Cohen Is Done But Not Finished In His M.A.D. Legal Strategy

250px-Nuclear_fireballBelow is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of Michael Cohen accusing Donald Trump of lying about his lack of prior notice of the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.  Cohen’s allegations present an obvious risk not only to Trump but himself.  What is most striking is that Cohen is alleging that specific people were in the room during Trump’s briefing and his approval of the meeting.  That is an unnecessary risk to take if you are lying about the meeting as opposed to alleging a one-on-one conversation with Trump.  Thus far, no one has corroborated his story while the Trump team is alleging proof that the critical tape has been altered.

Here is the column: 

The evolution of Michael Cohen continued this week with his implication of Donald Trump in the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyers in June 2016. This is all part of the new Michael Cohen rolled out last week by his lawyer, Lanny Davis. As Davis explained, it is all part of Cohen’s “new resolve” to “reset his life” where he is trying “to tell the truth.”

For most of us, truth is not so much an option as it is an obligation but, then, most of us are not like Michael Cohen. At best, Cohen comes across as Watergate-era attorney John Dean without the guilt (or discernible legal skills). At worst, he is the type of person once described by fabled Texan Sam Houston as having “all the characteristics of a dog except loyalty.” Whether this is the new or old Michael Cohen, his move this week could present serious perils for both himself and his former client, Donald Trump.

Trump has long denied prior knowledge of the Russian meeting. That position was supported by his son Donald Trump Jr. who spoke both under oath and to investigators. Trump Jr. was closely questioned on this very point, including possible calls to his father before or immediately after the meeting. Other Trump staff members and lawyers have repeated this denial. Yet, Cohen now alleges that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting. He reportedly said further that he could name other people in the room when Trump was briefed on the meeting and gave his approval.Trump today repeated his own denial and tweeted that “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!”

It was a curious jab at Cohen for hiring Davis, since Trump has hired former Clinton lawyer Emmett Flood as his own counsel. However, the denial could not be more clear. In other words, someone is lying. Indeed, Cohen’s new role as a truth teller seems to have triggered a self-destructive impulse. This is a type of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) strategy with a twist. Usually you make such a threat to avoid the actual MAD move.

Here, Cohen is going MAD in the hope, perhaps, of post-apocalyptic survival through a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller. The new account seems to contradict Cohen’s prior statements to Congress and investigators when he was specifically pressed on this very question. Even if Mueller gives him a deal, it will not protect him from state charges and it could involve a guilty plea, as with former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Of course, if Cohen’s account is corroborated, this could get real bad, real fast, for Trump. It is not that Cohen’s account changes the dynamic on collusion. Even if Trump approved the meeting, it could still be as it has been described — a willingness to hear alleged evidence of criminal conduct on the part of Hillary Clinton or her associates. However, in many ways, this would be more serious than trying to fashion some unknown crime of collusion. This would be a clear and often used crime of making false statements. It is the very crime that Mueller has used to indict a myriad of people in this investigation. It is not a risk for President Trump, who has not discussed this matter under oath or to federal investigators — but that may not matter, given the person in the crosshairs of such an allegation: Donald Trump Jr.

Once you go after the son, Trump could well act more as a parent than a president. If President Trump approved the meeting, Trump Jr. could be indicted under 18 U.S.C. 1001 as well as possible perjury laws. The same is true for some Trump aides, but this is his son. Ironically, Trump would be in the same position as Flynn, who copped a plea reportedly in part to protect his son, Michael Flynn Jr. Trump is not likely to cop a plea, since he has more options than did Flynn, but they are all bad options.

Trump’s visceral rhetoric has never been matched by real actions. That could change. He has long railed against the investigation and called for it to end. If Mueller were to pursue his son, Trump could lash out and fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That list could grow, since Trump may be hard-pressed to find anyone at the Justice Department willing to shut down this investigation (let alone the investigation being handled in the Southern District of New York).

Trump could also fire off a slew of pardons, even including one for himself. That would trigger cascading events which could well lead to criminal or impeachment counts, or both. At a minimum, it would push this matter on a fast track toward impeachment, just as the House of Representatives may flip to Democratic control in the November midterm elections.

New Jersey mobster Sam DeCavalcante once said, “Honest people have no ethics.” Cohen’s new found “honesty” appears to rest on the same dubious distinction, as he actively seeks to incriminate his former client to save himself with secret recordings and gotcha accounts. It also is possible that the “new” Cohen is a lot like the old Cohen — a stranger, perhaps, to both honesty and ethics. Nevertheless, he has the ability to move this scandal into a new and precarious stage for this administration.

Cohen now knows that he is fighting for simple survival, and that makes him dangerous. The real “truth” is that Cohen is done — but that does not mean he is finished.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

342 thoughts on “Cohen Is Done But Not Finished In His M.A.D. Legal Strategy”

  1. Even Steve Bannon is smart enough to know the meeting between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign was stupid and probably criminal.

    Bannon worked on the campaign and in the White House extensively so he must have some important knowledge of what happened.

    Bannon is no left-winger either. I am not a fan of him, but he should at least be given some credit for speaking up about it.

    1. You should probably brush up on a concept called the First Amendment. Exchanging information isn’t “criminal” unless it breaks specific laws — such as the Espionage Act that Clinton violated knowingly, wilfully and repeatedly by diverting classified United States Government information away from secure facilities into a deliberately unsecured private email account.

      And — if anything regarding such a meeting were criminal, which it wasn’t, how severe a punishment would you want to impose on the 0bama Justice Dept for having granted the Russian lawyer a special visa for the apparent express purpose of using her to set up this failed attempt at quasi-entrapment?

      1. David, show us an article from a mainstream media source that says the Obama Justice Department granted a “special visa” for Natalia Veselnitskaya.

        1. Mainstream Media would not have reported anything negative concerning Obama’s Justice Dept.

          But you knew that.

          1. Oh, I get it. Only obscure, no-name sources have that story. ‘Right’.

            1. IOW, the special visa for Veselnitskaya is a red herring. And so is Veselnitskaya’s hiring of Fusion GPS to do research for her legal defense of Katsyv and Prevezon Holdings.

        2. Is that the extent of your intellectual curiosity? Does it not concern you that Natalia Veselnitskaya was in our country in 2016 and no one within any of Obama’s agencies, that should know how she was authorized to reenter the United States, could or would not explain it? If a Typhoon Class Russian submarine popped up in the middle of New York harbor and no one in the Trump administration had an explanation for it, would you ignore it?

          No, your curiosity ends when your bias is confirmed. Case closed.

          1. Does every Russian entering America need a Special Visa? I’m just asking now. I didn’t know the State Department singled Russians out for Special Visa requirements.

            Regardless of visa requirements, are we supposed to think the Obama Administration sent Natalia Veselnitskaya to that meeting in Trump Tower? Who’s carrying that story? That’s not in any coverage regarding Cohen’s tape about the meeting. Is this one of those things that only followers of Alex Jones are hip to?

            1. Peter Hill, this is in response to your Q to Paul Schulte about Obama getting his information “from the news reports just like everybody else.” (posting here b/c the thread below has turned into a one-word skinny column)

            2. Also, I don’t believe Natalia Veselnitskaya was an agent of the Russian government, was she? And Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson in his testimony to the Senate shows that Veselnitskaya has ties to Fusion GPS, the company that wrote the Steele Dossier for the Clinton campaign, and she was given the documents that she brought into the Trump Tower meeting by Simpson/Fusion GPS who met with her both before and after she took the TT meeting.


              1. Bob, the second paragraph of this story raises more questions than it answers.

                “Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of Fusion GPS, was with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at a Manhattan federal courtroom just hours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fox News reported, citing a source. He met with her again after the meeting, the report said”.

                Why were Simpson and Veselnitskaya both at a Federal courtroom? Was it a chance meeting or was Simpson there ‘with’ Veselintskaya? Then it says Simpson met her again ‘after’ the Trump Tower meeting. But again no explanation.

                If there’s a conspiracy of some kind here I’m surprised we haven’t heard more. I’m surprised that Trump himself isn’t tweeting about this. I’m surprised that right-wing media hasn’t played this for all it’s worth.

                Something doesn’t make sense here.

                1. Peter,..
                  Simpson met with Veselnitskaya before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
                  He worked with Veselnitskaya in efforts to discredit Bill Browder, the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act.
                  According to NBC News, Veselnitskaya testified that she used “talking point notes” SUPPLIED BY SIMPSON in the Trump Tower meeting.
                  As far as why there has not been more reporting on this, take a wild guess as to why that might be, Peter.

                  1. Tom, right-wing media is free to report on this to their heart’s content. Are they..?? I’m not hearing about it. And again, why isn’t Trump harping on this? If it’s a significant lead, you’d think he would.

                    And if the meeting at Trump Tower was truly about the Megnitsky Act, then there’s no scandal at all. But Don Jr. said, they were there to get dirt on Hillary.

                    And would Manafort, Kushner and Don Junior all gather to discuss the Magnitsky Act? It doesn’t sound important enough to merit a formal sit-down.

                    Again, something about this story doesn’t make sense.

                    1. “Again, something about this story doesn’t make sense.”

                      Of course not, because you make up so much bullsh!t you forget what is and what isn’t true. Your ability to make sense of anything has been destroyed by your own rhetoric.

            3. Does every Russian entering America need a Special Visa?

              That’s the first question that popped into your head? Why not ask, How did this person gain entry into the United States and attend the June 2016 meeting and other events after her special visa expired in January 2016?

              Regardless of visa requirements, are we supposed to think the Obama Administration sent Natalia Veselnitskaya to that meeting in Trump Tower?

              No, because of visa requirements, we are supposed to answer the first question first. She didn’t click her heels together to get in; someone authorized her entry. Who was responsible and what was the reason for authorizing it? Just like objects orbiting distant stars, that wobble indicates something is there that requires further investigation.

              1. Olly,…
                – If the Obama DOJ interceded on Veselnitskaya’s behalf to allow her into the country ( over the objections of U.S. ATTORNEY PREET BHARRA), I’m SURE we would have heard more about it.

          2. She was probably sponsored by someone in the Trump orbit to come here.

            What do you think of Steve Bannon saying the meeting was treasonous and that Kushner and Trump Jr would be brought out in handcuffs?


            This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States.

            We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason.

            1. I didn’t know that someone “in the Trump orbit” was in the Obama DOJ, but thanks for your theory, MerryMoron

            2. Bannon walked that comment back and also said Don Jr. was a patriot and a good man. So which is it?

              Did you know Steele was paid by the DNC to pay Russians for information on Trump? That’s an actual violation of campaign laws. So yes, let’s talk about which campaign was getting oppo research from the Russians.

              1. Steele spied on Russia to get info Russia didn’t want released.

                Trump Jr. and Kushner accepted a meeting to get info Russia wanted to give.

                See the difference?

                1. Steele probably has not set foot in Russia since the 1990s.
                  It would be an endless task to point out all of your wild inaccuraies, MAMINORITY….you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
                  Maybe you’ll have better luck playing the race card,

                2. Nothing came out of the meeting in Trump Tower. Steele was being paid by DNC/Clinton campaign to get (pay for) information/dirt on Trump from Russian operatives that was compiled into a dossier that was then used by the USG to spy on the Trump campaign. See the difference?

              2. T Bob,…
                There is a double standard at work here.
                Try your hardest to build a conspiracy charge resulting from the Trump Tower meeting, then do backward somersaults to excuse a partisan Brit paid to compile and promote Russian opposition research against Trump.
                “See the difference?”

                1. If you’re a Trump and you have a meeting with somebody, it’s open-and-shut evidence of criminal consipracy and treason.
                  If you’re Clinton you can pay foreign agents for lies and then have your minions foist them on the United States courts as a product vetted by the U.S. intelligence community, and that’s just fine.

            3. If you want to learn more about how willing the Clinton campaign was to work with or “collude” with foreign governments, you can also check out how DNC operatives (Alexandra Chalupa) actively worked with Ukrainian government officials to dig up oppo research on Trump and force Manafort out of the campaign.

        3. David, though you are correct, don’t bother doing Peter Shill’s research for him. He knows nothing and when you prove what he wishes to disbelieve he cowardly runs away. Watch out for him quoting you while inserting his own words.

            1. David, Peter Shill has provided you with a choice.

              Act as Peter Shill’s unpaid research assistant or as I would say don’t do it because he is a hit and run coward that will never deal with facts and certainly won’t admit when he is wrong.

              Peter Shill thinks it is OK to write text, put quotes around it and place someone’s name as the author of the quotes. I think that is underhanded and demonstrates the lack of character shown by Peter Shill.

              In fact, I believe that using someone’s alias to impersonate them or intentionally falsely quoting another in parenthesis destroys the integrity of a list and should lead their being banned from the list.

              1. It’s a shame that someone’s time and money (probably ours) is being wasted to employ such people to obfuscate on social media.

          1. Peter Hill will now peter out on this issue. Along with being a wannabe low IQ pundit, he is a coward.

      2. The meeting was criminal because the federal conspiracy statute prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States, which includes conspiracies to impede the lawful functions of the federal government — such as administering a presidential election.

        Conspiracy also prohibits agreements to commit another federal crime. This would include an agreement to violate the laws against hacking into someone else’s computer, or to violate federal election laws.

        1. It does not appear that Mueller has reached that conclusion, judging by the charges he’s filed.
          After two years of investigations, the Special Counsel may or may not agree with “Marry a Minority and Anger Trump Voters” legal “reasoning”.
          If there is an indictment related to the Trump Tower “conspiracy”, watch for more legal action directed Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, the DNC, The Clinton Campaign Fund, Mark Elias and Perkins Coie. and probably dozens of others.
          If one is going to argue that the Trump Tower meeting is a “conspiracy to interfere with a presidential election, that kind of “charge” will be much easier to prove when a,”bought and paid for” Russian Dossier, using third-hand Russian sources, was actually peddled to the press.
          I don’t know the status of the Senate criminal referral against Steele to the DOJ…..maybe they got back to the Senate with an answer, maybe after 6 months they are still waiting for an an
          swer…. but the civil suits against Steele, Simpson and others may progress faster than any criminal investigation.
          And they may also prompt criminal charges being brought against the conspirators involved in the Russian Dossier project.

        2. The meeting was criminal because the federal conspiracy statute prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States,

          I see Diane has yet another alias.

          1. @TSTD:

            Your “Diane” game is just that: a very stupid and silly little game.

    2. was stupid and probably criminal.

      Criminal only in your imagination. In the world we actually live in, listening to a Russian lawyer yap about the Magnitsky Act is not a crime.

  2. “Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of Michael Cohen accusing Donald Trump of lying about his lack of prior notice of the meeting at Trump Tower with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.”

    To my knowledge, opposition research goes on all the time — with members of any number of countries. What is the illegality here? There’s no statute in this article.

    In fact, for a lawyer like Turley, it’s kind of embarrassing.

    1. Steve, if Trump, Manafort, Kushner and Junior had nothing to hide regarding that meeting, why didn’t they just say so from Day 1?

      Before you answer, though, note that Steve Bannon thought they were idiots to set up that meeting. And that was one of the reasons Trump expelled Bannon from the White House.

      One might also note that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian woman at that meeting, is believed to have close ties to the Kremlin. And that could be the reason why no one on Trump’s team wanted to acknowledge their ‘opposition research’.

      1. Peter,

        Maggie Haggerman of the NY Times is no fan of Trump.
        Here’s what she had to say about those involved in commissioning and paying for the Russian Dossier;
        ‘”They lied, and they lied with sanctimony, for a full year”.
        She wrote this in Oct. 2017,
        when “they” were essentially forced to admit their involvement in paying for the dossier.

    2. Steve J,…
      The law isn’t that clear on foreign opposition research.
      Typically, oppo research does not involve foreign agents and foreign sources.
      There needs to be a clearer definition of the laws re soliciting/ buying/ using foreign oppo research.
      There also needs to be even application of current law, but that is not the Sp. Counsel’s mandate, or objective.

  3. Do I care about Trump’s prior or current sex life? No. I agree with Jackie Mason who said all politicians should have mistresses. Because if they’re not doing it to their mistresses, they’re doing it to the country.

    1. Disagree. The trouble is that the time to set the standard was 1998. Partisan Democrats went on and on about our ‘lack of sophistication’ blah blah. Now, they’re complaining about Stormy Daniels. Because they’ll say anything.


    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
    Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

    Is Robert Mueller ever going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump, including the fact that we had a very nasty & contentious business relationship, I turned him down to head the FBI (one day before appointment as S.C.) & Comey is his close friend..


    On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte ruled that the Attorney Generals of Maryland and D.C. can proceed with their cases that Trump violated provisions in the constitution regarding emoluments clauses.

    1. The contentious business relationship is that Mueller ended his membership in a Trump golf club.

      There will be a big monument in DC honoring Mueller and all his helpers. There will be a stinky little pissoir in DC honoring Trump and his enablers. Both will be very popular tourist attractions.

      1. There will be a big monument in DC honoring Mueller and all his helpers.

        Thanks for the report on your fantasies. It’s been an education.

        1. That’s ‘it’..?? That’s your put-down?

          Perhaps your apartment is too stuffy from summer heat.

          1. Peter, is there a monument honoring Earl Silbert, Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski, and Henry Ruth? A. No, even though 43 years have passed, even though three of them are deceased, and even though they were investigating actual crimes.

            1. Mueller has wracked up a stunning number of indictments. But you question if ‘actual crimes’ exist? It seems odd that Mueller could run amok like that when Republicans control the government.

              Now if Democrats controlled Congress, then it would be easier to explain Mueller’s rein of terror. But this idea that Mueller is a runaway bulldozer that a Republican-controlled government is helpless to stop makes no sense whatsoever.

              1. “Mueller has wracked up a stunning number of indictments.”

                “Stunning”? Listen to the foolish embellishments of Peter Shill who can’t even get quotes right and intentionally creates quotes out of thin air. The indictments are trash and have nothing to do with anything Trump did.

              2. Mueller has wracked up a stunning number of indictments.

                All of them humbug, as has been explained to you. You keep running this tape. There’s a reason people call you Peter Shill.

  5. I’m sorry. I still don’t get what the issue is of whether Trump knew or not about a meeting where a Russian was offering dirt on a political opponent. Opposition research is not illegal, and you get opposition research on activities in foreign countries from foreign officials. At that time, Russia had entree into everyone’s drawing room and cocktail party, whining about the Magninsky Act. And that’s what she did, got a meeting where she complained about the Magninsky Act. She was useless to the campaign so she was asked to leave.

    Another set of Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton’s political opponent. She paid them over a million dollars for it, and it all turned out to be fraudulent.

    As long as Hillary Clinton is not investigated for actually paying Russian spies for dirt, then I will never take as legitimate all of this brouhaha over the Trumps taking a meeting on the offer of dirt.

    Hey, I know something embarrassing about your opponent. Great, what do you have? Nothing. And…this is treason? An impeachable offense? How else would we know about the corruption and fraud in the Clinton Foundation’s Haiti debacle without hearing about it from Haitian nationals and officials?

    1. If they prosecute everyone who took a meeting with a Russian during this time, then all of Congress would be empty.

      In addition, this craze about Russian meddling is so strange. Russia is alleged to have released truthful embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Democrats are ready for the US to go into nuclear winter with Russia. What is their position? How dare the American people find out the truth? Pedestal used “password” as his password. Is that even hacking or just picking up the briefcase of compromising information he left open on a park bench?

      The US “meddled” like mad in Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection in Israel, and they are some of our closest allies! We’ve “meddled” in elections and politics across the globe, even deposing leaders we view as a threat to us. We meddle. Other nations try to meddle in our affairs, and everyone spies on everyone else, friends and foes alike.

      I would rather the conversation turn to cyber security and ways to improve our security, such as against the cyber piracy of China that decimates our American businesses of their intellectual property.

    2. Karen, show us an article from a recognizable mainstream source that says, “Hillary paid over a million dollars to Russian spies for dirt on Trump that turned out to be fraudulent”.

      1. Hey Dick Hill,
        You accused me of being compromised regarding Trump and that I am a liar. You’ve got zero credibility and even less grounds to be asking anyone to prove anything until you provide evidence to support your allegations against me.

        1. If you can’t see how abnormal this presidency is, then you are either oblivious or compromised.

          Which is one describes ‘you’, Olly?

          1. That’s it!? That’s your evidence? What the hell is a normal presidency? How do you define it?

            We had a general election. Trump beat out I believe 16 other candidates to win the nomination WITHOUT rigging the process. That was a quite normal process regardless of who won. Clinton on the other hand won her nomination, though that victory was tainted by the DNC rigging debates in her favor and allegedly funneling campaign finances to the Hillary Victory Fund. We can debate whether that process was normal or not for the DNC. Trump then went on to defeat Clinton in the general election by winning the electoral college. All evidence supports that win was normal; that there were no voting irregularities as a result of Russian meddling. President Trump’s foreign and domestic policy have been within the limits of the office. I could argue that is abnormal compared with the president he replaced. His style is unconventional but effective.

            So how do you define normal?

            1. Olly, normal presidents have experience in high office. Normal presidents don’t send daily tweets with rash language attacking and insulting people. Normal presidents don’t label as ‘fake news’ intelligence that every cabinet secretary acknowledges. Normal presidents don’t go to summits with allies and leave them wondering if the U.S. is still dependable. Normal presidents don’t refuse to show their tax returns. Normal presidents don’t try to operate businesses while functioning as president. Normal presidents don’t leverage their agendas on phony border crisis’s.

              This list goes on and on. No one connected to reality can say this presidency is normal.

              1. No one connected to reality can say this presidency is normal.

                Actually, no one connected to your reality can say this presidency is normal.

                Normal to you is getting your desired results; regardless of the constitutionality of it. Normal to you is a weaponized- administrative state; just not in the hands of the wrong political party. Normal to you is a MSM functioning as the public affairs arm of the Democratic Party. Normal to you is an expanding progressive, foreign and domestic welfare state where we are responsible to foreign parties but they have no responsibility to us. Normal to you is an ignorant, apathetic and dependent electorate.

                When your normal is able to match their gender and DNA together, then get back to me about normal.

                1. Olly, you state the truth. Peter Shill’s reality, constitution, way of life, etc. are summed up in four words, typical cowardly uninformed progressive. He has nothing to offer and if one actually debates him with policy and facts he runs away. He is the typical coward that hits and runs. Not only that but he will quote another by lying when he is actually using his own words. Moreover, his own words from successive threads conflict with one another.

                  One day the list owner might get tired and take out the trash. That would be the end of Peter Shill.

                  1. Allan,
                    They mistake theatrics for ethics. Case in point: “Dick’ Shill called me a liar (or dishonest) the other day and apparently didn’t expect to be called on it. I did, and he’s not provided anything to back up his claim.

                    1. Peter Shill seldom if ever backs up his claims. He can’t in a sustained manner. On various threads, he doesn’t even agree with himself. Moreover, he is a coward.

              2. “normal” would be to have your State Department, DOJ, FBI, and “intelligence” apparatus to launch a psychological and political smear operation to destroy the opposing candidate, and continue it into his presidency.

                  1. Olly, speaking of ‘expanding welfare states’, a new report was released today on Trump’s tax cuts. Sure enough, most that money is going to CEO’s and stock buybacks. How is than not welfare?

                    It’s interesting because very few Republicans plan to campaign on those tax cuts this fall. They know the average Joe hasn’t seen any bumps in Take-Home Pay.

                    1. Mr. Hill, I love our work, but . . . If it’s true that you accused Olly of being compromised [I have not yet located the comment at issue there], then you probably owe The Chief an apology on that count.

              3. Peter Hill – Obama gave people the finger at least three times on camera, is that normal for a president. LBJ used to open his pants to show everyone the size of his penis, is that normal? I could go on with other Presidents. Peter, what you are not getting is that there is no normal. This is the only thing that is normal.

                No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

                1. Paul, onstage in Helsinki, Trump sided with Putin against American intelligence agencies. When Trump returned to the states, he realized that news conference hadn’t played so well. So Trump issued a statement saying he had misspoken. But then one day later Trump was back to calling Russian meddling ‘fake news’. Trump then took that back but repeated the ‘fake news’ again later in the week.

                  Paul, tell me that pattern is normal for a president.

                  1. Peter Hill – Obama kept getting his information from the Lame Stream Media. Now tell me, is that normal?

                    1. Paul, ‘what information’..??

                      And are you saying Obama should have been following right-wing media..??

                    2. Peter Hill – Obama kept saying “Yes, I just saw it on tv.”

                    3. Paul, you’re getting vague today. Summer heat perhaps?

                      First of all, if Obama said, “Yes, I just saw that on TV”, he could have been referring to TV news in general, including Fox. I’m sure someone at Obama’s White House paid attention to Fox News coverage. Fox was represented in the White House press corps.

                      But the more important question is, “Why should we hate mainstream media?”

                      Because Donald Trump hates them? The question is fair because Trump hates California. And now every Trump supporter seems to hate California. Funny how that goes.

                      Should we be getting our news from obscure, no-name sources (the ‘more’ obscure the better)? Autumn seems to think so.

                      I can tell you this: “For every conservative who thinks mainstream media has a ‘liberal bias’, there’s a liberal who thinks mainstream media has a conservative bias”.

                      During the 2016 campaign, countless Bernie Bros told me the mainstream media could not be trusted. And they, like Autumn, only trusted no-name sources.

                    4. Peter Hill – I am concerned he is getting vital information from the tv rather than from his advisors. Personally, I do not care which channel he was watching.

                2. Peter Shill thinks he is normal even though he intentionally misquotes other people and can’t stay on track from one thread to another. Shill is a disaster who depends on the stupidity of others to believe the cr-p he writes.

                  1. Allan, no matter what I write, you’re just this nasty old man. Just a bitter old fart who wants to yell at people.

                    1. Peter Shill, I want to have a dialog. There is no dialog with you because you are a hit and run coward that will put quotes around your own words and say someone else said it. You are obsessed with the sex lives of people that you disagree with. Perhaps you are the old man you talk about and can longer satisfy a partner or an argument so you permit voyeurism to keep you alive.

                    2. Peter Hill said, “Allan, no matter what I write, you’re just this nasty old man. Just a bitter old fart who wants to yell at people.”

                      That’s another keen observation Mr. Hill. Allan wants you to keep off his lawn.

                      P. S. It gets especially rough around here whenever Trump has another bad day. Just think how rough the seas will get going forward. Steady those sea legs and brace yourself, Mr. Hill. [OMG. I’m drooling again.]

                    3. Diane, who wouldn’t want to keep Peter Shill off their lawn? Fortunately, they sell pooper scoopers for those who have had to put up with that type of sh!!

          2. The previous President was a man who derived most of his experience in public office from terms in the Illinois legislature. His appointees installed, the Department of Justice set about letting his friends skate while the IRS harassed his enemies. The press corps reported as little as it could manage, perhaps because they can’t hire anyone worthwhile anymore and perhaps because quite a number of them were married to administration officials. For you, that’s ‘normal’. Stuff it.

      2. Peter, when you use quotation marks, it is to denote an exact quote.

        You quoted Karen S:
        “Hillary paid over a million dollars to Russian spies for dirt on Trump that turned out to be fraudulent”.

        What Karen S said was this:
        “Another set of Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton’s political opponent. She paid them over a million dollars for it, and it all turned out to be fraudulent. ”

        So if you insist on twisting what someone said, please do the courtesy of not wrapping it in quotation marks.

        1. Hillary didn’t use only Russians to manufacture her synthetic mud formula to smear Trump. Her op included a virtual Clinton Global Smear Initiative: Brits, Russians, Ukrainians, even an Australian.

        2. FF Sierra,…
          Good point. That is a “pet peeve” that I share, and there are a few “chronic offenders” in the “quotation quote confusion”.
          It’s one thing to mistakingly forget, or misplace, the Quote “”” Marks”””
          It’s another thing to repeatedly muddle what the commentator is saying and what is being qouted.
          Misquoting and distorting is another game that’s played here; it is especially noticeable in the early AM by one of the more prolific posters here.

          1. FF Sierra,…
            PS…. “That’s how your hard-core Commie works”. 😦😧
            The quotation duplicity, that is.😞😕
            I took pains to exactly quote one of our greatest Generals in the 1960s in the first sentence.

            1. Everyone yells at me about quotation marks. But where’s the mainstream source to confirm Karen’s assertion which I have now copied and pasted.

              “Another set of Russians offered dirt on Hillary Clinton’s political opponent. She paid them over a million dollars for it, and it all turned out to be fraudulent”.


              I follow news quite closely and I have no recollection of this story.

              1. Mr. Hill, sometimes Karen S gets confused. Other times Karen S. exaggerates. The rest of the time Karen S. remains effusively empathetic with all of the suffering in the world.

                BTW, your paraphrase of Karen S’ comment is demonstrably faithful in that it did not alter the meaning of the original in any way. However, your use of quotation marks around that paraphrase gave your detractors the excuse they needed to petition Mr. Smith for a redress of grievance. It’s somewhat surprising that Mr. Smith has not yet added his reply to the petition drive against Peter Hill. Ordinarily, Mr. Smith would be the first to defend the honor of Karen S. She is the sacred cow of the Turley blawg. You can and should critique her comments. But you should do so as carefully as you can so as to avoid another petition drive against you. We need you to stay onboard for the road ahead.

        3. Peter Shill should be thrown off the list for intentionally falsely quoting another person to make them look bad. Though I believe almost any comment should be permitted on this type of blog the intentional false quoting of another destroys the integrity of the blog. It is not much different than copying another’s alias.

          1. Allan,…
            I’ll review the comments here to see what happened re this false quote.
            As far as bouncing someone for that offense, Late4 Dinner would have been gone a long time ago if lying about what someone said could get someone banned from here.
            You may have noticed, but people like Hollywood,, L4D , etc. who lie through their teeth have a secure home here.

            1. Telling mistruths is one thing. Putting one’s own words in parenthesis and claiming it was said by another isn’t much different than stealing someone’s alias and using it to comment. Both types of action have to be removed to maintain the integrity of a chat list.

              1. O frabjous day. Calloo Callay. The Jabberwocky, himself, volunteers to maintain the integrity of Res Ipsa Loquitur. Snicker snee. Snicker snee.

              2. Allan said, “Putting one’s own words in parenthesis and claiming it was said by another isn’t much different than stealing someone’s alias and using it to comment.”

                The Modern Language Association has typographical conventions requiring the use of [these brackets] to insert editorial or parenthetic comments into a quotation. Were [those brackets] omitted, then Allan’s complaint would be heard by The Modern Language Association. BTW, Allan, (these are parenthesis).

                1. I misspoke. Peter Hill used quotation marks that he made up and attributed to another. What does the Modern Language Association say about that?

                  1. Allan – I am sure the MLA has a section on misattribution. God knows, it seems to have a section, subsection, or subsubsection on everything.

            2. Tom Nash said, “As far as bouncing someone for that offense, Late4 Dinner would have been gone a long time ago if lying about what someone said could get someone banned from here.”

              The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive assertion. She who asserts the negative is not “lying” about what someone said in the act of refuting or rebutting what someone said. Otherwise, any and all refutations and rebuttals could be declared to be “lying about what someone said.” That would grant a blanket immunity from criticism for anyone who makes any positive assertion without ever having to shoulder the burden of proof.

              If Tom Nash had to abide by the rules that Tom Nash promulgates, he couldn’t. No wonder Nash daydreams out loud about banning people from the blawg.

  6. “In it, the pair can be heard discussing a payment to Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who claims she had an affair with Trump prior to his election as president.”

    Shouldn’t this sentence read ‘she had an affair with Trump ***8 years*** prior to his election as president’? Maybe dates sometimes don’t matter but in this case there is a vast distinction between what happens before and after Trump’s decision to run for the presidency.

    1. Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who, prior to Trump’s election as president, claimed she had an affair with Trump eight years earlier.

        1. Why am I not surprised that Allan does not see the point of changing the syntax to eliminate the ambiguity in Turley’s original sentence?

          1. A point was made in an adequate fashion to demonstrate that intentionally or unintentionally Professor Turley left out ‘8 years earlier’ (I think unintentional but required more care because it is of significant importance). Diane, you added nothing to the point. You must be an exhibitionist wishing to provide yourself full exposure.

            1. It’s true that I added nothing to your point while repeating it, Allan. But if you’ll go back and check again you might discover more about Turley’s possible point–albeit, ambiguously stated–that MacDougal made her claim before Trump was elected president.

              1. “It’s true that I added nothing”

                As I said, Diane, you added nothing. You are an exhibitionist that has a compulsion to be seen even when you say nothing or write nonsense.

                    1. The significance of the timing, or timeframe, is that McDougal’s allegations of an alleged affair in 2008 was to be published RIGHT BEFORE the 2016 election.
                      Another “coincidence” of timing was that the years-old NBC Hollywood Access/Billy Bush “just happened” to surface right before the election.

    2. I do not understand this hyper fascination with Trump’s past affairs. Everyone know he’s been unfaithful. People are acting like this is some momentous aha moment, or that it involved the White House desk and an intern. This was the past history of a philanderer years ago. It is especially strange for Hollywood to appear so aghast.

      Other men who cheated on their wives:
      MLK, Jr
      I could go on the but list of prominent unfaithful men is sadly extensive. What does it have to do with being President, especially when the voters were fully informed beforehand?

      1. Karen, as you and I know different people act in different sexual fashions that we should accept as long as we are only dealing with consenting adults. We rightfully accept gay and lesbian activity. We accept threesomes and orgies. We accept open marriages. A large portion of society accepts cheating on their spouses. Now we are even accepting robotic sex, sexting and all sorts of electronic, filmed and written sexual activity.

        What are these goofballs complaining about? If they feel strongly negative about those actions in relation to their world, don’t vote for the person. Don’t associate with them. There is nothing terribly abnormal about any of those activities and fetishes that haven’t been mentioned which necessarily compromises a person’s ability to be president, CEO, a teacher, etc. as long as the activities are kept within consenting adults.

        I think the goofballs need to grow up. They jumped on the bandwagon for gays, but that is because of PC not because they aren’t goofballs.

      2. Karen, no one ‘really’ cares about Trump’s affairs from a moral standpoint. Everyone knows that Trump was a playboy for decades. Trump was featured in “Playboy” Magazine and visited the Playboy Mansion.

        It is odd, however, that this aging playboy, who admitted on tape to assaulting women, wants stop women from having reproductive choices. No wonder Millennials are turning off to religion. The hypocrisy must seem ridiculous to them.

    3. Allan….also, no one ever makes the observation that Pres.Trump was a Democrat back then.
      All of his supposed hanky panky was back when he was the ATM machine for a lot of the Democrats, as far as campaign contributions….he gave beaucoups of bucks to, especially Schumer and others……..So did Jared’s father…They were all Dems.

      1. That is right. No one complained as long as the money went into Democratic pockets. Look at NYC a Democratic stronghold filled with corruption. Every once in a while they get a really good mayor who cleans things up. Right now the progressive mayor of the city is destroying it. In a couple of years, NYC will find another nonprogressive that cleans it up again. You can actually see the difference in Manhattan when a progressive is in charge and it isn’t nice.

        1. How well I know! Our daughter was a single, young attractive woman when she lived in Manhattan. We were told she’d be safe because Rudy was mayor. It was true. She was a baker for Macy’s and had to take the subway at 4:30 get to work. No one ever bothered her…and she felt safe. If I ever meet Rudy, I’m going to hug his neck! (she moved back South 6 months before 9/11)

          1. Cindy, I’ll bet your daughter had a fantastic time in Manhattan. It is a young person’s paradise. I know Manhattan real well and Rudy did a fantastic job. Very quickly he reduced crime, made the city cleaner and even made the traffic flow better. High paying taxpayers moved back into the city. The present progressive mayor has been rapidly destroying the city.

            1. Allan, She did love it…and we loved visiting her….and we would walk the entire time because I was terrified of the cabs and the subway. She lived at 95th and Columbus first, then at Canal and Hudson in an old 6 floor walk up. Caffe Reggio was our favorite place for espresso! She also baked at the French bakery on Lower East side.( “Alcazar” ?) She speaks French, which was good because the owners barely spoke English!

              1. Cindy, NYC is a walking city so walking everywhere is great. Nowadays they have ride sharing so one can take a Via anywhere in Manhattan and the fringes of some other boroughs for about $6. Most of the rides are fun. One time we shared with several people and one kept telling jokes keeping us all hysterical. They dropped her off at the comedy club where she was performing.

  7. OMG more hype from Jon Turley hype machine. Nothing meeting, nothing results. Even if Trump lied to media about prior knowledge of meeting – lying to media is not a crime. Drop it Turley – you know better – stop giving the lefty loons who read your blog false hope just to generate clicks.

    1. Turley wrote, “It is not a risk for President Trump, who has not discussed this matter under oath or to federal investigators — but that may not matter, given the person in the crosshairs of such an allegation: Donald Trump Jr.”

      1. Good point. You cannot have a good persecution without bringing down a family member for something innocuous like a nothing oppo meeting. If Muler cannot get Trump then for trophy case he gets ex-campaign manager on decade-old unrelated cold tax case and maybe Trump Jr. Muler trophy case would not be complete with only ex-associate, need to throw in a family member for decoration and validation of his over-hyped legacy.

        1. If Donald Trump Jr. lied about his father not knowing about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened, then Donald Trump Jr. might also have lied about the subjects discussed at the Trump Tower meeting as well as the purported lack of any quid-pro-quo agreement between the parties at that meeting.

          1. L4D still enables David Benson – just like you lied about wanting to get into a measuring contest. The problem is you have nothing to measure.

            1. You posed a question. I gave you an answer. Numbers don’t lie. Word counts are numbers. Ergo word counts don’t lie. Crunch them thoroughly before swallowing, Schulteacher.

          2. So you are confirming that in your view this is all about a perjury trap, no meat to the nothing meeting. “Where’s the beef!?”

            1. As I’m sure you know, Wikileaks published the first installment of “the beef” on July 22nd, 2016. Also, within 48 hours of the polls closing on November 8th, 2016, Michael Flynn was dispatched to set up back-channel communications with Russia.

              1. OMG Late, you just stepped in it. Flynn setting up communications with Russia post-election is standard operating procedure for a president-elect. How do you think Reagan got the Iranian hostages freed so quickly after inauguration? You are running out of bullets in chamber of your gun. Like old TV cliche you are soon going to have to throw the empty gun and run.

                1. There’s no indication that Flynn has an inoperable brain tumor of the type to which William Casey succumbed.

                  1. Dear Late – I think we just lost you after you went so far out on that limb. It was bound to happen.

                    1. Excerpted from the article linked below:

                      Dated Nov. 4, 1991, the memo was written by President Bush’s deputy counsel, Paul Beach, and it described the State Department’s efforts to collect documents in response to congressional subpoenas for “material potentially relevant to the October Surprise allegations.” Beach then specifically mentions “a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown.”

                  1. Also excerpted from the article linked above:

                    So we now know that Casey took time off from his campaign duties sometime in the summer of 1980 to visit Madrid. For “purposes unknown.” That’s all we know: There is a 1991 White House memo about a State Department cable that was presumably dated in 1980. We do not know if Casey went to Madrid with the knowledge of his candidate.

                    1. Enormous irony: referencing intelligence agency/ Deep State treachery in the October Surprise affair, yet apparently accepting and propagating intelligence/ Deep State treachery in the modern October Surprise known as “Russiagate.”

                    2. I refuse to believe that it is even possible in the first place for any human being actually to be as incomparably stupid as David Harrell is pretending to be.

                    3. L4D still enables David Benson – we have you as our shining example of prime stupidity. You are our stupidity touchstone. Harrell does not come close to being stupid.

        2. Bill Martin – let’s not forget the Russians he cannot actually try.

          1. Yes Paul good point. When Muler gets stuck in rut/spins wheels he can always go for third round of Russian indictments to keep alive is over-hyped legacy as a mythical law man who is “beyond reproach”.

  8. Turley wrote, “Trump’s visceral rhetoric has never been matched by real actions. That could change.”

    Turley also wrote, “Trump could also fire off a slew of pardons, even including one for himself.”

    And so it comes to pass that the very thing that Turley pleaded we should never speak of again keeps getting spoken of again. IIRC, the first time Trump broached the subject was shortly after the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller. Trump has since Tweeted on the topic more times than I can remember. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly cited the pardon power as one of several reasons that The POTUS supposedly cannot obstruct justice. As such, it seems reasonably clear to me, at least, that a presidential self-pardon has been Trump’s end-game strategy from the get-go. I suspect that the only serious question in Trump’s mind is “when” to pardon himself rather than “whether” to pardon himself. Meanwhile, one presumes that Trump still seeks reelection to a second term of office as POTUS. Supposing that Trump might be acquitted at an Impeachment trial in The Senate on a charge of abusing the pardon power, we could potentially have the first impeached President seeking reelection to a second term of office as President who is also the first self-pardoned President seeking reelection to a second term of office as President. And Trump’s campaign theme for 2020 is reported to be “Keep America Great.”

    1. i relish the thought of some real drama instead of all this boring crap. i hope trump fires about ten big names right before the election.

  9. Turley wrote, “Cohen now alleges that Trump not only knew but approved the meeting. He reportedly said further that he could name other people in the room when Trump was briefed on the meeting and gave his approval.”

    Trump and his lawyers are now looking at the prospect for issuing something like the fourth or fifth edition of the cover story for the Trump Tower meeting. Frankly, I’ve lost track of exactly how many times they’ve changed their story about the Trump Tower meeting. The question is not what Cohen knows. The question is what Rick Gates knows. Whatever Rick Gates knows, Mueller already knows. If Rick Gates knows that Don Jr. called Trump twice at Trump’s blocked number for Trump’s cell phone that Gates carried for Trump throughout the 2016 campaign, then Mueller already knows that, too. It’s possible that Cohen knows what Gates knows and that, therefore, Cohen knows what Mueller knows. If those possibilities were actualities as well, then Cohen’s maneuvering on the subject of the Trump Tower meeting could be an admittedly desperate attempt on Cohen’s part to repair as much of his damaged credibility as he can in the eyes of the special counsel’s office. I say “desperate” because I seriously doubt that Mueller actually needs Cohen as a cooperating witness. Unless Cohen can offer Mueller something that Mueller does not already know. Assuming, of course, that such information as Mueller does not already have even exists in the first place.

    1. On the other hand, if Cohen knows something that Trump doesn’t know that Mueller already knew before Gates knew what both Trump and Mueller knew, then we may be looking at an entirely different scenario.
      I hope I have succeeded in my “clarification” of possibilities.

      1. They say that knowledge is a type of belief that is both justifiable and true. Trump has said that he knew nothing about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened. So ask yourself whether Trump’s knowledge of Trump’s prior ignorance of the Trump Tower meeting is a justifiable and true belief on Trump’s part. Then ask yourself whether you have a justifiable and true belief in Trump’s self-knowledge claim about the Trump Tower meeting. Finally, don’t ask me to entertain your beliefs about Trump’s self-knowledge.

        1. I didn’t “ask you”, and had no intention of asking you.
          Rest assured, you have ample opportunity here to supply your Byzantine scenarios without anyone “asking” for your opinions.

    2. L4D may be slipping….not one of her reviews of JT’s column today exceeded the length of the column itself.
      But at least all 3 of her reviews, taken together, probably exceed JT’s “word total”.

      1. Professor Turley is a very busy man. He has no time to engage is word-count wars with The Barbarians overrunning his blawg.

        1. L4D still enables David Benson – evidently you have enough free time to do word counts.

          1. PC Schulte,…
            It doesn’t take a word count to see that L4D is a very prolific gasbag who floods this site with “proof by verbosity”.

            1. Tom,
              I recall when I first joined this blog a few years back, Nick observed my exchanges with Inga and then Annie, or was it Annie and then Inga. Anyway he gave me some of the backstory on her. What you’re seeing from L4D, is no different. I would add R. Lien and anonymous to that list. She’s had so many different names on this blog it’s difficult to know if we are at 5, 9 or whatever.

        2. I have already repeatedly provided evidence of L4D’s lies.
          And when I do, that fool just changes the subject, maybe recites song lyrics, maybe gets down to something like “what the meaning of is is”, deflects, distorts, plays her word games, and pats herself on ths back for being so slippery, sleazy, and clever.
          She may or may not read, or remenber,,my comments.
          I could go back, show where she has lied, and post it again.
          And we would be right back to square one, because she would be off the races with changing the subject.
          This cycle has repeated itself again and again with this clown L4D.
          It isn’t too difficult to determine who is serious about a real exchange, and who is a filibustering, lying, duplicitous propagandist.
          Mindful of the civility rule, I’m refraining from being too blunt in my observations about her.

          1. Did you include ‘anonymous’ and ‘R. Lien’ in your stats?

  10. Let’s see, Trump’s been pronounced dead and buried by the press and pundits over and over again each time based on calling him a liar. He’s been vindicated while the press has taken a beating. Here’s the debunking. Anyone see a pattern? Anyone think this is any different?–white-house-brief?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3IzY3dHG3AIVDbnACh3CJQ24EAMYASAAEgKIkfD_BwE

  11. Paul, you and I will be long gone by the time these emails between Hilary and Obama are released.

    1. Independent Bob – the judge is trying to get them to Judicial Watch by the end of 2018. I think I can hold out until then. 😉

    2. IB

      …and JT may well have a new position, complements of President

  12. Who would hire a lawyer that tapes his clients? This guys legal career should be toast.

    1. I. Bob,
      – Going forward, I don’t think Cohen will mention the secret taping in the PennySaver ad he takes out to resurrect his career.

    2. no more law practice. jail or no jail, whatever happens, he writes a book and retires. this is the same pathetic “out” that we see with a lot of lawyers who take on high profile clients

  13. Theoretical Physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku explains why none of this should exist. Question reality. Why should Michael Cohen be here?

    1. Jerry, amusing but the entire visible universe is just a random fluctuation in the entire universe. Just happens to be matter all around here. The antimatter is elsewhere, far, far beyond the bounds of visibility.

          1. Oops. So what you’re really telling me is that I have actually to read Weart in order to find out what’s in Weart and what’s not in Weart? There is no Cliff Notes for Weart?

            1. L4D, Weart online is well organized into a light reading start equipped with links to go ever deeper into any particular part. But it is only about climatology, being entitled “The Discovery of Global Warming”.

    2. physicists are dancing on the head of the pin like medieval theologians now. nobody knows what happened before the big bang. it just happened. they say causality emerged after the first uncaused cause. they used to call that God. I cant really figure it all out.

      1. There’s no particular reason that the first cause had to have been one, and only one, first cause. The first cause could have been billions and billions of first causes.

        1. how did i know that you were one of those guys.

          “give me one miracle and I can explain the rest” — a famous scientist

      2. Mr Kurtz, there is a whole school of Big Bounce cosmology. In that scheme there never was a first event.

  14. The President did release privilege on those tapes, however, he did not approve making them public or having them edited.

    1. Judge Wood told Trump’s lawyers that they would have to assert the attorney-client privilege in court and that their arguments would be entered into the public record. Consequently, asserting the attorney-client privilege ran the risk of a court ruling against the attorney-client privilege on the basis of the crime-fraud exception. Waiving the privilege allowed Giuliani to engage in yet more razzle-dazzle damage-control in the public press. And that, in turn, provoked Cohen into releasing the tape to show that 1) the court most likely would have ruled against Trump’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege on the basis of the crime-fraud exception and that 2) that’s the whole and sole reason that Trump waived the attorney-client privilege on those tapes (or audio files).

      I have no idea what Cohen get’s out of that move. Unless it’s the only remaining way available to Cohen at least to try to mend his previously damaged credibility.



    This is important to note. Trump defenders like to blow-off the entire Russia probe as something Christopher Steele made up. But Trump’s issues with Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen are completely unrelated to Steele’s dossier.

    Which goes to show that Trump is really prone to trouble; a playboy billionaire with no moral compass. We heard that on the “Access Hollywood Tape”.

    Therefore Christopher Steele was more than likely earnest in preparing his dossier. Steele was describing a man with no moral compass.


    2. Peter Shill, what you are saying is pure lunacy and you represent yourself devoid of facts, the law, and human behavior. How can anyone after reading this drivel even listen to you without laughing? Your comments appeal to the lowest common denominator who is unable to think rationally.

      By the way, I wrote you an opinion (there are others) regarding Trump’s actions to improve America’s trading abilities. Still no comment. Apparently, you know less than I thought about almost everything. You have a pen so you can scribble, but your scribbling doesn’t seem to make any sense.

      1. Allan, how is it devoid of facts? The Steele Dossier has ‘nothing’ to do with Cohen or Trump’s mistresses.

        1. Peter Hill – it has nothing to do with Hillary’s mistresses either. 😉

          1. but steele says that un-named and unidentified russian whores peed on DJT or something like that. he says it so we should take his british word for it. because we can trust the redcoats. just not the russians

            1. Kurtz: Look up the definition of ‘dossier’ and get back to me.

        2. Peter, it’s your storyline that lacks a connected set of facts that relates to the world we live in. You have produced tidbits of information that lacks meaning and understanding. It may be difficult for you to do any better. I’m not sure how educated you are and when I speak of education I don’t mean schooling.

          I am waiting for your response to mine regarding trade. You have a lot of disjointed negative comments on trade where some make no sense at all to any person aware of the world around him.

          1. Peter Hill said, “Trump is really prone to trouble; a playboy billionaire with no moral compass. We heard that on the ‘Access Hollywood Tape’.”

            Allan said, “Peter, it’s your storyline that lacks a connected set of facts . . . ”

            OFCOLA. Allan denies that Trump is prone to trouble. Allan denies that Trump is playboy billionaire. Allan asserts that Trump possesses a moral compass. Allan denies what everyone heard on the Access Hollywood tape. Allan then lodges a complaint against Peter Hills “storyline” for “lacking a connected set of facts.” In the end, denial is all that Allan will have left.

            1. “Allan said, “Peter, it’s your storyline that lacks a connected set of facts . . . ””

              Diane, your storyline isn’t any better. The two of you are goofballs.

            2. L4D still enables David Benson – I would agree that Trump has a moral compass. You just don’t agree with his moral compass. I don’t agree with your moral compass, but I would assert that you have one.

              1. Your moral compass goes on the fritz whenever the direction of travel is toward Trump. Conversely, your moral compass works just fine whenever due Clinton is the red in the shed. IOW, your moral compass is partisan.

                1. L4D still enables David Benson – my moral compass doesn’t change regardless who it is. I just want them treated the same. If Hillary gets off scot-free, Trump gets off scot-free. Fair is fair. If Hillary is interviewed but not put under oath, the same for Trump. No perjury traps.

              2. PC Schulte,…,
                – Did you take that observation (😉😊😒😄by the non-partisan, intellectually honest Diane 😆😀😊😂)t to heart❤?

                1. I am partisan about politics. I am not partisan about morality. Unless and until you are willing to assert that there is no difference between politics versus morality, then your equivocation between the two is just that–equivocal. Or worse still if you truly believe that there is no difference between politics versus morality.

                  1. Most people who post here are partisan to one degree or another.
                    I think it was Paul who was recently accused by L4D of “being partisan”
                    ….Paul can correct me if I’m wrong.
                    Not all partisan individuals are hyper-partisan propagandist like L4DD/Diane.
                    Not all partisan people are in constant, filibuster-type spin mode, like L4D.
                    Not all partisan people distort, and “graduate” to lieing about what others said.
                    I’m not going to get derailed into some Philosophy 101 bull**** game about “what is good”, etc.
                    I’m sure that L4D will take up the slack in that game.
                    I’m not making a judgement or declaration about whether a shameless, duplicitous propagandist like L4D is moral or not.
                    I am reviewing territory that I have covered before regarding L4D’s antics on her website here.

                    1. Tom Nash – moi, partisan! I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Shocked. I am going to go gamble and take my pain away.

                  2. L4D still enables David Benson – the theologian Reinhold Neibhor (sp?) said that a country can be immoral or amoral but can never be moral. Countries are required to do immoral things for self-preservation. Or amoral.



            Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
            Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

            There is No Collusion! The Robert Mueller Rigged Witch Hunt, headed now by 17 (increased from 13, including an Obama White House lawyer) Angry Democrats, was started by a fraudulent Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC. Therefore, the Witch Hunt is an illegal Scam!


              Peter Shill, you are a goofball who doesn’t seem to understand sexuality. Maybe you have never fully grown up.

              1. You extract the most incongruous observations from the comments you critique. Are you sure you’re not the goofball, Allan? Are you really sure?

                1. Allan is like a those mirrors in the carnival Fun House; casting distorted reflections.

                  1. Peter Hill – no, Allan is making you realize your reality is distorted, hence the Fun House mirror effect.

                    1. Peter Shill, your name adequately describes you. Totally empty comments with nothing to add. You quote someone using your own words. You are totally inadequate. With all your comments about sex and the President, one has to wonder if you are sexually inadequate.

                    1. L4D still enables David Benson – see, you already screwed it up. It is the one thing I can trust you to do.

                    2. L4D still enables David Benson – this site says so much about you. I have bookmarked it and will be catching up with your course, so I can follow along. I so enjoy when you learn something new, because you, like Benson, misapply it. 😉

                2. Diane, you are the one so concerned with the sexual activities of the President and you are the one that focuses on things that are inconsequential. You are definitely a goofball.

  16. 😂 This is all a show. Cohen hasn’t gone rogue. The left is being baited and buying it hook, line and sinker. It is quite comical. How many noticed that during Giuliani’s interview that he said that Cohen had met with many in the media AND recorded them all? Our President has those recordings. NYT met with him, yesterday? Hilarious to watch. These people are stupid. #WWG1WGA

    1. Trump and Giuliani are the one’s chasing the shiny ball under the couch. Trying their case in the public press will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on he who will not be deterred, Robert Sawn Mueller The Third. But it seems to be working fine on Shannon.

      1. OMG. I’m in big trouble now. Change Sawn to Swan. And saw L4D in two, instead.

        1. The persistent and immutable product of incoherence and hysteria.

          The American Founders entirely precluded that from entering the realm of governance.

          The American Founders were unassailable geniuses.

          1. George, you just sawed the entire human species in two for the sake of sawing L4D in two. As such, your method is wretchedly excessive.

            1. L4D still enables David Benson – yes, but it was fun to see you sawn in half. Sadly, he only know the first part of the trick. He doesn’t know how to put you back together. ;(

      1. Trump is making America great again.
        Cheap slogans are so profound, I think they need to be used more often here.
        In Giuliani I Trust.

      1. Michael A…
        – I think it’s called “Faith”.
        “Hope” would be a very close second.
        “Charity” really doesn’t enter into any of this, so we’ll leave that one aside.
        But the Faith and the Hope both “spring eternal” in all of this “analysis” that we’re seeing.

      2. He was referring to Trump Jr’s inevitable testimony. That smug attitude will vanish when he’s facing real consequences. He wouldn’t do well in jail.

        1. I wonder if Don Junior will stick with Alan Futerfas as defense counsel? Futerfas is also on record as stating that Trump didn’t know about the Trump Tower meeting before it happened. If the story changes, then maybe the lawyer changes. too. Or maybe the lawyer changes first and the story changes second. Or neither. Just wondering.

        2. “That smug attitude will vanish when he’s facing real consequences. He wouldn’t do well in jail.”

          Enigma, what law did he break? I guess the foundation you are building is all based on process crimes and not illegal actions taken at the time. That is the mindset of a dictator who doesn’t need to find guilt, rather creates it. It will be a lot harder to jail Don Jr. than Flynn for such a crime as Don Jr. has resources that can match the government. In Flynn’s case, Mueller said I’ll double that and Flynn had to throw in his cards. He couldn’t afford the bet. Don Jr. can.

          1. Allan asked, “Enigma, what law did he break?”

            Solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Concealment of the same by means of deception (a.k.a. fraud) for the sake of interfering with the legitimate function of a government agency (a.k.a. conspiracy to defraud the United States).

            1. an incredibly phony cobbled up set of potential allegations which would normally be laughed out of court by the judge and if not then eventually by any jury

              but Mueller has gotta prove he had something to justify all this obstruction of governing!

            2. Be specific Diane instead of your usual Bullsh!t that adds up to nothing. You make things up as you go along almost like a drunken sailor.

              We are waiting but our expectations are low.

                1. Olly, we can substitute plumber or used car salesmen but then the plumbers and used car salesmen would all get riled up. Remember, not all sailors are in the military. When I take my boat out I see a lot of drunken sailors.

                2. Olly,…
                  I have seen ( and drank with) a number of “drunken sailors”.
                  But then again, I’ve drank with drunken airmen, drunken Marines, and drunken Army guys.
                  A. I don’t know why “drunken sailor” is used as opposed to drunken “other branch”, but it”s the use of “drunken sailor” that stuck.
                  B. I think Allan was unfair in comparing L4D to a “drunken sailor”; that is an insult to drunken sailors everywhere.

                  1. Tom Nash – drunken sailor appears in a couple of popular sea ditties. 🙂

                  2. I wasn’t objecting to the drunken sailor bit, it was the making stuff up bit. I can assure you, those sea stories are true. 😉

        3. Enigma,…
          It’s possible that he could take lessons from Peter Strzok in “concealing the smugness” if and when he gives the “inevitable testimony”.
          I think Junior’s testimony to date was in a closed Congressional appearance, but I’d have to check to be sure.
          And you are anticipating, or predicting, further testimony from him when?
          And where?

          1. I just did a quick check re Junior’s previous testimony….the Senate Judiciary Comm. released hundreds of pages of testimony from Junior and others concerning the Trump Tower Meeting.
            That mid-May release of SJC testimony is available online.
            Junior may or may not give future testimony….neither possibility is “inevitable”.

          2. I anticipate that Donald Jr, unlike his father, will actually be indicted which is why he hasn’t been invited for an FBI interview. Of course he doesn’t have to testify because no way it turns out well. He could also end up testifying before a Senate Judiciary committee in another event but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.

    1. Possibly….we’ll see. I think it’s already established that Bannon is “‘cracked”, but if you have confidence in his prediction, Enigma, hang onto that.

        1. i sense you do not have a lot of experience in that sort of thing. you might be surprised

          1. Mr Kurtz – It’s true that my personal courtroom trial experience has been limited to being a juror and serving on a grand jury. No doubt Donald Jr can rehearse answers to the questions he believes will be asked. All the witnesses that have appeared before Mueller’s grand juries that have spoken about the experience indicated that Mueller’s people already had the answers to the questions asked.
            The first time Junior lies and evidence of his lies are thrust in his face. We will see how well he does.

      1. Tom Nash said, “. . . Bannon is “‘cracked” . . . ”

        Bannon was boiled for at least six minutes and thermally shocked with dousing in an ice-water bath before he “cracked.”

        Maybe “someone” can do the same favor for Don Junior. But he might crack after just three minutes of boil time, instead.

        1. I guess we could establish a betting poll on the accuracy of predictions posted here.
          If there have been several hundred made in this thread, maybe some of them will turn out to be correct.
          Odds will improve if we can boost the number of predictions here into the thousands…..literally dozens of forecasts could turn out to be accurate if we can get thousands more seer-inspired predictions.

    2. Bannon needs to get back to doing something constructive and not fire arrows at former boss. Don Junior may be tougher than Bannon thinks he is.

        1. It is all a matter of what one considers tough. To you, Enigma, the word tough might be one that partakes in gang violence to beat up on little old woman. No, though you might be tough in that fashion, Don Jr. isn’t.

  17. I can’t recall.

    Did Professor Turley write about the probable criminal mishandling of classified material, use of an illegal server, destruction of evidence and collusion by Hillary and Obama?

    It appears that Professor Turley would be bound by law to find guilt by Hillary and Obama.

    “From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.

    These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.”

    – National Review

    1. It is not enough that a person be obviously guilty of some crime.
      It also requires that some prosecutor takes up the case and pursues it.
      Mueller is investigating Trump and friends, and cares not for the Hillary matter.

      1. Just more nitpicking on your part, Gary T.😉😊😒😆
        You act as if details like “evidence”, charges, and perhaps even trials are necessary and/ or relevant here.😦??
        Haven’t you read what people here suspect? Or “feel”? Or “believe” about Trump’s crimes.
        And all of that isn’t enough for you?😧😦
        ( emojis added for Anonymous)

        1. Then why does Gym Jordan want to impeach Rod Rosenstein for not appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI handing of the Clinton investigations, if, as Shannon says, Huber is already on the case?????

          1. L4D still enables David Benson – you want to cut-and-paste the articles of impeachment here so we all can see them instead of taking your word for it?

            1. From Article I of Gym Jordan’s case for impeaching Rod Rosenstein (as expurgated by L4D for space-saving purposes):

              On July 27, 2017, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and 19 Members of Congress requested a second special counsel to conduct a comprehensive investigation into matters related to the 2016 presidential campaign that appear to be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.

              On September 26, 2017, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and 13 Members of Congress sent a letter repeating the call for a second Special Counsel.

              On March 6, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy called for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate these matters due to the actual or potential conflicts of interests related to certain prosecutorial and investigative decisions made and not made by the Department of Justice in 2016 and 2017.

              On July 21, 2018, the Department of Justice released a heavily redacted set of documents containing the Carter Page FISA warrant application and subsequent renewals. Upon reviewing the documents, it is evident Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein signed an FBI application to renew FISA surveillance on Carter Page.

              As such, his conduct in authorizing the FISA surveillance at issue in the joint congressional investigation makes him a fact witness central to the ongoing investigation of potential FISA abuse. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s failure to recuse himself in light of this inherent conflict of interest and failure to recommend the appointment of a second Special Counsel constitute dereliction of duty.

              Wherefore, Rod Rosenstein, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

              Repeated for emphasis: Failure to recommend the appointment of a second Special Counsel constitute dereliction of duty.

              1. L4D still enables David Benson – to wit:

                As such, his conduct in authorizing the FISA surveillance at issue in the joint congressional investigation makes him a fact witness central to the ongoing investigation of potential FISA abuse. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s failure to recuse himself in light of this inherent conflict of interest and failure to recommend the appointment of a second Special Counsel constitute dereliction of duty.
                Wherefore, Rod Rosenstein, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

                  1. L4D still enables David Benson – you really want to get into a “measuring contest”?

                    1. The word count on my cut-and-paste is greater than the word count on your cut-and-paste. Do you really want to get into a fact-finding contest?

                    2. L4D still enables David Benson – you missed the thrust of my comment.

                    3. L4D still enables David Benson – I do not understand that sentence since it is not connected to anything.

                    4. L4D still enables David Benson – you did not miss the thrust. You are lying again. Shame, shame.

                    5. If, as you now admit, I didn’t miss the thrust of your comment, then you now must know the thrust of my comment that “that was not an accident.”

                1. “L4D still enables David Benson” – Paul C Schulte

                  More Paulpuckey.

                2. PC Schulte…..
                  Her Word Salad is larger than your word salad.
                  That weaponized MegaWord Salad…..not the “cut and paste”, etc. is the major hazard in exchanges with with her.
                  Especially now that she has established her own website here… may be regarded as an intruder on her turf.

                  1. She really has, hasn’t she? She has pretty much ruined this blog.

                    1. I agree anonymous. She no more ruins this blog than the grounds at the bottom of my cup ruin my coffee. I just know when to stop drinking and toss it out.

    2. George – I am sure Judicial Watch has a FOIA request or lawsuit looking for those emails between Hillary and Obama using a fake account.

      1. A pseudonymous account constitutes deliberate conspiracy as well as complicity. “Fixing” an investigation for the subject of the investigation makes Comey a co-conspirator. The crimes go on and on in this, the most prodigious political scandal in American history.

      2. I am sure you are a highly regarded member of the basement brigade. Fools are Us is looking for a spokesman, good luck.

        1. TONY – I would never be the spokesperson for an organization of which you are a member.

Comments are closed.