Cohen Reportedly Ready To Testify That Trump Knew Of The Planned Russian Meeting In Trump Tower

160px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Donald_Trump_(cropped)Michael Cohen is reportedly ready to give Special Counsel Robert Mueller key testimony contradicting not only President Donald Trump but the sworn testimony of his son, Donald Trump Jr. He will reportedly say that Trump was aware of the planned meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower.   Such testimony may also contradict Cohen’s own statements, which would make a deal all the most essential with Mueller.  Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis has announced that “Cohen is trying to reset his life  . . . This is a turn for him. It’s a new resolve to tell the truth no matter what, even if it endangers him.”  It certainly could be dangerous if it contradicts sworn testimony or statement to investigators

Trump, his son, and his staff have all denied that he had prior knowledge of the meeting at Trump Tower.  However, Cohen now reportedly claims that he was not only at a meeting when Trump was informed of the planned meeting but others were also present.
Cohen previously testified before two congressional committees  investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and did not reportedly reveal such prior knowledge by Trump.
Such testimony would be exceptionally dangerous for Trump, Trump Jr. and some staffers if Mueller believes that Cohen’s account is true.  Mueller has already indicted a slew of individuals for false statements to investigators. This would be an even stronger case for prosecution if the accounts are true.
If Trump Jr. were to be charged, it is difficult to predict President Trump’s response but it would likely be extreme.  Of course, taken Cohen’s word alone on such a question is a rather precarious proposition. The question is whether such testimony could prompt other witnesses to come forward or whether Cohen would be left to stand alone.

239 thoughts on “Cohen Reportedly Ready To Testify That Trump Knew Of The Planned Russian Meeting In Trump Tower”

  1. Hilarious. We finid out late today after the jury is sent home that Cohen’s confessions to crimes were not crimes so now the prosecutors can have him turned loose because it’s not a crime to confess to something that is not a crime. and if the penalty for that is a pat on the back it sets the standards for other penalties. (Dershowitz figured that one out. NY law was being used by a federal court and prosecutor who didn’t bother to know the law in NY. Why? They aren’t licensed in NY. OR was it Virginia . Anyway. Who needs movies when you have this for entertainment.

  2. Well, when you’ve declared war on the administration the people elected, and by extension on the people themselves.
    You don’t want to assist enemy communications and help them to counter your propaganda.

  3. JUST BEFORE TRUMP TOWER MEETING,

    TRUMP TOLD CROWD TO EXPECT “INFORMATIVE” NEWS ON CLINTON

    BUT ‘AFTER’ MEETING, TRUMP HAD NO FRESH CLINTON NEWS

    “Don Jr. received the email proposing the Trump Tower meeting on June 3, 2016. On June 6, he had two phone calls with Emin Agalarov, the son of a Russian oligarch, who was helping to set up the meeting. Between those two calls he had another call with a blocked number. His father has a blocked number. Don Jr. says he can’t remember whom he spoke to.

    But the next day, June 7, Donald Trump told a crowd at a rally, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.” The meeting took place two days later, on June 9, but produced no damaging information on Clinton. Trump never delivered his “major speech” revealing Clinton misconduct. We’re supposed to believe this is all coincidence.

    Edited from: “The Fantastical Tale Trump Wants You To Believe About Collusion”

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. OK, Peter, let’s hear Mueller’s “fantastic tale” about “what really happened”.
      After an investigation that started with the FBI two years ago ( not counting the investigation of Manafort going back to 2014) the American people are entitled to some answers.

        1. The answers thus far are (1) process crimes, (2) Russian internet trolls (that he wasn’t prepared to try), (3) Russian intelligence and security officials (that he cannot even serve), and (4) Paul Manafort’s business interests (which includes a money laundering charge predicated on a criminal charge for failing to register as a foreign agent, something usually dealt with by a letter of admonishment – see Podesta). This isn’t working out for you, maybe because it’s all horse-hockey.

      1. If I’m not mistaken, they were running informants even before the formal commencement of the investigation on 31 July 2016.

  4. TRUMP SENDS DISMISSIVE TWEET..

    CHIDING MICHAEL COHEN FOR HIRING FORMER CLINTON LAWYER

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 6 hours ago

    …..I did NOT know of the meeting with my son, Don jr. Sounds to me like someone is trying to make up stories in order to get himself out of an unrelated jam (Taxi cabs maybe?). He even retained Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer. Gee, I wonder if they helped him make the choice!
    37,246 replies 14,543 retweets 58,237 likes

    Tweet refers to Lanny Davis who served as Special Counsel to President Clinton from 1996-1998.

    TRUMP FORGETS HE HIRED FORMER CLINTON LAWYER EMMET T. FLOOD

    In early May it was announced that Trump was hiring Mr. Flood as part of ‘his’ legal team! Flood had been one of President Clinton’s personal lawyers during the 1998 impeachment crisis and advised Hillary Clinton regarding her lost emails controversy.

    1. Peter, the difference is that Trump can pay the high fees. Do you think Cohen can? Don’t you think for a second that Cohen might be getting some help paying for Lanny Davis who is the Clinton fixer? I wonder how Cohen and Davis got connected, don’t you?

      1. Allan, how did Trump get connected to Emmet T. Flood..??

        Flood and Davis are well-known lawyers who’ve been around for years.

        1. Peter, you didn’t bother to read what was said. We all have a tendency to look for the best attorney. We don’t all have the ability to pay for one. I’ll give you a second try to actually read what I wrote.

          “Peter, the difference is that Trump can pay the high fees. Do you think Cohen can? Don’t you think for a second that Cohen might be getting some help paying for Lanny Davis who is the Clinton fixer? I wonder how Cohen and Davis got connected, don’t you?”

          1. Allan, Cohen is a millionaire. He’s not a billionaire like Trump, but Cohen has his own portfolio of investments that include several properties. Beside, Lanny Davis might want to represent Cohen just for the ‘fun’ of it. This will get exciting.

            To just assume the Clintons are paying for Davis is ridiculous.

            1. Peter, firstly I don’t believe in coincidence especially when the correlation is so high. Secondly, I know what is said about Cohen and his money but all too often that can be tremendously inflated and leveraged. Of course, Cohen might be smart enough, perhaps with a Mueller associate, to figure it wouldn’t hurt him to affiliate with the Clintons via Lanny Davis, but I have high suspicions the match is political and involves the Clintons in one way or the other.

              My first thought in this match was whether or not Lanny Davis might have a conflict of interest but perhaps Lanny Davis feels he can always step aside if one should arise.

              1. Allan, Davis left the Clinton White House in 1998. He didn’t stick it out to the end.

                And don’t forget that Mueller and Comey were both associated with George W’s administration.

                So you can’t say that Lanny Davis is a tip-off of Clinton involvement (especially when Trump is using a Clinton lawyer), but that Mueller and Comey aren’t real Republicans, or have only superficial links to Republicans.

                The truth is that high-placed lawyers and Washington insiders are perfectly free to pursue whatever opportunities they might savor. Look at Professor Turley. Turley argued against Obamacare on behalf of conservatives, yet Trump supporters on this blog keep accusing Turley of being a ‘leftist’.

                1. Peter, I don’t know that Trump is a classic Republican and Republicans don’t seem to group in a united stand as do Democrats. When one talks about the Bushes one should always recognize the senior Bush’s relationship with Bill Clinton and recognize the Bush’s dislike Trump and many of the Bush people continue to do so to this day even those that initially worked for Trump. The names you mention along with many others would be closer to Bush / Clinton than to Trump.

                  Lanny Davis is always there cleaning up after the Clintons so it would not surprise me in the least if they feel that by having Lanny Davis represent Michael Cohen that the Clintons feel better protected and more in control. That could be the major reason that relationship exists.

                  I’m not sure of Michael Cohen’s bank account and the problems he is in might require huge amounts of money and political influence. We will have to wait and see.

                  As far as Turley I don’t think he is a leftist rather he leans towards the left. Smart Leftists would have been against Obamacare because that program was doomed the day it was signed. It was a very poorly written bill and left a lot of open territory. Do a word search and look how many times the phrase the secretary shall decide or a variant of that that is in the bill. It was a hybrid bill and took some of the worst features from all sides. There was always talk about programs that would save money or increase quality that had been studied before and failed.

                  1. Allan, one of my closest friends just had surgery for colon cancer. And the only bright spot in his entire ordeal is the coverage he’s getting from Obamacare. Without Obamacare, my friend would be bankrupt now. And that was one of the issues Obamacare was designed to prevent: bankruptcies for victims of catastrophic illnesses. Yet guys like ‘you’, Alan, would just say, “Let ’em go bankrupt’.

                    The truth is that Republicans have never offered a viable alternative to Obamacare. And currently the majority of Americans want to keep most of Obamacare.

                    1. “one of my closest friends just had surgery for colon cancer. And the only bright spot in his entire ordeal is the coverage he’s getting from Obamacare.”

                      Peter, you are acting as if he wouldn’t carry insurance if Obamacare disappeared. That is a poor argument. Many families are struggling to pay Obamacare premiums and can’t afford the deductible and copays so essentially they feel they don’t have care. There are winners and losers. For the most part, Obamacare has caused many more losers than winners and is causing prices to rise. It has or will move into a death spiral. How much benefit a person gets from Obamacare is very dependent on income and the state they live in. Right now globally we are probably spending 30-50% more than we should and that is due to a lack of a legitimate marketplace.

                    2. Peter Hill – so instead of him going bankrupt, we pick up his bill. That makes sense.

                    3. Peter, I don’t know how interested you are in the subject but here is a WSJ article by one of the smartest economists on the subject matter. I’m providing the whole article in case you don’t have access.

                      ObamaCare Can Be Worse Than Medicaid

                      No exchange plan covers care at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas or Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.

                      John C. GoodmanJune 26, 2018 6:41 p.m. ET
                      This year will be the last in which uninsured Americans are forced to pay ObamaCare’s penalty for lack of coverage. The change—part of the GOP’s tax reform—comes as relief on the demand side of health insurance. Yet nothing has changed on the market’s supply side. Without additional reforms to ObamaCare’s restrictions on insurers, millions of Americans will continue to choose from a limited range of lackluster plans.

                      Many of the country’s top hospitals are off limits to patients covered by ObamaCare’s current plans. Take Houston’s MD Anderson Cancer Center, which was named America’s best cancer-care hospital by U.S. News & World Report in 13 of the past 16 years. The hospital’s website suggests that it takes even Medicaid, but it doesn’t accept a single private health-insurance plan sold on the individual market in Texas.

                      Since Blue Cross of Minnesota withdrew from the individual market in 2016, the state’s Mayo Clinic—once cited by President Obama as a model for the nation—has been off limits to Minnesotans covered by ObamaCare exchange plans. Memorial Sloan Kettering appears out of bounds for every exchange plan in New York. Both of these hospitals are open to some Medicaid patients, though Mayo’s chief executive has predicted publicly that Medicaid patients may eventually have to queue behind their privately insured peers.

                      Think about these developments. When Mr. Obama promised to insure the uninsured, what kind of insurance was he talking about? Most people, and maybe even the president himself, imagined it would look like a typical employer plan or a standard Blue Cross individual policy. Who imagined that the only products available would be more limited than Medicaid?

                      When Blue Cross of Texas first entered the Dallas exchange in 2014, its plan looked a lot like the plans it sold to employers. The coverage extended to virtually every hospital in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, including the prestigious University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. But after sustaining huge financial losses, the insurer retreated the following year to a more restrictive plan that treated UT Southwestern as an out-of-network hospital. That meant patients faced steep out-of-pocket expenses on top of an already large deductible. The following year UT Southwestern was excluded entirely. The same process has repeated across the country, as insurance titans like Aetna , Humana and UnitedHealth Group have retreated from market after market.

                      ObamaCare Can Be Worse Than Medicaid
                      Illustration: Barbara Kelley
                      Meanwhile, the remaining insurers are offering products that look a lot like Medicaid. Centene , a Medicaid contractor, stepped in to pick up more than half the U.S. counties that had no insurer for 2018. Medicaid contractors like this may be the only insurers that can survive in the ObamaCare exchanges.

                      Centene’s core product is Medicaid managed care. About 90% of its exchange enrollees get premium subsidies, and many rotate in and out of its Medicaid plans.

                      In a controversial 2014 decision, a Centene health plan canceled a child patient’s emergency brain surgery at Houston’s Children’s Medical Center. The hospital said its success rate for the surgery was close to 90%, while hospitals nationwide average only 47%. The insurer claimed the hospital was out of its network for the patient’s plan but relented after its decision was criticized in the media.

                      Anecdotes like this one account for much of what’s known about the care of seriously ill patients under ObamaCare. But this month the Dallas Morning News published the results of a yearlong investigation into Medicaid in Texas. The paper uncovered hundreds of cases in which “essential medical care was delayed, denied or not delivered to people with critical health needs.”

                      Many of the insurers that provide Texas’ Medicaid plans offer similar coverage in the ObamaCare exchanges. One of Centene’s subsidiaries has the state’s highest rate of appeals for denials of care under Medicaid, but it offers plans with similar coverage to exchange enrollees.

                      What’s driving this race to the bottom? The problem starts with the community rating system, which requires insurers to charge the same premium to all comers regardless of health status. This gives insurers an incentive to seek healthy buyers and avoid sick ones. Since healthy people tend to pick the cheapest plan, and sick buyers are much likelier to look carefully at coverage details, plans with low premiums and narrow coverage networks are suited to attract the healthy buyers insurers want.

                      What about risk adjustment, the ObamaCare mechanism that is supposed to transfer funds from plans with healthier enrollees to plans with sicker ones? The program’s administrators don’t always assess risk properly. When ObamaCare’s risk adjustment undercompensated insurers, they passed along the cost to certain patients through higher out-of-pocket charges, according to a 2016 study by Harvard and University of Texas economists. Insurers also have an incentive to spend not a penny more on the plans than the risk-adjusted compensation they get for enrollees, meaning such plans tend to offer restrictive coverage.

                      Problems on the buyer side of the market also hamper risk adjustment. Since the mandate to buy insurance has dozens of loopholes and has been enforced weakly, millions of healthy people choose to remain uninsured. When they get sick, however, they often enroll and choose the gold and platinum plans with the most generous coverage. These latecomers usually cause insurers to pay out much more in coverage than the insurers receive in premiums and subsidies. Companies like Centene have a solution to that kind of buyer behavior: They don’t offer gold or platinum plans.

                      Congress should be examining these kinds of problems—rather than searching for ways to bail out the insurance companies that helped create this broken system.

                      Mr. Goodman is president of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research and author of “Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis” (Independent Institute, 2012).

                      https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacare-can-be-worse-than-medicaid-1530052891

                2. And don’t forget that Mueller and Comey were both associated with George W’s administration.

                  Mueller is a Justice Department lifer who worked for every Administration from that of Gerald Ford to that of Barack Obama. Ditto Comey, bar that he started during the Reagan Administration. Ditto Rosenstein, bar that he started during the 1st Bush Administration. Mueller staffed his outfit with Democratic Party donors because that’s who he trusts for the task at hand. Rosenstein maneuvered to effectively prohibit the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan from supervising his own staff because that’s who he doesn’t trust for the task at hand. The task at hand has nothing to do with justice, by the way.

              2. Yes, Allan, like a true Fox Disciple, EVERYTHING BAD can be traced to Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. Literally EVERYTHING. No, Trump’s not a crook, and anyone who says differently, is trying to negate your vote, so they’re communists! So, if Cohen has a high-priced lawyer, HRC must be paying for it. Doesn’t matter who is paying for it. Cohen has the goods on Trump, and he’s probably going to take him down, so now come the attack dogs: someone with an ulterior motive must be paying for Cohen’s lawyer. Giuliani already called Cohen a pathological liar, which is rich, considering how many lies he and Trump have told. The tape doesn’t lie. Trump did know about and authorize the payments to the women he screwed. He and Giuliani both lied about this.

                Cohen was smart enough to take measures to protect himself against Trump and his tyranny. Trump is so arrogant and stupid he thinks he can get away with anything, but if he or his soon-to-be-twice-divorced son do get convicted, he thinks he can just pardon himself and Jr. and go on. He’s wrong.

                1. “Yes, Allan, like a true Fox Disciple, EVERYTHING BAD can be traced to Hillary and/or Bill Clinton. Literally EVERYTHING”

                  Not everything, but a lot of political things that are in the newspaper every day. I suppose it is Trump’s fault that Bernie was squeezed out. I suppose that the money traced from Hillary and her campaign to the Steele Dossier was a gigantic plot by Trump to blame Hillary. I suppose Trump held a gun to Hillary’s head making her do the Uranium One deal.

                  I suppose it is Trump that denied you the ability to think clearly.

                  I hear Hannity has a list of predictions that he made 2 years ago and many of them have already been proven true. I always wonder where he gets his information from. Could it be from you?

                2. Natacha, I just read: “Just hours after a stunning economic report showed a staggering 4.1% growth in GDP, President Trump spoke with Sean Hannity to discuss the robust American recovery; saying “it’s going to get even better” in the coming months as the trade deficit continues to tumble.”

                  I’m not blaming that on Hillary. Yes, that occurred on Fox News.

                3. Natacha, I just signed up for reports from Hannity since apparently he is your favorite. In that manner, I felt I could quote for you what he or his people have to say. I want to provide you with a bit of happiness in your life.

                  “TWITTER TANKS: Shares Plunge 19% After the Platform is Accused of ‘SHADOW BANNING’ Conservatives
                  posted by Hannity Staff ”

                  I’m not blaming that on Hillary.

                4. Natacha, I want to show you that Fox News doesn’t blame Hillary for everything.

                  Trump Announces Trade Concessions from EU Officials on Soybeans, Energy, Tariffs
                  -Fox News
                  “President Trump announced Wednesday that he has secured major trade concessions from European Union officials,” Adam Shaw reports. “Both sides agreed to work toward the goal of ‘zero’ tariffs and subsidies on non-auto industrial goods.” President Trump called it “a very big day for free and fair trade.”

            2. Peter,…
              I think Cohen’s financial condition is unknown, at least to the public.
              Investigators and others “in the loop” probably have an idea, but in reading about the sharp plunge in the value of Cohen’s ” medillion taxi” investments, it looks like Cohen could be in financial trouble.

              1. When Cohen requested the special master, he cost himself a boatload of billable hours from a busload of lawyers for the sake of taking a bullet for Trump who then stiffed Cohen for the tab just like all of the other contractors Trump has stiffed. Trump deserves Cohen’s betrayal of Trump. Trump’s betrayal of Cohen has earned Cohen’s payback against Trump. It couldn’t’ve happened to a sweller couple of fellas.

    1. Drake’s observation is not original, or at all profound.
      Forgetting about the weak “elephant and flea” gambit, yeah, the investigation is about Trump, and if he committed criminal offenses.
      Drake didn’t “discover” this; what he’s saying has been obvious from Day One.

          1. One has to spell things out for Nash:

            ” ‘So you say’ is an informal way to say ‘well, that’s your opinion!’ It has a negative and sarcastic sense. The speaker is expressing disagreement …” -italki

              1. My comment that Anonymous was”very observant” was completely devoid of sarcasm.😞😌😏😀

              2. “Not only do they lack the wit and imagination of memes, emoticons also typify an annoying persistence among adults to act like teenagers”

                https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/18/adults-emoji-grow-up-emoticons-teenagers

                Secondly, the context and use of emoticons seems to typify a cultural trend that is at the very least rather annoying: a refusal of adults to act like grown-ups, and a mindless desire to endlessly, and uncritically, adopt all that is youth-related, and to never out-grow the preoccupation we have stolen from teenagers – that with being “cool”.

                I am not cool. I am middle-aged. I can wear whatever is fashionable, pepper my texts with emoji, listen to the latest music – but none of these prevents me from being part of the generation that now bears responsibility for the world, its state and important decisions. I have adult choices to make, that matter: because I am the grown-up, and it’s my fault. We might argue that the over-adoption of childish net-neologisms, a desperation to conspire in our own infantilisation, is like an act of Sartrean bad-faith, a refusal to view ourselves as the people who bear responsibility for shaping the world and its future. But it is still true. No amount of winking smileys can make up for, say, a refusal to fight injustice, or face up to climate change.”

                Some good points, IMHO.

                1. “Some good points”.
                  Possibly so, made, as usual by a link, and cutting and pasting, from the recycler Anonymous.
                  Knowing that Anonymous was irked by my use of emojis, I was seriously considering curtailing their use…..possibly even eliminating emojis….within the next several years.😌
                  But then Anonymous urged my continued use of them, so I was happy to oblidge.😌😉😃
                  I think that encouragement to keep using the emojis was actually written in A. Non’s VERY OWN WORDS, rather than a link.
                  So now I’m in a real quandary😯😕; not knowing what Anonymous REALLY wants, and just trying to please😊😌😇, I am uncertain as to how I need to proceed in comments involving Anomymous.
                  Seems that there is just no pleasing some people😞😒; so I guess I’ll just have to keep winging it.

                  1. Tom Nash – since I get all my Turley stuff on my home computer I do not have access to emojis, except those I have hand done. 😉 And I only know two.

                    1. PC Schulte,…
                      I have dozens of emojis “preloaded” on my keyboard.
                      I also custom-ordered hundreds more after anonymous urged me to continue using them😉, so I’m well-stocked.

                2. anonymous – I fight the good fight almost every day. I clear up wrongs. And I stand up the wrong-headed people who think climate change is the over-riding issue of our day. Michael Mann is fraud and if I had done what Mann had done, I would have been stripped of my degrees.

    2. Isn’t Drake one of the intelligence veterans who signed onto the report that totally debunks the “Russia hacked the DNC” story?

  5. Turley’s blog is structured loosely around the law and its varied interpretations. Any honest and straight speaking lawyer will tell you that the law is an instrument to be used to the advantage of the client. An effective lawyer does not confuse the law with justice. Justice is a reflection of the will of the people through the courts. The will of the people is grounded, but not permanently, in the sacred books and tempered by the moment. To understand this, one has simply to read a little, not much, history.

    Turley’s blog would not succeed if it focused on the law and only the law. This makes way for the tabloid aspects of the blog. Cohen, Trump, and Trump’s family are 100% tabloid. This is entertainment pure and simple. The law aspect of the latest shenanigans can be read from left to right or attorney client privilege or from right to left Trump knew and the recording of the conversations was accepted. Either way, justice over rules any legal mumbo jumbo regarding attorney client privilege. Cohen will, more than likely, never practice law again. Cohen will, however, make a few million to many million on book, tabloid, and talk show host deals.

    This is a polarized nation and Trump has increased its polarization by increments never seen before. Mueller represents justice, regardless of what side one is on. Cohen represents the law as a plaything. Trump represents himself and only himself, above the law has he has stated, yet ever ready to use the law for his own advantage. Anyone who cannot see that Trump represents the most perverse application of this nation’s laws has simply not paid attention to him at all.

    So, all this legal mumbo jumbo represents nothing. The truth is all that matters as it is all that is left. This is not a private citizen being bullied by a corporation or institution but the most rabid bully of all refusing to tell the truth. If it must be pried out of his pink little mitts then so be it. 99% of Trump is buffoonery and braggadocio. He has accomplished nothing of any importance other than a few beans thrown to special interests and oligarchs. The trade issues and immigration issues upon which he founds his value are nothing that wasn’t being dealt with successfully before. In fact, the most respected economists constantly warn against his actions.

    If you pay attention you will see semi tractors manufactured by Volvo and other European truck names in the US. These vehicles are imported into the US with a US imposed 25% tariff. If that tariff goes then the US semi tractor industry will take a wallop. Even with a 25% tariff they are successful in the US. There are many more examples. Reducing the 10% tariff on US made SUVs and cars into Europe will do next to nothing for US auto manufacturers. Europeans will not buy a GMC or a Ford product that gets poor milage does not meet exhaust regulations and is not as well made as their European or Japanese counterparts. The US auto manufacturers that sell in Europe manufacture models designed for the European market in Europe. They are already the lesser preferred cars. Nothing will change much to the advantage of the US auto industry with relaxed tariffs. Mac Truck, Peterbuilt, White, etc may lose a substantial market share to Volvo, Daf, Scania, etc. however. The US auto industry did well during that epoch before cars evolved into efficient and long lasting vehicles. While Japanese and European manufacturers worked in tandem with a public demanding better milage and governments demanding less emissions, the US circumvented mandates by categorizing SUVs as trucks to allow them to be exempt of any US mandates and US cars went into decline. Ford is planning on phasing out cars altogether in the US. This is due to governments like Reagan’s and now Trump’s. Trump is planning on rolling back mandates on gas milage. Tariffs are not the only thing.

    Take away the reality of what Trump says and does and what is left are some momentary bumps and mostly ego buffoonery. Any one who believes this stuff is not paying attention.

    1. You know that “the law is an instrument to be used to the advantage of the client” yet, you also assert
      “Mueller represents justice, regardless of what side one is on”?

      How was this, when Mueller’s client is clearly Hillary Clinton: his investigation is founded on
      fraudulently obtained Clinton campaign propaganda from agents of multiple foreign governments (including, by its own admission, Russia itself), perjuriously used to obtain warrants to spy on her political opposition; his team is almost wholly Clinton donors and cronies; he’s so far going only after Trump connected persons on crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign, while totally ignoring crimes and questionable acts of Clinton and her circles. How, again, is that “Justice”?

      1. If you could prove your Clinton allegations, you’d really have something. But you can’t, so you don’t.

        1. f you could prove your Clinton allegations, you’d really have something. But you can’t, so you don’t.

          So Trump allegations deserve a full blown government-funded investigation and Clinton allegations are to be proven by the people? How long have we been waiting for the Mueller investigation to come up with proof for the Trump allegations? He hasn’t, so he don’t. Right?

          Now in the interest of equal justice, put forth the same effort towards Clinton and let the indictments begin.

      2. David H.,
        – Muellar’s close relationship with Comey alone was a reason that he should not have been appointed Special Counsel.
        If a conflict of interest , or the appearance of a conflict of interest, is no problem then Rosenstein might just as well appointed Rudy Giuliani as Special Counsel.
        I’ve never criticized Rosenstein for appointing a Sp. Counsel, but selecting Mueller was a bone-headed move.

        1. but selecting Mueller was a bone-headed move.

          It was a satisfactory move if you’re running a rigged investigation to promote the interests of the permanent government. And that’s what Rosenstein’s doing. The person who vetted him for an appointment in this administration should be out on his ear the moment Rosenstein’s fired.

    2. Any honest and straight speaking lawyer will tell you that the law is an instrument to be used to the advantage of the client. An effective lawyer does not confuse the law with justice. Justice is a reflection of the will of the people through the courts.

      Oh boy. Your worldview of the purpose of the law and what defines justice explains everything that is wrong with progressivism. The first part of your quote would be more accurate if it said:

      Any honest and straight speaking lawyer will tell you that the law is an instrument being used (Lawfare) to the advantage of the client.

      No, that’s not its purpose, but it is how it is being used. The second part of your quote is about the worst definition of Justice imaginable. In your twisted world, if Lawfare warriors fought to force Canadian-Americans to work for free (slave labor) and the will of the people supported that through the courts, then that’s your definition of justice. You may want to rethink that.

      Tempting as that might be, I prefer Bastiat’s definition of Law and Justice.

      Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

      If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

      1. I very much prefer Bastiat’s definition.
        And, anybody involved in law or government who is not familiar with his work, is uneducated.

  6. OLD CHINESE SAYING:

    “THE MAN WHO’S ALWAYS IN TROUBLE ‘IS’ TROUBLE”

    HINT, HINT, THIS APPLIES TO DONALD TRUMP..!!

    It defies credibility that Trump supporters greet every negative revelation as evidence of far-fetched conspiracies. Predictably the culprits are always: deep state, mainstream media, the all-powerful Clinton machine, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc.

    There comes a point where one has to look at Donald Trump and say, “Maybe it’s ‘him’. Maybe his rash, in-your-face style combined with lack of experience makes Trump uniquely ill-suited for the presidency. And maybe, just ‘maybe’, a president who refuses to show his tax returns ‘really’ has something to hide”.

Leave a Reply