HawkShack.com

Well it is just minutes before Cohen starts on capitol hill today in a dog and pony show. My prediction is that the dems and media are going to try and blow up the Stormy Daniels payment as something that was illegal. Just remember, that is old news and as I pointed out when it was revealed, it is not illegal.

The payment was from Trump's personal account for a settlement of a dispute before he ever ran for president. So what would the alternative be? Pay it from his campaign fund. That would be a problem since it would be argued that he is paying personal debts from his campaign funds.

Second, Cohen is going to say that Trump knew that Roger Stone was in contact with Assange on the Wikileaks dump of DNC emails. Again, not illegal in any way AND it is not supported by any intel which would surely exist if it came from Assange and the embassy he is holed up in.

Third, you will hear Cohen say that he suspects a lot of things about Trump but actually has no evidence or proof of anything. You will hear him say that Trump never told him to lie, never heard him collude or conspire with anyone.

A lot of accusations will come from today but remember, if any of it was usable, Mueller would already have it and would have prevented Cohen from testifying. The mere fact that Mueller is letting him testify shows that none of what he says is solid enough for the Mueller report.

I've got two buckets of popcorn ready for today, how about you?

idhawkman wrote: My prediction is that the dems and media are going to try and blow up the Stormy Daniels payment as something that was illegal.

More predictions, huh? What's your batting average? Since you're now resorting to subjective statements for your prognostications, it sure looks to me like you're trying to pad your record.

idhawkman wrote:I've got two buckets of popcorn ready for today, how about you?

I don't like watching live testimony. It's too much about individual congressmen from both sides of the aisle looking to get a 10 or 15 second sound byte on national TV. I'll read/watch the results after the dust settles. I'll watch a virtual split screen this afternoon, one side showing MSNBC and one from Fox, later today when I go to the gym, then read my custom news feed tomorrow morning.

One thing I did find despicable was that pompous ass of a Congressman and Trump lap dog Matt Gaetz threatening and intimidating a witness with very personal comments about Cohen and his family. He needs to be reprimanded for those remarks.

RiverDog wrote:More predictions, huh? What's your batting average? Since you're now resorting to subjective statements for your prognostications, it sure looks to me like you're trying to pad your record.

Actually very good but you only remember the two that I didn't get right.

I don't like watching live testimony. It's too much about individual congressmen from both sides of the aisle looking to get a 10 or 15 second sound byte on national TV. I'll read/watch the results after the dust settles. I'll watch a virtual split screen this afternoon, one side showing MSNBC and one from Fox, later today when I go to the gym, then read my custom news feed tomorrow morning.

One thing I did find despicable was that pompous ass of a Congressman and Trump lap dog Matt Gaetz threatening and intimidating a witness with very personal comments about Cohen and his family. He needs to be reprimanded for those remarks.

Novel, I totally disagree. Cohen's credibility is highly in question. Cohen in his opening statement brought his wife and family into the discussion (a copy of his statement was available to Gaetz) where he said he would do anything to protect his wife, kids and family. What Gaetz was getting to was whether or not he's lied to them along with the banks, IRS, congress and all the others. He's trying to hide behind his family and Gaetz's questions are to refute that camoflage.

I read the testimony. I could have given this testimony from reading the papers. He literally provided absolutely no new information. It's just Cohen grandstanding against Trump trying to garner sympathy and confirming the payments to women we already knew about while just parroting what has been in the papers. Cohen doesn't seem credible at all. He seems like a pathetic and weak man trying to save his own hide and garner sympathy.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I read the testimony. I could have given this testimony from reading the papers. He literally provided absolutely no new information. It's just Cohen grandstanding against Trump trying to garner sympathy and confirming the payments to women we already knew about while just parroting what has been in the papers. Cohen doesn't seem credible at all. He seems like a pathetic and weak man trying to save his own hide and garner sympathy.

I haven't seen the testimony yet, but don't blame Cohen for the act of testifying. It was Congress that called him to testify, Cohen simply agreed.

And I agree that Cohen is not a credible witness, at least not unless he has something to support his testimony. He's going to need corroborating testimony from other witnesses or some sort of tangible evidence to make him believable.

I’m sorry but this is pretty damning testimony. He’s under oath; what benefit does he have for lying to Congress? He’s going to prison for lying for Trump. Trump is screwed. And he’s a disgrace to the country.

RiverDog wrote:I haven't seen the testimony yet, but don't blame Cohen for the act of testifying. It was Congress that called him to testify, Cohen simply agreed.

And I agree that Cohen is not a credible witness, at least not unless he has something to support his testimony. He's going to need corroborating testimony from other witnesses or some sort of tangible evidence to make him believable.

Cohen has copies of the checks, which we already knew. He just pretty much reiterated nearly everything we see in the papers. From what I read, it was just another gigantic waste of time and money that did nothing but reiterate all the previously known material which doesn't look like impeachable material. I wish they would either get to doing something real or stop rehashing all this previously known material. It's like how many times can we see it proven he paid off women. How many times can we see it insinuated there was some kind of meeting or discussion about information release. How much does this matter when Hilary paid for exactly the same thing with the Steele Dossier. Are they just rehashing this stuff for election reasons or do they have actionable material that won't put themselves in the crosshairs?

That's what all this seems like to me. They're trying to find something that will be unique to Trump and won't screw a bunch of powerful people in Washington for doing the same thing.

Stream Hawk wrote:I’m sorry but this is pretty damning testimony. He’s under oath; what benefit does he have for lying to Congress? He’s going to prison for lying for Trump. Trump is screwed. And he’s a disgrace to the country.

What part of it wasn't already known? As far as lying, what did he say that was an absolute fact? I haven't read anything other than confirming the payments to women with copies of checks and some he may have done this or I think he did this or he is capable of doing this. It would be nice if you post something like this to actually post what part was new and damning more than we already know.

Not sure if these are new, asea, but he was called to testify. It is damning because the world is seeing what a liar, conman and racist that he is.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics ... index.html

Stream Hawk wrote:Not sure if these are new, asea, but he was called to testify. It is damning because the world is seeing what a liar, conman and racist that he is.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics ... index.html

Racist??

Stream Hawk wrote:I’m sorry but this is pretty damning testimony. He’s under oath; what benefit does he have for lying to Congress? He’s going to prison for lying for Trump. Trump is screwed. And he’s a disgrace to the country.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What part of it wasn't already known? As far as lying, what did he say that was an absolute fact? I haven't read anything other than confirming the payments to women with copies of checks and some he may have done this or I think he did this or he is capable of doing this. It would be nice if you post something like this to actually post what part was new and damning more than we already know.

It's not "damming" testimony, but it is damaging. What I mean by that is that ASF is correct, that there really isn't anything that we didn't already know that was revealed and there's no smoking gun that could be used in impeachment proceedings. But the testimony is damaging to Trump. It can't help not to be. He was just accused of being a racist, a liar, and a cheat on national TV, and it came from a long time associate from his inner circle that once said he'd take a bullet for Trump. That's significant, and it's why the Dems were all too happy to provide him with a stage.

I can't believe Cohen's accusations, but nor can I believe Donald Trump's denials. Both are proven liars.

Well put, River. I always look to you for insightful opinions. Football and real life! I’m a very left leaning environmental scientist, but am also open-minded.

I believe today’s testimony is probably more damaging than damning. This doesn’t help him, that’s for sure. As I said earlier, what does Cohen have to gain from lying. His dignity and credibility, sure, but why lie to Congress when he’s trying to reduce his sentence? All this on the national/global stage is quite damaging to his already tainted reputation.

Stream Hawk wrote:Not sure if these are new, asea, but he was called to testify. It is damning because the world is seeing what a liar, conman and racist that he is.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/27/politics ... index.html

None of that is new. Every Republican president in my lifetime has been called a racist. Liar and conman are obvious when he's basically a salesman. So no, not new.

I was thinking more of charges. It seems like every single hearing and witness is either rehashing what we already know or dredging up some crime that witness's past. Cohen has a bunch of crimes he did on his own, yet here he is trying to leverage the spotlight and his association with Trump to escape his other crimes. It's like the Democrats are just having these dog and pony shows hoping for something new and damning,but it doesn't show up.

Bottom line is it is highly unlikely that Trump is impeached for paying off women. Even the Dems know this. It has to be something worse.

RiverDog wrote:It's not "damming" testimony, but it is damaging. What I mean by that is that ASF is correct, that there really isn't anything that we didn't already know that was revealed and there's no smoking gun that could be used in impeachment proceedings. But the testimony is damaging to Trump. It can't help not to be. He was just accused of being a racist, a liar, and a cheat on national TV, and it came from a long time associate from his inner circle that once said he'd take a bullet for Trump. That's significant, and it's why the Dems were all too happy to provide him with a stage.

I can't believe Cohen's accusations, but nor can I believe Donald Trump's denials. Both are proven liars.

Be for real. Cohen's testimony was no more damaging than the near constant refrain we've had from the press that Trump is a racist, liar, and a con man. I could have given that testimony from reading the papers.

If this testimony had come and the press had not already been beating me over the head for the past three years with the same accusations, then I would be "oh, maybe that's something." We've literally been beat over the head with the same accusations that Cohen made for going on three years. His testimony seemed like nothing more than what I've heard over and over and over again. Trump reputation as far as those three terms go cannot go any lower unless they put someone like Donald Jr. on the stand with specific comments. Cohen didn't even say Trump used racial epithets which would have been more damning than what they listed, which is probably said by piles of Democrats too.

Sorry, man. I don't agree with you if this if this best Cohen has got. The press has made Cohen's testimony seem like a pop gun because they've been blasting the same accusations at us for three years or more.

I wish something truly damning would come out. This is just more BS. It is literally like Cohen constructed his testimony from what he actually knew about with the women payments and the newspapers. I literally could have written that testimony myself. Hawktawk would have been as credible as Cohen given the utter lack of hard evidence. Hearsay from a liar like Cohen will stand up in court about as well as wet toilet paper in a tornado.

They had better get Trump for more than this or this will all be just a giant waste of taxpayer money and make the Dems look weak.

Every Republican president in my lifetime has been called a racist.

*Candidate*. They called Bush, McCain, and Romney the same and much, much worse.

It's why they've regrettably rendered the charge a punchline- real racists are vanishingly rare, but they do exist. But when the Modern Left is yelling "UR RAYCISS" at every damn crack in the sidewalk, it's impossible for reasonable people to take it seriously anymore, much to the detriment of actual victims of it.

Stream Hawk wrote:Well put, River. I always look to you for insightful opinions. Football and real life! I’m a very left leaning environmental scientist, but am also open-minded.

Thanks for the props, Stream! I hope that you continue to throw your two cents worth into this side of The Shack. Although it does get out of hand from time to time, it's a good place for us to exercise our thought process.

Stream Hawk wrote:I believe today’s testimony is probably more damaging than damning. This doesn’t help him, that’s for sure. As I said earlier, what does Cohen have to gain from lying. His dignity and credibility, sure, but why lie to Congress when he’s trying to reduce his sentence? All this on the national/global stage is quite damaging to his already tainted reputation.

What Cohen has to gain from lying to Congress is that if he cooperates with the investigation, he's going to get a lighter sentence or have a better chance for early parole, so there's a motivation for him to tell the people asking the questions what they want to hear. Congress may not have the power to influence Cohen's sentencing, but Cohen knows his testimony before them is going to have to align with that he has given to Mueller and the SDNY. There's also the possibility that he's reacting to the name calling Trump and others have done to him and that this is just one giant food fight.

I'm not saying that Cohen hasn't suddenly come to Jesus, done a John Dean and has decided to purge his soul by telling the truth, but given the fact that he's a convicted liar, we simply can't make that assumption.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Be for real. Cohen's testimony was no more damaging than the near constant refrain we've had from the press that Trump is a racist, liar, and a con man. I could have given that testimony from reading the papers.

This is different. This isn't an appearance on CNN or Fox, it's an appearance in front of Congress and with it, every single news source in the world, most of whom carried much of the testimony live. If nothing else, it was a distraction of Trump's summit with Kim, something that would normally give him a big bump in the polls and make him look presidential.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If this testimony had come and the press had not already been beating me over the head for the past three years with the same accusations, then I would be "oh, maybe that's something."

That's your opinion, and I'm not saying you're wrong. But what you are not recognizing is that there is about 12-15% of the public who's opinion on DJT fluctuates, which is why his poll numbers bounce around. By keeping testimony like this in the public eye, the Dems are keeping the pressure on Trump and the R's as they line up for 2020. In this specific case, they are denying him a victory in the Kim summit.

Every Republican president in my lifetime has been called a racist.

burrrton wrote:*Candidate*. They called Bush, McCain, and Romney the same and much, much worse.

It's why they've regrettably rendered the charge a punchline- real racists are vanishingly rare, but they do exist. But when the Modern Left is yelling "UR RAYCISS" at every damn crack in the sidewalk, it's impossible for reasonable people to take it seriously anymore, much to the detriment of actual victims of it.

That's true. But each party has had the problem of pitching such a big tent that it provides cover for those they don't want to be associated with. That's why when the R's have an opportunity to put some distance between themselves and the bona fide racists, like Trump failed to do while on the bully pulpit with his totally inadequate reaction to Charlottesville, they have to do so with great vigor, more so than any Dem, which don't have the same kind of fleas that the R's have.

That's one of the reasons why Cohen's testimony is so damaging. When someone that's been in Trump's inner circles for decades, that once said he would take a bullet for Trump, calls him a racist, gives some examples, and does so in front of a world wide audience, it plays right into the narrative that the Dems have been using in their playbook for decades. It doesn't have to be true to have an effect.

Stream Hawk wrote:I’m sorry but this is pretty damning testimony. He’s under oath; what benefit does he have for lying to Congress? He’s going to prison for lying for Trump. Trump is screwed. And he’s a disgrace to the country.

He was under oath the first time he testified, too. Now he's trying to get out of jail with his testimony. Which one do you believe? Neither! This did nothing but help Trump.

The Russian collusion story is now dead.

Summary to date:

Saving Hilliary to win the election didn't work so
They moved on to having Comey and the FBI cook up a story to impeach him But Comey got fired so
They appointed Mueller to dig up dirt on the president so they could impeach him but Mueller failed so
They are trying to get the SDNY to scrounge around in his finances to find something to impeach him on but

That won't work either. That's the last 2+ years of wasted taxpayer dollars that could have been spent on building the wall or reducing the deficit.

RiverDog wrote:It's not "damming" testimony, but it is damaging. What I mean by that is that ASF is correct, that there really isn't anything that we didn't already know that was revealed and there's no smoking gun that could be used in impeachment proceedings. But the testimony is damaging to Trump. It can't help not to be. He was just accused of being a racist, a liar, and a cheat on national TV, and it came from a long time associate from his inner circle that once said he'd take a bullet for Trump. That's significant, and it's why the Dems were all too happy to provide him with a stage.

I can't believe Cohen's accusations, but nor can I believe Donald Trump's denials. Both are proven liars.

I know you won't believe this but I disagree with it being damaging, I think it actually helped Trump a lot.

1. The whole racism thing was debunked by the lady standing with Mark Meadows during the questioning of Cohen and then really emphasized by the racist comments made by the freshman congresswoman from Michigan in her accusations that Meadows was putting on a show. That totally backfired on the dems.

2. So the guy going to jail for lying to congress calls the president a liar but has no proof of any of the accusations that he made against the President. I don't think that is having any effect on the president at all.

3. A cheat? at what? His taxes - Cohen said he never saw them. At business - he had nothing to show that he has cheated there. With other women - we already knew that before we elected him. We didn't elect him to be a boy scout (which many are not that saintly either), we elected him to do what he was trying to do in Hanoi.

So I don't see where this hurt him at all but I do see where the Dems questioned Cohen on collusion and Cohen flatly refuted all of the allegations which effectively put the collusion hoax to bed.

The American public are seeing what is happening and they are moving more and more to Trump - you can see it in the polls.

Trump is working toward effective border security. He requested enough money to fund the top 10 priorities submitted to him by border patrol but the dems didn't want to fund the wall portion. Suburban women are moving more toward Trump in the latest polls because of this. Over 60% of the American population want the wall built now.

Trump is trying to negotiate a nuclear peace treaty with N. Korea but at the same time, the dems are hauling a known liar in front of congress to try and damage him at the same time to lessen any good news that would have come from those meetings.

Trump is growing the economy in 2018 at 2.6% growth even with the fed raising rates (economists are predicting when the revisions come out it will be over 3%) while the dems are promoting a green new deal that will kill the economy not to mention the sharp move left to socialism.

Trump is working to reduce drug costs while the dems are embracing infanticide.

By the time 2020 rolls around, the choice for president is going to be a landslide for Trump like the second term of Reagan was.

burrrton wrote:
*Candidate*. They called Bush, McCain, and Romney the same and much, much worse.

It's why they've regrettably rendered the charge a punchline- real racists are vanishingly rare, but they do exist. But when the Modern Left is yelling "UR RAYCISS" at every damn crack in the sidewalk, it's impossible for reasonable people to take it seriously anymore, much to the detriment of actual victims of it.

Totally agree with this. I have also noticed something strange lately in that every protest gathering of people claiming racism is mostly being made up now of white people. I find that a bit odd. Why aren't more black people in the crowd yelling it? Are they possibly starting to see through the charade of how the Dems keep them down with their programs as opposed to how Trump is lifting them up with the current economy and jobs in their community? Inquiring minds want to know.

RiverDog wrote: If nothing else, it was a distraction of Trump's summit with Kim, something that would normally give him a big bump in the polls and make him look presidential.

And that is the real issue that the dems wanted but Trump trumped them again by walking away from a bad deal that didn't include ALL of their nuclear program. Reminds us of what happened in Reykjavik 30 some odd years ago with Reagan and Gorbachev.

That's your opinion, and I'm not saying you're wrong. But what you are not recognizing is that there is about 12-15% of the public who's opinion on DJT fluctuates, which is why his poll numbers bounce around. By keeping testimony like this in the public eye, the Dems are keeping the pressure on Trump and the R's as they line up for 2020. In this specific case, they are denying him a victory in the Kim summit.

This is old news already but the border wall is still front and center so the 12-15% is not going to move on this testimony at all. Especially after Trump did what he did in Hanoi. This may just hurt the dems tremendously as it is seen for what it is.

It doesn't have to be true to have an effect.

That's the thing. I don't think there *is* an appreciable effect anymore.

The same people that were hollering it beforehand will feel vindicated, but they were going to continue regardless, rationalizing any evidence to the contrary as a "prop" or "Uncle Tom". It's completely trite and as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I have also noticed something strange lately in that every protest gathering of people claiming racism is mostly being made up now of white people. I find that a bit odd.

Virtue Signaling 101. They bought the line that (a) they should feel guilty about the shade of their skin, and (b) people with darker skin are less capable so need the lighter-skinned people to help them.

I have also noticed something strange lately in that every protest gathering of people claiming racism is mostly being made up now of white people. I find that a bit odd.

burrrton wrote:Virtue Signaling 101. They bought the line that (a) they should feel guilty about the shade of their skin, and (b) people with darker skin are less capable so need the lighter-skinned people to help them.

Agree 1000%!

And I have some very good examples: There is a higher percentage of white people that are offended by the black face scandal than there are blacks. Blacks are more likely to forgive them than are whites. All the polls regarding the nickname "Redskins" that have been taken for decades consistently show that 70-80% of those that identify themselves as a Native Americans do not feel the nickname is offensive. Whites are much more likely to be offended by it than are NA's.

It's the politically correct left that insists that we adapt some sort of shame for our heritage.

RiverDog wrote: If nothing else, it was a distraction of Trump's summit with Kim, something that would normally give him a big bump in the polls and make him look presidential.

idhawkman wrote:And that is the real issue that the dems wanted but Trump trumped them again by walking away from a bad deal that didn't include ALL of their nuclear program. Reminds us of what happened in Reykjavik 30 some odd years ago with Reagan and Gorbachev.

I'm glad he walked out. He probably should have walked out of their first meeting as all he's achieved is to piss off S. Korea and Japan, but I'll admit that I'm employing 20/20 hindsight. Trump's walking out on the summit is going to put a lot of pressure on Kim.

RiverDog wrote:That's your opinion, and I'm not saying you're wrong. But what you are not recognizing is that there is about 12-15% of the public who's opinion on DJT fluctuates, which is why his poll numbers bounce around. By keeping testimony like this in the public eye, the Dems are keeping the pressure on Trump and the R's as they line up for 2020. In this specific case, they are denying him a victory in the Kim summit.

idhawkman wrote:This is old news already but the border wall is still front and center so the 12-15% is not going to move on this testimony at all. Especially after Trump did what he did in Hanoi. This may just hurt the dems tremendously as it is seen for what it is.

The only news I've seen this week regarding the border wall was them dismantling the prototypes. Other than that, the last two days has been nothing but the Cohen testimony and the summit.

Whether a person agrees with him or not on immigration, Trump really needs to move away from the border wall for at least a few weeks as he's risking defining himself as a one issue candidate in 2020. His infatuation with the border wall makes him look a lot like McGovern and his preoccupation with Vietnam.

RiverDog wrote:That's your opinion, and I'm not saying you're wrong. But what you are not recognizing is that there is about 12-15% of the public who's opinion on DJT fluctuates, which is why his poll numbers bounce around. By keeping testimony like this in the public eye, the Dems are keeping the pressure on Trump and the R's as they line up for 2020. In this specific case, they are denying him a victory in the Kim summit.

We'll see. I'm sick of the whole debacle. Piss or get off the pot as far as I'm concerned. Do they have enough to impeach yet or not? I don't get it. This Cohen stuff is absolutely nothing new at all. It is literally what has been reported for over a year or two and pushed in the press. Where's the new, actionable material?

You know as well as I do that a character witness like Cohen is worthless to prosecutors without hard evidence. His credibility is so shot that who would trust him? He's committed so many crimes other than what Trump is accused of that he's going to be in court for years and any lawyer fresh out of law school would have no trouble showing this man would lie to save his own ass. He's basically a worthless candidate.

Even someone like me that doesn't like Trump as president can see Cohen's testimony as mostly worthless. He's a lawyer that worked for Trump whose claim to fame is paying off a couple of women to keep silent during the Trump campaign who committed numerous crimes of his own and possibly crimes for other rich and powerful people. Is he going to sell more people down the river? How deep will this snake pit go with Cohen? Who else was he working with that might not be as kind as Trump to him. Cohen is so dirty that only people already wanting to see Trump fall would even look at him as much.

Even CNN when I went there could only manage a few talking points that might go somewhere and CNN hates Trump.

RiverDog wrote:Agree 1000%!

And I have some very good examples: There is a higher percentage of white people that are offended by the black face scandal than there are blacks. Blacks are more likely to forgive them than are whites. All the polls regarding the nickname "Redskins" that have been taken for decades consistently show that 70-80% of those that identify themselves as a Native Americans do not feel the nickname is offensive. Whites are much more likely to be offended by it than are NA's.

It's the politically correct left that insists that we adapt some sort of shame for our heritage.

We all know the left is eating themselves with this SJW garbage.

Folk of African descent I know don't even think about words like triggered, micro-aggressions, and other stupid pscycho-babble terms. They're too busy living to waste time with left wing trash. If it weren't for the economics of the ghetto and the brazen racists in the right, I have little doubt the majority of African ancestry folk would probably move right.

The wall is still front and center. As you mentioned, they tore down the wall to put up the permanent one since they no longer need the temps/prototypes. Also, you may not recognize it, but every story about Venezuela is about the wall. I know that Washington State is now more left than California or Oregon per the recent polls, which might be camouflaging the issue from you but the majority of fly over country recognizes that the caravans are coming from Venezuela along with Honduras, etc.

On a separate note, it is pretty funny that Cohen got two more criminal referrals from Congress this morning for perjury.

1. When they showed a CNN interview right after the election where he stated that he 100% would follow Trump to Washington DC and would accept a role in the administration.
2. Where he didn't disclose his foreign contracts on the paper that was brought up.

I can't believe Lanny Davis put him up to this and re-jeopardized his client to the full extent of the 70 years he already is subject to. He should have taken the 3 years and shut up and did his time. He had much much more to lose by going to Congress the last 3 days when he knew he was being used as a puppet and it would not just ruffle the repubs because Trump was in Hanoi but it would raise their full IRE. Lanny did him no favors. I can't really lay blame on Cohen as I don't think much of him as a lawyer anyways and doubt he even thought about it being a bad idea. SMDH in amazement.

idhawkman wrote:The wall is still front and center. As you mentioned, they tore down the wall to put up the permanent one since they no longer need the temps/prototypes. Also, you may not recognize it, but every story about Venezuela is about the wall. I know that Washington State is now more left than California or Oregon per the recent polls, which might be camouflaging the issue from you but the majority of fly over country recognizes that the caravans are coming from Venezuela along with Honduras, etc.

On a separate note, it is pretty funny that Cohen got two more criminal referrals from Congress this morning for perjury.

1. When they showed a CNN interview right after the election where he stated that he 100% would follow Trump to Washington DC and would accept a role in the administration.
2. Where he didn't disclose his foreign contracts on the paper that was brought up.

I can't believe Lanny Davis put him up to this and re-jeopardized his client to the full extent of the 70 years he already is subject to. He should have taken the 3 years and shut up and did his time. He had much much more to lose by going to Congress the last 3 days when he knew he was being used as a puppet and it would not just ruffle the repubs because Trump was in Hanoi but it would raise their full IRE. Lanny did him no favors. I can't really lay blame on Cohen as I don't think much of him as a lawyer anyways and doubt he even thought about it being a bad idea. SMDH in amazement.

One of the bigger things of note with this so called close "confidante" of Trump is even he couldn't confirm Trump uses racial epithets. How you going to call this guy a racist and not even confirm he uses racial epithets? Just dumb. Cohen has to be one of the most pathetic men I've seen.

Aseahawkfan wrote:One of the bigger things of note with this so called close "confidante" of Trump is even he couldn't confirm Trump uses racial epithets. How you going to call this guy a racist and not even confirm he uses racial epithets? Just dumb. Cohen has to be one of the most pathetic men I've seen.

Is it a requirement of being a racist that one must use racial epithets?

Like you, I do find it odd that Cohen couldn't confirm Trump's use of racial epithets, especially in light of the fact that we already know that Trump uses if not racial epithets, some very insensitive mockery and offensive language towards minorities, such as his frequent references to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" or his "sh!thole" countries comments.

I agree with your characterization of Cohen as being "pathetic". But when the primary requirement for such a position is that you be willing to sell your soul to the Devil and considering the lack of ethical and moral qualities of the man who hired him and who he spent years working for, it shouldn't be a surprise.

I love how the apologists for Trump are calling Cohen a liar. #1 Trump has told over 7000 provable falsehoods during his presidency. #2 who did Cohen do the appreciable amount of his lying for ? DONALD TRUMP THAT'S WHO!!!!The disconnect with the trumptard zombie army marchers is amazing. Cohen does come across as an oily slimy used car salesman type of hack lawyer.It doesn't mean hes incapable of coming to jesus or telling the truth and he didn't come back to the congress and sit and lie for 8 hours. If even a quarter of it is true real patriotic americans back in the day would have demanded Trump's immediate ouster..

Cohen is just the type of person the man who only picks "the best people" surrounded himself with his entire life.And I'm not so deeply in love with Trump I can't remember his 25 minute rant in front of a bunch of military leaders the morning Cohen got raided calling the raid a "disgrace to our country"saying FBI agents "broke into his office" and calling Cohen a "good man". Yes the hypocrisy and the head in the sand mentality of the trumpies is in full display. So is the dumbing down of our national institutions, the dignity of the office, the smoking crater where the rule of law once existed.

But here's a few newsworthy items. Cohen had signed checks from Trump and Jr as well as Alan Weisberg paying his campaign finance and tax fraud felony reimbursements during the time Trump was in office. How Goddam dumb was that of trump to actually sign a check? Never mind Jr writing a check to reimburse this fraudulent scheme to cover for the man who was screwing around on his stepmom.

I really don't care how many in this forum Pooh Pooh this issue. The man is going to jail for 3 years for something its clear Trump directed him to do and actively participated in reimbuirsing him for while in office and there is a blatantly obvious paper trail as well as tape recordings. This isn't John Edwards situation at all. And it's in the purvey of SDNY which is a criminal investigation, not a special counsel writing a report for Barr to make go away or redact into oblivion.

Ivanka and Jay Sekulow, cartoon figure poster child for the blindly loyal Evangelical cult, EDITED taking points for Cohens perjured testimony regarding Trump Tower Moscow that Cohen has pled guilty to.That's suborning perjury.

Cohen also made it clear that Trump was well aware of the status of the negotiations as was Don Jr. who also perjured himself before congress and that in fact Trump had asked him about the progress at least a half a dozen separate times while telling the american people he had "nothing with Russia".. The allegations about Stones callto Trump regarding Wikileaks being ready to do a "massive dump of emails" and Don Jrs statements regarding the Trump tower meeting depends on which liar you want to believe, Cohen or the Liar in chief.Based on the President praising Wikileaks numerous times from the stump and also imploring Russia to find Hillary's Emails It's pretty easy for me to figure out who might be telling the truth on that one...

Trump had him threaten people maybe 500 times with legal action including threatening his places of higher learning not to release his sat scores, grades etc. Trump played games with his net worth, when filing insurance claims it was less and when trying to buy the buffalo bills it was more. These things done with knowledge and intent are crimes.

Trump is under investigation by SDNY for other undisclosed matters Cohen could say existed but did not detail. Maybe Trump cant be indicted, there have been reports that SDNY would already have if they could and its possible there will be a sealed indictment waiting for his time in office to expire. MOF the NY attorney general has now subpoenaed records for the Inaugural committee as well as SDNY which is already investigating it. Without a doubt the biggest criminal ever to infest the oval office whatever one thinks of his governance.

As for Trump being an absolute racist no that wasn't news at all. Its clear to any objective person that he is a total racist which his use of racial epithets having been documented by former staffers and from racist comments coming from his own mouth. But there will be those blind deaf and DUMB people who will debate that as well.

Cohen already has a book at the publishers. What an opportunistic scumbag he is. Cohen is a movie-level scumbag lawyer, just using every opportunity he can to make money and save his own ass.

RiverDog wrote:Is it a requirement of being a racist that one must use racial epithets?

No, not an absolute requirement. But given Trump's bombastic, outspoken, rude nature, you'd think if he were actually a racist people would be coming out of the woodwork talking about his use of racial epithets.

I can pull out many times Trump's helped folk of African descent. I can point to many friends of his and folks he's helped succeed. I can point to people on his show that have promoted his name. In essence, for a guy termed a racist, he sure seems to have done a lot more to prove he's not a racist than his enemies have produced proof that he is a racist.

And I just read Cohen already has a book at a publisher ready to sell. Man, this guy Cohen is ridiculous. Talk about miking the spotlight for all its worth.

Most of the folks calling him racist do so for the actions for people other than Trump that he barely knows because they media associated those people with Trump or took his comments out of context to paint him as a racist. Trump's actions in regards to folk of varying descents indicate otherwise. I've always believed actions speak louder than words. Words can be manipulated or twisted, actions are what they are.

RiverDog wrote:Is it a requirement of being a racist that one must use racial epithets?

Aseahawkfan wrote:No, not an absolute requirement. But given Trump's bombastic, outspoken, rude nature, you'd think if he were actually a racist people would be coming out of the woodwork talking about his use of racial epithets.

Racial epithets are not a requirement at all, especially nowadays when it is unacceptable to the majority of whites as well as blacks.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I can pull out many times Trump's helped folk of African descent. I can point to many friends of his and folks he's helped succeed. I can point to people on his show that have promoted his name. In essence, for a guy termed a racist, he sure seems to have done a lot more to prove he's not a racist than his enemies have produced proof that he is a racist.

Once again, the fact that he might have helped blacks out or even if he has blacks in his inner circle does not mean he's not a racist.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And I just read Cohen already has a book at a publisher ready to sell. Man, this guy Cohen is ridiculous. Talk about miking the spotlight for all its worth.

I'm not defending Cohen because I do believe he is a snake, but EVERY administration since Roosevelt has had several associates write kiss and tell books, some flattering, some not. I would have been shocked had Cohen not been engaged in writing a book. It's the only way he's going to be able to feed his family. Heck,10 years from now, Hollywood will probably make a movie based off his book.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Most of the folks calling him racist do so for the actions for people other than Trump that he barely knows because they media associated those people with Trump or took his comments out of context to paint him as a racist. Trump's actions in regards to folk of varying descents indicate otherwise. I've always believed actions speak louder than words. Words can be manipulated or twisted, actions are what they are.

Sorry, I still believe he's a racist. His own lawyer, Rudy G., said that Trump asked him how he could institute a Muslim ban. His immigration policy IMO is extremely racist. The whole birther movement he started against Obama.

RiverDog wrote:Sorry, I still believe he's a racist. His own lawyer, Rudy G., said that Trump asked him how he could institute a Muslim ban. His immigration policy IMO is extremely racist. The whole birther movement he started against Obama.

What you believe and what you have evidence of differ. You mostly have words. His actions are in line with what other presidents have done save perhaps finally trying to enforce border policy.

He did not start the birther movement, he merely built a name off it. How is that any different than the Democrats labeling every Republican candidate a racist or calling it the RepubliKKKan party?

Was Obama a racist? He implemented the same travel ban as Trump and the media didn't build it up as a Muslim ban. Just because the media spun some garbage up using Giuliani's pretty obvious poor public speaking doesn't mean it is true.

Just like the same kids were being taken away at the border for a very legitimate reasons. Crickets from the media. It happens while Trump is in office and suddenly Trump is taking kids from the parents.

Sorry, man, you're falling for BS from the media. Spun stories to fit a narrative they constantly push against every Republican candidate in my lifetime.

I don't believe Trump is any kind of racist meaning he wants some return to 'white power" standards or the antebellum South. He might be a New York racist meaning people should stick with their own, but I don't even know if that is true.

Seems more to me you're buying the narrative they're selling and are unwilling to look much deeper because in your mind Trump's a "spoiled rich kid" you don't like. All I can say is at least you're not as much of a loon as Hawktawk.

Cohen's still opportunistic scum with a book deal already and lacks much credibility at all. His testimony provided no revelations that I had not already read. All I was left wondering was who else did this guy piss off and will they let him live. He's such a slimy guy that he might have associations with organized crime. They will treat him far worse than Trump.

Once again, the fact that he might have helped blacks out or even if he has blacks in his inner circle does not mean he's not a racist.

So if someone never uses racial epithets, helps minorities out, hires minorities, has minorities in their inner circle, and so on, what DOES demonstrate someone isn't a racist?

I don't know if Trump is or isn't, but this is starting to remind me of all the other times Republicans are accused of being racists- all it takes is somebody to level the charge, then no amount of proof to the contrary is sufficient to disprove it.

His own lawyer, Rudy G., said that Trump asked him how he could institute a Muslim ban. His immigration policy IMO is extremely racist. The whole birther movement he started against Obama.

*sigh*

"Muslim" isn't a race, his immigration policy is virtually identical to every other POTUS', and he didn't start the "birther" nonsense (although, to be fair, I *do* think there's a racial element to that BS).

You're confirming my suspicion above.

I can remember reading about a Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, when they were debating what constituted obscenity, and gave what I thought was a perfect answer:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

That's how I feel about the questions being posed to me about whether or not Donald Trump is a racist. I am not going to engage you any further in an attempt to qualify a very subjective opinion. All I'm going to say is that I know a racist when I see one, and Trump is a racist.

"Racist" is a serious charge with tangible, observable traits unless you fancy yourself a mind-reader. That you think it's as nebulous as "obscene" merely confirms what I said.

burrrton wrote:"Racist" is a serious charge with tangible, observable traits unless you fancy yourself a mind-reader. That you think it's as nebulous as "obscene" merely confirms what I said.

The point I was trying to make is that there's different degrees of racism just like their is different degrees of obscenity. Burning a stake in front of someone's yard or calling individuals the 'N' word are blatant and easy to judge. Other, softer degrees like a "many sides" statement of who was responsible for murder in Charlottesville while failing to call out the KKK/Neo Nazis aren't nearly as obvious and makes it more difficult for Trump's apologists to come to the same conclusion that I have.

I'm not trying to change your opinion that Trump is not a racist and don't understand why my opinion that he is makes that big of a difference to you. Or are you in a particularly feisty mood this morning?