You defined Trump’s admin. exactly.
You need to stop using the word “you” so much.
I’m being polite. Amirite? 
Yes. You’re doing fine. Thanks for asking.
So a proven perjuror looking at jail time for his crimes has prosecutors willing to do a plea deal if he will give them some dirt on Trump. This liar/perjuror fingers as a co-conspirator in one of his crimes the person the prosecutors want to indict.
Can you not see a problem with taking seriously this perjuror’s testimony that Trump was an accomplice to one of his crimes?
That excuse doesn’t work too well when the perjury was committed in order to protect the President.
Why do people leave that part out?
Don’t forget that excuse doesn’t work when the individual provides documentation, source material, and recordings. One can be pretty sure that documents were provided as part of the plea deal.
.
.
.
.^^^^
1 Like
A guy who helped the President commit crime says to Congress “Here are the crimes and here is where you can find the proof of it” and people say “Don’t listen to that guy he is a criminal”
It is bonkers.
1 Like
Sure “they” have.
Cohen perjured himself multiple times in his various congressional and special counsel interviews. Some things he said may be true. Some things he said may have been attempts to win the favour of Trump in hopes of a pardon. Some things he may have said in hopes of winning the favour of Mueller for immunity or a reduced sentence. The problem is that he seems to be willing to lie to anyone in order to save himself, so anything lifted from his testimony incriminating anyone, cannot stand on its own without corroborative evidence, which Mueller was clearly unable to find in regards to Cohen’s statements re Trump. With no corroboration, Cohen’s word is worth squat.
Cohen gave physical evidence in the case that implicated him in the same crime that the President was named as an unindicted co conspirator.
He was named by Cohen as a co-conspirator. I.e. Cohen claimed Trump ordered him to do something illegal. The physical evidence nailed Cohen, and Cohen alleged Trump’s collusion, but without unambiguous physical proof of that alleged collusion. Hence, the allegation of co-conspiracy rested on Cohen, the perjuror’s say-so.
If the President isn’t a co conspirator then Cohen took this action on all on his own.
We have the receipts that show that this isn’t true.
What do you believe the receipts show? What illegal act do the receipts show?
Well one of them that was given to Congress was a check signed by the President paying Cohen back from an account that Mr Trump had supposedly turned over to his sons.
But none of that matters to people anymore.
My wife has a bank account in her name. I use the bank card and when we need to use a check , I write out the check and she signs it. Is that illegal?
Nope
Neither is it illegal for the President to use an account from a business that he promised to distance himself from.
But we are talking about the President lying about how he conducts business now.
You say he’s lying. That’s your characterisation based on biased and untrustworthy media reports and commentary. I believe in due process. Maybe words have been misconstrued. That’s why we have courts.
