Below is my column in USA Today on the real danger of the Stormy Daniels case. The danger in the campaign finance allegation is the fact of the investigation not necessarily the charge itself. The fact that there is an ongoing investigation presents a more straightforward basis for prosecutors to allege obstruction than in the Russian investigation.
Here is the column:
Despite the well-earned criticism of Rudy Giuliani for his first interview as President Trump’s new counsel, the fact is that Giuliani was given a daunting task.
The legal team had clearly concluded that (with the raid on Trump’s personal counsel, Michael Cohen) it could no longer factually or legally defend the president’s prior blanket denial of an affair or knowledge of the agreement with porn star Stormy Daniels. Giuliani failed in the pivot rather spectacularly and might have done the impossible in making Cohen look competent in comparison. Giuliani later corrected his statements, and Trump went public to rebuke him to “get his facts straight.” Trump added the general advice to “learn before you speak. It’s a lot easier.”
The danger, however, is far greater than a lawyer learning about a case live on television like some legal reality show. The problem for Trump is that the Daniels controversy could supply the obstruction case that has long evaded special counsel Robert Mueller.
In a Sunday interview on ABC’s This Week, Giuliani continued to search for terra firma. At one point, Giuliani was reduced to insisting that while he could no longer assert facts as counsel, “I can prove it’s rumor. But I can’t prove it’s fact. Yet. Maybe we will.”
Somewhere in there is a good defense lost in bad delivery.
Giuliani was continuing to try to advance a line of defense called the “irrespective test” under the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules that allow for a finding that an expenditure is personal if it’s “any commitment, obligation or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”
It is a valid defense, and it is particularly familiar to White House counsel Donald McGahn, who was an FEC commissioner.
But the legal legacy of the Trump administration is a litany of self-inflicted wounds. Trump insisted recently that you cannot obstruct a case if there is no underlying crime. In truth, that is no easy feat, but Trump is making an impressive effort.
The problem has never been his case (or cases). He has a strong defense in his choice to fire FBI Director James Comey, for example. A president can have multiple reasons for firing a political appointee, and Comey was viewed by former attorneys general and career prosecutors as warranting termination at the start of the administration. Virtually all of the claims of obstruction in the Comey matter have come from Trump’s own interventions and comments to Cabinet members, Russian diplomats, staff and news media.
Despite Trump’s best efforts, the evidence falls substantially short of a credible obstruction case. The case is made all the more difficult by the president’s use of discretionary constitutional authority to retain or remove political appointees.
The Daniels case, on the other hand, could present a much easier case for obstruction or related crimes. There are no complicating constitutional powers or political judgments. The New York prosecutors are investigating the payments and have conducted a raid that, in part, sought information related to payments to Daniels as well as similar payments to Playboy model Karen McDougal.
Efforts to withhold evidence, encourage false testimony, or influence witnesses could present credible foundation for criminal charges ranging from witness tampering, obstruction to subornation.
The Trump team appeared to finally recognize that Cohen had put the president in the worst possible position with his payment of hush money and incriminating past statements. Giuliani then took a bad position and made it far, far worse. He tried to reframe the payment of the $130,000 from a gift to a loan from Cohen, thereby tripping a series of new potential criminal and ethical violations without (as he seemed to assume) getting the president out of the campaign-finance threat.
The greatest danger of the campaign-finance allegations, however, is not the charge itself. These violations are rarely charged criminally and, as shown in the failed prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, difficult to prove.
Rather, the greatest danger is the response to the investigation into campaign-finance violations or fraud. Again, all the prosecutors need is a criminal investigation to lay the foundation for more serious crimes such as obstruction.
Perhaps for that reason, Trump went out the morning after Giulliani’s first disastrous interview to deny the former New York mayor’s assertions. Then, in an even more embarrassing turn, Giuliani himself insisted that he was “not describing my understanding of the president’s knowledge, but instead, my understanding of these matters.”
However, the “matter” at issue is the president’s knowledge. If the president was involved in sending out a false public account by both his private counsel and White House staff, it could be treated as a potential criminal matter. Likewise, any evidence that Cohen was warned or in any way protected by government officials before the raids could prove incriminating.
Even more worrisome are accounts that Trump continued to call Cohen even though he was warned about the danger of interception and possible cooperation. According to NBC News, Trump made at least one call after his own Justice Department raided Cohen’s office and Cohen was rumored to have recorded conversations with his clients. The recklessness of such a call is impossible to overstate. If prosecutors believe that there is a campaign-finance violation or fraud, such contacts could easily lay the foundation for more serious criminal allegations for Trump.
Trump has always portrayed himself as a vicious “counterpuncher.” However, the federal code has a crime designed specifically for counterpunching in the midst of a criminal investigation. That is how a porn star could succeed where a special counsel fails. Indeed, if Trump is not careful, that is how a porn star could take down a president.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.
in a certain sense both the stormy matter and the lewinsky thing were both preposterous distractions from bigger things.
it’s important in a nation that follows the rule of law that even trivial legal matters get some attention
it’s wisdom that they get the attention they deserve
sex things always get too much attention in America. This should be the end of the stupid stormy story.
Below is related to millions of dollars that poured into Cohen’s LLC, the one from which he paid Ms. Daniels. It’s no longer just about paying off Trump’s porn stars.
“I am just a lawyer. Michael Cohen evidently is a lawyer, a real estate agent, an accountant, a doctor, a business consultant and a venture capitalist. Who knew that Michael Cohen would be exposed as the Leonardo da Vinci of our time?” –
@MichaelAvenatti
The Lewinski affair led to a President lying in a deposition and his subsequent impeachment.
The Daniels affair has led, among other things, to the uncovering of a secret slush fund set up to “fix” Trump’s bimbo eruption problems and funded in part by a firm with connections to a Russian oligarch.
This story will go on and now the focus is upon Cohen’s dirty dealings.
Isaac – “The important thing to remember is that he is evil, stupid, a buffoon, and dangerous.”
I wonder if the three saved from N.K. feel this way about President Trump.
I am grateful that the president secured their release.
He is also evil, stupid, a buffoon, and dangerous. And he is crooked as a bag of snakes.
“And he is crooked as a bag of snakes.”
That makes you a liar ChuckG unless you have some proof. However, maybe lying doesn’t count when one is so ignorant.
Evil? No way. Try again. Stupid? Hardly. A buffoon? Yes he is that. Dangerous? Sure, but in the right ways that are needed to shake up Washington. The world will be a better place at the end of Trump’s presidency. Just watch.
My comment has disappeared. I was wondering why. How is the following against the rules of the blog?
Saying that a porn star brought down Trump is not true. It is also sexist.
If Trump is brought down by this, it is his own actions, his obstruction of justice, which will bring him down.
In an age of lies, it is important to correctly attribute actions to the person to whom they belong, especially concerning powerful people like a president.
Everything you say sounds like this, hence deletable for aesthetic reasons.
Why the Left have no support by the Majority of Americans….they eat the weak for fun
“SEE: JUANITA BROADDRICK INTERVIEW (APROX 7 MIN – REAL PLAYER)
http://web.archive.org/web/20010607062711/http://www.jailtothechiefstamp.com/page3.html
TRANSCRIPT OF JUANTIA BROADDRICK INTERVIEW WITH DATELINE (NBC)
http://web.archive.org/web/20010617091509/http://freeweb.pdq.net/danno/dattran.htm
AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON,
BY JUANITA BROADDRICK
‘DO YOU REMEMBER?’
SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000
As I watched Rick Lazio’s interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to
write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio’s views
regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did
not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.
I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were
twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on
television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy
in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.””
Jane, what does this have to do with events on May 9th, 2018?? A letter from 18 years ago referencing a Fox News broadcast..?? Like so-called ‘leftists’ should be struck speechless by this..??
If this is your only defense of Donald Trump how does that reflect on him? And how does it reflect on Trump supporters? It looks like all of you are quite literally living in the past.
It looks like all of you are quite literally living in the past.
You confuse learning from with living in. Many of us understand our future is dependent on how well we’ve learned the lessons from the past. And why bother scouring history for teachable moments? Because there is one constant civilization cannot advance…human nature.
Peter Hill doesn’t learn from the past. It is too inconvenient. He prefers to do the same bad things over and over again as long as a crazy morally deficient Democrat is in charge.
A lot of us conservatives have not supported Trump but have supported the rule of law. There is no such commitment from the Left.
Olly, I was a registered Democrat most of my life. I never changed parties because it didn’t make a difference. I voted on both sides based on the candidate. When I wanted to support a particular candidate in a primary I switched to being a Republican. I don’t know what a Democrat or Republican is. Those are parties that politicians hide behind. I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary but I am glad he won and would vote for him in the primary today, tomorrow and all the days after.
Do I agree with everything he did in his life? No, but on the whole, he has been a positive figure in his personal life and his political life. I can’t say the same for his predecessors though some have been better than others. He has been unmercifully attacked from all sides and he is still standing. While being attacked he performed his duties well and IMO did many good things that the left has not credited him for. The Democratic party has descended to the gutter and much of what we hear on this blog is from the gutter feeders.
This is a great country whose government represents many different views and I think Trump represents the people well. Just look at the economy.
Watching Trump pick up every can kicked down the road for decades, Americans are wondering what exactly the last 3 Presidents were doing to earn their paychecks……aside from selling Americans out.
Good post Allan.
I don’t know what a Democrat or Republican is.
I was registered Republican from my first general election in 1980 until I registered Independent in 2010. I did so primarily because of my military service. It wasn’t until I began studying US Civics around 2007 that my eyes opened and I began to see the 2 major political parties as two sides of the same coin. I vehemently opposed Trump throughout the primaries until he secured the nomination. I still don’t like his style but it is proving to be effective in getting the results we need.
Thanks, Olly.
I pick effectiveness over style. Don’t forget, the environment that one is functioning in creates the type of style utilized.
I know people that have dealt with him and they reveal a different side of Trump. One in particular, didn’t like him but was a very strong supporter. Why? Because he got the job done efficiently and properly.
Don’t forget, the environment that one is functioning in creates the type of style utilized.
Good point. That reminds me of the movie Twelve O’Clock HIgh with Gregory Peck. We used that movie in leadership training in the Navy.
Great movie.
@Allan May 9, 2018 at 6:05 PM
“I don’t know what a Democrat or Republican is.”
But you know what a “leftist” and a “rightist” are, right? 🙂
Ken, I know what a leftist is but a rightist is a little less defined. Is a rightist a conservative, libertarian, classical liberal or any of the other terms ascribed to rightists? Some of those terms like NAZI are closer to the left (National Socialism).
Do you think Rand Paul represents the average Senator in the Republican Party?
Jane: you need to stop watching Fox News. They pitch the “us vs. them” theme, or the “left vs. Americans” theme. The majority of Americans who voted did not vote for Trump. The majority of Americans disapprove of him, disapprove of the job he has done, and want him to leave. Those are consistent polling numbers over the past 16 months.
Natacha, What ‘theme’ do you think is going on over at MSNBC? From now on you need to include MSNBC and CNN in your comment whenever you mention Fox News. If you think people should stop watching Fox News, then you should suggest they stop watching MSNBC and CNN as well.
And btw, a majority of people disapproved of Barack Obama’s policies, while they approved of him personally – mostly b/c he spent a lot of his time going on the late night shows, the Ellen show, and chatting with the ladies on The View. Barry worked hard at keeping his popularity numbers up while the disapproval for his actual policies devastated his own party.
HOW TO PLAY “SPOT THE NERD” ON COMMENT THREADS
Look for that clever insider who refers to Obama as “Barry”. You see, as a young man, Obama went by the name of Barry. And the fact that he uses “Barrack” as an adult somehow makes him ‘deceptive’. Though if he used the name ‘Barry’ as a politician, conservatives would claim he was ‘hiding his Muslim identity’. Nevertheless, commenters who call him ‘Barry’ fancy themselves as being hip to the coolest joke in politics; which makes them total nerds!
Yo, yo, yo Peter Hill. You say that like there’s something wrong with being a total nerd? Should I be offended? But right you are Peter Hill. I am a super hip nerd and clever insider. So hip in fact, that I usually refer to him as Barry from Honolulu.
That’s a curious clip. Obama was barely audible and we have no idea what the question was. Then suddenly it cut while Obama was still talking.
Peter, you realize of course that the volume can be turned up. You are not forced to listen to alternative ideas with the mute button on.
President Obama is a Muslim.
A stupid canard spread by stupid people.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/my-muslim-faith/
Snopes pretends to read minds to satisfy their ideological leanings. It’s pure foolishness to rely on Snopes for things of this nature but some people still do it.
Was Obama’s statement, “my Muslim faith” a slip of the tongue or some type of Freudian slip. That question is not answered by Snopes?
Asserting that President Obama is a believing Muslim is asinine.
This demonstrates your naivete. I can’t say for sure what anyone believes much less Obama, but you are able to draw all sorts of absolutist conclusions based on what you have been told by the ideologues who pull your strings. (I am not saying Obama is a Muslim or a Christian or anything else. I commented on Snopes lack of an intelligent answer.)
I wouldn’t want to trust anyone with such a lack of common sense you are demonstrating. I prefer to look at results rather than characterizing an individual as part of a collectivist group. That type of characterization is one of your major problems.
BTW: “Barak” is a Hebrew name from the Old Testament.
MSNBC and CNN do not have an agenda. In fact, Fox is unique in spinning its breathless praise for Trump, creating lists of false “accomplishments” for Trump, pivoting to try to create one non-existent HRC “scandal” after another, attacking Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and other Democrats, especially women and minorities, and ignoring genuine news that is adverse to Trump, like the $500K payment to Cohen from a Russian oligarch, today’s scandal du jour. They also endlessly attack main stream media as an “enemy”. Think about that one for a minute. “Main stream” by definition includes what most people in this country think and believe in.
Barak Obama is more popular today than Trump. Same is true for Bill Clinton. You are incorrect about most Americans disapproving of President Obama and his accomplishments. He inherited a severe economic downturn which he reversed. Trump inherited a thriving economy. However, since Trump took office, the rate of growth created by President Obama has slowed down.
He inherited a severe economic downturn which he reversed.
He did nothing of the kind. Not one meliorative policy initiative undertaken in between August of 2008 and May of 2009 had his fingerprints on it. My favorite BO boner was when he let slip he knew nothing of the Swedish financial crisis in 1992, even though that provided a road map to resolving ours.
When Obama took office in January of 2009, the country was at its lowest point since the end of World War II. Not only did we have the worst recession since the 1930’s, but we were still actively fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet despite that crisis moment, Republicans made it clear they weren’t going to cooperate with Obama on anything whatsoever. They then opposed the auto-bailout which actually cheaper than letting the whole industry crash. Then in 2011, while unemployment was still high, Republicans shut down the government to protest Obamacare. At that point a number economists felt that Republicans were actually hampering a still very fragile economy.
What do you think the Democrats (and the media) have been doing to Trump since the day he won the election?
Trump is the first president in history with no prior experience in elected office. Trump is the first president to attack people in daily announcements (tweets). Trump is the first president to maintain a business empire while functioning as President. Trump is the first in 40 years to refuse to show his tax returns. Trump went for an entire year denying Russian interference in the election. Trump is the first to attack leaders of his own party.
The list goes on and on with Trump; ‘first’ in every dubious category possible. The Republican Party is still not sure they even like Donald Trump. And currently a record number of Republicans are set to retire from Congress. Therefore if Donald Trump gets bad press, he has only himself to blame.
Peter Hill May 10, 2018 at 1:38 AM
“Trump went for an entire year denying Russian interference in the election. ”
“The list goes on and on with Trump; ‘first’ in every dubious category possible.”
In your latest “All the Dirt That’s Fit to Dish” column here, you say nothing about the rumor that Trump puts ketchup on hotdogs.
Is that a bridge too far?
On a less serious note, have your sources indicated why they think the Russians interfered in the 2016 election? My Canasta club meets this afternoon, and this may come up.
Peter Hill, production levels stabilized in May of 2009. The temporal extent of declining production levels wasn’t any longer than it is in an ordinary recession, it was just unusually deep. There was no ‘abaracadabara’ uttered by Obama to make this happen. The stimulus was a collection of pork projects that Reid and Pelosi assembled from standing wishlists and, in any case, there wasn’t time for it to have any effect on aggregate demand. All salient features of the program to stabilize the banking system were put in place prior to his inauguration. The one discretionary thing he did was put his imprimateur on plans to provide for the rape of Chrysler bondholders to please the United Auto Workers. That’s the Democratic Party at work.
Obama wasn’t interested in efforts to restructure the financial sector. He wanted a policy monument to himself. What he got was Obamacare, which may succeed in completely wrecking the market for individual health insurance one state at a time.
, but we were still actively fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The surge had managed to successfully quell political violence in 9 of Iraq’s 16 provinces before he took office. The six provinces with large populations of Sunnis were a mess. They still are.
@Insufferable May 9, 2018 at 11:07 PM
” ‘, but we were still actively fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.’
“The surge had managed to successfully quell political violence in 9 of Iraq’s 16 provinces before he took office. The six provinces with large populations of Sunnis were a mess. They still are.”
Yes, those damned ingrates, and after all the CheneyBush Administration did for them. It seems as though they dug the Shock, but can’t muster the Awe.
Dying’s easy, but comedy and imperialism are hard.
Yet despite that crisis moment, Republicans made it clear they weren’t going to cooperate with Obama on anything whatsoever. They then opposed the auto-bailout which actually cheaper than letting the whole industry crash.
How was it ‘cheaper’ than reorganization in Bankruptcy Court? It wasn’t. It’s just that Bankruptcy Judges set priorities between creditors per statutory law and BO and the Democratic Party of Rackets wanted priority given to their clientele. So, secured creditors got shafted and the UAW got a walk.
Sounds like you watch a lot of Fox News, especially Sean Hannity’s show.
“They also endlessly attack main stream media as an ‘enemy.'” — Who is “they”? That is a false statement and a complete lie. Do you know that Fox News, and specifically Chris Wallace, has repeatedly criticized Trump over his comments about fake news and the media being the enemy of the people?
“MSNBC and CNN do not have an agenda.” — Right. Surely you jest.
“You are incorrect about most Americans disapproving of President Obama and his accomplishments.” — I said his policies were unpopular, and his party was decimated at every level during his two terms while he remained personally popular. He presided over gridlock, extreme polarization, rioting in the streets, deteriorating race relations, the rise of ISIS, and a stagnant economy -even at the end of his eight years. Plus he was at war every single day of his two terms, and even so, was awarded a Nobel Peace prize for having done nothing but get elected as the first biracial president. And btw, Trump’s job approval ratings have been higher than Obama’s were at the same time during his presidency. Trump has far more support than you think.
https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/994077899249635330
Michael Avenatti started that ball rolling….
“@MichaelAvenatti
·
22h
After significant investigation, we have discovered that Mr. Trump’s atty Mr. Cohen received approximately $500,000 in the mos. after the election from a company controlled by a Russian Oligarc with close ties to Mr. Putin. These monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment.”
The tale of Michael Cohen, a Trump slush fund, a Russian Oligarch, and a payment to a Bimbo, Oh my!
Meanwhile, the top attorney in NY just resigned and faces criminal charges
JT? the left on these forums? crickets
No worries….real journalism at its best follows
“According to Michelle Manning Barish, she once responded to him yanking her across the street by saying, “Jaywalking is against the law.” She says Mr. Schneiderman replied, “I am the law.” She adds that “if there is a sentence that sums him up, it’s that.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-the-law-1525800340
so lets talk about Hillary and Bill Clinton, two moral cripples we all know did nothing for this country (unlike Trump)
Erica, honey, Bill and Hillary Clinton are old news. Every time Trump gets in trouble, the talking heads at Fox pivot to say something bad about them, but this does not excuse or explain Trump’s failures as a leader or the criminal conduct he is being investigated for.
Schneiderman resigned. He is being investigated. He is not a spokesman for “the left” or anyone else. Again, none of this has anything to do with Trump and his self-inflicted injuries.
It’s telling that Trump’s defenders always reflexively pivot to “What about” arguments involving the Clinton’s and/or President Obama.
I take it as a tacit acknowledgement that the depraved lout Donald cannot be defended on his own merits, whatever they may be.
Under two years ago, Wildbill, Hillary Clinton was running for President. She enabled her husband Bill Clinton and viciously attacked the victims trying to assassinate their character. Where were you? What comments did you make when you found out that Hillary was provided the questions in advance at the debates?
I have heard others like you making all sorts of statements about Trump and one after the other they are proven false. Presently we are left with one item that happened 10 years ago while Bill was in the Whitehouse where he did his dirty business that Hillary was defending.
Trump being a moral cripple who did something for this country?
I think of him as more of an amoral ethical cripple, who has done much evil and little good for this country.
#NeverTrump
“who has done much evil”
What evil?
Professor Turley is right. Here’s how a porn star can bring down a president.
TRUMP LAWYER CREATED SHELL COMPANY..
TO PROCESS SOLICITATIONS AND HUSH MONEY
RUSSIAN OLIGARCH FIGURED AMONG SECRET PAYEES
A shell company that Michael D. Cohen used to pay hush money to a pornographic film actress received payments totaling more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the Trump administration, according to documents and interviews.
Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions adding up to at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show.
Among the previously unreported transactions were payments last year of about $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm in New York whose biggest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, the Russian oligarch. A lawyer for Columbus Nova, in a statement on Tuesday, described the money as a consulting fee that had nothing to do with Mr. Vekselberg.
Other transactions described in the financial records include hundreds of thousands of dollars Mr. Cohen received from Fortune 500 companies with business before the Trump administration, as well as smaller amounts he paid for luxury expenses like a Mercedes-Benz and private club dues.
Edited from: “Firm Tied To Russian Oligarch Made Payments To Micael Cohen”
Today’s NEW YORK TIMES
The revelations here are shockingly similar to Watergate discoveries from 45 years ago. Basically the President has a so-called “slush fund”.
Nixon’s slush fund was basically an offshoot of his reelection campaign fund. In this case, Trump’s lawyer set up a shell company. Not only was it used to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, but it was always utilized to launder illegal campaign donations.
Reader Comments to the above article noted that shell companies like this are often created by mob lawyers for the purposes of racketeering. Indeed Michael Cohen was essentially a mob lawyer to Donald Trump.
Professor Turley is absolutely right. Stormy Daniels will prove to be, more than anyone, the person who brought down this president. She became the lead that provided Robert Mueller everything he needed to take out Donald Trump.
And even if Trump fires Robert Mueller, the case against Michael Cohen continues in New York. There is no stopping this train.
The revelations here are shockingly similar to Watergate discoveries from 45 years ago. Basically the President has a so-called “slush fund”.
No, they’re not. Herbert Kalmbach and other assembled donor money to buy the silence of people who were criminal defendants. Nothing similar has happened in this case.
We don’t know that yet. This story is still very fluid.
Peter Hill, there are no defendants (except the Russian internet trolls).
“I know you don’t believe in climate change, but a storm’s a comin'”. Stephanie Clifford, May 5, 2018 at about 11:34 p.m. Eastern Daylight time.
I would vote Michael Cohen at least an equal portion of the blame for this fiasco. Stormy Daniels and Mike Avenatti helped to shine a light into the dark corners of Cohen’s practice, but the dirt had to be there in the first place. Can’t wait to see what the Federal Prosecutor’s uncover in Cohen’s business records, I doubt that any of this came as a surprise to them.
“Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, ”
Where did the NYTimes get those records? Are the prosecutors breaking the law? Are we once again seeing leaks that turn out to be fake? Virtually everything major that Peter Hill has said about Trump has been proven false or lacked evidence.
It’s not his fault. He reads the NYTimes but doesn’t have the intellect to learn from prior mistakes.
Allan, you’re half senile. Seriously! Does your care-giver know you’re online?
“Allan, you’re half senile. ”
Half senile most on this blog would still make you look ignorant. You have the witticism of a gnat.
Let’s get one thing straight: “We’re All Americans”. I don’t consider Republicans ‘enemy scum’.
I defended George W. Bush at least 100 times from 9 /11 “truthers”. No ‘leftist’ performs that service. I have also half-defended Bush on the invasion of Iraq; a big, big challenge in Facebook debates. Again, no leftist performs that service.
During the 2016 campaign Bernie Bros hated me. I wasn’t left enough! And that became an issue every time we argued. Real leftists aren’t misunderstood that way.
So let’s not pretend mainstream Democrats are ‘leftist hedonists subverting America’. That’s a Bircher attitude from the 1950’s.
“Let’s get one thing straight: “We’re All Americans”. I don’t consider Republicans ‘enemy scum’.”
Please, I have been listening to your rhetoric and it has been cr-p.
I’m not interested in what you say you said before. I am interested in what you have been saying here and most of it is cr-p. To be honest, I was not impressed with GWB though I think he was a good man, quite a change from his predecessor.
“During the 2016 campaign Bernie Bros hated me. ”
Congratulations, but despite my differences with Bernie and what I believe to be his incompetence he didn’t seem to be a crook or a demonizer of women like Hillary (despite her rhetoric).
“let’s not pretend mainstream Democrats are ‘leftist hedonists subverting America’. ”
I have always separated mainstream Democrats from the far left, but watching the Democratic Party act in the fashion it has and listening to all too many leftists on this blog I have moved in the direction of responding as if that were so. If you wish to be thought of as a mainstream Democrat then act as one but what we have been seeing is contrary to what you seem to be saying. Added to this is a media that is not acting as the fourth branch of government. It is promoting its own ideology and twisting things to gain ratings and increase profits. If you wish, refer Project Veritas which has statements of that type on video from high placed persons.
It is fine with me if you don’t like Trump or his policies. However, one has to argue based on facts and be able to designate a level of importance of those facts. Try it and you will find that your discussions will become more satisfactory.
You’re a Bircher who presumes to define American politics by your own, far-right standards.
The term ‘Bircher’ does not mean what you think it means.
The commenter her whose thought processes most resemble Birchers is ‘billmcwilliams’.
“You’re a Bircher who presumes to define American politics by your own, far-right standards.”
Peter, apparently you are ignorant of the John Birch Society and pretty ignorant about politics in general. That society was a bit too extreme and not inclusive enough to my liking while appearing to lack a bit of common sense. Since I was a registered Democrat at the time it makes such membership sound even more ridiculous. (By the way, my views haven’t changed much over the years until the most recent craziness of the left and the Democratic Party.)
I think their anti-communism platform was what brought many of them together so perhaps you favor communism and call me a Bircher because I fight against it. I note that your leanings sometimes seem to flow in that direction. But you will say that is unfair because your leanings have nothing to do with what you believe.
Again, all the prosecutors need is a criminal investigation to lay the foundation for more serious crimes such as obstruction.
And there you have it; the entire reason for the Mueller investigation to exist. If it were an actual criminal investigation , then there is plenty of evidence of actual crimes to prosecute. That’s right, a DOJ seeking justice. Not politicized, just investigating and following the evidence wherever it leads. But no, this is not about justice, this is lawfare.
The most disgusting part of this entire saga is the blood-lust from the Left. They’ll defend or completely ignore campaign finance money laundering, rigging a primary, actual collusion with Russia, phony dossiers, hacking of computers, selling of uranium to Russia, Pakistani-national’s criminal activities within the Dem ranks all for one goal…get Trump. And what will the charge be that potentially takes down the POTUS? That’s right, obstruction of justice investigating a 10 year old affair and an NDA involving $130k. Congratulations, you’ve employed an army of government lawyers on the taxpayer’s dime to take out a president on that.
To name just a couple of things — I have not seen any evidence that the dossier is “phoney.” Parts of it have been corroborated, and parts have yet to be corroborated, but I haven’t seen that any has been proven absolutely false. Re uranium: NONE has been “sold to Russia.” None has left this country or Canada, bound for Russia. And whose computers did the Democrats hack?
Parts of it have been corroborated, and parts have yet to be corroborated,
Because cock-and-bull. But keep hoping. Maybe they’ll discover Michael Cohen has a second passport under the name “Haven Monahan”.
It depends on what you want to see. Are you looking for phony or ignoring it? Does it matter to you how that dossier came into existence or what its purpose was? Does it matter to you to what extent Russia acquired U.S. uranium deposits or who profited from the deal? Does it matter to you if a major political party laundered campaign contributions ($84 million) to one candidate to circumvent FEC rules? Does it matter to you if that same party rigged a primary in favor of one candidate? Does it matter to you that same party reported their computer systems were hacked but would not turn them over for an investigation? Does it matter to you that same party hired Pakistani-nationals for IT work, then those IT folks committed crimes, protected by the DNC and were allowed to leave the country? Does it matter to you a decorated Army general (Flynn) is nearly bankrupted for committing a process crime in response to perfectly legal matter, but a former Sec. of State (Kerry) is committing potentially egregious Logan Act violations without any response by the DOJ?
If all of that matters less to you than a 10 year old affair with a porn actress and a $130k NDA; then you are absolutely not interested in the rule of law. If it’s lawfare you want, then it’s lawfare you’ll get. Welcome to the banana republic.
Just how much uranium has left the US or Canada for Russia?
LOL! And who cares about a rigged election and $84 million laundered to the Clinton Victory Fund, because she lost.
Yeah, way to go deep on your inquiry.
And of course the uranium to Russia is nothing but a canard…
And of course you’re still running with the definition of is defense. The depth of your intellectual curiosity is truly underwhelming.
“And of course the uranium to Russia is nothing but a canard…”
Why is that?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rating/false
FALSE
Wildbill, yes it says false but Snopes (a left-wing spin site) wasn’t talking about uranium or Hillary. Can’t you guys get anything right? You should know all about it but you don’t. Are you another of those low information types? Do you wish to join Peter Hill in a competition over who has less information?
Whereas you seem to have plenty of false information.
Let’s see, you provide a Snopes article as proof that has nothing to do with Hillary and uranium. You have had plenty of time to correct your error but you didn’t. Now you blame me for false information yet you aren’t specific because it doesn’t exist. The big problem is that most of your arguments have been proven wrong. Doesn’t that make you feel foolish?
The left doesn’t care about the nation or its people. I believe many are racists and use people as cannon fodder just to satisfy their aims.
Just like Al Capone getting popped for tax evasion instead of the really dastardly crimes from which he distanced himself, Trump can go down for jay walking. The important thing to remember is that he is evil, stupid, a buffoon, and dangerous. Trump is pandering to the extreme minority of mega rich oligarchs and the mob that can’t think past the lies he spouts. Trump does not represent the majority of Americans. Trump is bad for America and the world. However, and as soon as possible, America has got to rid itself of this pestilence. America is great enough to recover but the longer Trump is there and the more damage he does, the longer the recovery. It took Bush and his handlers eight years to sink the American economy and slaughter a million innocents. It took Obama five years to right the ship which continues to advance.
The more important question is how long will America function in this dysfunctional way to swinging back and forth between two ideologies, both played by the oligarchs that buy the candidates, the elections, and those ‘voted’ in? The founding fathers did not intend this perversity.
Republicans bad Democrats good, yawn….
issac
The solution is to stop voting for candidates of either wing of the Property party. Vote for progressive candidates if you want progress.
bill
The solution is to adopt the democratic principles enjoyed by our peer nations; outlaw, under pain of fine and imprisonment, all concentrated funding of the political process. If funding was limited to $100 or even $1,000 per registered voter, there soon would be only candidates running on the issues and not the circus we have here, uniquely, in this so called crucible of freedom. The freedom to buy politicians is not the freedom envisioned by the founding fathers. It is the freedom of the oligarchs, despots, and traitors that run this country.
“The solution is to adopt the democratic principles enjoyed by our peer nations”
Would these be the same progressive nations that are trying to remove freedom of speech and the right to defend ones self (otherwise known here as 1st and 2nd amendments)?
President Trump , a Slush Fund, a Russian Oligarch, Bimbos and Michael Cohen.
Oh my!
Michael Avenatti
Michael Avenatti
@MichaelAvenatti
·
15h
“After significant investigation, we have discovered that Mr. Trump’s atty Mr. Cohen received approximately $500,000 in the mos. after the election from a company controlled by a Russian Oligarc with close ties to Mr. Putin. These monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment.”
Wrong, Listlessbill, as usual. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/09/trump-administration-sued-att-payments-trump-lawyer-cohen/
Breitbart. LOL.
Turley’s complaint is that Trump does not live in fear of lawyers, or make himself a lawyer’s bitch.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/01/manafort-russia-trump-mueller-565565
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-manafort-ruling-mueller-interview-2018-5
Excerpted from the article linked above:
President Donald Trump’s lawyers are anxiously awaiting the next development in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s case in Virginia against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman.
That development could play a significant role in what steps Trump’s legal team takes next.
The Virginia indictment charges Manafort with financial crimes, including tax and bank fraud, related to his lobbying work for the Ukrainian government and pro-Russia interests in Ukraine.
Nii said, “Turley’s complaint is that Trump does not live in fear of lawyers . . . “
Excerpted from the first article linked above:
A set of leaked questions for President Donald Trump indicates that special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors are eager to ask the president about efforts Manafort may have made to seek Russian assistance in electing Trump to the White House in 2016.
Manafort’s defense team, however, insisted on Monday that it had been told there were no intercepts of the veteran political consultant communicating with Russian officials.
“Those two facts don’t sit comfortably together,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a fellow with the R Street Institute think tank and a former legal adviser to the Whitewater independent counsel, Ken Starr. “The question for the president presumes an act not yet in evidence: communication between Manafort and Russia. It strongly suggests Mueller has some reason to think such conversations occurred.”
Nii said, “Turley’s complaint is that Trump does not live in fear of lawyers . . . “
Also excerpted from the article linked above:
In a filing on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Manafort’s defense team said it had repeatedly asked prosecutors to turn over records of intercepted communications between Manafort and Russian agents but that prosecutors said they had nothing like that.
While the defense lawyers’ statement initially appears to convey a startling lack of evidence, legal experts say several nuances could explain the seeming discrepancy.
One possibility is that the lack of records of surveillance or intercepted communications doesn’t mean Mueller lacks all evidence of Manafort’s communicating with Russian officials, just that it’s not surveillance or intercepts. It could be testimony, say, from someone like Rick Gates, a former Manafort aide and co-defendant who pleaded guilty in February and is now cooperating with prosecutors.
Another possibility is that prosecutors have records that just don’t fall into the category of surveillance or intercepts.
“It could be the term of art: interception,” noted Berkeley Research Group’s Jeff Cramer, another former prosecutor. “They could have documents. They could have emails. That’s not an intercept.”
Indeed, in one of the two federal criminal cases against Manafort, prosecutors have already made public emails that Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik exchanged last year about an op-ed set for publication in a Ukrainian news outlet. Prosecutors said at the time that the FBI believed that Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian who advised Manafort on much of his Ukraine work, had ties to Russian intelligence
Putting two and two together could lead to Gates testifying as to the significance of Manafort’s email exchanges with Manafort as well as Gates’ confirming his knowledge of Kilimnik’s history as a Russian intelligence operative.
Also, the email exchanges in question took place during the interlude between the two FISA warrants on Paul Manafort; the first of which expired shortly before Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March of 2016 and the second of which began in late September of 2016 well after Manafort had resigned as Trump’s campaign manager. So the absence of any “intercepts” on Manafort between March and September of 2016 ought not to be so surprising to Manafort’s lawyers.
Please do not insult swamps. Call it a cess pool.
How can the Trump Administration be a cess pool and a dumpster fire at the same time?
Is a puzzlement!
I think we are suffering from metaphor meltdown.
wildbill99 asked, “How can the Trump Administration be a cess pool and a dumpster fire at the same time?”
Flammable fumes. Kind of like marsh gas.
P. S. The puzzlement is why isn’t Trump hair on fire?
Why is Stormy after Trump? A marriage vow to dump wife Melania & marry Stormy?
History tends to repeats itself. Case study of Queen Herodias.
Herodias l divorced Herod II, although it is unclear when they were divorced.
Herodias took it upon herself to confound the laws, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas.
Herodias plays a major role in John the Baptist’s execution, using her daughter’s dance, “Salome” before Antipas and his party guests to ask for the head of the Baptist as a reward. Antipas did not want to put John the Baptist to death, for Antipas liked to listen to John the Baptist preach. King Herod had to much wine to drink, but he had to keep the vow.
Maybe juicy enough for the Daily Tatler.
Jon Turley and all the Leftist anti-Trump dopes, dupes, dolts, and dummies just cannot get enough of the “Anal Queen.” In a way, though, their obsession makes perfect sense. They have their heads stuck up so deep into their own cloacal zones for so long, that the noxious fumes have rotted their remaining synaptic connections.
Meanwhile, more and more Americans have come to understand that the Deep State is the enemy and that President Trump has been the best president the US has ever had since Ronald Reagan.
Ralph, Professor Turley remains a conservative in good standing. The fact that he believes Donald Trump is prone to self inflicted wounds doesn’t mean the professor has become a “leftist”. And what on earth do you mean by “anal queen”?? How does that term have any connection to the featured column on this thread??? It’s like you’re coming from some far-right never land where irrationality is the norm.
Mr. Turley is obsessed with the Anal Queen. He has written countless stories featuring the Anal Queen. The Anal Queen’s been on CNN more than 65 times during the last two months. I call the subject person of Mr. Turley’s obsession the Anal Queen because when Roseanne Barr correctly referred to her as a pornography performer who engaged in anal sex acts, she claimed: “I don’t even do anal movies, you ignorant twat.” But the fact is that the subject of Mr. Turley’s obsessive compulsive fantasies has performed in countless anal sex scenes in videos over the years. Thus, she has earned the title of the Anal Queen. Thus, the Anal Queen is also a proven liar. So, the Anal Queen and her shyster lawyer Avenatti are simply liars.
And, in any event, the lefty anti-Trump Anal Queen-lover who wrote this article is simply engaging in his obsessive compulsive fantasy relationship with the Anal Queen as a way to attempt to divert attention from the real story of the day. But he’s failed, as usual. So here’s the real story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MKhhPE_eiw
Ralph, you had me thinking Maxine Waters was supposed to be the ‘anal queen’. I guess I thought that because you posted a video featuring her.
Ralph, Professor Turley remains a conservative in good standing.
He’s a conventional academic and is sensitive to what is status-lowering among academics. It’s just that he doesn’t subscribe to the addle-pated diversity blather that is de rigeur among college faculty and administration and ignores that subject. Were he to critique it, he’d get the Amy Wax treatment. With few exceptions, academics are other-directed status-conscious people who don’t have the stones for that.
“It’s like you’re (Ralph) coming from some far-right never land where irrationality is the norm”
Bingo!
And very well stated, Peter.
“Ralph, Professor Turley remains a conservative in good standing. ”
Typical ignorance. If one can say anything about Turley one would say he has a libertarian streak with a liberal social agenda.
I so happen to feel he leans somewhat to the left but that might be based on perspective. For you anyone that isn’t tied lockstep to the hollow leftist dictatorship is conservative.
Ralph, reknown chronicler of wacky conspiracy theories thinks Professor Turley is a Leftist!
Eisenhower too, the Birchers proved it on YouTube!
Yeah, Eisenhower was branded a ‘leftist’ by the Raphs of that era.
Listlessbill, who defames Hoagy Carmichael–I hope you’re enjoying your leftist circle jerk, one of the most popular leftist “sports.”
Yawn.
C’mon Ralph that’s so pedestrian.
How about a rip roaring whacky conspiracy starring the Illuminati with vampires?👻
If you find circle jerking pedestrian, stop doing it. (I know, you can’t. You’re addicted.)
A Bell For Adamo
https://media2.picsearch.com/is?QW7ThxVKHtC7V0GrRpTDmk-QPWsqNt0e8rmQKXqZXmo&height=288
Russian conspiracy and Stormy Daniels seem to have merged now that we find a Russian oligarch paid $500,000 into the consulting firm set up to pay Daniels. Russia has arrived at the doorstep of the President and he is certainly acting guilty about it.
Mr. Enigma: You need to dig a little. The story is about potential sleazy post-election influence peddling more so than a Russia election conspiracy theory story. Payments from Novartis, ATT, Korea Aerospace Industries, in addition to Columbus Nova (which denies its payment linked to Russian oligarch). Real story is that these payments are counter to “drain the swamp” Trump team mantra more so than Trump-Russia election collusion fantasy.
Bill – Yes there is a story about all of that, there is no legitimate reason for those corporations to be giving money to a company set up to provide no actual consulting services, they were simply buying favors from a President.
This audience here has refused to acknowledge any sort of Russian connection despite dozens of secret meetings (which those involved all lied about) and hundreds of millions of know shady real estate gains to Trump involving Russians. Not to mention the money laundering involving Wilbur Ross and the Bank or Cyprus. The Russia part of the story is but a small piece of the pie. But I will point it out as long as they deny it.
The Swamp is big and includes both parties – examples: Clinton and McConnell families. Cohen was denied a position in the White House and perhaps after being spurned was trying to capitalize on his relationship with Trump. Cohen’s actions appear to be swamp-like and we should “believe what we see” as it relates to sleazy post-election influence peddling. Since Muler referred Cohen to Southern District of NY, not likely that Muler would punt if there were any thread of Trump-Russia election collusion associated with Cohen. Still the potential post-election influence peddling on the part of Cohen is something that Trump should denounce and distance himself from.
The reason for Mueller handing off the investigation in at least name may have more to do with ensuring the investigation survives attempts to dismantle it by the President and at least the House Intelligence Committee.
The ability of Trump to distance himself from Cohen at this point has long since passed. Cohen knows too much.
Certainly the swamp includes both parties. At this moment in time it’s highly infested with Republicans. We should all strive to do better.
Mr. Enigma, No way Muler would refer Cohen to Southern District if there was any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion associated with Cohen – that would be too big of a fish to pass on control. To state that the referral was made to save the investigation is wishful thinking in attempt to keep alive Trump-Russia collusion theory. Swamp creatures can be found everywhere: Congress (both sides of aisle), lobbyists, and yes federal government employees. And now is perfect time for Trump to distance self from lobbyists like Cohen. Like it or not Trump is strong-minded and does not need to set himself for his post-presidential years by dealing with lobbyists.
From an article in The HIll:
Avenatti released a report with preliminary findings about the bank account he says Cohen used to make the payment to Daniels. That account was made in the name of the company Cohen created to transfer the money to Daniels, Essential Consultants LLC.
The report states that Cohen’s account received roughly $500,000 in payments from Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Those payments were reportedly made between January and August 2017.
Also from the same article in The Hill:
CNN reported Tuesday evening that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has questioned Vekselberg about the payments to Cohen, as well as donations the head of his U.S. affiliate made to Trump’s campaign and inauguration fund.
Vekselberg, who is one of the subjects of recent U.S. sanctions, is one of two Russian oligarchs stopped by FBI agents earlier this year after their planes landed in New York.
The report released by Avenatti also claims that the bank account received payments totaling nearly $400,000 from global pharmaceutical company Novartis, and noted that Trump reportedly had a dinner meeting in Switzerland with the Novartis CEO shortly after the transactions were made.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/politics/viktor-vekselberg-mueller-investigation.html
Excerpted from the article linked above:
Though it is unclear what prompted Mr. Mueller’s investigators to approach Mr. Vekselberg, his widespread corporate interests and attendance at Mr. Trump’s inauguration are among the potential avenues for examination. Mr. Vekselberg also attended a December 2015 dinner in Russia where Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, was also among the guests and sat beside Mr. Putin. The dinner was hosted by RT, the English-language television news network financed by the Kremlin.
Mr. Flynn was ousted weeks after the inauguration amid revelations that he misled the vice president and others about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty in December to lying to the F.B.I. and is cooperating with the special counsel.
She’s back! (Ms. Late)…..with lefty articles to soothe herself and no original logical thought.She is still secretly in love with bad boy Trump and vents against him here as cheap therapy session. Oy vey.
Bill – So Cohen is a lobbyist now? He’s been Trump’s personal flunkee for over a dozen years, almost exclusive of everything else. We will see.
Yeah looks like he was also wearing that hat. But still no Russia collusion. Sorry.
Bill Martin – Perhaps I need to ask the question, “Is there anything Trump (or his family and associates) could possibly do that would be considered conspiracy (a much better word)?
Obviously, meeting secretly, taking money and changing policy to meet the needs of a foreign power, failure to enact sanctions passed by Congress and tag-teaming to win an election is insufficient.
Mr. Enigma: Michael Cohen’s apparent lobbying activities strike this Trump supporter as being sleazy/gray area. That is for Southern District of NY to investigate whether anything illegal. Muler referred Cohen to Southern District NY which is indication that this is a Cohen problem. There is no probable cause / specified crime that points to Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy.
Bill Martin – Michael Cohen was not a lobbyist, someone working on behalf of a client to influence officials to adopt their position. He was selling access to the President, perhaps with his consent? He was for all practical purposes an independent contractor of the President. He sold access to Russians and in another deal was representing Trump in developing Trump Tower Moscow. The denial runs deep in you I must say.
Bill Martin, when you discuss politics with Enigma you are discussing it with a writer of fiction who distorts the truth and adds facts that never existed.
Suspicious Activity Reports from banks to The Treasury Department’s FinCen crew are NOT works of fiction.
Diane (Late4Dinner) virtually everything you say is fiction or off-topic. I don’t know if you have heard of the term “verification”.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-michael-avenatti-get-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-bank-information-2018-5
Excerpted from the article linked above;
“. . . [J]ust before the 2016 presidential election received payments from telecom titan AT&T, pharmaceutical giant Novartis, the Russian-tied investment firm Columbus Nova, and Korea Aerospace Industries in excess of $1.2 million. The companies all subsequently confirmed the payments they made to Cohen through Essential Consultants LLC, Cohen’s shell company . . . ”
The statements cited above are facts. Facts are not fiction.
I’d wait several days and we get to see how they misreported the story. (It’s difficult to believe a commercial company would blithely answer such a question from a reporter).
“Facts are not fiction” until Diane becomes involved.
How’s that Inspector General’s report coming along, Allanonsense? Will the facts be made public anytime soon? Or do Horowitz and Huber need more time “composing” them before they sing?
So far the Inspector General’s report and all the other reports are coming along slowly but all demonstrate the foolishness and ignorance of your arguments. Hopefully, indictments of your former heroes will shortly come.
Maybe the Inspector General/Huber Report will be out when we get a report from the Mueller OSC.
L4D is evidently anxious for the IG/Huber Report, but is in no rush to see an OSC Report.
“Russian-tied investment” is a projected stretch and has been refuted. Bigger picture and what should be a real concern to everybody (R’s & D’s) is dirty world of lobbying which it appears that Michael Cohen tried to pivot to and become big player real fast. Ire should be pointed at the whole lobbying world and major corporations that play in that space. This is a real issue vs. dying fantasy Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy theories.
The reason the Left is incensed over this nonsense about Trump associates cozying up to the Ruskies is that it feels jilted. For decades they walked arm-in-arm with their communist paramours proclaiming the good of socialist and collectivism. Now that Putin appears to have the wondering eye, these politicians with the mentality of a love lost teenager want to strike out at their two-timing red boyfriend and, worse still, the new object of his affection — whether that’s true or not. Maybe Robert Fulghum got everything he needed to know in kindergarten, but for me high school was the pedagogical touch stone. Seems that holds true for the emotional maturity of the Left.
It remains to be seen whether or not this is “nonsense.”
Keep hoping. Maybe Mueller has another batch of Russian internet trolls up his sleeve.
Not really.Your hope isn’t a strategy or good prognosticator.
mespo – I’m not certain of which era you speak as far as any Left cozying up to Russians. Certainly, black Americans flirted with communism as an alternative including many of the thought leaders from the Harlem Renaissance period who looked to its appeals to the common man and compared it to what wasn’t working in the US. Eventually, almost all came down on the side that Communism was an empty promise and black America was better off with the devil they knew.
Looking more mainstream, from McCarthyism and beyond, you can find left-leaning people supporting Socialism, but never have you seen an aspect of our government literally selling our country and its policies to the Russians and anyone else willing to pony up. They aren’t even doing it because of philosophy, just cold cash and ambition.
Any era after the Mesozoic would fit. Seriously I doubt the move to communism was well subscribed in the black community. They were too busy working.
mespo – They were interesting times, organizations like the NAACP and its leaders; Walter White and Thurgood Marshall had to do everything they could to keep from being smeared with the label which would have killed them. Writers Lanston Hughes and others gave it consideration, Ralph Ellison’s, “Invisible Man” was about his disillusionment with communism, Paul Robeson became attached. Communism offered the promise of equality that it could ultimately meet no better than Democracy,
The FBI under Hoover smeared lots of people with the communist label including Bayard Rustin, Stanely Levison and, most preposterously of all, A Philip Randolph. And all mostly just because the Civil Rights movement refused to denounce the Anti-War movement. You’re right. Those were interesting times.
I wonder what Trump was up to back then. Sleep-walking?
Yes, the payments by Novartis, ATT, and Korea Aerospace are swampish buying of access and influence.
Columbus Nova, because of its link to the Russian oligarch Vekselberg, a close associate of Putin, presents other problematic aspects.
Vekselberg is tied to Flynn. How many coincidences can dance on the head of a pin? And what would Ralph Adamo make of that many coincidences if they were on the Crooked H side of the ledger? O! Bother. He’s going to tell us all about it, now. Isn’t he?
enigma
Look! There’s missiles and bombs away over there in I Ran. Think that will save him?
billmcwilliams – I think nothing can save him at this point but the ability of Congress to look the other way is still untested. Paul Ryan has ceded any thought of patriotism to Devin Nunes.
You never know with Trump. Maybe Trump will assert State Secret privilege at his own Impeachment Trial in The Senate.
@enigmainblackcom May 9, 2018 at 2:28 AM
“Russian conspiracy and Stormy Daniels seem to have merged now that we find a Russian oligarch paid $500,000 into the consulting firm set up to pay Daniels. Russia has arrived at the doorstep of the President and he is certainly acting guilty about it.”
On what are you basing your assertions, here? I hope it’s on more than the following, or else you’re starting to sound a little like Sarah Palin, who could see Russia from her front porch:
“Among the previously unreported transactions were payments last year of about $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm in New York whose biggest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, the Russian oligarch. A lawyer for Columbus Nova, in a statement on Tuesday, described the money as a consulting fee that had nothing to do with Mr. Vekselber.”
Ken Rogers – Yes, I’m basing my assertions on much more than that, the information is readily available. You may have to stray from Fox et.al. to find it.
@enigmainblackcom May 9, 2018 at 3:56 PM
“Ken Rogers – Yes, I’m basing my assertions on much more than that, the information is readily available. You may have to stray from Fox et.al. to find it.”
This is the second time you’ve declined to provide any evidence in response to my queries about claims you’ve made.
You don’t seem to realize how lame it is, i.e., lacking in credibility, to assert something as fact and then to suggest to an interested reader that he spend time scouring the internet to find something that might possibly support your claim.
Is your motive for commenting here not to persuade or inspire thought, but simply to gratify yourself and gain kudos from other commenters who share your lack of interest in supporting evidence?
“You don’t seem to realize how lame it is, i.e., lacking in credibility, to assert something as fact and then to suggest to an interested reader that he spend time scouring the internet to find something that might possibly support your claim.”
I guess Enigma gave up with citations as well and that is probably for the better. I remember his proof about Fred Trump. A 90-year-old news article that said nothing that Enigma contended was true. Enigma is a fake.
You start out posting some material saying i needed to have more information than that, I do. It is not my mission to attempt to prove anything to non-believers. The information is readily available if you looked. I imagine every time you insist I provide documentation of easily findable information, I’ll suggest you find it yourself, you’ll appreciate it more. My motive is to discuss factual information, it is not however to become your researcher.
“I’ll suggest you find it yourself, you’ll appreciate it more. My motive is to discuss factual information, it is not however to become your researcher.”
In other words, what Enigma is saying is that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Oh God, the troll is back. At times Allan, you have proved capable of actually engaging in conversation and listening to the point where you might learn something. Then there’s most of the time when you just engage in personal attacks. You really should do better!
I guess you noted that when there are differences of opinion that people are honestly willing to discuss with facts I have no problem entering the debate to add content and have a good debate. I don’t have to agree with their point of view but I like it based on truth. I just don’t like BS, lying, innuendo and when people play the race card.
There you go again. Is there a troll union? Do you pay dues?
“Is there a troll union? Do you pay dues?”
No, Enigma. I’m an independent. When you start making sense I won’t seem like a troll but if you continue with innuendo, lies and playing the race card you will see my name more than you want.
@enigmainblackcom May 9, 2018 at 7:08 PM
“You start out posting some material saying i needed to have more information than that, I do.
“It is not my mission to attempt to prove anything to non-believers.
“My motive is to discuss factual information, it is not however to become your researcher.”
I wasn’t asking you to become my researcher, I was (but no longer am) asking you to provide links to the supporting evidence you claim to be aware of.
As you decline to provide such links, I’m compelled to conclude that you don’t know of any supporting evidence and are relying exclusively on your own wishful interpretations of sketchy data.
That’s OK, of course, but don’t expect to be taken as seriously as you’d be if you deigned to buttress your interpretations of things with evidence from outside your personal reveries.
You do know that going to find those links would indeed make me your researcher. There are many people here who because of our ongoing conversations I have no problem doing that for. The people that demand I prove something or they choose to ignore, are welcome to dwell in their ignorance. If there wasn’t enough information readily available to do a search yourself, I’d do it.
So, in your search for knowledge, instead of Googling a couple search terms, decry it as fake news and go on as if you never heard it. Life will be simpler that way.
Something else happened at the Trump Tower meeting besides the second-draft cover-story that Trump coughed up to the press. It’s got something to do with Ike Kavaladze and Aras Agalarov and Manafort knows what it is. The questions are: Did Manafort tell Gates what it was? Did Gates tell Flynn? Did Gates tell Cohen? Did Manafort tell Stone? And did Trump Jr. and Kushner tell Trump what that meeting was really all about? Or did Trump already know?
@enigmainblackcom May 10, 2018 at 12:25 AM
“You do know that going to find those links would indeed make me your researcher.”
Thanks for admitting that you’d have to “go find links” for evidence to support your subjective opinions.
Here’s a tip: first do some research and note the sources, andthen offer your opinions based on that research, and not the other way around.
Unless you can do that, I doubt that I’m alone in being disinterested in reading, let alone responding to, what amount to your personal reveries.
Happy daydreaming. 🙂
Ken – I’d have to go find the links to provide them to you. I don’t know why that’s such a hard concept for you. I’ve seen/read the data, passed it along, you want me to document it. I say get it yourself. Or you could simply deny everything you don’t already believe.
@enigmainblackcom May 10, 2018 at 7:59 PM
“Ken – I’d have to go find the links to provide them to you. I don’t know why that’s such a hard concept for you. I’ve seen/read the data, passed it along, you want me to document it. I say get it yourself. Or you could simply deny everything you don’t already believe.”
You’ve apparently never heard of footnotes, let alone done any serious research in an academic setting, or you wouldn’t think it’s up to readers of published material to provide footnotes or hyperlinks to find documents or other evidence in support of an author’s assertions, rather than the author’s doing so.
Your not noting your sources at the time you read them, so you can provide them when you publish your interpretations of your research material, or when you’re asked for them, is compelling evidence of both your incompetence as a writer and of your indifference to your credibility.
Needless to say, I hope, that’s more than fine by me. 🙂
I’m not publishing research papers here, nor do I expect that from anyone else. I’m having conversations. If you doubt me, and we don’t have the kind of relationship where you can ask me to find you the source. You can easily look it up yourself.
“Here’s a tip: first do some research and note the sources, andthen offer your opinions based on that research, and not the other way around.
Unless you can do that, I doubt that I’m alone in being disinterested in reading, let alone responding to, what amount to your personal reveries.
Excellent.
“Sarah Palin, who could see Russia from her front porch”
Ken, point of fact, Palin never said that. Tina Fey said that in her act. Like so many on the left, you are confusing humor with fact.
Talking points all the way down.
Also,
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/yes-you-can-actually-see-russia-from-alaska
@Allan May 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM
“Sarah Palin, who could see Russia from her front porch”
“Ken, point of fact, Palin never said that. Tina Fey said that in her act. Like so many on the left, you are confusing humor with fact.”
Allan, point of fact, Tina Fey said (as Palin), “I can see Russia from my house.” Now, here’s what Charlie Gibson asked Palin in the interview that inspired the line by Fey: “What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity [of Russia] to the state [of Alaska] give you?”
And Palin replied, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can see Russia from here in Alaska.”
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=what+did+sarah+palin+say+about+russia&&view=detail&mid=4BBC936D2ACF41DAF73C4BBC936D2ACF41DAF73C&rvsmid=5B43B3A5A1A5E2A9E9EB5B43B3A5A1A5E2A9E9EB&FORM=VDQVAP
The point of my response to “enigmainblack” was that his assertive claim regarding the significance of a payment by a company, one of whose clients is a Russian oligarch, to Cohen’s Essential Consultants had, without additional evidence, something approaching the significance, regarding Russia, of what Palin appealed to in her interview.
In your reflexive attempt to demonize an abstract and essentially meaningless term like “the left,” you overlooked the important fact that I was calling out enigmainblack on his specious, evidence-light indictment of Trump.
So, unless you consider Trump to be a member of the demonic “left,” your objection to what I said is a little humorous, isn’t it? 🙂
“They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can see Russia from here in Alaska”
I think that is true and NII documented it as well so the point you used in disparaging Sarah Palin to make another point was untrue.
I recognize you were calling out Enigma, but that is not the way to do it. Sometimes these misstatements of facts lead people to disastrous conclusions. I like to keep facts straight to prevent that from happening.
“objection to what I said is a little humorous, isn’t it? 🙂”
No.
I said, “Ken, point of fact, Palin never said that. Tina Fey said that in her act. Like so many on the left, you are confusing humor with fact.” That doesn’t categorize you or Trump. It states that many on the left confuse humor with fact.
@Allan May 9, 2018 at 8:20 PM
“They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can see Russia from here in Alaska”
I think that is true and NII documented it as well so the point you used in disparaging Sarah Palin to make another point was untrue.”
I’ll make one more attempt to explain this to you. Enigma’s response to the news about a payment to Cohen’s company from a company who has a Russian client is analogous in its irrelevance to Palin’s response to Gibson’s question, “What insight into Russian actions…does the proximity to Russia of Alaska give you?”
Palin’s response to Gibson’s question was, “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.” The fact that her geography is correct is as irrelevant as if she’d said she likes to shoot wolves from helicopters, which, I understand, would also be a true statement.
My guess is that you and Insufferable aren’t used to thinking analogically, and that’s why you completely missed my point, even after I explained it in a follow-up comment.
Well, that and your desire to castigate an abstract noun with little to no meaning (“the left”). Don’t Trump supporters have better things to do than to pick on abstract nouns? 🙂
I have seen you make analogies and all sorts of comparisons before, Ken, they led to disastrous conclusions on your part that you don’t even recognize them. That is OK. What you have done here is brought a third party, Palin, into a debate where she didn’t belong. You were trying to make an analogy but at the same time, you demeaned that third party while permitting some of the readers to believe that Sarah Palin made that comment rather than Tina Fey. I got your point. You should have done a better job.
My guess is that you and Insufferable aren’t used to thinking analogically,
You f*&c&ed up because your conceit exceeds your actual knowledge. Deal with it and quit striking poses.
You can see Russia from the State of Alaska, as noted.
@Insufferable May 10, 2018 at 8:41 AM
“You f*&c&ed up because your conceit exceeds your actual knowledge. Deal with it and quit striking poses.”
@Insufferable May 10, 2018 at 8:40 AM
“You can see Russia from the State of Alaska, as noted.” 🙂
Thanks for insisting so strenuously on your incomprehension of the nature of analogy in general, and of mine, in particular. It actually goes a long way toward explaining the quality of many of your previous posts, as well.
Once more (and for the last time) into the breach:
Gibson: (paraphrased) “What insight into Russian behavior does the proximity of Russia and Alaska purportedly give you?” (See my link to the interview, above).
Palin: (exact quote)”They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.”
Now, try to grasp the fact that the key feature of Palin’s response in my analogy is not its geographical accuracy, but its logical irrelevance to the question put to her. My “porch,” Fey’s “house,” and Palin’s “land” are trivially different words in the context of her irrelevant response, which is why I didn’t bother to look up Palin’s exact words when I responded to Enigma’s analogously illogical comment, which also involved Russia.
In a later interview with Katie Couric, she was asked the same question, after she’d become a laughing stock for her first answer and had had ample time to think about and/or be coached on it, and she didn’t exactly burnish her foreign policy bona fides the second time around, either:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Katie+Couric+and+Sarah+Palin&&view=detail&mid=D4F022755205BC9434E5D4F022755205BC9434E5&&FORM=VRDGAR
Try to deal with it.
Reblogged this on What i found intersting today….
MAGA: Michael Avenatti Great Attorney #Basta
MAGA: Michael Avenatti Go Away #Basta w/ sleazeball lying, self-promoting, politically motivated hack
No doubt Trump is sleazy. To me the question is how sleazy is he v. the average POTUS. I would say now, based on this article, which I fully read, Trump has made some serious errors in his hush/payoff money toward his sleazy little blonde whore.
If Trump committed the crimes Turley portrays in this article, I don’t have a problem with Trump going down. I do have a problem with Trump going down while HRC and more than a dozen recent major DNC types committed more serious crimes and skated, including Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Lannie Breuer (DOJ), The IRS Chief scum bag, Comey, McCabe, etc. I have a problem with Mueller’s obvious intense desire to remove Trump, while the rest of the Deep State got away with inventing the Russia case out of thin air (actually the DNC and HRC are the ones who colluded with Russia), which directly lead to the current Cohn case.
I don’t have a problem with Trump pardoning Cohn to make this go away. Certainly, at some point in the future, Trump the billionaire should indemnify his associates who had to wrongly pay tens of thousands in legal fees defending themselves in the Russia with hunt.
You fail to make sense. Trump and Cohen are felons. Forget the rest of your partisan nonsense.
Jones, you’re all over the map. On one hand you concede that Trump is “sleazy” and made some “serious errors”. Then you proceed to go totally over the top with deep state paranoia.
In other words you think Trump is sleazy and prone to serious errors, yet he is still the victim of a fantastic conspiracy. What a conflicted point of view!
@Peter Hill May 9, 2018 at 3:08 AM
“Jones, you’re all over the map. On one hand you concede that Trump is “sleazy” and made some “serious errors”. Then you proceed to go totally over the top with deep state paranoia.
In other words you think Trump is sleazy and prone to serious errors, yet he is still the victim of a fantastic conspiracy. What a conflicted point of view!”
Peter, your being confounded by two obviously compatible states of affairs strongly suggests that your thinking is blocked by your binary partisanship.
What we’re witnessing is an internecine struggle between two authoritarian power centers, and choosing sides, rather than evaluating particular aspects of the behavior of agents of each, will result in being unable to see the larger political picture, as is quite evidently the case with you at this point.
Moreover, any assessment of the political landscape in the US is essentially effete that doesn’t recognize that self-identified Republicans and Democrats constitute two wings of the same political party, the US War Party.
Consider, for example, what Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said about Wikileaks:
“He then turned to WikiLeaks, citing its release of Democratic Party emails stolen by Russian hackers [sic] — the same stolen emails he was promoting in July — as evidence of its hostile intent.
“ ‘It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,’ he said.
“During the presidential campaign, Mr. Pompeo said, ‘Russian military intelligence, the G.R.U., had used WikiLeaks to release data of U.S. victims that the G.R.U. had obtained through cyberoperations against the Democratic National Committee.’
“He also said that Mr. Assange, who has spent nearly five years holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition on sexual assault charges in Sweden, did not enjoy First Amendment protections. [Emphasis added]
“ ‘No one has the right to engage in the theft of secrets from America,’ Mr. Pompeo said.
“Neither Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser during the George W. Bush administration who was leading the discussion, nor the crowd, which was made up largely of current and former national security officials, seemed eager to call out the apparent dissonance between Mr. Pompeo’s July Twitter post, which has since been deleted, and his current views. [Emphasis added]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-wikileaks.html
And I again call your attention to the essay on the highly selective staffing and specious conclusions of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which “assessed” that the Russians hacked the DNC emails:
“There were other biases reflected in the ICA, such as a bizarre appendix that excoriated RT, the Russian television network, for supposedly undermining Americans’ confidence in their democratic process.
“This seven-page appendix, dating from 2012, accused RT of portraying ‘the US electoral process as undemocratic’ and offered such ‘proof ‘ as RT’s staging of a debate among third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
“ ‘RT broadcast, hosted and advertised third-party candidate debates,’ the report said, as if allowing political figures in the United States who were not part of the two-party system to express their views, was somehow anti-democratic, when you might think that letting Americans hear alternatives was the essence of democracy.
“ ‘The RT hosts asserted that the U.S. two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a ‘sham,’ the report continued. Yet, polls have shown that large numbers of Americans would prefer more choices than the usual two candidates and, indeed, most Western democracies have multiple parties, so, the implicit RT criticism of the U.S. political process is certainly not out of the ordinary.”
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/has-the-u-s-intelligence-communitys-assessment-of-russiagate-been-politicized/
Well, it is out of the ordinary insofar as authoritarian power freaks are concerned, who want to confine decision-making to members of one or the other of the two wings of the US War Party.
Peter, it is shocking how many absolute nutjobs Professor Turley’s site attracts. Ralph Adamo alone has so many whacky conspiracy theories he ought to buy an Infowars franchise and produce whacky Youtube videos himself.
@wildbill99 May 9, 2018 at 4:08 PM
“Peter, it is shocking how many absolute nutjobs Professor Turley’s site attracts. Ralph Adamo alone has so many whacky conspiracy theories he ought to buy an Infowars franchise and produce whacky Youtube videos himself.”
Bill,
Perhaps you wouldn’t be so shocked by comments here if you actually just took the trouble to define some of your favorite anti-intellectual labels. You know, labels like “nutjob” and “whacky,” and “conspiracy theory,” for examples.
It would undoubtedly also be helpful if you didn’t limit your sources of information to government propaganda outlets, as they’ve obviously circumscribed considerably your cognitive reach.
Should you decide to avoid defining those labels you’re so fond of (which would, after all, require you to actually think), or should you decide to stick with the nostrums of the Corporate Media which have apparently served you well these many years, then at least don’t forget to renew your Reader’s Digest and Popular Mechanics subscriptions.
Yours in agreement to disagree with dupery,
Ken
🙂
“Government propaganda outlets”
The usual suspects?
NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN?
As opposed to, say, Breitbart, Infowars and The National Enquirer?
I’ll take the former, every time.😉
@wildbill99 May 9, 2018 at 9:21 PM
“ ‘Government propaganda outlets’
“The usual suspects? NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN?
“As opposed to, say, Breitbart, Infowars and The National Enquirer?
“I’ll take the former, every time.😉”
If you think that Breitbart, Infowars, and The National Enquirer are the only (or main) alternatives to the Corporate Media, it confirms what I suggested about your circumscribed cognitive reach. 🙂
I take it you that you don’t want to exert yourself to define your favorite pejoratives and substitutes for thought, right?
TRUMPERS TAKE HEED!
THIS COLUMN IS A SERIES OF RED FLAGS
In this column Professor Turley tells us repeatedly that Trump has only himself to blame for the legal woes besetting him. This paragraph in particular captures the essence of said message:
“The legal legacy of the Trump administration is a litany of self-inflicted wounds. Trump insisted recently that you cannot obstruct a case if there is no underlying crime. In truth, that is no easy feat, but Trump is making an impressive effort”.
Here the professor is ‘not’ blaming a vast, deep-state conspiracy. Nor is the professor shrieking, “What about Hillary?” To the contrary Professor Turley is saying that Trump’s big mouth and aggressive ignorance are key components of the legal morass he find himself in.
Beyond Trump’s behavior, the professor has serious doubts regarding Rudy Giuliani’s defense. Almost every media pundit has raised these questions. Pundits are wondering if Giuliani has somehow lost the talent he possessed as a Federal Prosecutor. And more than a few pundits are asking if Giuliani is possibly losing his mind! Personally I believe Giuliani is secretly sabotaging Trump. That is sometimes the case when a presumed defender does more harm than good.
Giuliani is getting revenge for not being offerred a cabinet position in the Trump administration?
He should feel fortunate he dodged that bullet!
I think the years are telling on Rudy, and his effectiveness as a lawyer was lost somewhere in the last century. Credit where it is due, he did good work back in the 1980’s.
It only works if it’s given credence and therein lies the fatal mistake of the left. They are applying a set of standards or morals or values that do not exist. There own. They believe in those mystical sort of other world answers and never examine anything objectively.
So the fly in their ointment in is we really don’t care. We voted in President Trump for the sole purpose of destroying the left and added a capable follow on. Once out of the way it is much easier to re-establish and repair the damage of a century plus of progressively regressive subjectivism… except the lives it cost.
But the trick is never use their definitions, never except their reframing and never treat them as anything but what they are. and how easy it is to get them caught in a web of their own making.
Current example is Kerry. All I did was post everywhere. everyday ‘The question for Day Five is the same. Did or did not Mr. Kerry register as an agent of one or more foreign governments? If not why has the DOJ not collected him up and filed charges. If he has then why should we treat him as anything but a foreign agent.
To which to date I have started to see some attempts but no real answer. So…
Moore. Alabama. Decidedly a poor candidate BUT “Not One law enforcement officer, not one DA, not one judge at any level has accepted the allegations. (which mean unproven) That’s all one has to say to drive the subjectivists up the wall.
Were it something semi factual they do not know how to find nor handle facts but resort to some nonsense about Hillary. sort of sputtering and muttering. “Whydo yiou keep bringing that up?” “Why to smear your face in the mud on a daily basis until a. you choke on it and b. there is a real investigation not for collusion a nothing non crime but for conspiracy. of two known victimizers of women, pay for play, victimizing women etc.
But I never quit mentioning Facts? sources, cites, credible sources? Never accept their reframing or let them get off track and topic and never never never accept their definitions. Finally never forget the mission goal. is to defeat them in detail. Anything less is unacceptable to my oath of office to the Constitution.
You say “We voted.” Did you commit voter fraud? You get but one vote. And you wasted it.
re “we voted”
Perhaps (A) he has a tapeworm or (B) is the Queen of England.
“repair the damage of a century plus of progressively regressive subjectivism… ”
Let’s see …. Are you hoping that Trump will eliminate Social Security and Medicare, and throw millions and millions into desperate poverty and untreated medical conditions? Are you hoping to overturn Brown v Board of Education and achieve “Segregation now, segregation forever”? Or maybe repeal the Clean Air Act? Los Angeles used to look like Beijing, with air so thick you scarecly see through the smog. Time to bring back those good-old-days?
Just out of curiosity, is there some other country on this planet, whose laws and mores are more to your liking? Who should we emulate?
“We voted in President Trump for the sole purpose of destroying the left.”
Are there any other Western democracies that seek to “destroy” their opposition parties? Can you name one? On the other hand, recent Russian history is heading that way. Over there, opposition leaders are poisoned, shot in the back, mugged, arrested. Or maybe like the Philippines, where purported drug dealers and anybody Duterte doesn’t like, get assassinated with no pretext of due process.
There are some on this blog, that would love that model of government.
Are there any other Western democracies that seek to “destroy” their opposition parties? Can you name one?
Yep. Opposition parties in Belgium and the Netherlands have been dissolved by court order and individuals have been subject to criminal and civil process for political dissent in Canada, France, and Sweden.
Jay S, you should get your facts straight. Though there are many leftists in the Democratic Party there is no such thing as the “leftist” party.
We know of one group that has pledged to destroy western civilization and this country. That group is known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Many Democrats seem to be in bed with them. Let me quote from their memorandum.
The complete memorandum is at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf (Ikhwan=Muslim Brotherhood)
“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
That is taken completely out of context. The Muslim definition of context in this usage is: Not for infidel eyes! 😉
Olly, I think I got your point but I am afraid others might not and I don’t want anyone to think that this isn’t what was written and used as evidence in the Holy Land Trial.
Okay.
/sarc off
” We voted in President Trump for the sole purpose of destroying the left and added a capable follow on.” What about “Make America Great Again?” When you speak of “we”, you aren’t speaking about the majority of Americans, because most of “US” voted for the other candidate. Most of “US” don’t agree with whatever you consider to be Trump’s agenda, whether it is a border wall, ending treaties, trying to revive the coal industry, tax breaks for the most-wealthy, praising white supremacists who run over and kill protesters, and so forth.
What do you consider “the left”? People with educations, souls, compassion, or anyone who is not a White Supremacist? What do you consider “objectivity”? That Barak Obama, for instance, was really born in Africa? Are you one of those who passionately believes this to be true? Why do you harp about John Kerry? What does that have to do with today’s topic, or even with today’s political climate?
Why do you harp about John Kerry? What does that have to do with today’s topic, or even with today’s political climate?
Clearly your source(s) for information is lacking. If you had an ounce of objectivity, you would recognize at a minimum both of these stories deserve equal scrutiny. Again, if you had an ounce of objectivity, you would recognize that Flynn could be justified due to an incoming administration, while Kerry has no official government position or authority.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/12/05/no_michael_flynn_didn039t_violate_the_logan_act_428210.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/05/07/hemingway_on_kerry_iran_meetings_all_the_people_who_said_logan_act_was_real_are_oddly_silent_right_now.html
“…praising white supremacists who run over and kill protesters” — that is a false statement and a complete lie and you know it…
Nutchacha knows only her feelz, which she recapitulates at wearying length.
Americans, because most of “US” voted for the other candidate.
Hilligula won 48.2% of the tally, and that includes felons, illegal aliens, and ACORN’s absentee ballot fraud.
@Insufferable May 9, 2018 at 5:42 PM
Natacha:” ‘Americans, because most of “US” voted for the other candidate.’
Insufferable: “Hilligula won 48.2% of the tally, and that includes felons, illegal aliens, and ACORN’s absentee ballot fraud.”
Disclaimer: I didn’t vote for either of the War Party’s candidates.
According to Greg Palast’s investigation, her tally didn’t include quite a few people, though:
“The Election Was Stolen – Here’s How…
“Friday, November 11, 2016
“Before a single vote was cast, the election was fixed by GOP and Trump operatives.
“Starting in 2013 – just as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act – a coterie of Trump operatives, under the direction of Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, created a system to purge 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP–controlled states.
“The system, called Crosscheck, is detailed in my Rolling Stone report, ‘The GOP’s Stealth War on Voters,’ 8/24/2016.
“Crosscheck in action:
“Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
“Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922
“Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
“Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824
“Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
“North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393”
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/
Ken, felons lose the suffrage most places. Sorry that bothers you.
Is Ken suggesting that before execution last rites be given along with an absentee ballot?
@Insufferable May 10, 2018 at 8:20 AM
“Ken, felons lose the suffrage most places. Sorry that bothers you.”
I know you tend to be a trifle partisan, but doesn’t that seem like an awfully large number of “felons”?
What do you consider “the left”? People with educations, souls, compassion, or anyone who is not a White Supremacist? What do you consider “objectivity”?
It’s you and Jill, Nutchacha. People who know next-to-nothing of public policy or social relations or the economy; people who are forever recriminating and striking attitudes; and people with really wretched personalities. Here’s your icon
Pravda Faux News must not have issued any talking points today. More word salad saying nothing and meaning less.
this is to “even I don’t know what I mean” nutty sufferer