Cohen,At&T, Novartis, Stormy

5,562 Views | 76 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sure glad that the Swamp is getting drained.
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cool... say's the NYT (fish wrap) and Stormy's Gigolo
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oh, I forgot the Oligarch that paid Cohen $500K. Where did that go? Trumps get his cut? Swamp is getting deeper and more slimy.
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this story has LEGS... pffftttt NOT
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Remember when candidate Trump was so offended at the thought of people other than him paying to play?
Norvartis funnels money into the ho' fund and Cohen responds by setting up a meeting between the chairman and Trump.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HAHAHAhaha
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gigolo lawyer
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Avenatti gives all new meaning to sleazy lawyer







20 more Tweets on the thread

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/992241369023365120.html
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Cohen is almost certainly boned at this point. Remember when Republicans used to care about pay-to-play schemes?
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lemme break it down for ya

Russian oligarchs (closely tied to Putin) are the new Bond villains to the SJW faigs
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
'Novartis source tells statnews'
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From Novartis with Love

Octo Novartis *****

The Man with the Golden Novartis

CSIBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Still waiting for Stormy's lawyer to tweet that Cohen was the one selling the russians our uranium not the Clinton's...any day now
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
pay play with the Trumps. Drain that swamp, Trumps. What a fraud.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would think Stormy would be getting very jealous of her lawyer: Dems everywhere are wanking off to him rather than her.
corncob pipe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
she looks very tired and medicated
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AT&T basically said the same thing that Novartis did -- that they hired Cohen because of access. I imagine Cohen was pretty aggressive in marketing that access, too.

This may turn out to be the real story with all the money that went to Cohen's shadow company. ColumbusNova says they were hiring Cohen as a "consultant" (as the more respectable firms did) and the tie to the oligarch was just coincidental.

I wouldn't take that at face value, but I also don't dismiss the possibility that they're telling the truth. If so, it's an old-fashioned case of sleazy influence-peddling. Cohen is far from the first, but that doesn't make it any less sleazy. Maybe it's more sleazy for an administration that promised to drain the swamp. Then again, by "drain the swamp," it's pretty clear from his own behavior and that of figures like Pruitt that he wasn't talking about corruption. He was talking about career public servants, who Trump views as the real impediments to his freedom to govern more like his man-crush Erdogan.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bahahaha!

Avenatti got the wrong Cohen
Moondoggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

AT&T basically said the same thing that Novartis did -- that they hired Cohen because of access. I imagine Cohen was pretty aggressive in marketing that access, too.

This may turn out to be the real story with all the money that went to Cohen's shadow company. ColumbusNova says they were hiring Cohen as a "consultant" (as the more respectable firms did) and the tie to the oligarch was just coincidental.

I wouldn't take that at face value, but I also don't dismiss the possibility that they're telling the truth. If so, it's an old-fashioned case of sleazy influence-peddling. Cohen is far from the first, but that doesn't make it any less sleazy. Maybe it's more sleazy for an administration that promised to drain the swamp. Then again, by "drain the swamp," it's pretty clear from his own behavior and that of figures like Pruitt that he wasn't talking about corruption. He was talking about career public servants, who Trump views as the real impediments to his freedom to govern more like his man-crush Erdogan.


You deserve today's Postie for the most intelligent, objective post of the day.
Moondoggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cBUrurenthusism said:

Avenatti gives all new meaning to sleazy lawyer







20 more Tweets on the thread

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/992241369023365120.html



He gives new meaning to kicking a president's ass. Finally a guy not scared of trump. Take notes Mitch and Paul.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every time you turn over a rock with this crew, a Russian intel asset crawls out...


quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cohen had some wiggle room for failing to register as a lobbyist. He's about out.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
corncob pipe said:

From Novartis with Love

Octo Novartis *****

The Man with the Golden Novartis



Comrade Putin thanks you.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wonder if Mueller found enough in the treasure trove of info from Cohen's files to validate this theory? Sounds more than plausible given just how low class the principals are in this saga:

Let me offer an alternative explanation of the affair and the payoff. It is still just a hypothesis, but, I would argue, it fits more comfortably with what we know about the various players than the reported version of events: Donald Trump, not Elliott Broidy, had an affair with Shera Bechard. Bechard hired Keith Davidson, who had negotiated both Playboy playmate Karen McDougal's deal with the National Enquirer and Stormy Daniels's NDA with Trump. Davidson called Cohen, and the two of them negotiated a $1.6 million payment to Bechard.


At this point Cohen needed to find a funding source. Cohen asserts he took out a home equity loan to come up with a mere $130,000 to pay off Stormy Daniels, so it seems clear he couldn't have fronted the $1.6 million for the Bechard deal himself. So Cohen reached out to Elliott Broidy, a very rich Republican fundraiser with several pending and highly lucrative business deals with foreign governments: deals that hinged on whether Broidy could convince the U.S. government to take various actions. By stepping up to take responsibility for the affair and to fund the seven-figure settlement, Broidy was ensuring that he could continue to peddle his influence with Trump to governments around the world.

Which is to say, it was a cover-up concealing a bribe. Indeed, it turns out that Broidy not only has a history of bribing public officials, but of bribing them in an uncannily similar fashion to the method which I hypothesize he employed in this case.

So, according to this hypothesis, when Cohen's office was raided by federal prosecutors, they found documentation of what was actually a fabricated affair, concocted by Cohen and Davidson to create a justification for funneling Broidy's money to Bechard, while creating a paper record designed to protect Trump from further exposure.

This account as bizarre as it may seem at first glance is actually more plausible than the story leaked to the Journal, the New York Times, and CNN.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/theory-playboy-model-had-affair-with-trump-not-broidy.html
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah I know, "sources", but this is certainly getting ugly.
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Yeah I know, "sources", but this is certainly getting ugly.

IOW 'I don't know if this is true or not but it is certainly getting ugly'
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cBUrurenthusism said:

HuMcK said:

Yeah I know, "sources", but this is certainly getting ugly.

IOW 'I don't know if this is true or not but it is certainly getting ugly'

I know this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but Avenatti has built up a cache of something called "credibility". If/when he gets caught lying or making things up it'll evaporate his credibility, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that Trump doesn't.
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Avenatti is that sleazy, why hasn't Trump hired him?
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:



I know this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but Avenatti has built up a cache of something called "credibility". If/when he gets caught lying or making things up it'll evaporate his credibility, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that Trump doesn't.


Avenatti and credibility in the same sentence.....LOL

So your idea of lawfare is believe everything you hear until it is disproven?
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this deal will indeed unravel!
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cBUrurenthusism said:

HuMcK said:



I know this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but Avenatti has built up a cache of something called "credibility". If/when he gets caught lying or making things up it'll evaporate his credibility, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that Trump doesn't.


Avenatti and credibility in the same sentence.....LOL

So your idea of lawfare is believe everything you hear until it is disproven?
I'm open to being convinced that he's not telling the truth, but as far as I'm concerned there is a rebuttable presumption that Avenatti is credible as it relates to these matters, and it hasn't been rebutted yet. Contrast that with your unflinching belief in whatever Don Jr says about the Trump Tower meeting, despite his demonstrable lies about it at every step of the way.. Like I said, as far as I know Avenatti has told the (sometimes sensationalized) truth about everything else in this case so far, most of the time he even has the receipts. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Avenatti is not on some meandering stroll through the legal weeds where he makes a bunch of baseless accusations hoping it will stick, he knows what he's doing and he probably knows exactly where he's trying to take things. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the Qatari's are a source for a lot of his info at this point.
cBUrurenthusism
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

cBUrurenthusism said:

HuMcK said:



I know this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but Avenatti has built up a cache of something called "credibility". If/when he gets caught lying or making things up it'll evaporate his credibility, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that Trump doesn't.


Avenatti and credibility in the same sentence.....LOL

So your idea of lawfare is believe everything you hear until it is disproven?
I'm open to being convinced that he's not telling the truth, but as far as I'm concerned there is a rebuttable presumption that Avenatti is credible as it relates to these matters, and it hasn't been rebutted yet. Contrast that with your unflinching belief in whatever Don Jr says about the Trump Tower meeting, despite his demonstrable lies about it at every step of the way.. Like I said, as far as I know Avenatti has told the (sometimes sensationalized) truth about everything else in this case so far, most of the time he even has the receipts. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Avenatti is not on some meandering stroll through the legal weeds where he makes a bunch of baseless accusations hoping it will stick, he knows what he's doing and he probably knows exactly where he's trying to take things. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the Qatari's are a source for a lot of his info at this point.
You mean like the part where the transcripts read like a timeline of exactly what he said happened?
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cBUrurenthusism said:

HuMcK said:

cBUrurenthusism said:

HuMcK said:



I know this is a foreign concept to Trump supporters, but Avenatti has built up a cache of something called "credibility". If/when he gets caught lying or making things up it'll evaporate his credibility, but as far as I can tell that hasn't happened yet, so he gets the benefit of the doubt that Trump doesn't.


Avenatti and credibility in the same sentence.....LOL

So your idea of lawfare is believe everything you hear until it is disproven?
I'm open to being convinced that he's not telling the truth, but as far as I'm concerned there is a rebuttable presumption that Avenatti is credible as it relates to these matters, and it hasn't been rebutted yet. Contrast that with your unflinching belief in whatever Don Jr says about the Trump Tower meeting, despite his demonstrable lies about it at every step of the way.. Like I said, as far as I know Avenatti has told the (sometimes sensationalized) truth about everything else in this case so far, most of the time he even has the receipts. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Avenatti is not on some meandering stroll through the legal weeds where he makes a bunch of baseless accusations hoping it will stick, he knows what he's doing and he probably knows exactly where he's trying to take things. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the Qatari's are a source for a lot of his info at this point.
You mean like the part where the transcripts read like a timeline of exactly what he said happened?

I bet if you interrogated Bill and Loretta Lynch they'd both agree their tarmac meeting was to discuss grandkids, they could probably even lay out a timeline.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.