Cohen signals openness to cooperating with federal investigators

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/michael-cohen-cooperation-federal-investigators/index.html

Angry with being hung up to dry by the President, fake tough guy and meticulous recorder of his own telephone conversations Michael Cohen is ready to come in from the cold.

 

Most stuff concerning Trump as his client is not his choice to disclose.

 

Not everything. If a lawyer engages in a criminal conspiracy with a client that isn't covered by lawyer client privileged.

They already went through a mountain of files and audio recordings and only a very small fraction was deemed to be under lawyer client privilege.

 

When nothing comes of it, we will laugh at you very hard.

 

And if something comes of it you'll pretend it didn't.
Then you'll say it doesn't mean what it obviously does.
Then you'll blame the press for it coming about.
Then you'll vilify Cohen.
Then you'll vilify Mueller.
Then you'll say that Hillary had emails.
And then finally, . . . you'll blame Obama

 

First off this is based on leftist fake news bouncing the notion that he is cooperating off each other and not rooted in any facts.

Secondly there isn't a single person alive that wouldn't protect themselves and their family from the Nazi thug Mueller and his team of SS storm-troopers by "cooperating" so that the leftists that own and operate Mueller can run to their buddies in the media with a fresh Russia Russia Russia headline so that DUMB PEOPLE will sit back and think "oh boy we got um' this time, smoking gun #78,301 yeaaaaa bwoiii!!!".

Mueller is tearing through civil rights faster than a late 1800's Democrat with a sheet and a rope.

Mueller goes after you, your wife, your kids, your fkin grandparents, and any asset or piece of currency that's even remotely connected to you.

Who hell wouldn't "cooperate"

But what has come from all these people that are "cooperating" with Mueller huh?

Huh leftos, tell me?

NOTHING! ...****ing NOTHING!

Because there is nothing to tell, nothing to find, no collusion, no campaign finance, no obstruction, no nothing.

 

Five Guilty Pleas and Twenty Grand Jury Indictments.

 

100% confidence it won't.

 

Well we will see won't we.


We'll all have a good chuckle as you go down the list.

 

Uh, no...

Their "cooperation" didn't lead to their own guilty pleas, that doesn't make any sense.

And the garbage indictments on all those faceless Russians came from the efforts of Congress.

Didn't think that one through did ya?

Guess these guys didn't either: @JakeStarkey @Sallyally

 

Actually, that is a question before the court at the moment.

Since much of what Cohen did (threatening people, bullying, playing the bag man) don't actually fit the description of actual legal work, much of it IS going to admissible. That is what Kimba Woods is finishing up determining now.

It is a telling observation that you went right to the attorney-client privelege argument, rather than even attempting to pretend that there wasn't anything there.

 

Not only does it make sense, that's how plea deals work. You Trumpsters have so little to stand on that this sort of ridiculous assertion seems to be the norm now.

And no, the indictments of Russians involved in the trolling operations, certainly DID NOT come from the "efforts" of Congress.

Indeed, Congress has been either conducting sham white washes (Nunes) or slow walking all other hearings. Congress has done almost nothing. There hasn't even been a public hearing on any of the growing mountains of issues surrounding the Trump Administration.

 

Well, they might just skip to step 6.

 

Speaking of little to stand on.

For example, you're basing your conjecture on unnamed "sources" in an article from a known liberal media outlet. Further, that conjecture is based on an assumption Cohen has anything to offer.

Who knows what Cohen has?

You don't, CNN doesn't, but that isn't stopping CNN from painting quite the picture for you. And they most certainly know their story was pre-purchased by their audience.

 

You're right because Trump will probably pardon him first.

 

Where do you get the idea that I got my "conjecture" from any article from any source? I made no references to any specific article or publication.

It is fairly obvious that Cohen has a lot to offer. The only things worth speculating about is whether or not he's going to offer it.

For its part, the Wall Street Journal did it's job of understating Cohen's role, by running a front page article claiming a "contentious" relationship between the Cohen and Trump. It is almost certainly true the Trump would seek to keep a sleazy fixer like Cohen out of the limelight. But most of the article clearly showed Trump treating Cohen with casual cruelty and lack of respect that he has shown to so many people in his brief White House career.

I don't watch CNN. For that matter, television is not my preferred news source, regardless of idiology.

 

Why didn’t you use the title of the article for this thread? Yanno, that is a violation of forum rules.

The article is based on a claim by an anonymous source.....smh.....fake news.

 

The title of the thread was derived from source material, you would have to scub a lot of threads in this forum for the same offense.

And as far as it being fake news?
Your wounded heart's hopes and dreams.

 

And they typically are scrubbed(locked really).

The title of the thread must be the title of the article(unless it’s too long then you may abbreviate). Here’s a refresher for you:

There are additional rules for "Latest U.S and World News" and "Current Events": All thread titles must be copy/pasted from source article titles. Article titles that are too long to fit, should be abbreviated, keeping as close to the original title as possible. No personal opinions are allowed within thread titles. Threads must have a sourced article or news video, and the full article/video must be accessible upon clicking. (Content behind a paywall does not qualify as a source.)

 

Cohen Signals Cooperation = Cohen Cracks in this case.

That's a bit nitpicking to throw yourself on semantics.

 

They aren’t my rules. I just follow them. You agreed to as well when you signed up here.

 

Feh, still means the same.

 

You had 100% confidence Obama wouldn't win in 2012. I'm not impressed with your track record.

 

Please post where I said that or go sit in the corner.

 

No of which have to do with trump or his campaign... why do alt leftists actually think this is a good talking point for them? It actually harms their dumb conspiracy more then it helps.