Michael Cohen Under Oath

Michael Cohen is testifying before Congress. Here is a link to stream it live.

His prepared written statement is here.

His wife and daughter are with him. Also accompanying him (on the left) is his new attorney, a long-time friend and colleague, Michael Monico from Chicago. I've known Michael for 25 years and he is not only supremely ethical but highly skilled. Cohen made a great choice.

I'll be listening in the car as I head up to a jail in the mountains. Here'a a place to discuss it. Also, don't miss this story of IRS agent John Frye being charged in San Francisco for leaking Cohen's SARS (suspicious activity reports from banks) to Michael Avenati. (Case No. CR 3-19-70176 LB.) The Complaint is here, and it's got all the details on his deposits and withdrawals regarding Stormy Daniels, his reimbursement and monies flowing to and from other countries.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Trump's Most Deranged Speech Yet? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So far (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    Republicans are looking desperate and hysterical.  They haven't laid a glove on Cohen.

    I loved the line about advising the congressman about who Cohen thought should play him in the movie.

    Cohen May or may not be a great lawyer but he has been pretty damn good so far.

    What I found astonishing was that ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    ... House Republicans ranged so far afield in their attempts to exonerate Trump, they appeared to not realize that the primary reason Michael Cohen got into legal trouble and became a convicted felon in the first place was because he worked for the guy.

    My favorite part of the hearing was when Rep. Brian Higgins (R-LA) first drilled down on Cohen over the exact locale of all those boxes of evidence in Cohen's office, which of course the FBI had seized in a well-publicized morning raid, and then demanded of Chairman Cummings that there be a federal investigation to determine what happened to those boxes and where they were now. And to think that this guy was actually a county sheriff. He was his own best parody.

    And Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) was, like, wow! Who knew that perpetually channeling the late Gilda Radner's Emily Litella would be such a great career move in North Carolina politics?

    For that matter, who knew that building an entire party out of birthers, baggers, bigots and blowhards would have such serious consequences?



    If you plan (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    To bully a bully you better have yer ducks in a row

    A racist, a con man, and a cheat--- (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    testified Michael Cohen about his boss of ten years, and our president for the past two.   But, the Republicans cleverly rebutted the charge of racism, by displaying in the committee room, from the dais,  a black woman, Lynne Patton, as one of
    Trump's best friends.

     So, that leaves standing and unrefuted by Republicans , that Trump is a con man and a cheat.  Americans can feel better.

    My understanding (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    is that she is not a friend but a party planner hired by one of his wives. Why didn't they just call Diamond and Silk in?

    I would be willing to bet a nickel (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:24:49 PM EST
    that Tr*mp has no friends who are women, much less black women, if he has any friends at all.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    Omarosa said she's under a ton of NDAs from Trump. So she couldn't say anything negative or would get sued.

    Now, that's what I call (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 07:58:15 AM EST

    Heartwarming, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:00:37 AM EST
    Isn't it?  ;-)

    HA (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    Cummings "out of consideration for the ranking member Mr Jordon I will not be limiting Mr Cohens testimony on Russia"


    be careful what you wish for Gym

    Is there any reason why (none / 0) (#2)
    by leap on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    we should believe Cohen won't lie? Which includes leaving out information. Not telling the whole truth.

    He could get more jail time (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:42:31 AM EST
    And if he can be proven to have lied about anything the republican will make sure he does if nothing else

    He is a scumbag.  Listening to him is almost painful.  But the man has documents, financial statements, checks.

    I am blown away just by what has been said so far.


    ARE YOU JOKING? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    When a guy is going to prison for lying, why would he want MORE PRISON TIME by lying again?

    Cummings (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    Is cracking the whip.  

    I just so expect all these Republican (none / 0) (#28)
    by leap on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    a$$holes to lie, under any circumstance, it's hard to be sanguine.

    My early impression (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    The dems are hitting hard on what Trump/Cohen did but not really seeing any direct claim of crimes; by this I mean a reference to a specific law.

    The pubs have on two occasions referenced to specific laws Cohen has violated.  The ranking member asked for unanimous consent to refer violations of specific laws to DOJ.

    Not that it really matters (since the ranking member can write a letter to DOJ about violations) but the chairman declined to refer the alleged violations to DOJ.

    I will not be shocked if after tomorrow's hearing there are more criminal investigations of Cohen.  He may well wind up with more charges than he has previously faced and without the 2nd district in his corner for cooperation.

    I am beginning to think Cohen made a mistake in appearing.  He opened himself up to a lot more charges down the line.  Any help he would get in a reduced sentence will not be the result of testimony before congress but with real help with PAs, something that is not done in public.

    While I am posting this Cohen asked for a recess.  Interesting since I don't recall this happening before.  

    My takeaway from your comment (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    is that you are good with the POTUS being a complete scumb*g, just so long as you can't find a statue he violated. I'm with Howdy. Get help.

    statute not statue. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    He's probably violated a few of those, too. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    I can almost hear him now: "I was in London, and I saw Queen Boudica and her two daughters cast in bronze on this big pedestal -- total babes, each one, I'm telling you! I'd date 'em all!"

    Like I posted in response to (none / 0) (#16)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    Capt.  even CNN says Cohen is lying.

    It should be obvious the pubs are viewing the hearing as a perjury trap for Cohen.  Given Cohen's history of lying in the past it seems like a reasonable thing to do.


    Tell me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    How would one prove, necessary in perjury, that Cohen wanted a White House job?

    In other words, because the prosecutors (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    in S.D.N.Y. inferred that Cohen wanted a White House job, and included that assertion in an indictment they filed, or perhaps it was in some memorandum or other legal filing -- an assertion which is not an accusation of crime, so Cohen would have no opportunity to put his denial of it to a jury or judge for decision (nor any good reason to) -- Cohen must be lying if he denies it. To me, when someone pleads guilty to criminal charges brought against him, admitting the facts that establish those charges, but disputes the accuracy of one or more tangential assertions made by the prosecutor in connection with those charges, I tend to believe the defendant. He has nothing to gain, and potentially something significant to lose, by getting into a dispute with the very prosecutors whose favor he needs to curry to minimize his sentence.

    There were other sources (none / 0) (#21)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    who said Cohen wanted a job in the White House.

    That was not the only instance where the pubs claimed Cohen's testimony today differed from somewhat established claims in the past.

    But my bigger point was the pubs seemed to be on the same page in trying to trip up Cohen with a perjury trap (I know you dislike that term and so do I).

    One question talking heads on FOX said was not asked but should have been was if Cohen was working with and had an agreement with the 2ndNY.  I do know in his original plea the 2ndNY they were not willing to let him off Scott free.

    I am not sure what his status is with them or how they will be/or have been willing to grant him immunity.  I would not be shocked if he has other charges brought; especially with the new AG.

    Trump flaks have noted Cohen's  father-in-law is/has been involved with the Russian Mafia.  He had tax fraud allegations.  Not to mention Chicago is not known for lacking corruption.

    As you pointed out Cohen wanting a job in the White House is an assertation.  But so was his testimony today.  It was basically a PR event so pointing out his conflicting positions hurts his credibility.


    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    has had a multi decade long association with the Russian Mafia. So you think it's a big deal for Cohen to have that association and not Trump?

    Trump himself has tax fraud allegations. Remember him stealing 7 bucks from his own charity to pay boy scout fees?


    Such a Frivolous Point... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    ...if lying is lying regardless of importance, why isn't Trump up there explaining why he lies about something inconsequential nearly every time he steps in front of a camera.  

    Some of Trump's very easily provable whoppers, crowd size, voter fraud, caravan numbers and make-up, and 1001 other falsities, aka lies he tells nearly daily.  If lying about something as inane as wanting a job proves that he cannot be believed, why isn't Fox News and yourself applying this same principle to the Trump ?  

    Why are Cohen's lies prove Trump isn't lying and Trump's lies mean absolutely nothing ?  It's almost like you both have some sort of agenda that is in no way related to the purposed of this testimony, which should be finding truth.  

    Playing semantics with possible, scratch that, probable presidential criminal activity is straight up despicable.  Do you even care if President Trump committed crimes, does Fox, does his followers, cause from where I sit, not a GD republican in the country seems to care if the President is a criminal.  At the very least, grow a pair and just drop the act and let the country know that you just don't give a damn if Trump is a criminal, rather than making us sit through this excruciating back and forth over whether Cohen wanted a GD job in the WH.


    Lying under oath to Congress is not the same (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    as a pol lying to get elected.

    Don't Worry... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    ...I didn't expect an honest answer to an honest question.  But I really never expected you to admit Trump has lied.  Not the same as lying to Congress, agreed, but credibility matters and even you admit Trump lies.  Not a bad day's work.

    I wonder (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    Does it "matter" if Trump lies in writing to Mueller as it's been reported he told Mueller he never spoke to Stone about the email hack?

    Silly question.  Sorry.


    It matters (none / 0) (#63)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    Capt... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 07:52:24 AM EST
    ... spillover from the another thread in regards to GWB/Trump.  At least these people are testifying in front of Congress and burying themselves.  Remember the GWB folks, they refused to go in front of Congress or to answer questions under oath.

    Some of Trump's men are paying the price with their freedom for their bad deeds.  And right now, some is actually quit a few with more to come next week.  

    Accountability might not be 100%, but it is a hell of lot better than when GWB was running the show.


    Point taken (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 08:09:08 AM EST
    Scary that the architect of the bush one pardons is back running the DOJ tho.

    I'm trying to figure out exactly when the (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    Republican members reversed their view on the eligibility of someone convicted for lying to Congress to testify before a Congressional Committee. Was it during or after Elliott Abrams' testimony the other day?

    Who was responsible for Abram's testifying (none / 0) (#64)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Since the dems controlled the committee I doubt the pubs had any involvement in his appearance.

    Thank you for pointing out the careless phrasing (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 07:34:25 PM EST
    of my comment. I try hard not to say anything other than what I exactly mean, so when I fail, I appreciate having it called to my attention. As you realize, I did not mean to be focusing on who called the hearing, but rather on the Republicans' view of Abrams's credibility, as expressed in their questioning, notwithstanding the nature of his criminal record. Which I realize is less serious than the true nature of the crimes against international humanitarian law and the law of war that he in fact committed.

    Funny (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 05:43:22 PM EST
    It's not about who called him to testify.  It's about the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans attacking Cohen and (literally) yelling "Liar, liar pants on fire!" for Cohen, while ignoring Abrams conviction for the same thing.  We probably shouldn't even mention who named Abrams an ambassador.  Lying to Congress as a Republican isn't a crime according to Republicans - it's a requisite.

    But rest assured (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    the GOP fully supported and continues to support Abrams, who was one of the chief apologists for U.S./Reagan policy regarding Guatemala.

    That policy was complicit in the genocide.

    And, Abrams was an apologist for the death squads in Guatemala.


    "One is tempted (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 12:59:56 PM EST
    to believe that some in the White House worship Aztec gods - with the offering of Central American blood"

    Julio Codoy, Guatemalan journalist


    LOL! Bless your heart. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    I bet Zorba's got some recipes for you. In the meantime, here's a video of the view from a Hawaiian Airlines B-717 on approach and short final into my hometown of Hilo on the island of Hawaii.

    Just out of curiostiy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:50:20 PM EST
    Are you rooting for Mueller or for the Russians?

    Desolation Row (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 12:48:48 AM EST
    Help with what (none / 0) (#10)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    The pubs clearly are trying to catch Cohen in a trap that will result in criminal charges.  If you don't get that you have not been paying attention.

    Even CNN (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    The public hearing (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    was critically important to the education of the American people regarding the shady and, possibly, criminal, character and modus operandi of Trump. The American people have waited patiently while thirsting for information, which at a minimum, meets Nixon's standard that Americans should know if their president is a crook.

    Some Americans looked for a business man to run the country as a business. But, did they want it run like a Trump business?  Maybe they did not notice such business matters as the bankruptcies and Trump University with a $25 million pay out in the fraud settlement. The media did notice a little, but then there were those emails to cover--and cover, and cover.

     And, not much was even involved with Russia, and, the most central issue, in my view, the issue of whether Trump is a Russian agent--a question in the minds of FBI counterintelligence.

     But, criminal actions, if any, are not at issue in this hearing, it is the political matters of suitability for the office of president. The Congress awaits, but cannot fully rely on the Special Counsel report (if there is an unedited one made public). The House Judiciary Committee needs to follow up this testimony, sifting through it and other testimony and gaining corroboration, as part of an impeachment inquiry.

    The Constitution provides for removal of a president before the completion of the term.  It is difficult to understand what the founders might have had in mind, if not for a case like Trump.

    "But her emails!" (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    KeysDan: "Some Americans looked for a business man to run the country as a business. But, did they want it run like a Trump business?  Maybe they did not notice such business matters as the bankruptcies and Trump University with a $25 million pay out in the fraud settlement. The media did notice a little, but then there were those emails to cover--and cover, and cover."

    Given the unholy mess we're in right now, those three words ought to forever haunt and shame every American journalist plying their trade in the national political power alley that's the D.C.- New York corridor.

    Our country is not well served, whenever reporters and editors choose to traffic in gossip, innuendo and false equivalence at the ultimately expense of their duty as journalists to seek the truth and tell the whole story.



    Guess you missed (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    the Chairman blabbing on CNN about how the dems never mentioned impeachment and he went on to say it was only the pubs than mentioned impeachment.

    Does your post mean you agree with the pubs that impeachment should be mentioned.


    Speaking of "babbling" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    What are you on about, now?

    I have no idea what the context was when Republicans  were talking about impeachment, but I guarantee it wasn't to raise it as a serious issue that needs to be considered ... as it should be, given Trumps many impeachable offenses that are already in the public record.


    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    Other committees will follow up.  Weisselberg and several other got their ticket punched today.  

    I finally agree with you about the impeachment thing.  No longer if but when.

    But I think it may be overtaken by a RICO charge against the whole organization from SDNY.

    Thats what I think.


    Jackie Speier Intel committee (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 08:27:12 PM EST
    "I want to hear from Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, from Donald Trump, Jr. again, from Ivanka Trump, Steve Bannon should come back, Roger Stone should probably come back," Speier replied.

    "All of the very intense inner-circle of Donald Trump needs to come before the House Intelligence Committee," she continued. "This is a very small universe of people that were involved in his campaign."

    Poor Eric.  Can't even get arrested.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    on the when. At this point who cares whether the senate will convict? I certainly don't and I have to say that if all this Russian conspiracy against the US comes out in an impeachment hearing, let the GOP vote with Putin. I no longer care.

    Were There Any New Revelations? (none / 0) (#32)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    I only read a few summary articles when I got home tonight.  I didn't notice any charges against Trump with which I wasn't familiar.  I assume the stuff that will really hurt him are in the money laundering territory.

    If you have cable news (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    I would turn it on.  Real news, you know, CNN, MSNBC

    AOC (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    ...was hitting it out of the park, with five word sentences.

    It's easy to see why she terrifies the Right.she is brilliant, focused, and knows what she is talking about.

    I'm thinking those degrees (with honors!) in economics and international relations are a lot more useful to the public than ANOTHER guy with a j.d.


    She absolutely crushed it (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:02:04 AM EST
    And the fact that she didn't feel the need to grandstand at all, while getting all the information she needed to do her job in financial oversight was awesome.

    Between this and Ihlan Omar doing her thing with Mr war criminal it looks like the freshman class has some serious heavy hitters.


    There might (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 07:46:35 PM EST
    not be anything that is new to someone like you who has kept up with this but the Cohen hearing has forced even Fox News to cover it. So it's probably getting through to people who did not know about all of this.

    Fox News? (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 08:01:16 PM EST
    Wow.  I would have thought today would have been "I Love Lucy" re-runs.

    The headline on DRUDGE was (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 08:05:14 PM EST

    Lordy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 09:34:11 PM EST
    I didn't think anybody read Drudge much less even checked in on what he is saying anymore.

    Capt (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    did you go to the NY Post link for that headline.  Very generic and not much to it.

    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:58:06 PM EST
    I would never click a Drudge link.  The point among a cluster you have completely missed WAS the headline.

    There was not anything new. (none / 0) (#44)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 27, 2019 at 10:51:43 PM EST
    Cohen implied the 2ndNY was investigating some stuff and to some extent that he was cooperating.  But no one had the balls to ask him if he had any type of formal agreement with him.

    While it is not really a headline that 2ndNY is investigating Trump Cohen and a lot of dems seem to think it will result in criminal charges for every one associated with Trump.

    Given that there now seems to be a lot of agreement that the SC has not really found anything of note and is winding down Trump's detractors are now pinning their hopes of his demise on congressional investigations.

    Maybe the biggest take away was Cummings defending Meadows when he thought Talib, maybe not intentionally, dissed him.

    After the testimony Cummings went on to tamp down impeachment for the short term.


    Keep (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 10:00:01 AM EST

    Rewatching parts of this (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    This morning, it was on my DVR and I had stuff to do yesterday so I missed some of it, it strikes me the most frightening and possibly the most important thing said yesterday was when Cohen in his closing statement warned Trump will not leave office peacefully.
    If its impeachment or an election pounding it will not be a peaceful transition.

    Think about it and tell me you can deny not only the possibility but the probability of that.  And what it means.

    When Trump leaves office he is probably going to jail.  As are family members.  If they hit them with RICO charges they will take everything he has.

    So, he really has nothing to lose.  Why wouldn't he go for it.  No idea how and I honestly don't even like thinking about it but anyone who thinks what Cohen said is hyperbole has not IMO been paying attention.

    Adding (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 10:00:12 AM EST
    This could be the reason he is indicted in office.  

    It unlikely Trump has cut the cheese in the last two years that the feds don't hava an archived recording of it.

    It's likely I think they might know if he has any such plans.


    Thats what I think.


    In case you missed it (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    Cohen makes chilling 2020 prediction during closing statement

    I believe this will go down in history along side "there was a cancer growing on the presidency"


    Bill Maher (none / 0) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    floated that idea quite some time ago. He doesn't believe Bone Spurs will leave willingly. Or at least not without lots and lots of drama. And lies. Lots and lots of lies.

    Trump has an unprecedented (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    number of off-the-hook looney supporters.

    He's like a NY-sleazy, secular version of David Koresh for the opioid-addled.

    The flipside of "I could kill someone and they wouldn't care" is they could kill someone and he wouldn't care.

    Definately the potential for things to get really hairy.


    And you guys (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 06:52:01 PM EST
    in NY probably have known this forever and tried to tell everybody too to no avail.

    Ga, I still shake my head (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    in disbelief everyday.

    There is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    some humor in all this though. The neo-confederates down here who have spent decades swearing they would never vote for anyone from the north got suckered by someone who not only is from Evil (in their minds) NY but someone who has never lived outside of NYC his entire 70 years.

    That's another thing.. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    this whole idea that everyone from NY is some sort of urban, slick-talking, carpet-bagging scalawag..

    Maybe that's what we get for talking as if everyone in the South was a wild-eyed fundamentalist, neo-confederate.

    My farmer uncle from upstate was what people used to call an "apple-knocker". So country bumpkin-ish you could barely understand him when talked. Not that theres anything wrong with that. And you see Confederate flags flying up here as well. I wish you didn't, but you do.


    Definitely. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 07:49:31 PM EST
    Especially with this type of "not-off-the-hook looney liberal supporter" running amok.

    Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 07:59:21 PM EST
    With all we have seen and heard at his rally's and elsewhere you are seriously going to dig up oneTrump supporter who got "punched" and play "both sides"?

    GOP logic (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:16:21 PM EST
    99 = 1; 99 bad conservative acts equals one bad liberal act.

    Does that mean one liberal is worth 99 conservatives?


    No condemnation of the violence. (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:01:38 PM EST
    Wonder why not.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:03:16 PM EST
    It's ridiculous and pathetic

    Doubling down. Cool cool. (1.33 / 3) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:04:08 PM EST
    Whatever else I say at this point will (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:08:09 PM EST
    Be deleted.

    So I will just say god save from the both sider bullshi+


    Well dang. How heroic of you. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 11:31:22 PM EST
    the most important thing said yesterday was when Cohen in his closing statement warned Trump will not leave office peacefully.
    If its impeachment or an election pounding it will not be a peaceful transition.
    Think about it and tell me you can deny not only the possibility but the probability of that.  And what it means.

    fwiw, imo, he's a 1 term guy. Or less. And that's probably for the best.

    However, I'm interested in your thinking.

    You know, probability wise. Undeniable-y wise.

    Tell us about the undeniable violent transition.

    The Air Force carpet-bombing Planned Parenthood? The FBI extrajudicially "disappearing" Sen. Cummings & Pelosi? Or Trump tweeting super extra double meany tweets as he's physically exited from the Oval Office?



    I was going to ignore this (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 08:38:09 AM EST
    Because it not intended to be a serious question, but it is one so what happens.

    Trump himself has said many times that if he is impeached his followers will revolt.  That's pretty straight up.  Also pretty much every one of his flying monkeys from Stone to Hannity to Rudy to Ingram and Coulter has said the same thing.

    And if that only resulted in exchanges like this -

    1.) Trumps followers are revolting!
    2.) What was your first clue Sherlock?

    That would be ok.  But I think all you need to do is look at the Coast Guard guy with a house full of guns and a progressive hit list to understand it could be a lot more serious.  It also helps to know Trump fanatics.  I do.  Sadly family.  They talk about this pretty constantly.  And while I doubt (hope) they are just blowing smoke the thing that bothers me is they are far from the most dangerous inmates in the asylum.  Just the ones I know.
    That's impeachment.  Which is why I have been saying for months in these threads I think impeachment is probably a bad idea and it would be better to beat him in an election.  Aside from the risk of violence roughly 1/3 of the country would never accept it.  It would tear the country apart.

    On the other hand beating him at the ballot box might not end any better.  What could he do?  Let's  start with what he planned to do when he lost to Hillary.  He had for months been laying the ground work to challenge the election results.  It's fixed, it's fixed, it's fixed etc etc.
    Even when he won he forced a months long "investigation" into the 3 million imaginary illegal votes.  That would be the amount Hillary beat him in the popular vote.  HE WON.  And he did this.  Why would anyone doubt he would do it if he lost?
    He is president and he has great power.  He can refuse to concede.  He can challenge the election in a dozen different courts.  And once again he can if necessary call his fanatics to action.

    That's some of the things that could happen.


    To paraphrase (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    David Frum: conservatives/Republicans will accept losing democracy before they accept losing elections. So you definitely can argue that neither one is going to pacify the fire breathers.

    I have moved towards impeachment even if he is not removed simply because we need a public airing of his crimes. We need a trial where all the evidence can be presented to the public. Then if the GOP refuses to remove him we will just have to make them own that vote in 2020 or 2022.


    I do not think he will win (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    In 2020.

    Likely he won't make it that far.


    I doubt the sky will fall. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    But who knows.

    Yeah I'm all fine with punching (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    people because they think differently.


    As I'm sure you're fine with amassing personal arsenals for the express purpose of one-upping the Anders Breiviks of the world.

    Speaking of no condemnations.


    The assaulter was an idiot (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    an azole, and a bully.

    On the other hand, setting up a sign saying "This is Trump Country" in the middle of the Berkeley campus is as passive-aggressive as setting up a BLM table at the entrance to a Trump rally.

    You can't tell me that playing somewhere in the back of that kid's mind, with everything that's happened at Berkeley, was a desire to expose "the intolerant left" and get it on film.


    Well, if so, it was successful. (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2019 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    A statement from UC Berkeley Public Affairs said a warrant was issued for suspect Zachary Greenberg and UC police arrested him Friday, booking him into jail at 1 p.m.

    Not sure if that video link will work... (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    ...here it is on youtube.

    At one point before the attacker sucker-punched the other dude, he yelled "I will shoot your ass!"


    Goodness (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    That's certainly just as bad blah blah blah

    It worker



    shoot him with a (none / 0) (#79)
    by leap on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 08:29:40 PM EST
    recipe, Capt.

    I was worried about that... (none / 0) (#62)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    back during the Cheney Administration.

    I remember that (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 28, 2019 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    And I've been thinking he was right.  But hearing Cohen say it the way he did on his way to jail for being his fixer fir decades ... I dunno.  Seemed next level.

    Personally, I think that ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    ... Trump will be indicted and will flee the country without ever resigning his office, plunging us into a succession crisis while shouting from Saudi Arabia or Russia that his adversaries conducted a virtual coup.

    I have no proof of that, of course. It's just that he's struck me as a guy who'd cut and run when cornered.



    I can't imagine *Rump (none / 0) (#113)
    by leap on Sun Mar 03, 2019 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    leaving NYC. He has lived there his whole life. Where would he go?

    My thoughts exactly. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2019 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    It may come down (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 03, 2019 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    to a choice of cutting and running or exiting out the end of one of those Barnum and Bailey circus canons pointed in a southeasterly direction.

    A spectacle not a few New Yorkers would pay good money to witness.


    Maybe you should (none / 0) (#106)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 02, 2019 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    put your money where your mouth is.

    Currently Trump being reelected is a heavy betting favorite.  Lots of ways you can bet against him or someone else.  

    Trump currently stands as a 3/2 bet to win re-election. His closest challenger is California Sen. Kamala Harris, listed at 10-1.


    What Did Such Betting Sites Say (none / 0) (#108)
    by RickyJim on Sat Mar 02, 2019 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    in March 2015 about the results of the 2016 election?

    Can't find anything that far back (none / 0) (#109)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 02, 2019 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    Trump started as a 25 to 1 dog later in the game.

    You seemed to have missed my point, or lack an understanding of betting.  The house does not care who wins; they set the odds so the bets for and against even out and they make money on the vigorish.

    Trump being a 25 to 1 dog means not enough money was being bet on him and the house wanted to get more bets on him.

    Early on the house has too few bets and sets the odds knowing they will be changing later.  I have little doubt the current 3/2 for Trump an 10 to 1 for Harris would change greatly if Harris was nominated.  But by betting now you can get a bet down with these odds.


    I don't know what the official odds were (none / 0) (#110)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 02, 2019 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    back then but when he won the Republican nomination, I thought he had a 30% chance of becoming president.  Closer to the actual the election, I thought he improved to 70%.  I did not bet.  

    Michael (none / 0) (#91)
    by NoSides on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Cohen said that Trump asked him to do rather unsavory things about 500 times.

    Shouldn't a warning bell have gone off in his head after, say, the 450th time?

    Michael Cohen sucks (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CST on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:17:44 PM EST
    Good thing no one elected him to be the president.

    How do you feel about a president who will demand 500 unsavory things from one person?


    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    He and Trump were in this together. Cohen is just telling you and I all what Trump told him to do. What Trump apologists fail to realize is that the same crimes you are screaming at Cohen doing Trump was doing the same.

    What about the RNC having this guy as what? Deputy Finance Minister or something.


    Cohen never suggested that he didn't realize (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    he was being asked to do things that were dishonest, unethical and illegal. He recounted how he chose to place himself, for selfish reasons, in the heart of a conspiracy of lawless enablers of an amoral narcissist. Your comment about "warning bells" therefore makes no sense in this discussion. Which somehow I suspect you may realize, despite your taking "no sides" and all.

    Tiropita (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    1 1/2-2 lb. feta, crumbled
    1 lb. whole milk ricotta or Greek soft anthotiro
    8 eggs
    salt and white pepper
    box of phyllo
    ½ lb. butter, melted
    Ground white pepper
    1 cup grated kefalotyri cheese (or use romano)
    Beat four whole eggs and add four egg yolks only. (Or use six whole eggs.) Beat until light and creamy. Fold into crumbled feta, ricoota cheese, and kefaloteri. Season to taste. Butter bottom of 9"x13" pan. Place eight phyllo leaves in pan, individually buttering each leaf. Pour in cheese mixture. Cover with additional eight leaves, individually buttered. Fold edges to retain mixture, and brush top with melted butter. Bake at 350 for 45 minutes, until golden.

    Sounds delicious (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 05:15:20 PM EST
    These trolls are gonna make me put on a few pounds ...

    ok (none / 0) (#100)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em bot' together
    Put the lime in the coconut and you'll feel better
    Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em bot' up
    Put the lime in the coconut and call me in the morning"

    And while (none / 0) (#101)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    You're at it, add some rum.  :-)

    Lemme get this straight.. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    You'r such a silly woman (none / 0) (#107)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 02, 2019 at 08:14:11 AM EST
    repeated several times in the lyrics.

    My favorite youtube vid of the song.


    Clay (whaars the boxes) Higgins', (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    Republican Congressman from Louisiana, aide resigned after being busted for pandering in Lafayette parish. The aide, Jerod Prunty, was arrested last month following an investigation into human sex trafficking, prostitution and massage parlors.

    Clay Higgins--the former LA cop with the "vested" interest (or vest of interest), is new and stiff competition to another Republican Congressman, Louis Gomert for Congressional fool (do not cast aspersions on my asparagus).

    In true Inspector Clouseau fashion, Clay kept asking whaars boxes, even after being told repeatedly that they were returned after the raid on Cohen's office/house/hotel room. Clay was sure he had Cohen. As Marge said to her deputy (Fargo)--I don't like your police work.

    "Of course I'm respectable. I'm old. Politicians, ugly buildings and wh*res all get respectable if they last long enough."
    - Noah Cross (John Huston) to J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson), "Chinatown" (1974)

    ... from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). But for my money there's no bigger fool in Congress than the old fool himself, Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who -- with 46 years of experience and a comparable litany of nonsensical statements over that time -- has a huge advantage and running start over all three due to his sheer longevity and staying power.



    Link to (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 01, 2019 at 05:20:29 PM EST
    Clickbait headline (none / 0) (#112)
    by ragebot on Sun Mar 03, 2019 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    from MSM

    Lawmakers exploring possible pardon talks involving Michael Cohen

    The substance of the story does not match up to the headline.  But I get the impression that Cohen is doing everything he can to delay his going to jail and would love a pardon.

    Thing is I was under the impression only the prez can grant a pardon and I don't see that happening for Cohen.  Wondering if any other authority can grant a pardon.  Kinda sure congress can't but 2ndNY could recommend (or alter the original recommendation) less for Cohen's jail time.

    Anyone know more about the legal technicalities of how Cohen might get off easier than what he now faces.