DOJ: Cohen Sold Access To Trump For $4 Million

One of the overlooked portions of the Justice Department filings on Michael Cohen was the calculation of how much Cohen made selling access to Trump after the election. I previously wrote about how Cohen found willing corporations like Novartis and AT&T to give him windfall payments to curry favoritism with Trump.  It turns out that Cohen made over $4 million and appears to have done little since he was quickly ensnared in scandal.  These companies however were outed in what is usually the hidden, seedy underbelly of this town. 

These companies gave one of the sleaziest lawyers in America millions of dollars to gain special access and influence over Trump.  That is the reality of our pay-to-play political system and it is all legal.  AT&T wanted to reach out and touch Trump and Cohen was eager to sell the access.

I previously wrote how anti-Trump donors rushed to give Cohen hundreds of thousands of dollars on GoFundMe in one his later scams.  People were such chumps that they actually gave Cohen money after he raked in millions selling access on top of the millions that he stole through fraud and tax evasion.

The filing states: 

“Cohen successfully convinced numerous major corporations to retain him as a ‘consultant’ who could provide unique insights about and access to the new administration. Some of these corporations were then stuck making large up-front or periodic payments to Cohen, even though he provided little or no real services under these contracts. Bank records reflect that Cohen made more than $4 million dollars before the contracts were terminated.”

The rogue’s gallery of influence buying corporations includes AT&T, Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis, and Columbus Nova.

If you are disgusted, keep in mind that both Democrats and Republicans have profiteered from selling influence and access.  What is most impressive is that Cohen shook down these companies and then seems to have simply kept the money after his long history of criminal and unethical conduct was revealed after the election. 

99 thoughts on “DOJ: Cohen Sold Access To Trump For $4 Million”

  1. A little bit of old humor that gets right to the political divide.
    Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be President someday. Both of her parents, Democratic Party members, were standing there so I asked her,”If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

    She replied.. “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.” Her parents beamed with pride!

    “Wow. what a worthy goal!” I said . . .”But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!”

    “What do you mean?” she replied.

    So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds,and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

    She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

    I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

    Her parents aren’t speaking to me anymore.

  2. The Cohen Sentencing Memo:



    In the memo in the case of Mr. Cohen, prosecutors from the Southern District of New York depicted Mr. Trump, identified only as “Individual-1,” as an accomplice in the hush payments. While Mr. Trump was not charged, the reference echoed Watergate, when President Richard M. Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by a grand jury investigating the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic headquarters.

    “While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows,” the prosecutors wrote.

    “He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1,” they continued. “In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.”

    The exposure on campaign finance laws poses a challenge to Mr. Trump’s legal team, which before now has focused mainly on rebutting allegations of collusion and obstruction while trying to call into question Mr. Mueller’s credibility.

    “Until now, you had two different charges, allegations, whatever you want to call them,” Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the incoming Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Saturday. “One was collusion with the Russians. One was obstruction of justice and all that entails. And now you have a third — that the president was at the center of a massive fraud against the American people.”

    Edited from: “Prosecutors’ Narrative Is Clear: Trump Defrauded Voters. What Does It Mean?”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES



      What a bunch of junk from our resident shill. Michael Cohen says yes, know and maybe, but to a shill like Peter Shill that is considered evidence. But evidence of what? Nothing illegal was done. The Towers weren’t built and though Cohen thinks he is central to the Towers project his own testimony shows he wasn’t and that he was quite ineffectual in things of this nature.

      It’s another stupid hook that Peter has stuck in his throat.

      1. Trump pursued that Moscow Tower deal to within a month of the Republican Convention.

        The truth is Trump expected to lose in November. So he wanted to keep the Moscow Tower deal on a back burner until after the election. Had voters known, Trump might have totally lost the election and not just the popular vote.

        1. “Trump pursued that Moscow Tower deal to within a month of the Republican Convention.”

          To a person who has never accomplished much it may seem like that. The deal was gone but channels generally remain open with persons that have significant business dealings. I’ll bet a lot of other similar deals remained open in the same way. The Towers weren’t built and that is the proof of no wrongdoing. Trump never met with Putin (and that by itself wouldn’t be illegal) so that closes that issue of Cohen’s as well.

          Thank goodness for jobs that do not require much ability or we would have had to pay for your food stamps.

            1. Peter,Trump has a financial incentive to keep all channels open. Do you not understand the business world? Having a financial incentive doesn’t mean one is a crook. You have an egocentric incentive to make stupid coments.

    1. Wow! Cohen says yes and then says no. Cohen says no and then says yes. Cohen sold himself to AT&T along with others for millions of dollars and had no influence at all because Cohen is a talker not a doer. Cohen claims he was at the center of certain things but based on his record it sounds like a lot of bluster about things that weren’t wrong or illegal.

      This is to factless Anonymous.

          1. Allan — clucking to himself as he looks in the mirror:

            “What an intellect! Maybe you can now qualify to be lead chicken in the coop.”

            Keep on clucking, Allan.

            1. Anonymous, I don’t mind insults but I note that a lot of times you copy what I have previously said to you. That is a type of flattery, so I thank you.

              “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”

                    1. Darn right anonymous. A brainless one should never have the last word. You can have the last cluck right before you are caught and being readied for dinner.

  3. The more and more we see of Cohen the more we can recognize how similar Michael Cohen and the Clintons are though Cohen did things on a much smaller scale.

      1. Peter, the professor was talking about Cohen’s selling of influence. Of course Hillary’s name would come up. She is the biggest (or one of the biggest) sellers of influence this nation has ever known. I wonder if Cohen had pictures of Hillary all over his home.

        Aside from the fact that one is going to jail do you see much of a difference between the two?

        1. Yes, Allan, there is a big difference: Cohen has been convicted. Hillary hasn’t been charged. In ‘my’ America that is a huge difference.

          1. Yes, Peter, Hillary hasn’t been convicted or charged. That is the difference between the two. However, both were selling influence and both are corrupt. Hillary was a more able thief than Cohen and in America until the evidence and will are sufficient many criminals remain out of jail. With Hillary the evidence is there but the will to convict her is not.

            1. Allan, Republican House Committees investigated Hillary all through Obama’s second term. No contemporary American politician has been investigated more than Hillary. This idea that she needs to be investigated further is ridiculous.

              1. Political investigations are difficult when the cards are stacked the wrong way. Though I think Hillary guiltier than sin, I don’t think Hillary will ever end up where she belongs, in jail. I am not even sure I want that to happen. What you call ridiculous is based on a pea brain that lacks knowledge. Here is Judge Lamberth.

                Specially, Lamberth ruled:

                … the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

                Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

                … his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

                Court Excoriates Obama State Department/Justice Department for Possibly Acting in “Bad Faith” and Colluding “to Scuttle Public Scrutiny” of Clinton Private Email Server

                At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

                Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote:

                The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

                The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

                Citing an email (uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit) that Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked: “Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?”

                Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic red tape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.

                “The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch looks forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery.”

  4. Upon reviewing SDNY sentencing memo Jon Turley acts like Christopher Columbus or Columbo discovering gambling in Casablanca. Cohen acting as sleazy lobbyist fully vetted by media earlier this year – inclusion of this in SDNY memo smacks of sensationalism and/or politics (not linked to any of the crimes Cohen charged with). Developing “political synergy” in Moscow to build is typical going back 25+ years as has been the case in NYC going back 100+ years. Inclusion of bimbo payments plea by Cohen not heard by a jury and agreed to by Cohen to curry favor with SDNY/SCO and to drop a hook to ensnare Trump. Cohen admitting to this to save ass does not equal felony committed by Trump who has plenty of plausible deniability (protect wife, family, brand etc). Ironically there is more evidence of collusion on the part of SDNY/SCO-Cohen than Trump-Russia.

  5. This article, not the topic itself, brings to mind a similar occurrence which does happen occasionally in the City of New York. For example. Joe Blow goes to a whore house in NYC and pays his fee up front for the so called “roll in the hay”. Well, there is no hay. There is a bed. There is a nice sexy female who is supposed to engage in sex and have it conclude with a successful “outcome”. But the man and woman engage in activity which we call sex in America but the man does not by the end of the ordeal have a gasm. By that word, you all know what I mean jellybean. The woman and the cathouse have received their fee and have earned it. Yet Joe Blow is somehow feeling unrewarded.

    The dorks who wish to pay Donald for under the table deals need to have their heads examined. They need to go to the cathouse with an intact condom and have a roll in the hay.

    1. I don’t believe Cohen unless his statements are backed up by his documents — which the DoJ has had access to since they raided his office and residence in April.

      Keeping your head buried in the sand about how much Cohen can hurt Trump isn’t going to make him go away.

      1. “how much Cohen can hurt Trump”

        Probably near zero except perhaps a bit of embarrassment. You seldom provide data. What data do you think Cohen had in his files?

        1. Allan, Cohen points up to campaign violations with the pay-offs to mistresses. That doesn’t like “near zero”.

          1. A lot of men pay off their mistresses. Men even buy dinner for girl friends. Men pay for sex in many ways. Women do the same. What is the big deal?

            1. Allan, if it was no big deal, the voters should have known. Perhaps they wouldn’t have cared, as you suggest.

              But pay-offs to mistresses, combined with the “Access Hollywood” tapes, combined with complaints by a dozen women alleging incidents of unwanted advances might have made a crucial difference in a close election. Perhaps those Evangelicals, counting on Trump to criminalize abortion, may ‘not’ have turned out for him.

              1. Peter, are you a total fool or just a partial one?

                Most people that voted for Trump knew some of his traits that are not acceptable to certain groups. In fact because of some of these personal blemishes some that would have voted for Trump did not. The news media did a great job in highlighting almost everything that was bad about Trump and even a lot of bad stuff that wasn’t true. If they did the same to Hillary my guess is that the vote for Trump would have been substantially greater and the spread even greater than that when Democrats stayed home.

                1. A Harvard study conducted after the election showed that the vast majority of mainstream media coverage on Hillary’s campaign was NEGATIVE!

                  So this idea that Hillary somehow got a free ride is absolutely false.

                  1. A Harvard study conducted after the election showed that the vast majority of mainstream media coverage on Hillary’s campaign was NEGATIVE!

                    Which out-of-office Democratic operative at the Kennedy School of Government wrote that one?

                    1. DSS, note how Peter calls that report a study. Do you think he is employable for any leadership position?

                    2. Tabby, I follow the mainstream media more than ‘you’, no doubt.

                      Coverage of Hillary was never all that positive. Bernie Sanders was actually the ultimate sour apple; attacking the Democratic party while demanding their nomination. Yet the media hesitated to scrutinize Sanders.

                      Sanders supporters insist he was ignored. Which may have worked for Bernie. No one to really ask him about program costs. Flying ‘below’ the radar can be pay-off for certain candidates. Bernie was one.

                  2. It’s laughable to think that the negative coverage of Hillary was equal to that of Trump. There is no doubt that Trump used the media’s coverage better than Hillary. You really ought to read the report to understand what it says. It was not a study. Trump understood the anger of the middle class while Hillary did not. That is a great part of what caused Trump to win.

            2. Allan….
              It’s been “no big deal” to most voters since the Gennifer Flowers/ Paula Jones/ Lewinsky-Vernon Jones-payoff/ Troopergate, etc. era.
              Trump supporters will mostly dismiss it, Trump opponents don’t need any additional reasons to be anti-Trump, and that minority without strong feelings either way mostly does not care.
              If, at the end of the day, the Special Counsel hangs it’s hat on an alleged campaign finance law violation to pin on Trump, it’s unlikely to “move the needle” in support for/ opposition to Trump.

      2. Mr.Prosecutor:

        Paying off personal problems from your personal funds isn’t a campaign finance law violation. You can check that with the jury that exonerated John Edwards.

        1. Mespo – Failure to disclose is a campaign finance law violation. He not only failed to disclose he covered up the expenditure by causing it to be made by a third party, making it a conspiracy to violate the law. Then he participated in the putting forth a false statement making it obstruction of justice. These are all real crimes here.

          1. Enigma,…
            If this issue us pressed by Mueller/Congress, the fallback position, discussed when these payment issues came up, would be that Trump was trying to shield his family from the fallout caused by false accusations of affair(s).
            So the argument is that it was not a campaign issue, but a personal/ family issue.
            If it comes down to Trump’s word v. Cohen’s word, it’s a draw.
            That’s where Cohen’s secret taping of his clients’ conversations, a practice all of us would admire in any upstanding lawyer😒 like Cohen, could be decisive.

            1. Failure to disclose isn’t excused if you have a really, really good reason that your wife will get mad if she finds out you paid off a porn star/ playmate (actually both). The tape (admissable because the practice is legal in NY) is very hard to get around as you noted. The testimony Cohen circulated to the White House in advance of his testimony may make Trump’s lawyers complicit if they knew the testimony was false. If Cohen’s testimony was reviewed in advance, how many others who have lied to Congress or the FBI told Trump and his lawyers in advance they were going to lie? All that privilege will be out the window if the attorneys were participating in the commission of a crime.
              I hear people suggesting Trump may have a legal argument? Is there anyone out there that still imagines him to be not guilty? And this is just the unredacted stuff. Is there anyone who doesn’t imagine that Mueller has more? And what do you think the accountant (Allen Weisselberg) has been talking about since he was granted immunity last August?
              Every day the public is finding out more and more about Trump’s crimes and we still only know the half of them. Wait until one, two, or possibly three of his children get indicted? It’s really gonna hit the fan.

          2. In marked contrast, though, when it was discovered that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was guilty of violations involving nearly $2 million – an amount that dwarfs the $280,000 in Cohen’s case – the Obama Justice Department decided not to prosecute. Instead, the matter was quietly disposed of by a $375,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission.

            Yes, Trump might be prosecuted for something he is not guilty for. That is part of our inequality of our justice department.

            1. Every violation is not necessarily a crime and intent is an essential element. If you have the specifics of the Obama case, you may have a point to argue? In this case the intent was to decieve the public, backed up by Trump’s repeated public denials which went as far as to have knowledge of Cohen’s intent in advance to perjure himself before Congress. The initial violation was compounded by adding a couple of felonies.

              1. Obama’s intent with regard to misuse of government power was far greater than everything Trump has done. You see things in a very distorted fashion. They convicted D’Souza who was naive and had no intent of deception or understanding of the law. He could have given millions in another fashion and it would have done the same without the consequences.

                I noted an article on discrimination that I thought would not interest you in the least, but I will post it above in full.

                1. I’m sorry, I hear you saying Obama’s intent was bad but I have no understanding of what his intent was supposed to be? Once again, you saying a thing doesn’t make it so. I’m allowing for the possibility you have a valid argument. What you have said isn’t it.

                  1. His justice department turned justice on its head. You have severe prejudices so you will never admit anything that doesn’t promote your view of the world.

                    1. Is English your first language? I’ve opened the door for you to attempt to make your case. Of course, that would mean using examples and specifics, related to the FEC violations and intent. Instead you go babbling off in Allanspeak. Stay on topic, make your case, and if you can’t? Silence would be golden.

                    2. Enigma, English is my first language, victimhood seems to be yours. To prove guilt of a President is very difficult because there are so many that have to fall before the proof is on the table. We saw a lot of pardons to prevent that proof from being laid out so even though we have evidence I don’t think it sufficient nor wise to convict a former President.

                      There probably is enough to convict Hillary but I don’t know if that is the best thing for the nation. In convicting Hillary, Obama becomes more vulnerable. Even he was involved in her email problem.

  6. If and when this is established, both Cohen and those that gave the money for favors should go to jail. Unfortunately in America our governments are bought and sold at will by oligarchs.

  7. Because they are in the “news” 24/7, politicians and their personal attorneys unfortunately make all humans seem greedy, deceptive, and depraved. It’s not true. Many people are good, kind, compassionate, helpful, innovative, high achievers.

  8. Excerpted from Cohen’s SDNY sentencing memo:

    In December 2015, Cohen contacted a bank (“Bank-3”) to apply for a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”). In his application for the HELOC, Cohen made false statements about his net worth and monthly expenses. Specifically, Cohen failed to disclose more than $20 million in debt he owed to another bank (“Bank-2”), and also materially understated his monthly expenses to Bank-3 by omitting at least $70,000 in monthly interest payments due to Bank-2 on that debt. (PSR ¶ 34). These statements were the latest in a series of false statements Cohen made to financial institutions in connection with credit applications.

    An updated financial statement Cohen provided at closing reflected a positive $17 million net worth in addition to previously undisclosed liquid assets, a nearly $20 million increase from the false financial information Cohen had provided to Bank-2 just weeks earlier in the negotiations.

    [end excerpt]

    At the start of 2016 Cohen was in just as deep debt as was Manafort. I don’t know what to make out of the updated financial statement Cohen provided just weeks later.

    1. More detail on Cohen’s false financial statements (the dates are significantly different than was previously mentioned):

      Specifically, documents and witness interviews from the Government’s investigation revealed that in 2017 and early 2018, Cohen wanted Bank-2 to restructure his more than $20 million in medallion debt on terms more favorable to Cohen. Cohen thus shifted gears, halting monthly payments to Bank-2 and falsely representing orally and in writing that he had a negative net worth and less than $1.5 million in cash, despite his receipt of nearly $4 million in “consulting” fees between January 2017 and March 2018. By early April 2018, Bank-2 and Cohen reached a deal in principle, premised on Bank-2’s receipt of an updated personal financial statement confirming, in writing, the negative financial information represented by Cohen. On April 9, 2018, the FBI executed a series of search warrants on Cohen, including at his residence, hotel, and office, which put him on notice that he was being investigated for, among other things, bank fraud and explicitly referenced Bank-2. Following the execution of the warrants, counsel for Cohen informed Bank-2 that Cohen would be unable at that time to provide the previously promised updated personal financial statement. To save the deal, Cohen agreed to post his Park Avenue residence as collateral, which he had previously refused to do. An updated financial statement Cohen provided at closing reflected a positive $17 million net worth in addition to previously undisclosed liquid assets, a nearly $20 million increase from the false financial information Cohen had provided to Bank-2 just weeks earlier in the negotiations.

  9. During these troubling times on Wall Street, its time to follow Democrat investments

    Sen. Mark Warner (D)
    Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia is by far the wealthiest member of the U.S. Senate.
    The vast majority of Warner’s wealth came from Columbia Capital, a venture capital firm he founded shortly after graduating law school. Under his direction, the firm made several successful early investments in companies that operated in the telecommunication industry, including XM Satellite Radio and Nextel Communications, which was acquired by Sprint in 2005 for $36 billion.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
    Dianne Feinstein’s estimated $94 million net worth makes her the second-wealthiest serving senator.
    Blum Capital, a private equity firm founded in 1975 by her husband. Richard Blum, is the source for most of that wealth. Feinstein’s financial disclosure statement for 2014 revealed that she had anywhere from $5 million to $25 million invested in a blind trust. She also had between $3.1 million to $7.3 million in various money market accounts.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D)
    Richard Blumenthal and his wife’s personal fortune falls somewhere in the range of $65 million to $85 million.
    His spouse, Cynthia Malkin, is a real estate investor, as well as an heiress to the Malkin property empire. In addition to real estate, the couple’s investment portfolio include between $600,000 to $1.2 million in gold and several million dollars in hedge funds.

    1. What else is a Senator to do when they are no longer needed to represent the
      State who elected them but have become what amounts to the the Representatives at Large going back to one of the worst amendmemts every made. which served to unravel and set aside a principle portion of checks and balances

      One resource of many.

      “”Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia…/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constituti…

      The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of …
      ‎Text · ‎Background · ‎Proposal and ratification · ‎Effect”

      This should serve as a stark warning to those who wish to abolish the Electoral College system .

      The 17th should be repealed or at the least let each state decide if they want two Representatives At Large or One chosen by the State Legislature and one At Large or two chosen by State Legislature and or Governor.

      Added to that is the base salaries and the costs of the in state office and staff paid for by the individual States as the Primary Employee same for Representatives with each state having recall rights over them as their delegates to the Federal Congress. from State or District.

      With the cost of the federal office and staff and travel expenses, lodging etc. in Washington DC borne by the federal government. as the second employer only when Congress is in session. or something similar. Adding Recall for ALL states is the key factor and much more important than term limits though that would come next and third three year terms for the Representatives with perhaps a six year term for the PResident and VIce President or choice of that or two three year terms (same as an option with the two and four year systems.

      With recall in place they can be jerked out by the local district or the State if it appears necessary but beyond that much needed abilith of the electorate it would stop the need for one year of sort of work and one year of campaigning and selling of their votes to Special interests.

      Finally add the rule that only those with a geopolitical interest and the ability to vote could donate to campaign funds. Unions, Corporations and PACs cannot vote therefore could not contribute the soft money and dirty money nor could anyone not a citizen. and then only within their own district, city, country, state or for Pres/VP the ony two true federal offices.

      That is easily done by using the local precinct and state/local voters pamphlet or list and keeps well heeled noses from other sources out of the business in areas to which they do not reside while still protecting First Amendment rights freedom of speech rights

      1. Repeal 17th and replace with choice of either senators at large or State selected Senators.

      2, Primary employer paying in state office costs Status

      3. Recall

      4. Geopolitical interest Limitations and ban campaign contributions to entities without the franchise.

      5. Ability to Vote Limitation

      6. and possibly dump the every two years circus in favor of locally controlled recall.

      7. and keep electoral college for President and Vice President.

      8. Automatic initiative and referendum for ALL States.

      9. Retain Electoral College for Pres and VP.

      I’ll target the 16th amendment when the subject comes up as well as the meaning of oui military’s oath of office in protecting the Constitution since the politicians cannot be trusted to uphold their oaths of office – remarkably almost word for word the same..

      1. The 17th Amendment Hasn’t Been a Huge Success

        But we’re no longer living in the era of late-nineteenth-century industrial monopolies. While government corruption was in many ways codified by the New Deal, we also no longer face the same kind of rank corruption as that in the Gilded Age.

        It’s time, in other words, to reconsider the Seventeenth Amendment. Given our current wave of populism, it might be wise to reintroduce some of those old ideas about federalism, and temper the passions of the electorate by letting states, not the people, elect senators.

        After all, it’s not like the Seventeenth Amendment has reformed the Senate into a serious deliberative body that responds to the wishes of the people. Were it not for the Seventeenth Amendment, we might have never had Strom Thurmond hang around the Senate for 48 years, serving until he was 100 years old. We might not have had former KKK Grand Wizard Robert Byrd serve for 51 years. We might have even escaped the scurrilous and corrupt Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi, also a prominent Klansman, who once said “Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux.” And who knows, after Chappaquiddick, the Massachusetts legislature might have picked someone other than Ted Kennedy to represent the state.

  10. Sad to say, nothing new here… Would love to see an expose of “fees” Axelrod, Marty Nesbitt and many many others charged for access to Obama…

    1. The Clinton Foundation Fraud was supposed to have started being release on the 5th but they rolled GHWB out of the freeze just in time to stop that… next date the 13th… will there by a false flag or some’un else?

      1. Aargh. Those awful people… Delighted to see their tour got off to stumbling bumbling start

          1. Doubtful Machine Parts of The Collective aren’t into seat buying at venues no more than they are in thinking. – just self rewinding comments by the programmers of the ruling class of The Party.

          1. Translation of Links234 lyrics:

            Can one break a heart
            Can hearts speak
            Can one torment a heart
            Can one steal hearts

            They wanted my heart on the right side
            So I looked on it down way
            There, it beats on the left

            Can hearts sing
            Can a heart burst
            Can hearts be clean
            Can a heart be of stone

            They wanted my heart on the right side
            So I looked on it down way
            There, it beats on the left
            Left two three four

            Can one ask a heart
            Carry a child under it
            Can one gift a heart
            Think with the heart

            They wanted my heart on the right side
            So I looked on it down way
            There, it beats in the left breast
            The jealous one knew it wrong

            Left two three four

            1. Another metal band:


              Translation of first few lyrics:

              We all are possessed
              We all are damned
              We all are crucified
              We all are broken
              By attractive technology
              By economics of time
              By quality of life
              And the philosophy of war

              One, two, three, four
              Come dance with me baby brother
              One, two, three, four
              Give me both your hands
              One, two, three, four
              Dance with me my friends
              One, two, three, four
              Round around, it isn’t difficult

              We dance to Ado Hinkel
              Benzino Napoloni
              We dance to Schiekelgrueber
              And dance with Maitreya
              With Totalitarianism
              And with democracy
              We dance with Fascism
              And red anarchy

              1. This genre of music is what I call “Cookie Monster Music”, because it sounds like…well…:

                1. Darren, Al,

                  Al, I’ll have to see what else that band has out. I not sure about it as I am with Rammstein. Hell though, Till is 55 this year.

                  One of the things I like about Rammstein is they like to twist the meaning of the lyrics around.

                  I think what Till is sing here is the:Cookie Monster is Mein Teil, aka the Cookie Monster is my piece of Cookie. LOL

    1. That is disconcerting. When I read the zerohedge article you provided I reflected back on how truly removed I must be from the mainstream and how there could be so many products that people consume that are major branded. I’ve become so accustomed to buying only CSA grown whole foods and

      So I went through my house and looked at what I buy regularly of what would be considered mass marketed products. This is all I had.

      Pop (left over from when company was over)
      Toothpaste *
      Shaving Cream *
      Mach 3 Razor Cartridges *
      Soap *
      Bathroom Tissue
      Motor Oil

      Those having an * are ones that I bought in bulk several years ago and still have a lasting supply. I found a tremendous deal on the razors and so I bought enough to last me 30 years.

      Everything else was either homemade or from local / regional makers. I probably only go into a supermarket once a month, usually for only a few items.

      It truly floors me that you see people at the checkout stand with a cart filled to capacity with prepackaged consumables (I don’t consider it “food” but legally I suppose it is). For most, they don’t buy potatoes, they instead buy Ore-Ida Hash Browns. They don’t buy corn, they buy Jolly Green Giant buttered corn. And the amount of money they spend is almost beyond belief. And nearly all of it is crap with little actual nutrition. When it comes to our food we are as a society our own worst enemy

      This is the control people surrender to these few companies that you mention. If these eleven companies either failed or went rogue we only have eleven points of failure that can take away most of people’s basic food needs. One might call that a strategic risk.

      1. Darren,

        I don’t trust those large companies or their products. We do what we can to avoid them/their products

        People don’t think & don’t seem to be able to do simple math.

        I think it was 15 years ago I got pissed at Dish/Direct TV because all that would come in it seemed was CNN & other such crap.

        So I pulled it, it was either 100 or 120 a month, at a 100= 1200 for 12 mo x10 years = $12000 bucks aka 15 yrs $18000 saved.

        Yet people will b itch that they’re broke.

        A couple of things that were cheap I bought for daily use & an emergence was small water filter system & a water test kit.

        I have a swimming pool so if the public water supply goes bad like it recently did in Austin Tx, among other places, we here should have plenty of clean drinking water.

        This Nick Begich gets into some interesting things today, he’s out of Alaska that is just getting over the quake.

        I think this was on today’s show?

        Reconnect with your humanity and resist the corporate brainwashing by enjoying nature and taking care of your family

  11. This further supports the notion that we need to remove the political class from power and start over. Our system of government is fine and should stay. It’s those who wield power presently who are collectively corrupt and without honor.

    1. No, the architectural features of the government leave room for improvement.

      The problem, here, is that the regulatory state is penetrable, and it matters a great deal if a person in a gatekeeper function returns your phone calls. The question at hand is how your scrape away regulations that do more harm than good and how you define offenses and enforce those definitions to make favoratism a career-ender in public employment. Knotty (and perhaps insoluble) problems.

    2. Wrong, Darren. The US system has morphed into a third world tin pot pseudo democracy. Unless one is funded in the largest way, one cannot present one’s self and positions to the voters. Almost every politician is beholding to oligarchs and/or special interests. The issues can not be better illustrated than that sideshow put on by Trump. Bullying, blaming, lying, and all the while talking about nothing important or relevant to the best interests of the people. If you listen to this buffoon speak at one of his rallies you won’t hear anything of importance to the people of the US, only derisions and lies. The system is rotten and is getting worse. Scalia let the gates of oligarch money open even wider. Our peer nations jail those who attempt to buy political favor. In America it is perversely linked to some sort of obtuse idea of freedom. Yes, Americans are free to sell themselves out.

      1. The problem is getting worthwhile candidates that are not funded or in the pocket of special interests and/or oligarchs. In the more democratic republics and democracies, political funding is strictly regulated with fines and jail time handed out to those that step over a per person amount. Once a candidate is running, money is not an issue. Getting to the candidate position typically takes funding and/or time given by supporters. Most of the work is done by volunteers. There is no ideal system where the best can be presented to the people, however the US system is as far away from democracy as can be. It is a question of direction and degrees. The US must turn away from pseudo freedoms that undermine the real freedoms. Electing representatives should be a sacred event, protected from the opposite, oligarchical manipulation through wealth and privilege, something that our fore fathers gave their lives fighting against.

  12. Alma Carman – I am going to agree with you. All our Congress Critters should wear patches representing the companies that have donated large sums of money to them. This also includes NGOs.

    1. I haven’t done a proper literature review of the academic studies of Congress, but it is my understanding that Representatives tend to be responsive to appeals which emanate from their districts, whereas Senators are responsive to donors. Another argument to replace the Senate as we know it.

  13. the cure to this is to adopt the policy of NASCAR drivers, all the sponsors/donors to a politician should have their logos and the amount donated sewn on as patches onto the jackets of their politicians so we know who purchased our representatives etc.

    1. Maybe Cohen’s recently discovered inner moral compass will direct him to return the $4 Million?

    2. I’ve thought the same. Members of congress should sit there, wearing the logos of their sponsors

Comments are closed.