TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#7,301
#7,301
evillawyer said:
Classic Fox News-type spin--the real point is how Avenatti got the information? Sorta like how the real point in the Enron case was how the whistleblower got her information and whether we can prosecute her.
Click to expand...

Lol. So Avenatti has now taken on the righteous mantle of whistle blower?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!😂😂😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,302
#7,302
evillawyer said:
So things are only in the public interest if we have rock solid, 100% certainty that a crime was committed? Until then, the public has no interest in it. That's your position?
Click to expand...

My, yours and Cohens financial information is nobody's business. We get indicted then that changes things.
 
#7,305
#7,305
Vol_Doc said:
For me, it's not because Trump, but it just shows he's not any less swampy than any other politician, though he tried to convince the public otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually I submit Trumps swampy stance on this is unknown right now. Cohen trying to cash in on influence? Sounds swampy and unknown if illegal currently. I even read on that bastion of impartial reporting CNN that bunches of lawyers think bank fraud is a stretch.

If Cohen tried to cash in and Trump let him sway him that is the usual DC play. But if it comes out he distanced himself then Trump isn’t being swampy here.
 
#7,306
#7,306
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. So Avenatti has now taken on the righteous mantle of whistle blower?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!😂😂😂😂
Click to expand...

Never said he was the whistle blower. He's playing more of the role of the person who published the leaked information. The whistle blower would be the person who provided the information to him. My point is that we should be focusing on the content of the information that was disclosed and what it means instead of whether it was obtained legally. I've already acknowledged that if you want to go after the leaker for some crime, fine. But don't act like that's what we should really be focused on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,307
#7,307
BowlBrother85 said:
Well, of course it is for the institution. I don't think there are any repercussions for Avenatti to release what he was given though.

I work at First Tennessee on Downtown West Blvd in Knoxville... You have to be very careful even accessing someone's information if you don't have a business reason for doing so. My operations manager saw me one afternoon looking at my ex-wife's checking account info... I received a written reprimand that remains in my file to this day.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Did you try voiding her alimony checks?

Plan B for Revenge: Go to the primary website where you sign up to be contacted by health insurance companies under obamacare. Someone did this to me... used my cell phone number too... My phone suddenly blew up for thirty minutes straight, then for days on end. I'm still getting calls today. Total pain in the ass.
 
#7,308
#7,308
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol. So Avenatti has now taken on the righteous mantle of whistle blower?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!😂😂😂😂
Click to expand...


One A Day: CNN Hosts Porn Star's Lawyer Michael Avenatti 59 Times in Less Than Two Months


maxresdefault.jpg
 
#7,309
#7,309
evillawyer said:
Never said he was the whistle blower. He's playing more of the role of the person who published the leaked information. The whistle blower would be the person who provided the information to him. My point is that we should be focusing on the content of the information that was disclosed and what it means instead of whether it was obtained legally. I've already acknowledged that if you want to go after the leaker for some crime, fine. But don't act like that's what we should really be focused on.
Click to expand...



avenattischiff1.jpg
 
#7,310
#7,310
evillawyer said:
Never said he was the whistle blower. He's playing more of the role of the person who published the leaked information. The whistle blower would be the person who provided the information to him. My point is that we should be focusing on the content of the information that was disclosed and what it means instead of whether it was obtained legally. I've already acknowledged that if you want to go after the leaker for some crime, fine. But don't act like that's what we should really be focused on.
Click to expand...

Lol you damn sure did infer counselor.😂😂😂

Also if understand the timeline here Cohen had already left the Trump Organization. If this is just cashing in on his known influence it remains to be seen if it’s illegal. And if Trump did not let Cohens possibly bought influence affect him then again working as intended.

Here’s the rub. Your side will never EVER consider that last sentence as a possibility. Your brains are not equipped for that conclusion to be valid.
 
#7,313
#7,313
evillawyer said:
I would love it if instead of interviewing Avenatti 59 times they could interview Trump 59 times. Would you be cool with that? I sure would.
Click to expand...

I currently see no valid reason Trump should acknowledge a request from them for the time of day. I won’t ask I know you’re not cool with that.
 
#7,316
#7,316
evillawyer said:
I would love it if instead of interviewing Avenatti 59 times they could interview Trump 59 times. Would you be cool with that? I sure would.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he wouldn't wanna help their ratings...I think he's given them enough free 'click-bait' to push their imagined ideological agenda.
 
#7,317
#7,317
NorthDallas40 said:
Lol you damn sure did infer counselor.😂😂😂

Also if understand the timeline here Cohen had already left the Trump Organization. If this is just cashing in on his known influence it remains to be seen if it’s illegal. And if Trump did not let Cohens possibly bought influence affect him then again working as intended.

Here’s the rub. Your side will never EVER consider that last sentence as a possibility. Your brains are not equipped for that conclusion to be valid.
Click to expand...

I fully admit it's possible that Cohen sold a false bill of goods and couldn't provide the access/input that he pitched. But that's not something we can conclude as of right now. To my understanding, Cohen still identifies as Trump's personal lawyer and Trump verified that a few weeks ago on Air Force 1. Now I know Cohen contracted with AT&T and Novartus under the name of Essential Consultants, LLC, but let's be honest, when you retained that Essential Consultants, you retained Trump's personal attorney. That doesn't even have a faint scent of impropriety to you?
 
#7,318
#7,318
evillawyer said:
I fully admit it's possible that Cohen sold a false bill of goods and couldn't provide the access/input that he pitched. But that's not something we can conclude as of right now. To my understanding, Cohen still identifies as Trump's personal lawyer and Trump verified that a few weeks ago on Air Force 1. Now I know Cohen contracted with AT&T and Novartus under the name of Essential Consultants, LLC, but let's be honest, when you retained that Essential Consultants, you retained Trump's personal attorney. That doesn't even have a faint scent of impropriety to you?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you called for the DOJ to look into Valerie Jarrett's continued employment with Navigant Consulting while serving as a senior advisor to Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,321
#7,321
Vol_Doc said:
For me, it's not because Trump, but it just shows he's not any less swampy than any other politician, though he tried to convince the public otherwise.
Click to expand...

Meh, it was a campaign promise. The only people that thought it possible had stars in their eyes.
 
#7,322
#7,322
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7,323
#7,323
hog88 said:
I'm guessing you called for the DOJ to look into Valerie Jarrett's continued employment with Navigant Consulting while serving as a senior advisor to Obama.
Click to expand...

Let me know how many speeding tickets you avoid by pointing out to the cop/judge that other people were speeding too. Fox news has really done a great job instilling the whataboutism fallacy in you guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,324
#7,324
evillawyer said:
I fully admit it's possible that Cohen sold a false bill of goods and couldn't provide the access/input that he pitched. But that's not something we can conclude as of right now. To my understanding, Cohen still identifies as Trump's personal lawyer and Trump verified that a few weeks ago on Air Force 1. Now I know Cohen contracted with AT&T and Novartus under the name of Essential Consultants, LLC, but let's be honest, when you retained that Essential Consultants, you retained Trump's personal attorney. That doesn't even have a faint scent of impropriety to you?
Click to expand...

The only thing I currently see in question is a) did Cohen oversell his position for personal gain (not even sure that’s illegal) and b) did Avenatti illegally acquire personal banking records he was not entitled to.

And no your sides “the end justifies the means” argument on b above do not hold water.

Those two above need to be resolved first I think to see what the next step might be.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top