Another Cohen inconsistency

[BoneyardDem]

Cohen mentioned that he took out a second mortgage on his home to gather enough $ to pay off Stormy Daniels on behlf of Trump, not expecting to be reinbursed. We also now know that Cohen was in ownership of at least 200 taxi cab medallions for NYC. For a while they were worth around $1,000,000 each. They have since fallen in price and are currently worth a mere $200,000 each. A man awash in this type of money, or medallions that are quickly and easily turned into money, decided instead to take out a second mortgage on his home? We are to believe that his Trumpism runs so deep, his loyatly to Trump is so true, his dedication to Trump so vast, that he would put his home on the line? I call bullshit.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Let me help you, without the slightest exaggeration, NOTHING either of them say

is EVER the truth unless the truth helps their cause and we know it almost never does.

That is why if you listen to either of them talk for 5 minutes they will both tell at least 10 lies in that 5 minutes.

Easily proven.

[bitterross]

3. +100000 /nt

[karynnj]

2. He took money from a home equity credit line

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2018, 03:01 PM - Edit history (2)

To me, it makes most sense if he expected reimbursement. Another reason would be if he needed to get the money quickly and the line of credit already existed and was for a high enough value. He could then use it and pay whatever interest is charged for the period before he paid it down. It would take longer to sell a taxi medallion by finding a buyer and waiting until the money cleared.

Obviously it makes no sense and is likely illegal to create the nondisclosure agreement without speaking to the President. Not to mention, play in your mind that a President who really had no affair and knew nothing about this. Now, consider what his reaction would be when it came out that someone close to him paid $130,000 even if it was their money and they wanted no reimbursement. Yes, I know I am assuming lots of improbable things.

However, the response then should have been incredulity and intense anger that someone would have done that giving credence to the woman's lie. (OK, To get to a reasonable response assume this happened to a different President ) I would imagine the lawyer would be fired no matter how long he had worked for him. That action, beyond likely being illegal for the lawyer would be illegal under FEC rules, but beyond that it would be an amazingly presumptuous thing to do.

[byronius]

4. That rings true.