Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.if Cohen had never traveled to Prague like he and Trump supporters say he hasn't, why is he suddenly dropping a lawsuit that would open him up to questions about.....possibly visiting Prague?
Hmm...
Maybe Cohen has reason to believe that investigators have proof of his visit to Prague.
Typical. The lawsuit was bogus to begin with, but by dropping it, he can avoid having to discuss possibly traveling to Prague.
But, but...if Cohen had never traveled to Prague like he and Trump supporters say he hasn't, why is he suddenly dropping a lawsuit that would open him up to questions about.....possibly visiting Prague?
Hmm...
I have visited nearly 60 countries yet my collective passports over the years reflect only a fraction of stamps from those countries. A few countries wanted a fee to stamp the passport. I declined.
I have visited nearly 60 countries yet my collective passports over the years reflect only a fraction of stamps from those countries. A few countries wanted a fee to stamp the passport. I declined.
That's it. We can't prove a negative. Showing or saying there is no stamp is not that same as showing or saying the person never crossed the border.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Such claims are made for public consumption, for people who are not practiced in deeper thought ... for people who WANT to believe there is nothing there, for prime targets of hoaxing.
I have visited nearly 60 countries yet my collective passports over the years reflect only a fraction of stamps from those countries. A few countries wanted a fee to stamp the passport. I declined.
Exactly. Attempts by Hannity and Cohen to mislead the country as to Cohen s claim he never traveled to Prague so he could not have been in any meetings there...no surprise. Neither of them are facing the camera during the interview as well, all the while waving his passport book around ....
Anyone who supports Trump will eventually reveal themselves to be a liar to defraud the American people. OR, they will leave his circle of evil by their own power and conscious.
Cohen is in a world of trouble and all this latest development does is confirm what we already know. The bigger question is, do they have enough on him to flip and turn tail on Donny boy. Let's hope so!
Cohen is in a world of trouble and all this latest development does is confirm what we already know. The bigger question is, do they have enough on him to flip and turn tail on Donny boy. Let's hope so!
If he's thick with the Russians, he may be worried about more than going to prison. He may keep his mouth shut to avoid being poisoned or having harm come to his family.
Since this thread, about Mr. Cohen dropping his libel suits, is still going, I shall cut-and-paste here what I wrote on a similar thread this morning:
I have noted before, the odd fact about libel or slander suits is that the plaintiff's reputation is at issue.
For instance, in this case, by filing such lawsuits, Mr. Cohen must show to any jury that he had a 'good' reputation that has suffered 'harm' by the libelous or slanderous statements.
I heartily recommend the book "My Life In Court" by famed (now dead) attorney Louis Nizer. One of his cases involved the libel suit brought by Quentin Reynolds (a famed WWII columnist and photographer) against the right-wing columnist Westbrook Pegler (the Alex Jones, one could argue, of the 1940s) It is considered a landmark case, with Mr. Reynolds prevailing in court, with Mr. Pegler's career ruined.
When Mr. Reynolds first met with Mr. Nizer to file his libel suit, Mr. Nizer first tried to talk him out of it, saying something like "libel is like wet mud splashing against your trousers; best to let it dry and then it easily brushes off".
Mr. Nizer then warned Mr. Reynolds that,during trial, the defendant would seek to destroy Mr. Reynolds reputation. Mr. Nizer was correct.
However, Mr. Reynolds had such a sterling reputation, and Mr. Pegler was shown during the trial to be such a creep, that the jury:
1) decided that the libel did not materially harm Mr. Reynolds reputation, as such, awarding Mr. Reynolds One Dollar in actual damages; and yet:
2) awarded Mr. Reynolds $175,000 in putative damages (a lot of money in 1954).
The reason that the case is 'landmark' is because Mr. Pegler appealed, arguing that the putative damages were way out of proportion to the actual damages. The Court upheld the verdict.
So! I believe it is for this reason that Mr. Cohen is dropping his libel suits. He would not want his reputation to be put on trial.
Edited to add: as an interesting side-note, Mr. Nizer was going to be Mr. Nixon's attorney during any impeachment trial. In one of his books Mr. Nizer sets forth the legal argument he had prepared to argue, rendered moot by Mr. Nixon resigning.
If he's thick with the Russians, he may be worried about more than going to prison. He may keep his mouth shut to avoid being poisoned or having harm come to his family.
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. His biggest threat could be coming out of Moscow.
Typical. The lawsuit was bogus to begin with, but by dropping it, he can avoid having to discuss possibly traveling to Prague.
But, but...if Cohen had never traveled to Prague like he and Trump supporters say he hasn't, why is he suddenly dropping a lawsuit that would open him up to questions about.....possibly visiting Prague?
Hmm...
The lawsuit wasn't bogus, Cohen has proof he wasn't in Prague.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.