Correct. They are all listed in the link in that tweet. At least 3 of them seem pretty shaky and I can't comment on the others because I simply don't know how valid they are
I think this is the best one. I would think that if he was lobbying EVERYONE for the Chief of Staff job there should be plenty of witnesses to prove that. Funny that it was the biggest joke of the entire transition (which is hard to believe). “Mr. Cohen repeatedly testified that he did not seek employment in the White House following President Trump’s election,” they wrote. “This is demonstrably, materially, and intentionally false.” During the hearing, Jordan scorched Cohen, claiming that he turned on President Trump because he didn’t land a job at the White House. Cohen, though, denied this and said he, instead, wanted to be “the personal attorney to the president.” “I got exactly what I wanted,” Cohen said. Following the exchange, the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, weighed in on Twitter, claiming Cohen was “lobbying EVERYONE to be ‘Chief of Staff,’” and that it was “the biggest joke of the entire transition.” The letter also cited a tweet by former New York City Police detective Bo Dietl, who said Cohen told him “several times” that he was “very angry and upset” that he did not get a job in the White House.
But do those witnesses have hard evidence? I assure you, I'm not being a [penis] when I ask that. It's gonna be hard to prove he perjured himself on a few of those because they are based on things like tweets or opinions rather than "material facts" as Jordan and Meadows write.
I'd say the two that probably hold the most water are his talk of never defrauding a bank and the foreign agency dealings, but I don't know enough about either to make a call there.
Let me be clear, Cohen is a scumbag. But he and several others aren't in the position they are in without some pretty compelling evidence somewhere. I'd assume that some of that evidence doesn't look very good for Individual 1 I'd also say that his naming Trump as Individual 1 could potentially be pretty damaging to Mr Cohen should Trump not actually be Individual 1
Exactly why I put it. They do not so I doubt it means shit but others would eat it up. Most of what they are saying he perjured himself on would have to be proven with witness testimony which apparently most think is enough. The only hard evidence is the document he apparently filled out incorrectly.
I would hope he was afforded the same opportunity to correct that form as other significant individuals were
Yes. The financial statements & checks. I don't mean for this to sound assholish. Really. But I'm guessing you dispute that evidence. I'm pretty much convinced that no piece of evidence will compel either the pro-Trump or anti-Trump factions to change their minds at this point.
I am not some Pro Trump or anti Trump guy. The evidence provided basically proves he is a blowhard which pretty much everyone already knew. I am not blinded by pure hate for the man so I don't take every piece of information against him as gospel (don't take this as a dig I am not saying this is true for you, just a lot of people). To date I have not seen anything in my mind that he is guilty of that is worth all this talk. When I see something that convinces me I will point it out and be glad that he is convicted if guilty. All this does is just fire more people up and cause a bigger split.
I am not pro-Trump (other than I believe his term has been beneficial from an economic standpoint) or anti-Trump. My mind is open to being changed. Care to explain what the financial statements and checks establish? Anything worthy of conviction at the senate level that shall forever be precedent for impeaching future presidents?
I didn't watch any of this, but what i expected to happen, happened. Both sides are saying they "won" Both are saying see, I told you. This proves that. That doesn't prove this. It's all stupid bullshit. I'm imagining a bunch of politicians up there slinging zingers and I gotchas. Yeah, super fun. Same shit different day.
Most of these congressional hearings have devolved into this shit, but I am fairly impressed with the line of questioning by AOC. She has done well in this environment, in my opinion, and comports herself in a manner in which other Congressmen should follow. By this I mean a lack of grandstanding and unnecessary speech making and a willingness to ask tough questions without simply attacking someone and trying to yell over them to make your point without the person being able to respond.
She definitely doesn't suffer from a lack of balls. I know if I was in front of a couple hundred people, and millions on TV, I'd be pooping myself.
I hate the guy. I think he's a piece of shit human being. And keep in mind, he's a life-long Democrat. My hatred doesn't have to do with party. We disagree on issues, but you're still my buddy. He's just a piece of shit. I thought that before he ran for office. That said, he's already an unindicted co-conspirator in a felony. Don't take my word for it. That's what the Justice Department says.
Payments for the hush money (SDNY has already said this is a felony where he is an unindicted co-conpirator) in the form of a check signed by Trump himself while he was in office that was set up to look like a retainer (also backed up by SDNY & which is tax fraud) & financial documents in a loan application to Deutche Bank where he overvalued his properties (bank fraud). Can't remember what else there was off the top of my head. I'm sure when the CFO gets subpoenaed we'll learn more about the finances and the structure of the hush money payments. Weisselberg set the payments up (again, according to SDNY where Weisselberg has limited immunity to cooperate). And he's gonna get a subpoena. I'm a bit old-fashioned, but I'd say a felony, or felonies in this case, are impeachable offenses. He wouldn't get convicted by the Senate, even if he committed murder, on the outside chance the House acts, though.
