Sure glad that the Swamp is getting drained.
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.
cBUrurenthusism said:
Avenatti gives all new meaning to sleazy lawyer
20 more Tweets on the thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/992241369023365120.html
corncob pipe said:
From Novartis with Love
Octo Novartis *****
The Man with the Golden Novartis
cBUrurenthusism said:IOW 'I don't know if this is true or not but it is certainly getting ugly'HuMcK said:
Yeah I know, "sources", but this is certainly getting ugly.
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.
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 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?
You mean like the part where the transcripts read like a timeline of exactly what he said happened?HuMcK said: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 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?
cBUrurenthusism said:You mean like the part where the transcripts read like a timeline of exactly what he said happened?HuMcK said: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 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?