Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to Charge in Mueller Inquiry Related to Russia Business Deal

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: shooterbrody

Love how you just stick your head in the sand and try to pretend you can ignore this away.

It doesn't matter who that was to, the fact of the matter is that during the campaign Trump said he didn't have anything to do with Russia. Why would anyone openly lie about something that is completely legal? The answer is they wouldn't. Trump lied because he knew what he was doing was illegal and he wanted it hidden. Why did he send his 'fixer' to Russia to handle it? Why did his fixer lie to Congress about it?

Yep, those are definitely the actions of an innocent man. Definitely.

Enjoy the orange man while you can, he won't be there much longer.

At his first press conference as the President of the United States he stated he had no dealings with Russia. According to the court documents today, this is not true.

Trump: I have no dealing with Russia

Why would a man that has done nothing wrong go to such lengths to hide his legitimate business dealings? Why Brodie?

You should research the difference between "I" and "organization"
What he stated can actually be true.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't fly when the guy working the deal in Russia reports directly to Trump himself. Plus, the Trump organization is not a public company, it is privately owned by one Donald J Drumpf. So, you try that in a court of law and see how quickly you get laughed out.

It is not an argument. It is an actual fact.
I really don't care what you think will fly and what won't, as you have proven unreliable in your assumptions recently.
Definitions do matter in a court of law, no matter what you think.
trumps "I" in a press conference is not "the trump organization" no matter how much you would like it to be.

Oh, if it's a fact I assume you have a source that proves Trump didn't know anything about it. Right? Then why did he admit to it being his decision today?

“I didn’t do the project. I decided not to do the project, so I didn’t do it. So we’re not talking doing a project. We’re talking about not doing a project,”

Fact huh?

LINK

none of which changes the fact that "I" and "we" and "organization" all have different legal meanings.
and as far as I know press statements do not carry any legal liability.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

"The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected," Cohen said in a written statement. "In late January 2016, I abandoned the Moscow proposal because I lost confidence that the prospective licensee would be able to obtain the real estate, financing and government approvals necessary to bring the proposal to fruition," he added. "It was a building proposal that did not succeed and nothing more."

hmmm
the trump organization....
I wonder if trump always knows exactly all the projects the trump organization is working on at any particular time?

yeah you got him this time....
lol

Lol, hey man, if you think you shouting into the void how 'Not important' it is will have any legal standing for Trump in his defense against Mueller, then keep it up

hey man if you think perjury traps are the best strategy for a broken down special prosecutor then keep it up!

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that a 'perjury trap' is all that Mueller has or has been accumulating in this probe is insulting their own intelligence.

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that if mueller had anything on trump it wouldn't have already been leaked is insulting their own intelligence
that is what I think

You should read up on Watergate. Just because it hasn't leaked doesn't mean jack crap. The only way it would leak is if the investigators themselves leaked it. They would only leak information if it was beneficial to the investigation. Otherwise leaking information only serves to make the targets of the investigation more prepared.

I love how your defense is now, "Since nothing has leaked, Mueller doesn't have anything". Boy will you be surprised. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

You should read up on Watergate.

Why? It is really not the same situation. A Special Counsel investigation is different than a Senate Select Committee investigation. You do understand that fact? Perhaps it is you that needs to do some research.

The only way it would leak is if the investigators themselves leaked it. They would only leak information if it was beneficial to the investigation.

You do understand unauthorized leaks from the office of special council are illegal?
Perhaps you should research what they are actually supposed to do? You seem confused. The office of special council is not the fbi or cia or even the polilce. The are an arm of the doj and are actually subject to the ethics rules of the doj.

Leaks are illegal, but leaks happen. Leaks happen all the time. Trump himself is threatening to leak damaging information if the House investigates him. But I'm sure you are ok with that one? Plus, wasn't it you complaining that the Mueller investigation isn't leaky enough?

Man, pick an argument and stick to it. You are running all over the place attempting to find some defensible position.

I'm not going to be your history teacher but I will give you this tidbit. During the Watergate investigation, about 3 years in some in Congress got upset with the lack of evidence so they subpoenaed the investigation and asked for the evidence. The investigation complied and gave them reams and reams of evidence.

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The Tower deal got all the votes !!!!

🤦‍♀️

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wayfarer


No, you're missing the point. IF there was no collusion, why would the Kremlin lie about is (along with Donny 6 aces)?

The word collusion seems to be flung around on everything hoping it will stick. When we look at "collusion" we have this point to it. "in order to cheat or deceive others". Looking for real dirt on Hillary is not collusion, inventing a fake dossier that led to FISA warrants is collusion, Russia or otherwise.

Russia collusion was the 250k they spent for fake adds on Facebook which the meddling was mainly seen as poor form and wrong though totally ineffective.

So back to the Kremlin, if they were involved through an agent that suggested to anyone on Trump's team they had real dirt on Hillary it was all fake, and led to nothing, Trumps team got nothing, was passed nothing, gave nothing...all smoke and mirrors and it took it seems a short meeting of some kind to understand there was nothing.

Yeah most aren't using it in the legal definition. Suffice to say there are dozens of associated elements stemming from Trump's desire to seek help from the Russians that are in fact violations of US laws, and rest assured those are the avenues Mueller is working through in his report.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

"The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected," Cohen said in a written statement. "In late January 2016, I abandoned the Moscow proposal because I lost confidence that the prospective licensee would be able to obtain the real estate, financing and government approvals necessary to bring the proposal to fruition," he added. "It was a building proposal that did not succeed and nothing more."

hmmm
the trump organization....
I wonder if trump always knows exactly all the projects the trump organization is working on at any particular time?

yeah you got him this time....
lol

Lol, hey man, if you think you shouting into the void how 'Not important' it is will have any legal standing for Trump in his defense against Mueller, then keep it up

hey man if you think perjury traps are the best strategy for a broken down special prosecutor then keep it up!

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that a 'perjury trap' is all that Mueller has or has been accumulating in this probe is insulting their own intelligence.

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that if mueller had anything on trump it wouldn't have already been leaked is insulting their own intelligence
that is what I think

I think anyone naive enough to assume that the least leaky probe in history would be leaking like a sieve if they had anything other than perjury (which in fact once again wasn't leaked, but rather came out through normal channels), is deliberately deluding themselves.

least leakiest eh?
lol
mama bird baby bird eh?
lol
wjla.com...
enjoy

That's the best you can do? Lol, well keep grasping for straws I guess. Coincidentally the 'leaks' (and I use that term loosely) in your article infer far more than just perjury, so by some masterful stroke of Trump style self ownage, you've managed to invalidate your own argument above.

least leakiest must have some other meaning in your world?
but I am sure you always post what you actually mean? right?

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Propagandalf
Another victim of the fishing expedition, pleading guilty to lying, and not anything to do with what they were tasked with investigating.

This is directly related to the Russia investigation. It shows that Donald Trump was lying when he stated he had no business in Russia. How in the world is that not related to the Russia investigation?

You’re the one selling lies. He has no business in Russia.

In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said at a New York real-estate conference that year. "Say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo, and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Link

“We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Strange. For someone who has no business with Russia, they seem to have a lot of money pouring in from Russia.

Russians buying high-end products at Trump hotels is Trump’s business dealings with Russia? I haven’t seen this angle before.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: shooterbrody

Love how you just stick your head in the sand and try to pretend you can ignore this away.

It doesn't matter who that was to, the fact of the matter is that during the campaign Trump said he didn't have anything to do with Russia. Why would anyone openly lie about something that is completely legal? The answer is they wouldn't. Trump lied because he knew what he was doing was illegal and he wanted it hidden. Why did he send his 'fixer' to Russia to handle it? Why did his fixer lie to Congress about it?

Yep, those are definitely the actions of an innocent man. Definitely.

Enjoy the orange man while you can, he won't be there much longer.

At his first press conference as the President of the United States he stated he had no dealings with Russia. According to the court documents today, this is not true.

Trump: I have no dealing with Russia

Why would a man that has done nothing wrong go to such lengths to hide his legitimate business dealings? Why Brodie?

You should research the difference between "I" and "organization"
What he stated can actually be true.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't fly when the guy working the deal in Russia reports directly to Trump himself. Plus, the Trump organization is not a public company, it is privately owned by one Donald J Drumpf. So, you try that in a court of law and see how quickly you get laughed out.

It is not an argument. It is an actual fact.
I really don't care what you think will fly and what won't, as you have proven unreliable in your assumptions recently.
Definitions do matter in a court of law, no matter what you think.
trumps "I" in a press conference is not "the trump organization" no matter how much you would like it to be.

Oh, if it's a fact I assume you have a source that proves Trump didn't know anything about it. Right? Then why did he admit to it being his decision today?

“I didn’t do the project. I decided not to do the project, so I didn’t do it. So we’re not talking doing a project. We’re talking about not doing a project,”

Fact huh?

LINK

none of which changes the fact that "I" and "we" and "organization" all have different legal meanings.
and as far as I know press statements do not carry any legal liability.

Your argument was that Trump was unaware and that maybe it was just the organization that knew. I just proved you wrong. But now you are saying that for some reason in the middle of this debate over whether Trump knew about the Russia business dealings, that you brought up a random tangent about the difference in the legal terms I, We, and Organization.......

Ok....

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

"The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected," Cohen said in a written statement. "In late January 2016, I abandoned the Moscow proposal because I lost confidence that the prospective licensee would be able to obtain the real estate, financing and government approvals necessary to bring the proposal to fruition," he added. "It was a building proposal that did not succeed and nothing more."

hmmm
the trump organization....
I wonder if trump always knows exactly all the projects the trump organization is working on at any particular time?

yeah you got him this time....
lol

Lol, hey man, if you think you shouting into the void how 'Not important' it is will have any legal standing for Trump in his defense against Mueller, then keep it up

hey man if you think perjury traps are the best strategy for a broken down special prosecutor then keep it up!

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that a 'perjury trap' is all that Mueller has or has been accumulating in this probe is insulting their own intelligence.

I think anyone uneducated enough to assume at face value that if mueller had anything on trump it wouldn't have already been leaked is insulting their own intelligence
that is what I think

I think anyone naive enough to assume that the least leaky probe in history would be leaking like a sieve if they had anything other than perjury (which in fact once again wasn't leaked, but rather came out through normal channels), is deliberately deluding themselves.

least leakiest eh?
lol
mama bird baby bird eh?
lol
wjla.com...
enjoy

That's the best you can do? Lol, well keep grasping for straws I guess. Coincidentally the 'leaks' (and I use that term loosely) in your article infer far more than just perjury, so by some masterful stroke of Trump style self ownage, you've managed to invalidate your own argument above.

least leakiest must have some other meaning in your world?
but I am sure you always post what you actually mean? right?

'

Today in class students we will be taking a look at what happens when an individual is backed into an indefensible position and therefore has to rely on semantic argumentation to feebly try and save face.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Trump himself is threatening to leak damaging information if the House investigates him.

Perhaps you need more assistance? When the ultimate classification authority changes a classification level and authorizes information to be released it is not a leak. You seem confused about that.

But I'm sure you are ok with that one? Plus, wasn't it you complaining that the Mueller investigation isn't leaky enough?

No, I posted that if mueller had anything it would have leaked like the other 25 leaks I sourced from the mueller investigation. So no complaints from me at all. You seem overly confused today.

I'm not going to be your history teacher but I will give you this tidbit. During the Watergate investigation, about 3 years in some in Congress got upset with the lack of evidence so they subpoenaed the investigation and asked for the evidence. The investigation complied and gave them reams and reams of evidence.

So you do understand it was a Senate investigation and not a Special council investigation? You would also understand there are different laws and rules and procedures for such?
So it is really NOTHING like watergate, except for the fact that msnbc likes to compare them. You watch much msnbc?
For some reason I think you might. Perhaps that is the issue?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: shooterbrody

Love how you just stick your head in the sand and try to pretend you can ignore this away.

It doesn't matter who that was to, the fact of the matter is that during the campaign Trump said he didn't have anything to do with Russia. Why would anyone openly lie about something that is completely legal? The answer is they wouldn't. Trump lied because he knew what he was doing was illegal and he wanted it hidden. Why did he send his 'fixer' to Russia to handle it? Why did his fixer lie to Congress about it?

Yep, those are definitely the actions of an innocent man. Definitely.

Enjoy the orange man while you can, he won't be there much longer.

At his first press conference as the President of the United States he stated he had no dealings with Russia. According to the court documents today, this is not true.

Trump: I have no dealing with Russia

Why would a man that has done nothing wrong go to such lengths to hide his legitimate business dealings? Why Brodie?

You should research the difference between "I" and "organization"
What he stated can actually be true.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't fly when the guy working the deal in Russia reports directly to Trump himself. Plus, the Trump organization is not a public company, it is privately owned by one Donald J Drumpf. So, you try that in a court of law and see how quickly you get laughed out.

It is not an argument. It is an actual fact.
I really don't care what you think will fly and what won't, as you have proven unreliable in your assumptions recently.
Definitions do matter in a court of law, no matter what you think.
trumps "I" in a press conference is not "the trump organization" no matter how much you would like it to be.

Oh, if it's a fact I assume you have a source that proves Trump didn't know anything about it. Right? Then why did he admit to it being his decision today?

“I didn’t do the project. I decided not to do the project, so I didn’t do it. So we’re not talking doing a project. We’re talking about not doing a project,”

Fact huh?

LINK

none of which changes the fact that "I" and "we" and "organization" all have different legal meanings.
and as far as I know press statements do not carry any legal liability.

Your argument was that Trump was unaware and that maybe it was just the organization that knew. I just proved you wrong. But now you are saying that for some reason in the middle of this debate over whether Trump knew about the Russia business dealings, that you brought up a random tangent about the difference in the legal terms I, We, and Organization.......

Ok....

no
I asked if trump would know the entire dealings of such organization. I did not state such.
nice try tho

a reply to: Wayfarer

No need to save face in a conversation with you.
You apparently do not understand what the words least leakiest mean.
Not really my problem.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

No need to save face in a conversation with you.
You apparently do not understand what the words least leakiest mean.
Not really my problem.

Well then I'll ask for an analysis of every other DOJ probe and an assessment on the number of leaks coming from each one in comparison. Just linking one side of your counter does nothing more than make you look more foolish, since it neither disproves my statement or proves yours. I appreciate the humor in the fact that you thought it did though.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal

Trump himself is threatening to leak damaging information if the House investigates him.

Perhaps you need more assistance? When the ultimate classification authority changes a classification level and authorizes information to be released it is not a leak. You seem confused about that.

But I'm sure you are ok with that one? Plus, wasn't it you complaining that the Mueller investigation isn't leaky enough?

No, I posted that if mueller had anything it would have leaked like the other 25 leaks I sourced from the mueller investigation. So no complaints from me at all. You seem overly confused today.

I'm not going to be your history teacher but I will give you this tidbit. During the Watergate investigation, about 3 years in some in Congress got upset with the lack of evidence so they subpoenaed the investigation and asked for the evidence. The investigation complied and gave them reams and reams of evidence.

So you do understand it was a Senate investigation and not a Special council investigation? You would also understand there are different laws and rules and procedures for such?
So it is really NOTHING like watergate, except for the fact that msnbc likes to compare them. You watch much msnbc?
For some reason I think you might. Perhaps that is the issue?

What? You didn't know that Watergate was run by a Special Prosecutor? Seriously?

Then who was this guy, Archibald Cox, that Nixon fired during the Saturday Night Massacre? I guess he was a Senator since it was a Senate investigation.......

My God, you aren't worth my time.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Well then I'll ask for an analysis of every other DOJ probe and an assessment on the number of leaks coming from each one in comparison.

Why
I wasn't the one who claimed it to be "the least leakiest" and then easily shown 25 leaks from such.
Perhaps you shouldn't deal so much in absolutes?
Or does "least leakiest" mean otherwise to you?

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: knoxie
how many times did he screech he didn't do any business with Russia??

it's going to fun seeing him try to backpedal. what a #ucking clown.

how about you quote any times he claimed not to do any business with Russia. I remember him doing things with Russia before he was a candidate. Trump Tower in Russia ring a bell? Hateoraid makes you sad stupid things.

Seriously?


6/26/2016

For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.

LINK

7/27/2016

“What do I have to do with Russia? You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach, Florida. Palm Beach is a very expensive place. There was a man who went bankrupt and I bought the house for $40 million and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million including brokerage commissions. So I sold it. So I bought it for 40, I sold it for 100 to a Russian. That was a number of years ago. I guess probably I sell condos to Russians, okay?”

Trump� �s claim that ‘I have nothing to do with Russia’

1/11/2017

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!

LINK

2/1/2017

I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1in terror, no problem!

LINK

2/16/2017

"Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to," Mr Trump said.

LINK

5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

en.wikipedia.org...

This is something the world already knows about and has for some time. Look at your link, second one. "Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years". You aren't very good at all this.

a reply to: BlackJackal

What? You didn't know that Watergate was run by a Special Prosecutor? Seriously?

What you didn't know mueller was a special council? And his investigation was from the doj and not a senate select committee?
In no way the same.

Quick civics lesson, the senate is not the department of justice.
The senate is part of the legislative branch, the department of justice is part of the executive branch.

My God, you aren't worth my time.

wow
the gall from someone who doesn't know the difference between the legislative and executive branches of government

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: knoxie
how many times did he screech he didn't do any business with Russia??

it's going to fun seeing him try to backpedal. what a #ucking clown.

how about you quote any times he claimed not to do any business with Russia. I remember him doing things with Russia before he was a candidate. Trump Tower in Russia ring a bell? Hateoraid makes you sad stupid things.

Seriously?


6/26/2016

For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia.

LINK

7/27/2016

“What do I have to do with Russia? You know the closest I came to Russia, I bought a house a number of years ago in Palm Beach, Florida. Palm Beach is a very expensive place. There was a man who went bankrupt and I bought the house for $40 million and I sold it to a Russian for $100 million including brokerage commissions. So I sold it. So I bought it for 40, I sold it for 100 to a Russian. That was a number of years ago. I guess probably I sell condos to Russians, okay?”

Trump� �s claim that ‘I have nothing to do with Russia’

1/11/2017

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!

LINK

2/1/2017

I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1in terror, no problem!

LINK

2/16/2017

"Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to," Mr Trump said.

LINK

5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

en.wikipedia.org...

This is something the world already knows about and has for some time. Look at your link, second one. "Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years". You aren't very good at all this.

So, you ask for quotes when Trump denied business dealings with Russia. I give you multiple examples and then you accuse me of not being very good at something? Are you well? You sure you don't need to see a doctor?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well then I'll ask for an analysis of every other DOJ probe and an assessment on the number of leaks coming from each one in comparison.

Why
I wasn't the one who claimed it to be "the least leakiest" and then easily shown 25 leaks from such.
Perhaps you shouldn't deal so much in absolutes?
Or does "least leakiest" mean otherwise to you?

Ok, time for a logic lesson. 'Least' implies less than. You didn't show any comparative analysis, you just linked an article on purported leaks. To prove me wrong you have to show that there are other DOJ probes that have leaked less. If this is the hill you want to die on you'll have to now spend some time digging through other DOJ probe's (but it sounds like you've got plenty of free time to do so).

a reply to: BlackJackal

Dude, people are trying to gaslight you like crazy. Even when blatant evidence is staring them directly in the face. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone on ATS draw this kind of response.

Whatever you’re doing, keep it up. That’s a good sign.

a reply to: Wayfarer

least /lēst/Submit determiner & pronoun
1. smallest in amount, extent, or significance. "who has the least money?" synonyms: slightest, smallest, minutest, tiniest, littlest "I have not the least idea what this means"
adverb 1. to the smallest extent or degree. "my best number was the one I had practiced the least"

yeah that in no way is an absolute term....