Here's that quote in context, which FTR was made by an anonymous person passing a message to him, not by the author of the article:

Can anyone make a convincing case that Donald Trump should be impeached based on the evidence we have seen so far? It seems like a very weak case at the moment.

Can anyone make a convincing case that Donald Trump should be impeached based on the evidence we have seen so far? It seems like a very weak case at the moment.

He colluded with a hostile foreign nation to win his "election." If that's not enough for you,

...you're probably wondering what evidence there is of that and why what Hillary did is not worse.

Oh. I see Ray has turned on Cohen now that Cohen is no longer running interference for Trump, who Ray totally is not a supporter of. Natch.

how unethical and terrible a "lawyer" and person he is

745. Ray (CTL) Posted: February 14, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5624867)

"Could be some legal issues for Cohen, and he may have to prove it."

SAYS WHO?

Jason, I don't understand the point of your answer here. Says the court in the lawsuit filed by Common Cause, probably. Cohen was representing Trump in 2011 in the dispute with In Touch magazine and Cohen threatened to sue the magazine for defamation if they ran the Stormy Daniels story. Cohen was successful in 2011 in quashing the story. Later in 2016 Cohen set up a sham company and paid Daniels $130,000 under a phony name. Now Cohen says that the money was completely his and that he was not reimbursed in any way, directly or indirectly.

It stinks to the highest of heavens and should be investigated fully.

Apparently Cohen's legal play with the statement that the money is his is to get the Common Cause lawsuit dismissed. "It was my money and had nothing to do with the campaign." However, I doubt that will happen; while the Common Cause lawsuit was legitimate, it was also a fishing expedition in search of the source of the money. Now Cohen claims he is the source. But the court will likely decide that, rather than dismissing the suit, Common Cause is entitled to discovery to explore whether Cohen is telling the truth: via interrogatories, depositions, bank statements, etc.

Unlike the sham Russia investigations, I not only fully support this lawsuit but I also would support an FEC investigation. Let the light shine in.

Note also that the state bar -- I don't know which jurisdiction(s) Cohen is licensed in -- may want to have a chat with him to determine the ethics of all of this. Even if it -- against all odds -- WAS his money and he was not reimbursed in any way, he still became involved in the case in a bizarre way that seems to go far beyond the scope of an attorney-client relationship. I couldn't imagine paying a sum of money out of my own pocket on behalf of a client and even if I were so inclined out of the goodness of my heart to do so I would put the brakes on worried that I'd get into ethical hot water.

Earlier this week, however, a woman chased him down the street, shouting at him that he could be a hero if he cooperates with the government and brings President Trump down. Last week, another person attempted to get a message to Cohen, saying, “Please let him know that he could go down in history as the man that saved this country. I think his family would be so proud of him. Even people like me that were disgusted with the things we heard on those audio recordings, would totally forgive him.”

Again, it's the newfound hero worshipers

how unethical and terrible a "lawyer" and person he is

As evidenced by his long term association with Donald Trump.

And if you read the article, you'll see that it was just that---an article---not an opinion piece.** She was simply reporting the shift in opinion about Cohen.

Whereas I've always been of the mind that the man is an unethical lying piece of (likely criminal) scum who can't be believed when he says what the weather is unless his statement is independently verified.

...you're probably wondering what evidence there is of that and why what Hillary did is not worse.

Ray, what crime are you alleging Hillary committed?

Trump has sent lethal aid to Ukraine, bombed Putin's Syrian ally, destroyed a convoy of Russian mercenaries attacking a U.S. facility, repeatedly twisted the arms of our NATO allies to get them to increase their defense spending, and strongly opposed Germany's new reliance on Russia for its energy needs. Putin can't take much more of that sort of "servility".

Ray, what crime are you alleging Hillary committed?

I think we've been pretty clear about what Trump's potential liabilities are. What is your theory of the case that you'd bring against Hillary for purchasing opposition research?

If Russia goes to the Clinton campaign and says, "We have information that Donald Trump sexually assaulted twelve women," should the Clinton campaign take that meeting?

Can we stop with the "when did you stop beating your wife" type "questions"? I never alleged she committed any crimes in this area. (A violation of 793f re her server I did allege, which is an entirely different topic.)

...you're probably wondering what evidence there is of that and why what Hillary did is not worse.

Incidentally, what's the answer to my hypo that Baravelli thankfully reminded me of?

What is your theory of the case that you'd bring against Hillary for purchasing opposition research?

If Russia goes to the Clinton campaign and says, "We have information that Donald Trump sexually assaulted twelve women," should the Clinton campaign take that meeting?

If Russia goes to the Clinton campaign and says, "We have information that Donald Trump sexually assaulted twelve women," should the Clinton campaign take that meeting?

No, they should inform the FBI, as previous D campaigns did.

And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?

...you're probably wondering what evidence there is of that and why what Hillary did is not worse.

But, you see, we ARE alleging that the Trump campaign committed crimes. So you claiming that "what Hillary did" (purchase opposition research from a vendor used by both parties?) is worse seems odd if you don't have a theory of why it's a crime.

Of course, that's if I take you seriously.

And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?

Uh oh. Raybot is back.

Without checking the old thread, I'm quite sure people did answer the question. If Russia approaches a campaign, the campaign should tell the person approaching them that if they have evidence of wrongdoing they should take it to the media or the FBI, and (b) the campaign itself should inform the FBI.

I distinctly remember people telling you that, more than once.

Concession accepted. No attempt to answer the substantive point. Just ad hominem

No attempt to answer the substantive point.

And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?

You're not following the discussion. Sam's comment that I replied to didn't necessarily have to do with criminality per se, but with collusion and impeachment.

Collusion that is not criminal may -- depending on one's personal compass, though not mine -- be immoral or impeachable or simply bad, but it's not... criminal.

Indeed, why would "You tell the media but we're not going to" even be a distinction with a difference? All that would be is the campaign suggesting X without wanting to be caught doing X themselves; but in either case the campaign is supporting X so it's hard to argue in that case that X is bad.

Again, it's the newfound hero worshipers

I expected more commentary on elf sex.

Frito's hand, as though of its own will, reached out and traced the
delicate swelling of her elf-breast, while the other slowly crept around her
tiny, flawless waist, crushing her to his barrel chest.

"Toes, I love hairy toes," she moaned, forcing him down on the
silvered carpet. Her tiny, pink toes caressed the luxuriant fur of his instep
while Frito's nose sought out the warmth of her precious elf-navel.

Indeed, why would "You tell the media but we're not going to" even be a distinction with a difference? All that would be is the campaign suggesting X without wanting to be caught doing X themselves; but in either case the campaign is supporting X so it's hard to argue in that case that X is bad.

That's not what you said. You said informing the FBI was allowing a foreign government to influence the election. See #1222.

Are you modifying your argument?

Trump has sent lethal aid to Ukraine, bombed Putin's Syrian ally, destroyed a convoy of Russian mercenaries attacking a U.S. facility, repeatedly twisted the arms of our NATO allies to get them to increase their defense spending, and strongly opposed Germany's new reliance on Russia for its energy needs. Putin can't take much more of that sort of "servility".

Concession accepted. No attempt to answer the substantive point. Just ad hominem. That's the tell that you don't have an argument that you'd not be embarrassed to make.

1. Conspiracy to commit computer crimes
2. Knowingly soliciting donations (in kind or otherwise) from foreign nationals.
3. Participating in the Russian conspiracy to defraud the United States.
4. Obstruction of justice in the investigation of the above.
5. Felony campaign finance law violations

No, I am not modifying my argument. Again, please follow the discussion you're participating in. David's answer in 1219 had two components: (1) You tell the media (and the FBI) but we will not; and (2) we will tell the FBI.

No, they should inform the FBI, as previous D campaigns did.


And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?

It takes some rather "creative" interpretations and/or quite a bit of as yet undiscovered evidence to support any of those charges. Wishcasting only gets you so far.

We are all waiting for the Mueller investigation to finish because it will help establish how likely 1-4 are, and whether there were crimes likely to have been committed.

The only way to try to prevent our election from being influenced by the enemy foreign government would be to say to them "We are not interested and do NOT tell the media."

...If, that is, preventing election influence by an enemy foreign government is the overriding principle, as claimed.

Nobody claimed that, Raybot. There are many ways an enemy foreign government could influence the outcome of a U.S. election without it being a bad thing. The Soviet Union could tear down the Berlin Wall. The Palestinians could decide to give up terrorism, accept Israel, and become a peaceful independent country. North Korea could actually denuclearize, and hold free and fair elections. Any of those would affect who Americans voted for. But that wouldn't be bad.

TShipman I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

None of which has the slightest relevance to the point we're discussing which is a campaign allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election. Which my "Hillary, this is Vladimir; we have incontrovertible evidence that Trump sexually assaulted 12 women, can we show it to you?" hypothetical precisely goes to.

TShipman I can't tell if you're trolling or not. No, I did not misquote, nor am I modifying my argument or any such thing.

No, they should inform the FBI, as previous D campaigns did.


And how is that not allowing an enemy foreign government to influence our election?

why are we even talking about a hypothetical that didn't happen?

Hypotheticals are a good way to test principles.

I've re-read 1222. I did not misquote nor am I modifying any argument.

Again, please follow the discussion you're participating in. David's answer in 1219 had two components: (1) You tell the media (and the FBI) but we will not; and (2) we will tell the FBI.

None of which has the slightest relevance to the point we're discussing

why are we even talking about a hypothetical that didn't happen?

But you didn't respond to David's answer in 1219.

You responded to my statement in 1218. I never mentioned the media, I said to just go to the FBI. But you said that just informing the FBI was allowing a foreign government to influence the election.

When pressed (because that statement is crazy), you changed your argument to mention the media. Then you claimed you didn't. And now I've wasted all this time responding to you, so I guess you win after all.

I did not change my argument. I continue to state, and to stand by, and to maintain, my statement that just informing the FBI would be allowing a foreign government to influence the election. As obviously it would be.

Oh okay. Your argument is just stupid, but you're clinging tenaciously to it until you inevitably deny you said it.

I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?).

I did not change my argument. I continue to state, and to stand by, and to maintain, my statement that just informing the FBI would be allowing a foreign government to influence the election. As obviously it would be.

Oh okay. Your argument is just stupid, but you're clinging tenaciously to it until you inevitably deny you said it.

I did not change my argument. I continue to state, and to stand by, and to maintain, my statement that just informing the FBI would be allowing a foreign government to influence the election. As obviously it would be.

People, you need to stop beating Ray the piñata (as I believe Jolly Old used to call him). Give it up. There are no prizes.

1196. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 28, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5717355)
Trump is, to put it politely, servile around Putin . . .

Trump has sent lethal aid to Ukraine, bombed Putin's Syrian ally, destroyed a convoy of Russian mercenaries attacking a U.S. facility, repeatedly twisted the arms of our NATO allies to get them to increase their defense spending, and strongly opposed Germany's new reliance on Russia for its energy needs. Putin can't take much more of that sort of "servility".

Trump has sent lethal aid to Ukraine, bombed Putin's Syrian ally, destroyed a convoy of Russian mercenaries attacking a U.S. facility, repeatedly twisted the arms of our NATO allies to get them to increase their defense spending, and strongly opposed Germany's new reliance on Russia for its energy needs. Putin can't take much more of that sort of "servility".

America is still ramping up tensions with Russia as aggressively as we were under the last few administrations.

One of them in particular is odd, the destruction of the Russian mercenary unit. There are three obvious problems here. First, there's no evidence at all that Trump was involved with the destruction of the mercenary force, since the destruction of the Wagner unit was apparently performed in self-defense. Second, the Russian position, which the US happily accepts, is that the mercenaries were not under Putin's control.

NATO without the US is a paper tiger

This depends on who you think NATO is supposed to be guarding against, but Russia ain't winning a war against (UK+France+Germany+...less important countries.

You may want to rethink that. The Russians have ~ 20,000 tanks; at one time Germany had 2,000 tanks under NATO auspices, but now would be hard-pressed to quickly deploy 200. The U.K., France & Germany would have difficulty mounting an effective defense of Western & Central Europe on their own.

There are many ways an enemy foreign government could influence the outcome of a U.S. election without it being a bad thing. The Soviet Union could tear down the Berlin Wall.

If Russia approaches a campaign, the campaign should tell the person approaching them that if they have evidence of wrongdoing they should take it to the media or the FBI, and (b) the campaign itself should inform the FBI.

But you didn't respond to David's answer in 1219.

The Trump campaign should have reported it to the FBI and not used any such information.

You think tanks are relevant in modern nation state conflicts?

There are three obvious problems here. First, there's no evidence at all that Trump was involved with the destruction of the mercenary force, since the destruction of the Wagner unit was apparently performed in self-defense.

Just to clear up any confusion, you libs have it exactly right: Glen Greenwald and I only want the US to stop bombing Syrian children because we’re on Putin’s payroll.

If Russia approaches a campaign, the campaign should tell the person approaching them that if they have evidence of wrongdoing they should take it to the media or the FBI, and (b) the campaign itself should inform the FBI.

Who else attacks a NATO member, and where? India invades a British or French Indian ocean territory?

LOL. Of course, the Clinton campaign did exactly the opposite. It took a bunch of meetings with Russia

Still lying, I see.

If it can impact our election by tearing down the Berlin Wall or talking openly to the press, absent actual criminal conduct, there's no reason for concern if it provides true and relevant and material information about one presidential candidate to another candidate.

LOL. You mean like the Clinton campaign did? I mean, pay no heed to the fact that the Clinton campaign agent

took a bunch of meetings with Russia

If a baseball player can score on a home run, there's no reason for concern if the batter takes his bat and beats the opposing pitcher to death with it. Also, I like spaghetti.

Fake lawyer doesn't know the difference between an agent and independent contractor. Film at 11.

Troll pretends not to know the difference between the Russian government and someone from Russia.