the Tweeting might possibly be considered evidential.
Click to expand...

Crimes under criminal code aren't required to be impeached
 
Chomsky said:
Actually though, I do seem to remember a legal precedent that it is not illegal for a candidate to lie.

However one of the articles of impeachment prepared against Nixon, was for "lying to the public". It of course never got as far as a Senate trial, due to Nixon's resignation, so it's never been proven out. I doubt "lying to the public" would have taken down Nixon, and there's no way I can see it doing so here with Trump.

The only thing I could think of here, is Mueller trying to use the Twitter account as a piece of corroborating evidence to other evidence he has. For example, if Mueller were to go after Trump for Obstructing in the AF-1 letter composed to obfuscate the Trump Towers Russian meeting.

If Mueller were to establish Trump had prior knowledge of the meeting, and if Mueller had witnesses on the plane while Trump composed the letter, say Hope Hicks or someone else, then I could see him bringing-in Tweets where he further obfuscated the truth.

Now I'm not saying this is indeed what happened, nor am I saying this is a winning technique. But I am saying I can envision scenarios where the Tweeting might possibly be considered evidential.
Click to expand...

If Trump mentioned something on Twitter regarding a meeting he claims never happened, and evidence revealed that a meeting occurred, at the very least it appears suspicious. The problem with Twitter is that it is difficult for anyone to hear nuanced perspective, because you're limited to only 240 characters (before it was 240 characters). So tweets about "there was never any meeting" turns into "there was never any meeting on the Wednesday that evening" or whatever spin Trump wants to put on it. It makes it difficult for anyone to hold anyone to account based on what was said (or not said on the platform).

For example, Trump once tweeted about potential tapes regarding conversations between myself and James Comey. It would be a big lead and evidence that Trump is potentially trying to extort someone who is investigating him. Or it would be a wild goose chase, as anyone who knows about Trump knows that he often tweets meaningless things (Which is the problem that I have when people claim that he lies about everything. If he lies about everything, then you can't hold him accountable to anything that he says in public). Why would a prosecutor entertain a wild goose chase? If someone were investigating me, that is what I would want them to do: follow wild goose chases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom