Michael Cohen Disbarred In New York

As someone who has called for the disbarment of Michael Cohen for well over a year, the belated decision by the New York bar this week to disbar the disgraced lawyer is welcomed news. There are few ex-lawyers that you can say this about, but the removal of Cohen from the bar has materially improved the value of everyone’s license across the country.

The panel of Justices Dianne Renwick, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Angela Mazzarelli, Jeffery Oing, and Peter Moulton found that disbarment was warranted by Cohen’s guilty pleas to tax evasion, campaign finance law violations, and lying to Congress.

Notably, the Attorney Grievance Committee filed for disbarment back on October 3, 2018.

As I have said before, repeatedly, Cohen has spent his career as a legal thug whose only appeal was his willingness to do things that most lawyers would not do.

As a longtime critic of Cohen, I argued for Trump to sever ties with Cohen at the start of the Administration. Trump instead pushed Cohen into greater prominence and publicly embraced him as his lawyer. In the end, the only concern of Cohen is Cohen himself. When Trump promised access to wealth and power, he was his loyal hatchet man, promising to take a bullet for him. When the special counsel discovered his myriad criminal acts, Cohen became a Mueller man.

Cohen distinguished himself as a thug who threatened journalists, university students, and anyone else deemed a threat to Trump. In 2015, when Harvard Lampoon staffers played a prank on Trump by having him sit in the stolen “president’s chair” from the Harvard Crimson for a photo and an endorsement, Cohen threatened the students with ruin. He is quoted as saying: “I’m gonna come up to Harvard. You’re all gonna get expelled. If this photo gets out, you’ll be outta that school faster than you know it. I can be up there tomorrow.”

Then there was his threat against former Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak, who simply wrote about a biography by former Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt. The biography, titled “Lost Tycoon,” includes allegations in a sworn deposition from Trump’s first wife, Ivana, that Trump raped her. In a phone call recorded by Mak, Cohen told the reporter: “You’re talking about Donald Trump, you’re talking about the frontrunner for the GOP, a presidential candidate, as well as private individual, who never raped anybody and, of course, understand that by the very definition you can’t rape your spouse,” the latter, of course, being legally incorrect. Cohen declared: “Mark my words for it, I will make sure that you and I meet one day over in the courthouse and I will take you for every penny you still don’t have, and I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else.”

None of these acts seemed to prompt bar action in New York though the action in October was not widely known. It was only after his criminal plea that he was finally and thankfully disbarred.

I will listen to the testimony of Cohen today, though with a considerable level of skepticism. It is not a matter of credibility. Cohen has none. The issue is whether Cohen can support allegations with hard documents and evidence. Otherwise, the testimony will be a useless as Cohen’s word. The one improvement however is that Cohen will not continue to disgrace and degrade the legal profession. He has that distinction with Trump’s other lawyer, Roy Cohn who was also disbarred.

In the end, the White House attacks on Cohen come at a cost. As bad as Cohen was, he was the President’s choice as counsel both before and after the election. Moreover, even a serial liar and crook can do damage in a hearing when he was once your serial liar and crook.

301 thoughts on “Michael Cohen Disbarred In New York”




    House Democrats moved quickly Thursday to investigate a host of fresh allegations made this week by President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, including potentially calling top Trump business associates and family members as witnesses on Capitol Hill.

    A House Intelligence Committee aide said that the panel anticipates bringing in for an interview Allen Weisselberg, Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, but did not name a date for when they planned to make that happen.

    And House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings said Thursday that any person Cohen named during public testimony the day before will “have a good chance of hearing from us” for “at least an interview.”

    “All you have to do is follow the transcript,” the Maryland Democrat said. “If there were names that were mentioned, or records that were mentioned during the hearing, we want to take a look at all of that. . . . We’ll go through, we’ll figure out who we want to talk to, and we’ll bring them in.”

    Edited from: “House Democrats See New Probe’s In Cohen’s Testimony”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    So far Allen Weisselberg has remained untarnished by the scandals surrounding Donald Trump. But Congress will want to cross-check Cohen’s testimony with that of Weisselberg’s. If Wesselberg confirms at least ‘half’ of Cohen’s assertions, that could present a serious problem for Trump defenders. Dismissing Weisselberg as a liar could strain their own credibility.

    1. “If Wesselberg confirms at least ‘half’ of Cohen’s assertions, that could present a serious problem for Trump defenders.”

      Stupidity. Whatever Wesselberg says will survive or not survive on its own merit. Cohen doesn’t significantly augment or detract from Wesselberg’s testimony unless an answer by Cohen leads investigators to something else. Get it through your head. Cohens testimony, unless it leads to new facts, is virtually worthless.



    In the documents introduced by Cohen, Trump’s wealth numbers were strikingly elastic. In 2012, Trump had $5 billion of assets, according to that year’s one-page summary. Just nine months later, an updated summary showed his assets had nearly doubled, to $9.17 billion. The difference? Brand value. Trump put his at $4 billion.

    The records add further detail to an old story about Trump — that his penchant for bluster often extended to how he described his wealth. Neither he nor his company has ever publicly provided a valuation method for how they assess his brand. When he announced his candidacy for president, a document dated 2014 listed the value of “licensing deals, brand and branded developments” at $3.3 billion, making the value of the Trump brand as ethereal as it is massive.

    Cohen said Trump also used the documents when interacting with insurance companies, which legal experts said could pose additional jeopardy for Trump.

    Such a misrepresentation could lead to the policy being torn up, or worse, according to Maria Vullo, the recently departed superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, which oversees insurers in the state.

    “False statements made to an insurance company in order to obtain an insurance policy, or a particular policy provision, or a reduced premium, could create a basis to void the policy on the basis of fraud,” Vullo said. “In addition, there are various state and federal laws that proscribe and penalize the making of false statements for purposes of personal gain.”

    Trump and his family company have been fiercely protective of the values they place on their real estate assets and vigorously dispute figures that conflict with their own.

    One curious example is a mansion and surrounding 200-acre property that Trump bought in the mid-1990s in Westchester, New York. Back then, he paid $7.5 million. In 2012, according to the records Cohen submitted to Congress, Trump valued the property at $291 million. It’s unclear what supported the valuation, though the summary referred to integral “accompanying notes” that weren’t present in what Cohen filed.

    The property’s declared value had settled considerably by last year, according the federal financial disclosure that Trump makes annually as president. Trump valued the property between $25 million and $50 million, a drop that wouldn’t be explained by local price swings.

    The formula Cohen referenced — low valuations for tax assessments and high ones for assets and net worth — also may have held true for Trump’s golf properties.

    The sparse financials appear to reflect the addition, in 2012, of two golf properties that Trump purchased around that time. He paid $150 million for the Trump National Doral Miami in Florida, and $27 million for Golf at Trump National Charlotte in North Carolina, or a combined $177 million, according to media reports.

    On a financial statement dated June 2012, Trump reported the value of his “club facilities and related real estate” — a single line item that encompasses properties from California to Scotland — increased by $256 million.

    Although it’s common to value golf properties differently for tax assessments and financial reporting, the Trump properties’ spread appeared to be large, according to Laurence Hirsh of Golf Property Analysts in Conshohocken, Pa.

    Trump, in a 2007 deposition, offered insight into how he valued his courses. “The real value placed on all of this land is if somebody wanted to go out … and do houses,” he said.

    Cohen also detailed two ways he said the Trump Organization “inflated” its valuations.

    The first involved comparable properties. The company, Cohen said, found similar properties and looked for the highest price per square foot among them. Then, Cohen said, the Trump Organization took that figure and applied it to Trump-owned properties.

    The second involved a phantom figure. Cohen said the Trump Organization would take a building’s annual rent payments from tenants, and then “make up the multiple” and apply that number to the gross rent roll. Trump knew about this valuation method. The multiple, Cohen said, was “based upon what he wanted to value the asset at.”

    Edited from: “Trump’s Shifting Net Worth May Bear Clues For Investigators”


    It’s darkly comical that Republicans have spent the last 2 days calling Cohen a ‘liar’. Trump, one should note, has set all time records for false claims made as both a candidate and president. But Trump’s financial statements might bear the false claims that damage him more than the Russia probe.

    1. One the guessing game revolving around Trump’s true net worth, and the value of his properties…..I would think that insurance companies doing business with Trump, or anyone else, would be expected to do their due diligence in determining the accuracy/ truthfulness of property valuations claimed by Trump.
      A lot has been made, and there’s been exaggeration, about American financial companies refusing to do business with Trump, that he has to borrow from Duestche Bank or Russian banks.
      A bit of research proves that is not the case, at least not to the extent some like to claim Trump gas been “blackballed” by American financial institutions.
      But given some major bankruptcies of certain Trump projects in the 1990s, I’d think that banks, insurers, hedge funds, etc. would do at least normal due diligence in doing business with Trump.

    1. I. Bob,…
      There are some other scenarios under which that timeline might change.
      He may not serve the full 3 years, or even a major part of that sentence.
      Another possibility is that if the U.S. Attorney for SDNY finds enough evidence of additional criminal activity by Cohen, in areas where Cohen did not cooperate or “come clean”, I think they can still proceed with additional indictments.
      So it looks like there’s still the possibility of additional charges/ prison time for Cohen.

      1. “So it looks like there’s still the possibility of additional charges/ prison time for Cohen”

        Yes, but those arguing on the left seem to take everything he said as true even with video evidence that is not so.

        1. Allan,…
          I don’t know if this DOJ perjury referral will go anywhere.
          The ones I’ve been able to follow that have been kicked over to the DOJ seem to have “died on the vine”, with stonewalling or ignoring by DOJ.
          Of course, it’s now under “new management”, so that could make a difference.
          I was thinking of the possibilty that SDNY will, ir could, go after Cohen in the areas where he was not cooperative and are likely outside the scope if the plea bargain deal.
          SDNY basically said that they got full cooperation from Cohen in some areas, but that Cohen was not forthcoming about possible criminal conduct suspected in some other areas.
          Back to the DOJ referral, it’ll be interesting to see where this goes.
          I hope in this case that the media will follow up on any developments, but in my experience, you might hear about a referral, then there’s no subsequent reporting.

          1. It’s not important to me whether the DOJ goes after Cohen for additional charges. I am more interested in deterring further lying. We had enough from the last administration which was rotten almost throughout.

            1. If in fact there is “proof”, or strong evidence of perjury in Cohen’s testimony, then I think it is important to pursue it, Allan.
              That may be a big “IF”; making a case for perjury.
              But if you’re sitting there on the Committee, and are convinced that Cohen is lying in his testimony, then how else do you hold him accountable for that?
              And discourage others from committing perjury?
              The other wild card in Cohen’s case is what the SDNY U.S. Attorney has uncovered, or might uncover, in the other areas of suspected criminal activity that Cohen may been involved in.
              My understanding is that Cohen’s “flipping/cooperation” was limited, and the SDNY made it clear that Cohen was forthcoming in some areas, but not in other “areas of interest” for SDNY.
              I don’t think the plea bargain agreement protects Cohen from additional charges outside the scope of the plea bargain agreement that the SDNY might decide to pursue.



    The most emotionally fraught moment during the Michael Cohen hearing had nothing directly to do with President Trump’s former lawyer but was a tense exchange after one lawmaker accused another of engaging in a racist act by bringing a black woman to the hearing “as a prop.”

    Though the issue was mostly resolved during the hearing, the aftershocks of it continued Thursday with the resurfacing of three videos from 2012 of Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) making birther comments about President Barack Obama and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) going on CNN to reiterate her belief that Meadows’s actions were insensitive to people of color.

    Tlaib, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, was the last to speak at the end of the marathon Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday. She used her time to criticize Meadows — not by name — for bringing Lynne Patton, a black woman who has worked for the Trump family and now for the White House, to vouch for Trump not being racist.

    “And it is insensitive … the fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman in this chamber, in this committee, is alone racist in itself,” Tlaib said.

    Meadows exploded, appearing almost near tears, as he spoke of his having a niece and nephew of color and his close friendship with Oversight Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) as evidence that he’s not racist. Tlaib then clarified her remarks, saying that she wasn’t calling him racist, just his action.

    Meadows brought in Patton, who stood silently behind him while he made his remarks, in an attempt to counter Cohen’s testimony that Trump is racist. But having an employee, friend or family member of color does not shield a person from racism or at capitalizing on others’ racism for political gain.

    After Meadows’s outrage at Tlaib, Steve Morris of the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters posted a video to Twitter of Meadows in 2012 standing in front of a Tea Party Express bus and telling voters “2012 is the time we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is.”

    Two additional videos from that time have seen been unearthed showing Meadows making similar comments about sending Obama “home.”

    Now let’s remember where we were in this country in 2012. Obama was running for reelection, and Donald Trump, after toying with the idea of running for president, decided to expend his energy finding Obama’s passport and college records. The year before he’d advanced the birther conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the United States, but rather in Africa. Obama was, of course, born in Hawaii.

    Edited from: “Analysis: Videos of Mark Meadows Saying ‘Send Obama Home To Kenya Resurface Hours After He’s Accused of Racist Stunt”


  4. 1. The testimony of co-conspirators is used all the time in both prosecutions and Congressional testimony. The GOP pretending otherwise is a bad joke they have been telling each other and their willing tools.
    2. Cohen can be further prosecuted if he lies again to Congress.

    Since none of the GOP Congressmen challenged a single issue of fact in Cohen’s testimony, or offered a defense of Trump regarding them, perhaps some of the Trumpsters here will step up and try.

    Probably not.

    1. Anon, one can’t challenge opinion and it is near impossible to prove a negative in most cases. “Since none of the GOP Congressmen challenged a single issue of fact in Cohen’s testimony” why don’t you provide a fact pertinant to the Presidency that you think requires a response.

      Will you “step up and try.” using pertinent fact, not assumption or unproven material.

      “Probably not.”


      1. Funny, but I don’t recall anyone asking Cohen what his favorite color and movie was.

        He did recount factual events which he personally witnessed and in some cases provided corroborating evidence. Since those events are factual if true, one can disprove them by other evidence or by claiming they are totally out of character for the accused. No one would say that of course regarding Trump, since it is established that he’s a low life liar committed only to promoting himself.

        1. He’s our great leader, we are thankful for him, and you are some kind of frustrated nobody, praising a liar and a snitch and subverting the common cause of making america great again! get on board, anon, a mean spirited saboteur is no way to go through life!

            1. Anon, I love your work. You’re a stalwart, a champion and a real mensch. Unfortunately, Trump’s fan-boys on this blawg will not allow me to be anybody else’s groupie. The nerve of them. Anyway, you sure got their attention. Don’t let them get you down. No. No. Don’t let them turn you around and around.

              1. Thanks. There’s a lot of unearned arrogance coupled with very little substantive or logical content with these posters

            2. Anon..
              The satire is you trumpeting the conclusions of a convicted perjurer. A lot of irony thrown in there too. Plus some insight into your world view and judgment.

              1. So, you’re saying you don’t know that a very large proportion of convictions are won through the testimony of accomplices? Really?

        2. There’s hope for you yet sir or madam, to overcome your frustrations, transcend the petty party politics, embrace your fellow citizen, and join in the great cause in which the President and Commander in Chief, Donald J Trump, is leading our nation forwards in:

          making America great again!

        3. Or, since Trump us recounting “factual events” at odds with Cohen’s versions, we have that version.
          The burden of proof in most cases falls on the one making the accusations.
          Cohen’s history of perjury is relevant, so I would not consider his testimony as an accurate representation of factual events.
          He’ll likely be very careful not to get caught up in an outright lie…..he can “shade” things, lije understating his desire to get an appointment in a Trump Administration position….but ai think he’s being careful not to “get caught” lying to the point where he could open himself up to additiinal perjury charges.
          As things stand now, there are two parties giving two different versions of what happened in the Trump-Cohen relationship.
          And neither party wants to “get caught” lying under oath and face the consequences of getting caught.
          That does not necessarily mean that either or both would not lie under oath uf they thought they could get away with it.
          So I think we’re stuck with a “he said/he said” situation barring a solid “smoking gun” collaboration of Cohen’s allegations.
          So unless Cohen has something from secretly recording Trump that’s equivalent to the “smoking gun” found in the Nixon tapes, I don’t think his testimony is enough to get back at Trunp.

        4. Anon, it is nice to see how committed you are that Cohen provided significant new evidence and proof against Trump as President or candidate even though you can’t provide it. I guess that means there was nothing for the GOP representatives to rebut which answers your “probably not” cliffhanger.

          When you bring a gun to a gunfight make sure you bring the bullets.

          1. Poor Allan apparently can’t read or hear, but for his benefit the most significant accusations by Cohen are:

            1. Signed hush money checks, a likely campaign law violation, not to mention proof of what a lying a.shole Allan’s leader is.
            2. False financial statements, an illegal act depending on who they were sent to.
            3. First person witness to being led to lie to Congress, the ending of which is the real reason for the GOP anger.
            4. First person witness as Trump’s agent in continued negotiations for a Russian Tower, proof of what a lying a.shole Allan’s leader is, as well as relevant to why Trump is Putin’s bitch. He also named Ivanka and Jr as knowing about these efforts.
            5. Witness to Jrs relaying info to Dear Dad about a meeting being confirmed, right at the time of the Trump Tower Attempted Collusion meeting.
            6. Witness to Stone’s tipping Trump to Assange’s leak of DNC emails.
            7. Confirmation of SDONY’s continued investigation into Individual # 1.

            If the GOP members had pursued these items – and there were others – with the sworn in Cohen, maybe Allan would have had a better chance of having heard of them. They didn’t want to get within a mile of them and that includes by even defending the President’s character – now that would have been funny!

            1. Anon, let us deal with reality.

              1) Even if we accept the check as real and the purpose as you infer there was nothing illegal that was done.

              2) “False financial statements” Proof means you actually produce the statement and then prove what was done was against the law. I saw no such statements. You don’t even mention what type of statement they were.

              3) Cohen lied to Congress, Trump didn’t. Cohen is a liar and has lied each time to protect himself.

              4) Russian Tower: The deal never went through and Trump never did anything that was illegal.

              5) Witness: Not proof especially from a serial liar. You didn’t even provide what was said. No one knows if that occurred and what would make you think that he could hear the conversation accurately?

              6) Witness to Stone’s: Unconfirmed and unproven. Almost all of these things you mention so far are unproven and rely on the honesty of a serial liar. Are you for real?

              7) Confirmation of SDONY’s: We already know there is an investigation. That is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt and let you restrict your proofs to “proof against Trump as President or candidate.”

              Since all of the above alleged crimes that have been investigated and left unproven were derived from the mouth of a serial liar one doesn’t attempt to reprove innocence rather one deals with the veracity of the one making the claims. It’s simple except for those whose minds are clouded because they don’t want to accept Trump as President. Get used to it Anon because in 2020 he will likely win again despite the fact that the media, academia and Hollywood are almost all against Trump. That alone adds a lot of points to the Democratic side which have to be overcome by Trump. The stupidity of the Democrats is that they have chosen to demonize a President that is doing a pretty good job and while doing so they have severely damaged the security of America and its people and are proposing legislation that even the least savvy Democrat might be able to recognize that such legislation belongs in the Twilite Zone.

              “When you bring a gun to a gunfight make sure you bring the bullets” and ***make sure the bullets aren’t blanks***.

              1. I made statement of facts about the charges Cohen made. You are making statements of BS about things you don’t know, based on your wishful thinking – not very smart.

                If the GOP wanted to know the truth, and even catch Cohen – he was under oath – in lies, which they allege is all he knows how to do, they would have gone into the weeds with him for names, dates, and other facts. It seems they – and you – can’t handle the truth.

                1. “I made statement of facts about the charges Cohen made.”

                  Yes, Anon, we both agree those statements were made by Cohen. That is a fact, but what he said is not factual as I demonstrated in 1-7. I can define for you what a fact is but I can’t make you learn what a fact is. That is something you have to do by yourself.

                  That is why the GOP Congressmen didn’t bother dealing with many of the statements made by Cohen. They are meaningless unless proven and if proven Cohen’s statement remains meaningless as well. That was the object of the GOP Congressmen’s testimony. The Democrats asked questions, that if one wishes to accept what Cohen said as proof, whose answers were proof Trump was not involved in conspiracy. Legally Cohen put himself in more jeopardy than anyone else and to an unbiased eye made the Democrats look like fools.

                  Words to look up in a dictionary:

                  1. “Legally Cohen put himself in more jeopardy than anyone else and to an unbiased eye made the Democrats look like fools.”

                    Anon, I just read this piece and thought you might be interested.

                    Jordan, Meadows Refer Cohen To AG Barr For Alleged Perjury At Oversight Hearing

                    Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina referred Michael Cohen to the Attorney General William Barr on Thursday, alleging that the president’s former attorney perjured himself in the course of giving testimony at Wednesday’s hearing before the House Oversight Committee.

                    “Mr. Cohen’s testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Reform on February 27, 2019, was a spectacular and brazen attempt to knowingly and willfully testify falsely and fictitiously to numerous material facts,” the letter to Barr from Jordan and Meadows states.

                    “His testimony included intentionally false statements designed to make himself look better on a national stage. Mr. Cohen’s prior conviction for lying to Congress merits a heightened suspicion that he has yet again testified falsely before Congress,” the letter concludes.

                    The letter details six distinct points supporting an investigation into whether Cohen’s testimony Wednesday before the committee was truthful.

                    Meadows, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, and Ranking Member Jordan contend in the letter that Cohen’s testimony denying defrauding any banks is intentionally false. They point to Cohen having already pled guilty, among other related charges, to a count of making false statements to a banking institution. (RELATED: Meadows And Tlaib Engage In Heated Exchange During Cohen Hearing)

                    A second concern they outline involves Cohen’s testimony that he did not seek employment in the White House. According to Jordan and Meadows, this testimony is “demonstrably, materially, and intentionally false.”

                    WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 06: U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) (3rd L) speaks as (L-R) Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) listen during a news conference in front of the Capitol December 6, 2017 in Washington, DC. Rep. Gaetz held a news conference to urge for an investigation into the FBI’s investigation handling of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
                    They note that the job seeking-related testimony directly contradicts court filings made by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which state:

                    During and after the campaign, Cohen privately told friends and colleagues, including in seized text messages, that he expected to be given a prominent role and title in the new administration. When that did not materialize, Cohen found a way to monetize his relationship with and access to the President.

                    A third point Meadows and Jordan offer in support of the DOJ investigating Cohen’s possible perjury during Wednesday’s hearings involves his testimony about his involvement in the establishment of the “@WomenForCohen” Twitter account.

                    Though Cohen testified that he did not direct the establishment of that account, an article in The Wall Street Journal suggests that the account was indeed created by IT firm RedFinch at Cohen’s behest.

                    Fourth, Meadows and Jordan charge that Cohen’s “Truth in Testimony” form indicated he did not have any reportable contracts with foreign entities.

                    During the hearing, however, Cohen testified to entering into contractual agreements in 2017 with at least two foreign entities, including the BTA Bank of Kazakhstan and Korea Aerospace Industries of South Korea.

                    WASHINGTON, DC – FEBRUARY 27: U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) (C) listens during a hearing as Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, testifies before the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill February 27, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

                    (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
                    On this fourth point, Meadows and Jordan also suggest that beyond perjury, Cohen’s possible lobbying or consulting activities with those entities may have also been in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

                    In point five, Meadows and Jordan allege that Cohen’s verbal testimony contradicted written statements submitted in advance of his appearance and that those contradictions “materially affect the Committee’s assessment of Mr. Cohen’s credibility.”

                    Finally, Meadows and Jordan assert that Cohen’s assertion of “blind loyalty” to President Donald Trump is false. Instead, they assert that Cohen’s conduct was driven by “personal greed and ambition.”

                    Cohen is scheduled to report to jail for a three-year sentence for tax evasion, bank fraud, and lying to Congress on May 6.

                    1. Yes, like the Deep State and now Cohen, let’s chase irrelevant fantasies and ignore the orange elephant in the room, who’s actions actually affect us all.

                      Perhaps these GOP tools can pursue his Cohen’s accusations, many of them based on information which only he possesses from 1st hand knowledge and which made under oath. They can’t handle the truth and neither can Allen.

                    2. Anon says: February 28, 2019
                      “They can’t handle the truth and neither can Allen.”

                      There is no Allen on this forum but then again, facts and details are things to be mangled, manipukated and used by the Left.

                      Congratulations for showing us but then again you do you all too well better than anyone else. We give you that

                    3. Thanks, Allan. I was just commenting on the lack of reporting of criminal referrals to Absurd/ DSS a few minutes ago.
                      It hasn’t even posted yet.

                    4. Anon, you have been provided with logic, fact and proof. You dispute none of it though I took your seven points and devastated them one after the other. Your response is irrelevent talk and bluster. That is all you got and apparently all you will ever have.

                    5. Allan: “Anon I was nice to you when this debate got started”

                      Remember that they are paid trolls and their only purpose on these forums is to follow the Saul Alinsky playbook, Rules for Radicals.

                      They are not about debate nor reason.

                      Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”:

                      “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
                      “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
                      “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
                      “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
                      “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
                      “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
                      “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
                      “Keep the pressure on.”
                      “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
                      “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
                      “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
                      “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
                      “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

                      – Wiki

                    6. “Remember that they are paid trolls ”

                      Honestly I don’t think they are smart enough to be paid. What they do is copy the slogans and short dialog from leftist sites. That is why when the argument narrows down they frequently use a canned argument from those sites that pertains to a slightly different argument without understanding the significance.. Anon started to sound a bit more intelligent than the others but he couldn’t hold up and didn’t know how to end an argument after he ran out of cheap retorts.

                    7. Allen draws conclusions based on wishful thinking and the claims of a documented serial liar and calls it facts and logic. I am not making any claims other than the duty of Congress members on the “Oversight” Committee to pursue credible allegations – in some cases with corroborating evidence and all in sync with the known character of the accused – of illegality made by someone with long and deep first hand knowledge and who can be prosecuted if he lied. Anyone who claims to be a serious observer of this issue has the same obligation.

                      Allen and Esto have proven by their posts that they are not serious and will believe anything and tout any line if it let’s them continue their cult following of a man of obvious low character.

                    8. “Allen draws conclusions based on wishful thinking ”

                      Anon, you are writing little more than nonsense. There are videos of Cohen that proved he lied on the stand. You are full of conjecture much of which is wrong and you certainly don’t have the facts to back up most of what you have been saying.

                      I quoted the first discussion we had. The question of ‘nice’ came up. The only things that might have been considered not ‘nice’ were your words that were in quotations. Everything about you is phony.


                  2. here is an excellent example of how the Left mangles facts to whitewash their sad lies in order to make them benign and thus believable. The Federalist did an excellent expose on this phenomena, which the Left does regularly without much effort



                    NYT Op-Ed Deceptively Confuses Preemies With Babies Born Alive After Abortion

                    On Monday, Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act fell short of the 60 votes needed to move the legislation to a floor vote. All 44 of the “nay” votes came from Democrats or supposed independents, including presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

                    While the party of Planned Parenthood needed to kill the bill, voting to withhold medical care from an infant lucky enough to escape the womb alive isn’t the best look for a party hoping to win back the Senate and White House in 2020. So yesterday saw the liberal media’s launch of a rehabilitation effort for their party.

                    But how do you prop up a politician who votes to allow newborn babies to die? Easy: With misdirection and prevarication.

                    Misleading, Evasive Media Coverage

                    The New York Times led the charge, publishing Dr. Jen Gunter’s op-ed, “I Didn’t Kill My Baby.” Gunter is an obstetrician and gynecologist who has performed late-term abortions. She lost her son Aidan—one of the triplets she was carrying—when he was born extremely premature at 22 weeks gestation.

                    Gunter’s loss is tragic. But it has nothing to do with abortion. Gunter didn’t have an abortion; her water broke at 22 weeks and three days gestation. Doctors were unable to delay Aidan’s birth, and he died shortly after Gunter delivered him. Physicians apparently succeeded, however, in delaying Gunter’s delivery of her other two babies, because she notes in passing that Aidan’s two siblings survived.

                    Gunter does not provide any details, though, because that would not serve her purpose. Her op-ed seeks to attack the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by portraying her tragic loss as equivalent to an abortion: “If you are going to accuse me of executing my child, then you need to know exactly what happened. It’s not a pleasant story and the ending is terrible. I wouldn’t blame you for not wanting to read it. But you need to know the truth, because stories like mine are being perverted for political gain.”

                    No one is talking about stories like Gunter’s. No one is accusing Gunter of executing her son. And try as she might to equate her situation to the focus of the legislation, which concerns abortion survivors, Gunter did not have an abortion. The only one perverting anything for political gain is Gunter!

                    To be clear: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act speaks only of babies born alive following “an abortion or attempted abortion.” The bill also does not mandate “heroic measures,” or “invasive procedures,” as Gunter implies. It simply requires that health practitioners provide the abortion survivor with the same health care “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive. (The abortion doctor must also immediately transport the baby to a hospital.)

                    Making Sense of Gunter’s Argument

                    In fact, Gunter’s entire op-ed perfectly illustrates the need for, and functioning of, the proposed Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The medical team caring for Gunter and Aidan concluded, in their reasonable and conscientious judgment, that Aidan could not survive and that no further health care was medically necessary. Conversely, the medical team caring for Gunter’s other two premature babies concluded that further medical care was appropriate. The bill merely requires a medical team to treat a survivor of abortion the same as Gunter’s doctors treated her three premature babies.

                    Gunter also makes the incomprehensible claim that the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is “nothing more than a way to warp the reality of perinatal mortality (stillbirth or death within the first week of life) to create confusion about abortion.” Perinatal mortality is a tragic reality, but it has nothing to do with Sasse’s bill. Any confusion between the two stems solely from Gunter’s attempt to manipulate the sympathy the public feels for her loss.

                    In her op-ed, Gunter adds another dubious but oft-repeated claim, stating that abortions “at or after 24 weeks of gestation, the time largely accepted as viability, are typically performed because of severe fetal anomalies or fetal anomalies combined with maternal health problems.” But a Congressional Research Service report from April 2018 looked at that question and cited an expert in the field (and an abortion apologist) Dr. Diana Greene Foster, who “believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion.’”

                    Anecdotally, we also have Beth Vial’s op-ed for Teen Vogue from earlier this month. In “What It Was Like To Get A Later Abortion,” Vial recounted her trip to New Mexico to abort her healthy, viable unborn baby at 28 weeks of gestation. Not quite the typical scenario Gunter would have readers believe, which just goes to show that Vial is too young, too naïve, or too indoctrinated by the “shout your abortion” crowd to realize her story horrifies ordinary Americans.

                    Gunter knows better, which is why she set herself up as the strawman: the suffering, still-mourning mom. But the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act isn’t about Gunter or her son Aidan, or about any of the other moms who bear children only to bury them. The bill is about the Vials of the world, and the vile doctors who attempt to abort viable fetuses—and when they fail, leave the infants to die.

                    All the distortion that is fit to print will not change that reality.

                    Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

                    1. Esto’s cut and paste is BS. My wife was an OB-Gyn nurse for decades and knows what happens with late term abortions. If you think women carry an infant into the 3rd trimester and then decide to terminate it because it’s bathing suit season, your f..king nuts. The situation – and it requires a doctor and hospital to go along – is either a real case of the mother’s health being endangered or a damaged infant who will live a non-life for a hopefully short or long life of pain and horror. That literal freak show will sapp that families heart, soul, and budget, and if they have other children – they often do – scar all involved. You want to be in that situation and be forced to birth a kid with no brain? You want the Congress deciding this? That’s not conservative, that is.

                    2. “My wife was an OB-Gyn nurse for decades and knows what happens with late term abortions.”

                      Then put your wife on because this problem has existed for years and even provided a problem for Obama when it occurred and legislation was browas brought up years ago even when Obama was a state Senator and a state law was up for a vote. In fact in the past some western nations let full term infants die on the table if their weight or size was too low. I know it was true not that long ago. This was discovered I think in the 1980’s when a statistician questioned what happened to the lowest birthweight infants in certain countries.These were not abortions rather full term pregnancies.

                      Therefore you can stop with the jerky comments as infanticide was and may still be performed by some of the most western nations. I believe the nations in question were/are France and Switzerland.

                    3. “Anon says: February 28, 2019 at 6:18 PM
                      Esto’s cut and paste is BS.”

                      There is no medical reason for the mother to kill the baby past 22 weeks. None.

                      C-Sections take care of the baby’s delivery post 22 weeks without killing her. If the mother kills the baby past 22 weeks it was for the reasons that first trimester abortions were done: convenience

                      Pure and simple disregard for life and triump of me, Me, ME!


                      “In Roe v. Wade and many state abortion laws, “viability” means the fetus has reached a sufficiently advanced gestational age to be able to survive outside the womb—22 weeks, with current medical technology.”

                      “There is no medical situation in which late abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. In a common late abortion technique, a lethal intracardiac injection is given, and labor is induced. This takes between two and four days and is not a procedure done in true emergency situations.

                      With any serious pregnancy complication, the pregnancy can be ended by inducing labor or delivering the baby via C-section—saving both the mother’s and the baby’s life.

                      Late-Term Abortion Referrals Can Be Based in Ignorance

                      Murphy Goodwin, M.D., a distinguished professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Southern California, writes that many abortion referrals based on maternal health situations reflect sheer ignorance from the referring physicians. Typically, he says, they are medical specialists who lack experience treating women with high-risk pregnancies.

                      Goodwin describes describes multiple cases in which women with severe life threatening conditions—from cardiac problems to cancer—were told that they needed to have abortions. In each situation, physicians were able to find solutions that allowed the mother to bring the baby to 28 weeks, at which point approximately 90 percent of babies survive in neonatal intensive care.

                      Current law has an unfortunate pro-abortion bias. Physicians face severe legal penalties if they do not inform a mother of all possible risks of continuing a pregnancy. Yet there is no legal penalty for recommending abortion, even with minimal to no justification.

                      Defending New York’s late-term abortion law as necessary to protect maternal and fetal health is disingenuous, if not downright dishonest. There is no situation in which late abortion is the only, or even the best, solution to a maternal or fetal health crisis.

                      Advocates of this New York law, and of other states’ permissive late-term abortion laws, must be prepared to defend late abortion for what it is: the unnecessary destruction of a viable baby.

                      There are alternatives to late abortion that protect women’s health and preserve the life and dignity of the baby. It is imperative that physicians, lawmakers, and citizens be informed of these alternatives, and understand that even in difficult situations, choosing life is always possible.”

                      Lila Rose is the founder and president of Live Action. Dr. Mary Davenport is an OBGYN.


                    4. Yes, estovir, the left is very good at changing or reversing things.

                      They call the right racists yet the left were the slave owners, KKK, against the Civil Rights Acts, etc.

                      Facism, Socialism, Nazism and Progressivism are all similar and are on the left but fascism and Nazism are considered right wing. Impossible because among a host of other things the right supports individualism and the left supports the state.

                      When the Progressive name started to stink the left converted the name to Liberal, but liberal already existed in classical liberalism. That is why I use a capital ‘L’ in use of the world Liberal coming from the left. Now the term Liberal is starting to stink so they are reverting back to Progressive and some are actually revealing their stripes and calling themselves socialists.

                    5. Phony moralists like Allen and Pesto pretend to be conservatives but want Congress and the SC enforcing their will on parents faced with their worst nightmare and one I hope they or anyone in their family never face. Pesto apparently doesn’t know any women if he thinks they will go through 8 months of pregnancy and decide to abort for “convenience”. His malevolent ignorance is truly disgusting.

                    6. “Phony moralists like Allen”

                      Anon I was nice to you when this debate got started. I explained all my positions and reexplained them when you had any question. I see you don’t like to play nice and prefer not to have true debate. OK, I guess what I thought was in your head is non existent.

                      You don’t have the slightest idea about the subject of late term abortion or infanticide. You have demonstrated that over and over again by using arguments having nothing to do with the discussion and they you say you wife said. That clinches it. You have proven yourself to be another mindless hack.

                    7. No, Allen was not “nice” to me when we began our discussion, but it doesn’t matter. Lying about people going through horrible tragedies is despicable behavior.

                    8. “No, Allen was not “nice” to me when we began our discussion”

                      I decided to copy our earliest discussion to show that you don’t even have a grasp of what our early discussion was like. You started out with a somewhat sarcastic statement and I responded using your own words integrated into my sentences. Below I leave all your words in quotes. Feb 28 8:26 AM
                      Allan: Anon, one can’t challenge opinion and it is near impossible to prove a negative in most cases.

                      Anon: “Since none of the GOP Congressmen challenged a single issue of fact in Cohen’s testimony”

                      why don’t you provide a fact pertinant to the Presidency that you think requires a response.

                      Will you “step up and try.” using pertinent fact, not assumption or unproven material.

                      “Probably not.”
                      Afterwards you listed some claims 1-7 which I responded to. You tried to rebut but couldn’t do an adequate job. Of course you couldn’t because what you were trying to prove was wrong. Once you had problems with proof you started to get silly making half-baked statements with a nasty component. I always respond in kind and try to remain on your level. This is the problem with people that make decisions before they have command of an adequate amount of facts. The same thing happened to Jan F who blew herself up. You avioding blowing up by sealing yourself up from the facts.

                    9. Here is an accounting of someone who went through a late term abortion. Allen and Esto think they should be able to a have a say in this couples decision:

                      “At 27, Kate had her life planned out. She and her husband were going to have four kids, and she was going to be an engineering professor. Her first pregnancy went fine, and she had a healthy baby girl. But while pursuing her PhD in engineering, she suffered three miscarriages. “It was a long road,” she says, but by age 29, she was finally expecting another girl, Laurel. She was due in the summer of 2012, and both parents were elated.

                      At 19 weeks, an ultrasound revealed a shadow of concern but the finding was reversed with full confidence at a level-two ultrasound. “I’m not seeing any problems. Everything looks fine,” the specialist told the parents.

                      But Kate had a nagging worry. “My husband and I did not feel like everything was fine,” she says. She asked the nurse how sure the specialist was. “He would have to be so certain. They would never reverse a diagnosis without being super sure about it,” the nurse replied.

                      Yet her husband encouraged her to book a second level-two ultrasound, a “peace of mind ultrasound”.

                      Expecting only reassurance, Kate knitted a pink sweater for Laurel while chatting freely with the technician who quickly grew silent. There was a big black spot on Laurel’s brain. “This baby is different,” the technician said. She left the room and returned with a maternal fetal specialist and a specialist in training.

                      “That’s when they started telling me,” Kate says. The fetus had Dandy-Walker malformation, a set of abnormalities of the cerebellum.

                      ‘Please, I am out of options’:

                      “The problems we didn’t see last time, we are seeing today,” said the specialist. She offered Kate adoption and abortion, “if it was still a legal option”. They used to send women to Kansas for abortions, she told her, but that was before Dr Tiller was shot in the face at a Sunday church service.

                      Kate asked if children with Dandy-Walker malformation are ever normal. “Yes,” said the specialist.

                      “And that, honestly, is so hard to hear because you just want something definitive”, Kate recalls. “On the one hand, of course you want your child to be normal. On the other hand, you want to know, is your kid going to be okay, is your kid going to receive a devastating diagnosis?” But the specialist had no definitive answers and recommended an MRI to determine whether Laurel would be okay or “incompatible with life”.

                      Kate couldn’t get the MRI for the next 48 hours. The wait was excruciating. At home, she could find no peace and substituted knitting her baby’s sweater for sleeping. She curled up on her living room sofa and cried until her husband scooped her up each night and took her to bed.

                      “When you’re imagining futures beyond the miracle happy ending, it’s sinking in,” she says.

                      The day of the MRI finally arrived. She was 35 weeks, 0 days. By the end of it, Kate and her husband had the hardest answers they’ve ever received.

                      Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.


                      What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

                      Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?”

                      “Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.

                      “That is when it became very clear what I wanted to do,” she says. “The MRI really ruled out the possibility of good health for my baby.”…


                      The couple later had a daughter.

                    10. “Here is an accounting of someone…”

                      Anon, your mind is wandering and dribbling at the same time. Over and over you have been told that we are not discussing the sick fetus. You just can’t prove your case so you change the subject from a healthy child to a sick one. Not only that but the discussion revolved around the baby that was alive and well or a woman already delivering a live and well baby. Face it. You are a healthy baby killer.

                  3. Allen confuses what Trump says and he wishes for as “facts”. He is not interested in pursuing the facts on this and we can’t make him.

                    Got it.

                    1. Anon says: February 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM

                      “Allen confuses what …”

                      What is Allen stating exactly, given there exist no comments on this forum authored by Allen

                      You really are a joke when it comes to discussing facts because you cant even address them. Instead you invent them to allay your delusions of grandeur

                      Tell your “OB/GYN Nurse wife” to administer to you Haldol IV….stat

                    2. It has become obvious Anon that you are shooting blanks. You haven’t produced one iota of evidence that supports any statement of Cohen’s that involves a criminal act by Trump during his campaign or Presidency. In fact you haven’t provided any evidence for anything that is even embarrassing for the President except possibly the check that was written to Cohen without any proof of what it was for.

                      Instead of working out your problems you change the subject to Trump. That is immediate evidence that you have nothing to offer. I tried to be nice to you and help you and spent time with you but if you want to be ridiculous I can do nothing for you.

                2. Anon says: February 28, 2019 at 8:44 PM
                  “….parents faced with their worst nightmare…”

                  You can not finish the sentence so I will finish it for you

                  Leftist parents faces with their worst nightmare that they embraced the evil lie that abortion is a choice instead of a sacred precious life

                  “The Lord answers, “Can a woman forget the baby she nurses? Can she feel no kindness for the child to which she gave birth? Even if she could forget her children, I will not forget you.”

                  Hebrew Scriptures Old Testament Isaiah 49:15

                  1. Keep your religion to yourself buddy, this isn’t a theocracy. If you want to force a relative to give birth to a fatally flawed and sometimes suffering infant with zero future based on your belief in an unseen beings, that’s between you and them.

                    1. “Keep your religion to yourself ”

                      Anon, I recognize that you don’t realize it but the argument need not have anything to do with religion. It has to do with morality and our law. What you read doesn’t discuss that side of the coin so you are totally unaware of it.

                      Killing a baby after it is born and separated from a mother’s body is most definitely immoral and illegal unless euthanasia is being used for some terrible medical problem. Though you wish to use the arguement of an anencephalic infant that is not the argument that is under discussion. That arguemt is left out of the media that you depend on.

                    2. Allen’s tag team buddy brought religion into this, so he should aim that comment at him.

                      There are no late term abortions that don’t involve serious medical issues you would not wish on your worst enemy. Women do not go through 7-8 months of pregnancy to end it on for facile and shallow reasons, nor would doctors and hospitals go along with it if they did. We don’t need Allen and Presto in the room enforcing their beliefs on other’s forced into one of modern life’s most difficult decisions. Their moralizing arrogance is over the top and shameful and hopefully no one forces them or their loved ones to live by someone else’s phony beliefs.

                      As to Presto’s income, I don’t GAF and he doesn’t know mine. Once again, heput that BS into the discussion, not me.

                    3. “Allen’s tag team buddy brought religion into this”

                      You are so arrogant and ignorant, a deadly combination, that you don’t recognize morality or law both of which can be outside of religion.

                      “There are no late term abortions that don’t involve serious medical issues”

                      Not true but your arrogance seems to lead your way.

                      “Women do not go through 7-8 months of pregnancy…”

                      Then there should have been no objection to the proposed law.

                3. Anon: “Lying about people….“

                  What does David Brock pay you for trollimg JT’s blog?

                  Tell her to take her Beta Blockers and Anticoagulants or else no more pizza and underage boys

                  “Hillary Clinton-allied super PAC Correct the Record, which last week announced a $1 million anti-troll effort called “Barrier Breakers” had gone on the offensive….Disinformation warriors today don’t exactly need advanced mental or technical capability to suppress your ideas and even control your livelihood. While Vault 7 has given the public a look into just how technically advanced the Deep State has become at spying on the public and suppressing dissent, some disinformation warriors get by without just sticks and stones.

                  David Brock, founder of Media Matters, Correct the Record and owner of Shareblue is an example of just such an individual. Not only is David Brock the ex-boyfriend of Comet Ping Pong’s James Achilles Alefantis, but his organizations have shut down political opponents and dissenting discussion through less technically advanced means such as overwhelming them on social media and getting them blackballed from the mainstream press.”


                    1. “are you getting paid by Alex Jones? ”

                      Anon if you carefully read the syntax and words used by Estovir you would recognize he doesn’t need that type of income because he already has a high paying job or is retired from one.

                    2. Publicly available information at the link below:


                      ESTO VIR aims to help encourage, embolden, and empower intentional discipleship among men, to deepen their commitment to Jesus Christ, their families, the …

                      The link above makes no mention of the original alumni association at the University of Havana that adopted the motto Esto Vir (“Be a man”) for its members. The number of links to the name Esto Vir has increased dramatically in just this past month.

                    3. Excerpted from the second article linked above:

                      The ACU left Havana in the 1960’s and founded “Houses” in Miami, Atlanta, Orlando, San Juan, New York and Washington DC. Although the ACU began as a group of hispanic, Catholic men, the Congregation is available to all in the pursuit of a fulfilling purpose of service in life. Agrupados publicly renew their promise of loyalty to Our Mother, the Virgin Mary, at least once a year. Headquartered in Miami, the ACU is privileged to have the leadership and Spiritual Direction of the Society of Jesus, committed to propel the Agrupación onto the Third Millennium with the same Ignatian ideals so persistently instilled by its founder, Fr. Rey De Castro SJ.

                    4. FUBARAllan said, “Anon if you carefully read . . .”

                      Sluggo, if you carefully read the apt moniker, “Pesto,” with which Anon dubbed Estovir, then you will understand the dictionary definition of the word, “pun.”

                      BTW, how’s the head-scratching going, FUBARAllan?

                    5. Diane, you have missed too many doses of your medication.


                    1. “Pagan” is what the Romans called Italians who lived in the countryside. Essentially, hillbillies, bumpkins, yokels, hayseeds and rubes. When the Romans converted to Christianity under Constantine, the Christians in the Roman Empire were almost exclusively city-slickers. And that meant that the hicks in the sticks had not yet been Christianized, which, in turn, is how the word “pagan” came to be applied to the practitioner’s of ancient Greek and Roman religions based upon ancient Greco-Roman mythology rather than its original denotation of “hillbilly.”

                      So exactly how many American hillbillies do you suppose have not yet been Christianized? And how many Hellenistic pagan cults would you expect to find out there in the boondocks these days? You know that Oky1 says that Trump has deep support in fly-over country. Are you really sure that you want to insinuate that Oky1 is a pagan cult worshipper AND a MAGA cultist at one and the same time? OTOH . . . Now that you mention it . . .

    2. sure they did. they called him a liar about those things which he can conveniently lie about which are not “liable” to external verification at the time being

      a lot of really good liars, experienced ones like cohen, are careful to lie about things that can’t be disproven, or which other people just really badly want to believe

      for example. roger stone– did he talk on the phone to assange or not? if cohen says he did, who can confirm that he did not?

      only the fbi which has access to his phone records

      and it will be quite some time before we find out if they are going to provide any such evidence in his trial, for whatever process crimes they allege against him; but one suspects, probably not or we would have heard of it already!

      but he can lie about what trump said he heard stone say etc etc layered heresay which is fundamentally not disprovable, thus, good for a lie; and really good for a lie since that’s what the Dems wanted him to say.

      See how that works?

      1. If the GOP tools believe he was lying in his testimony, they should pursue the facts so they can have Cohen prosecuted for that again. They didn’t and they won’t.

        As noted at the hearing, their anger is rooted in the fact that Cohen stopped lying for their leader.

        1. the only tools are the ones that are short from your toolbox. they’re in the same place as that one beer that has you just shy of a six pack

          1. Very inciteful and information dense comment. Give me time to unpack – I’ll call it unzip – the substance.

        2. Again, it gets back to the burden of proof.
          It seemed likely to many that Dr. Ford was lying in her testimony about Kavanaugh.
          There were simply too many things that didn’t add up in her testimony.
          Proving perjury is a big step beyond a belief that soneone is lying. In Dr, Ford’s case, her memory was selectively soecific when she finally decide if the alleged attack happened in 1982, 1983, or 1984.
          I think those were the years sge originally said this happened.
          She presented notes that she selected from the therapist session(s) as evidence; Grassley complained about their lack if access to the complete record.
          The polygraph exam appeared to deviate from normal procedures and the Q&A part was almost completely absent.
          There are other reasons to believe that she was lying, but she was prepared well enough to selectively and vividly remember elements that could not be proved or disproved, then “blank out” selectively on other elements where she could get ipen herself up to perjury charges.
          So absent sonething pretty solid, the gap beteen a belief that someone is lying, and actually proving perjury, is huge.

          1. She named four people present at the gathering where she was ‘assaulted’. All four deny knowledge of any such gathering. Astonishingly, Kavanaugh (or perhaps his mother) had his old desk calendars stored in a basement or attic. Neither her name nor her initials appear on the 1982 calendar. She contended that Christopher Garrett introduced her to his circle of friends. Mr. Garrett’s lawyer says his client ‘has no knowledge relevant to her claims’ and signed an affidavit (inspected by members of the Judiciary committee) too useless to Kavanaugh’s detractors to be worth leaking. Her family lived not in the neighborhood but six miles from the Judges and eight miles from the Kavanaughs. She attended a girls school, Kavanaugh and Judge a boys’ school. Her brother wasn’t enrolled at Kavanaugh’s school and Judge’s sister wasn’t enrolled at her’s. (Kavanaugh is an only child). Not one person came forward with an affidavit or an old Polaroid or a diary entry which would demonstrate she was acquainted with Kavanaugh or Judge or Smythe. She also provably lied on a number of subsidiary issues (her ‘fear of flying’; her home renovations project). How unsupported does a contention have to be before partisan Democrats stop believing it? Answer: no limits.

            1. Adsurd/DSS,..
              – Whenever a Congressional Committee sends a criminal referral to the DOJ, it might be mentioned in the news.
              Or on a Committee Chairman’s website.
              The discussion about Christine Ford and other elements surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation circus reminded me of the talk of criminal referrals in the case of the phony letter they got…I think it was a woman from California who made up some fantastic, obviously false claim about Kavanaugh….and the weird tales of Julie Swetnick and her lawyer, Avenatti.
              The committee’s patience with these 11th hour allegations taking up their time was wearing thin……especially the SJ Chairman Sen. Grassley, who was irked to begin with by Sen. Feinstein blindsiding him, then had these other last minute allegations coming in after the confirmation hearings seemed to be closed.
              I’ll try to check some websites to see if the Senate JC did decide to send criminal referrals as a result of false info. the committee was getting.
              It looks like Ford was well-coached enough to avoid opening herself up to perjury charges; her story was very suspicious, but I think it’d be difficult to prove perjury.
              She might crack under the pressure of an actual interrogation using OSC tactics, especially if she were the subject of a pre-dawn SWAT-style raid.
              But with the style of questioning and types of questions she was asked by the SJ Committee, plus her very selective memory, she was pretty safe from getting nailed for perjury.
              The Swetnick/Anenatti involvement was another matter. I read one notice sent by the Committee’s lawyer, I think, to Avenatti.
              Avenatti had been doing his PR campaign and interviews trying to bolster the claims of his client, Swetnick.
              He was also publically complaining that the SJ Committee was ignoring key “evidence” by not letting Ms. Swetnick testify, and sending messages to the Committee stating the same thing.
              Finally, he got a terse response telling him that the Committee was only willing to investigate claims that might be credible, and to get lost.
              The text and tone of that letter made it pretty clear that they were fed up with multiple requests/ demands for last minute wild goose chases.
              Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see if any criminal referrals were sent to DOJ from the SJC.
              The media coverage of those referrals is virtually zero in most cases, and even if this type of criminal referral is reported, there’s unlikely to be any follow-up coverage of what subsequently happens.

        3. It appears that the same “Anon” who was bitching about the “GOP tools” not going after Cohen for alleged lying and predicting that they would not….
          … Is now complaining because the “GOP tools” DID do the what he complaining about them NOT doing.
          That’s a nice, but obviously slimey, Catch-22 stunt.



    Of all the things that President Trump’s former personal lawyer revealed in his remarkable day of congressional testimony Wednesday, the one that shed the greatest light was this: Trump never expected — or even really wanted — to win the 2016 election.

    “Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation — only to market himself and to build his wealth and power,” Michael Cohen told the House Oversight Committee. “Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the ‘greatest infomercial in political history.’ ”

    In other words, what we have been living through for the past two years has been an alternate reality. It is far different from the one Trump envisioned when he came down the Trump Tower escalator in June 2015 and announced what was pretty much universally regarded as a preposterous bid for the presidency.

    This, of course, is not the first time someone has reported that Trump himself was surprised by his victory. It was a major part of the narrative in Michael Wolff’s best-selling “Fire and Fury,” explaining Trump’s lack of preparation when he assumed the most powerful office in the world.

    The silver lining for the president may be that his former lawyer also undercut theories that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to change the course of the election. Cohen claims Trump’s primary interest in dealing with Moscow had little to do with influencing who won in November 2016, because he assumed it would not be him. He was instead fixated on building a hotel there — a long-yearned-for project that remained alive, even after Trump became the Republican nominee.

    “Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win the election. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project,” Cohen testified.

    Edited from: “The Most Revealing Insight Of Michael Cohen’s Testimony”

    This evening’s WASHINGTON POST

    The revelation that Trump didn’t expect to get the White House, and didn’t really want it, is not new. Nor is it the least bit surprising. Trump’s entire campaign seemed to be improvised with no specific agenda other than border hysteria. And two years into his presidency, Trump still has trouble understanding how government really works.

    1. Cohen also testified that Trump would do anything to win the election. So Cohen’s testimony was that candidate Trump would do anything to win the election AND candidate Trump expected to lose the election. Cohen did NOT say that Trump preferred to lose the election. Cohen did NOT say that Trump intended to lose the election. Cohen said that Trump would do anything to win the election. Anything. To win. The election.

      1. If you’ll recall, Trump repeatedly said during his campaign for president in 2016, that [paraphrase] Trump wanted to improve US relations with Russia and [paraphrase again] that, because of his experience as deal maker, Trump was in a better position than any of the other candidates to make a deal with Putin that would be favorable to both the US and Russia. IIRC, Trump never made any explicit promises to lift or ease US sanctions on Russia in any of Trump’s public statements during the 2016 election campaign.

        But now we have Cohen testifying under oath before Congress that Trump expected to lose the election AND that Trump would do anything to win the election. While the latter statement from Cohen is an opinion, and only an opinion, the actions Trump undertook to arrange the hush money payments lend credence to Trump’s desire to win the election no matter what Trump had to do to win the election. And that, in turn, raise even more questions about whether Trump’s pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal while running for president was intended only as a consolation prize in the event that Trump lost the election, or whether Trump’s pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal while running for president should be read as evidence that Trump would do anything to win the election even if Trump did not expect to win the election.

      2. “do anything to win the election” and “TRUMP HAD NO SINCERE AMBITIONS TO LEAD NATION”

        The two ideas appear to conflict with one another.

        1. She apparently doesnt get that, or we know she would not have mentioned it. She’s not thinking to clearly today. Not enough Starbucks? I see her as a soy latte with sugar free syrup kind of lady.

            1. Toxic male gang-ups 1st choice: Personally attack the woman by undermining her credence of thought, then, sanity, then….is she on the rag?
              Naughty Kurtz/Allan, grow up instead of mob up will get you a better audience.

              1. Oh, I’m toxic alright. Toxic like penicillin is to the intellectual contagion that is feminism!

                and I’ve been trained in psychological self defense and counter attack by the very worst sort of women, you can be sure. by this late time in life, i know so few real ladies, I don’t worry about offending them!

                See, I could care less what any overly aggressive feminist maniac says or thinks of me. if that’s not you or her, don’t worry about the remark. if it is, well you know what they say about the shoe!

                1. Clueless Kurtz remains blissfully ignorant of the protection provided him under the wing of one Darren Smith. This makes Clueless Kurtz an ingrate as well as a paper tiger.

              2. Becka, are you having a problem keeping up in debate? Is that why you require intersectionality? To boost your status as a woman? Real women don’t need that and I am used to real women so pardon me if I don’t treat you like a woman “on the rag” and just treat you as another person based on your own character.

                By the way, is Peter a woman? He might be. My comment “TRUMP HAD NO SINCERE AMBITIONS TO LEAD NATION” was to Peter not to Diane.

              3. “Toxic male gang-ups”

                But, but, but….Virginia Lt Gov Justin Fairfax swears he did not have blowjobs from that womyn!!!


                Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax’s accuser Vanessa Tyson discloses graphic details of alleged sexual assault

                The woman who has accused Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her in 2004 on Wednesday released a lengthy statement including details of that alleged attack at the Democratic National Convention.

                Vanessa Tyson, a California university professor, said Fairfax forced her to engage in oral sex with him after they first engaged in “consensual kissing” in his hotel room.


              4. Becka G says: February 28, 2019 at 12:06 PM

                “Toxic male gang-ups 1st choice: Personally attack the woman . . .”

                Rest assured, Ms. G, that whenever you see a six car pile-up in the Trump traffic lanes, Darren Smith has actively blocked the oncoming traffic from the other direction of travel. Were it not for the protection that Mr. Smith affords them, the Trumpers here would truly have something legitimate to gripe about.

                1. “the protection that Mr. Smith affords them”

                  Paranoid delusions.

        2. Maybe Estovir’s right and Peter Shill is a handle used by Correct-the-Record employees on shift.

        3. The incomparable nincompoop said, “The two ideas appear to conflict with one another.”

          Welcome to planet Earth, Ninny Na-Na. Trump is human. What are you? Besides being cartoonish, that is.

          The idea that Trump expected to lose the election is not even inconsistent with the idea that Trump would do anything to win the election. In fact, the tension and anxiety wrought by expecting to lose an election that you would do anything to win might go a long way toward explaining the evidently reckless abandon with which Trump threw caution to the wind to try anything and everything including the kitchen sink to try and win that election that he expected to lose by whatever means necessary.

          You will never learn. You are incapable of learning. You automaton, you.

          1. Diane, we are dealing with logic and the odds of something happening based on a serial liar. If that liar said that the earth was flat you would say that is consistent with the earth as we know it. How you became so stupid is beyond what anyone will ever know.

            1. Sluggo mindlessly repeats the words logic and fact like a magical incantation to ward off the evil spirits bedeviling him, because Sluggo has neither of those two things in and of themselves. Nor will Sluggo ever obtain his beloved unobtainable, Reason.

              1. “Sluggo mindlessly repeats the words logic and fact ”

                Diane, I suppose your logic makes you believe everything the pathological liar says.

      3. Cohen has the visionary power of God Himself, to see into Trump’s heart!

        And you have the faith of disciple, in this con man, the pot who calls the kettle black.

        1. Motive, intent, state of mind is an element of any crime. Much of Cohen’s testimony went directly to Trump’s state of mind, motives and intent during the 2016 election campaign based upon more than ten years of Cohen’s experience working with and for Trump, including traveling together with Trump. And Cohen backed up his observations of Trump’s state of mind with documentary evidence.

          You can’t make an argument that is not a fallacious Straw-Man version of the reduction to an absurdity. OTOH, you seem to have unwittingly shown what it would take for you to believe anything derogatory about Trump; namely, the visionary power of God, Himself.

          1. List the crimes committed during the campaign or Presidency that can be proven.

            Cohen’s words are meaningless. He even lied at the hearings. I think he is a pathological liar in the medical sense as it is compulsive. Whether or not he is a psychopath is something not proven either way.

            I await your list with real proof and documents and if a document then what the document said that was criminal along with where the document can be found. If you don’t have all the elements necessary don’t bother.


      Peter has difficulty in determining how to find the truth. Hint: Don’t accept a story from a serial liar that stands to benefit from telling more lies that cannot be proven one way or the other.

      Take note of the glaring truth. Trump is President. I don’t think he could have possibly won the Presidency without both feet in.

      1. Both feet in what? In bounds? In the water? Ankle deep? Up to his neck? Neither foot touching the bottom of the swimming pool at the deep end? Trump could not have won the election without fully expecting to win the election? Trump could not have done anything to win the election without fully expecting to win the election? Does Sluggo remember the previous posting of The Gambler’s Fallacy on this blawg?

        Cohen did NOT say that Trump wanted to lose the election. Cohen said that Trump would do anything to win the election. Anything. To win. The election. Cohen also said that Trump did not expect to win the election. But Trump’s expectation to lose the election is NOT the same precept as Trump desire, Trump’s motive, Trump’s intent, nor any of the decisions Trump made, nor actions Trump took, to win the election.

        Cohen testified to the tension and anxiety driving Trump’s state of mind during Trump’s campaign for president. If any crime were to be alleged against Trump, then understanding Trump’s state of mind would be an element of that alleged crime. And Trump could defend himself against that allegation by testifying under oath to his own state of mind at the time of the alleged crime. At that point it truly would be Cohen’s word against Trump’s word. Except that Cohen came to Congress with documents to back up his assessment of Trump’s state of mind.

  6. Here’s another liar just like Michael Cohen. He gives a Ted talk It’s quite alright that he killed an innocent young woman. It’s just a day in the life of a Kennedy in Camelot:

        1. No more so than you are really Peter H.

          Here’s an idea: Try something other than perpetrating an obvious, blatant fraud on this blawg for the sake of rebutting an argument. If you can.

          1. Im so confused….L4D is attacking her own?

            Next she will be denouncing the sucking the brains of a newly delivered baby by Va Gov Dr Ralph Northam

            1. No. You’re merely pretending to be confused. Because pretending to be something that you are not is the only thing of which you are truly capable, Be-A-Straw-Man.

              BTW, How are those Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius coming along for you? Maybe you should set aside Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” and find out more about who you are pretending to be. You’re under no obligation to do so. You’re perfectly free to keep on bearing false witness against your neighbor, since you obviously like it so well.

    1. George

      Are you aware that many informed people believe that Mr. Kennedy was actually framed for that incident. The motivation? Make sure that Ted would not be able to become president. JFK, RFK, then Ted.

      Do I expect you – or any of the other customers here to have the desire to know more about what happened than MSM told us? No.

      1. Are you aware that many informed people believe that Mr. Kennedy was actually framed for that incident.

        That was a component of an SNL skit, Bill. People who are actually informed (or minimally sentient) understand sketch humor when they see it.

    2. tons of bad things I would say about Ted’s legislation such as the disastrous 1965 Immigration Reform act. That’s what’s germane to our current pickle.

      I don’t see the point of flogging the dead guy over Chappaquidick now.

      1. Again, the popular name for that legislation is Hart-Cellar, after Philip Hart and Emmanuel Cellar. Kennedy wasn’t a consequential playah in Congress and had only been in office two years and change.

  7. “I have lied, but I am not a liar. I have done bad things, but I am not a bad man. I have fixed things, but I am no longer your ‘fixer.” ~Michael Cohen

    “I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service — I earned every cent,” he said. “And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got.” ~ Richard Nixon

    Do all the confidence men learn from the same book?

      1. Third Query: If you could choose any person in the country right now to be the sole witness against you, who would be a better choice than convicted perjurer and serial liar and the now disbarred lawyer who rats out his clients after taping them?

        1. Not much time now but:

          What was it today, Cohen committed another 5 felonies?

          And Roger Stone, Jeeze!

          Darren advised us all correctly here that when talking to LEO people need to take their 1st amd right to shut the Phk up.

          I wrong thought Stones decades in politics that he could hold his own. I now think I was wrong about Roger.

          Today, I think he Ph’ked up, that Fed Judge has his balls in her hand. Is she evil, yes I think so, but she’s still his judge today.

          Talk about trying to shoot yourself in the Azz, Great Job RS!

          What is everyone on rhe East Coast eating Stupid Pills JT?

          1. 5th amendment bro not first

            Stone is a suspect in a political persecution. Political trials are a different playbook from regular stuff. Who knows if his ploys will work. I hope he gets off, personally.

            1. Mr Kurtz,

              5th not the 1st: Your argument, not mine. 😉

              How could it be we have free speech yet we don’t have the 1st, free speech Right, to just shut the Ph’k up & not speak?

              (Cognitive dissonance
              In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.Wikipedia)

              Mr K, BTW

              Alex Jones has some fun & Kicks the Jujitsu puzzy, Joe Rogan’s Azz using Bruce (R’s) Lees MA tactics.

              Try to loosen up & have some fun. LOL;)

              1. 5th amendment = 5 WORDS =
                I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.

                i saw those vids last night. I guess they were setting us up for this to get a lot of hits. Pro wrestling promo style

                I can’t believe that one dork, Eddie Bravo? Talks about that flat earth crap all the time. Gosh stfu about that Eddie Bravo, goof!

          2. Oky1 said, “I wrong thought Stones decades in politics that he could hold his own. I now think I was wrong about Roger.”

            Roger Stone is going to be sent to jail for almost as long Manafort will be sent to jail. That is so because Mueller already has the communications records to show exactly when and exactly how Stone learned about the first Wikileaks release of DNC emails before Wikileaks released its first batch of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton. Those communication records will corroborate Cohen’s testimony to Congress yesterday that Stone told Trump on the speaker phone that the Wikileaks email release was coming soon and that Stone told Trump that before the first Wikileaks email release.

            1. OK, folks. We have it on record from our resident seer that Roger Stone will be sentenced to a prison term “almost as long as Manafort will be sent to jail”.
              Feb.28th is the day we all got that (fore)knowledge, right here on this blog, ahead of all legal experts and others involved in Stone’s case.

              1. There’s an outside chance that Roger Stone will flip on Trump the same way that Cohen did. If that happened, then Stone’s sentence might be reduced to something even less than Cohen’s sentence. I wouldn’t bet on it, though.

                BTW, how do you intend to collect your wager?

                1. I am owed one or two beers from a previous bet I made, and will someday drive the 400-1200 mile distance to collect.
                  ( Depends on my departure point; it varies due to “snowbirding”, etc.)
                  I’m not aware of any current bets on the table. So my focus is entirely on getting that free beer, which the other party has agreed to buy.
                  But not deliver the beer to me; that was not a condition of the bet.

                2. outside chance just like there’s a snowball’s chance of flying into hell before it melts

                  1. When is hell going to melt? D’oh! After hell freezes over, of course. So when does the snowball fly in? And when did the lump of sulfur who goes by the name of Roger Stone become a snowball, instead?

            2. Wrong, Manafort got nailed on tax fraud and a lot of other shenanigans, from before Trump, which is the sort of thing Stone did not play with. You wait and see. but, like many other failed predictions of doom against Republicans, we won’t wait for an admission after the fact when you are proven wrong in your lame and false prophesying

              1. Most of the emails that Stone sent to Guccifer 2.0 and Julian Assange were discovered while executing search warrants on the communications logs of the 6 out of 12 GRU officers who posed as Guccifer 2.0. Stone originally said that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian hacker. Assange told Stone to stop saying that. Stone changed his tune according to those instructions from Assange. And then there’s all of those many, many redactions in Mueller’s court filings, which, in turn, are a tiny fraction of Mueller’s grand jury information. Not only will Stone’s First Amendment defense evaporate like the morning dew, but so will Assange’s.

                Oh! I forgot to mention Stone’s dark money connections. Did you know that Andrew Miller was Stone’s accountant? Just the other day a three judge panel denied Miller’s appeal to quash Mueller’s subpoena for Miller’s grand jury testimony. The documents subpoenaed from Miller were already produced to Mueller last Summer. However, since the documents are part of the terrabytes of voluminous complicated evidence that Mueller has amassed against Stone, Mueller needs Stone’s accountant, Andrew Miller, to explain it all to the grand jury. Ha-Ha!

            1. Is it your thesis, Counselor, that Cohen was also lying when he pled guilty to lying to Congress? If you accept that Cohen was telling the truth in his allocution to the Judge who accepted Cohen’s guilty plea, then you forfeit the privilege of calling Cohen’s allocution statement by the name of “lies.” If you disparage Cohen’s allocution statement as “lies”, then you must find Cohen’s guilty plea for lying to Congress to be, itself, a lie and a fraud that Cohen perpetrated on the court.

              Maybe you’d prefer some sort of hair-splitting operation, instead. Cohen told the truth about lying, but supposedly lied about telling the truth in his allocution statement. If so, then Cohen got a federal Judge to accept his guilty plea on the basis of a supposedly fraudulent allocution statement.

              Remind me please what it was that you blathered about glibness and strong suits???

              1. The “blather” is that, in his awkward ridicule, YNOT cant understand a simple concept like a fact witness and you can’t understand the mindset of a sociopath like Cohen who will say or do anything with complete suncereity to save his own skin. “I’ll take a bullet for that man,” ring any bells? Lying them or now? Two guesses for you.

                1. Ah-ha! So that’s what you’re really upset about: That Cohen didn’t “take a bullet for Trump” the way he promised that he would. Do you also think that Trump scored a 2750 on his SAT exam? And that Cohen threatened to sue The College Board because Trump didn’t want his base supporters to know what a stable genius he really is?

                  1. L4D:
                    Yep, cowardice among men always disturbs me. Feigned bravery with a bravado face even moreso. Funny that’s an “ah- ha” moment for you.

                    1. The man says he needs to protect his family, now. Is that also, feigned bravery? Or does Cohen know a thing or two about Trump’s capabilities? Or Putin’s, for that matter?

                    2. Mespo,…
                      -Do you know if there are plans to relocate Cohen’s faily due to “threats”?
                      The ominous tone of L4B’s mention of “threats” to Cohen’s family makes me wonder if there will be something like a witness protection program for those who are perceived to be “threatened”.
                      The long arm of Putin, someone wearing a MAGA hat, or Maduro of Venezuela, or someone threatened and bullied by Cohen in the past, or Lanny Davis sending “enforcers” to collect legal fees, and many others are probably all lining up right now plotting blind vengeance.
                      And all that Cohen himself gets in return is leniency in sentencing, maybe a future book deal and lecture circuit tour, an unknown amount in a Go Fund Me account distributed in unknown ways, etc.
                      But overshadowing all of that is Cohen’s epiphany as a man who has come out of the darkness and into the light of truthiness and goodness.😒😏😉

                    3. Tom 7 L4D:
                      As for his “I love my family” defense, one wonders if that was post or pre mistress days. Also was he loving and protecting them when he got into the taxi cab scandal, the IRS fabrications, the false statements to banks scandal or the false statements to Congress perjury? Recent revelations about duty to family sound a lot like jailhouse conversions to Jesus — a tad contrived and damn convenient.

                      I truly love the “death threat” excuse the most, however. What kind are they? Internet? Twitter? Smollett variety? Kids sticking their tongues out on school buses? Cohen’s a convicted liar, a coward and a smarmy dude. That any one believes this wolf-crying boy and the “death threat” defense makes me want to know if they’re in the market for a bridge? Or lined up for a spot on Empire?

                      Anybody ever read PT Barnum?

                    4. I don’t doubt Cohen has his close relations in mind, and that his loyalties are concentrically-ordered. I doubt Cohen has any abstract moral and ethical principles. In his civic capacity or his professional capacity. It’s all actuarial calculation about what you can get away with given a particular risk tolerance. It’s business, not personal.

                      Trump occupied a circle at a greater distance to him than did his wife, children and in-laws. Ergo, he’s expendable, and your perimeter is accordingly retracted.

                  2. Cohen saying “protect my family” means “i gotta save the lavish lifestyle so people fund my commissary when I’m locked up” and “otherwise my fraudulent transfers and asset protections schemes may collapse as well”

            2. Nor is intelligence yours; maybe a bad witness but a witness nonetheless. Many witnesses fail to deliver the goods.

              1. “Many witnesses fail to deliver the goods.”
                But all have personal knowledge (i.e. awareness) elsewise they aren’t a witness.

        2. yep and it kind of makes you wonder, is that precisely why trump kept him involved in all these things? see what i mean?

        3. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaiLcwHXB4
          All of those questions and issues that you raised are legimate.
          And based on what I’ve viewed of Cohen’s testimony so far, there is this grip on Cohen, this almost supernatural control Trump had that made Cohen do these evil deeds.
          I mentioned this factor in a comment about an hour ago, but the link I provided gives a better picture of how Cohen was “made to do” these bad things.
          The devil is, of course, Trump.

          1. Tom, we’ve all done stupid things to please our bosses. This is scarcely a new phenomenon. And Cohen sensed from the start that Trump was no ordinary boss. What’s more, Trump suspected, correctly, that Cohen would willingly serve as an ‘extra-legal-lawyer’ (which is what Trump really wanted).

            1. ” Tom, we’ve all done stupid things to please our bosses”,
              No, we haven’t ALL been suck-ups.
              I was especially bad at that, which I think made me somewhat more effective as a union rep.

              1. Sometimes employees act in their own interests and are pretty good at covering up. Think of all the places where money was stolen and not found for years.

            2. I told my boss once no way. That was in a law firm. The boss suggested something improper. It would have made me money. I told more than one client no, too. Same deal. I am no angel, not even a good person. But I have a professional code.

              No not every lawyer will violate ethics for a client and even fewer will think of devious ways to do so like Cohen. but then again he made a lot more money than me. So he’s testifying to congress, and I’m writing under a fake name on a law professor’s blog, instead of doing the work that waits for me on my desk. Probably, Cohen was a hard worker, if nothing else.

              See how that works?

          2. Mespo, ( my to you response will be out of sequence due to no “reply box” under your comment shows up on my screen).
            -If it’s true that Cohen threatened/ intimidated people “500 times”, by his estimate of acting on Trump’s orders to bully people, then Cohen may well have made enemies that don’t wish him well.
            He’ll probably be kept safe in the federal prison housing him, but it would not surprise me if Cohen has or will be threatened because of his past and current behavior.
            But the real threat to Cohen is not likely to come from Putin or Trump or their allies; Cohen likely rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and c.500 times if his testimony us to be believed.
            I don’t know how “snitches” are regarded by other inmates in the federal prison system, but as a high profile figure, and with his history, he may need to be segregated from the general population.

        1. Allan……actually, Lanny has been a plagiarist in the past. And we all know the reason there was no president-elect Joe Biden in ’88.

          1. I remember an interview with John Cleese, asking him about a commercial he’d done endorsing a product.
            He was asked if he actually had to like the product, or even know anything about it, and Cleese said, “Well no, I’m actually a whore” in doing any commercial that pays well enough.😏😉😋😂
            I’ve looked at who Laminated Davis has represented, and the John Cleese comment, which I saw decades ago, is retrieved from my memory bank as it relates to lawyer/activist Davis.

            1. Tom…..as you probably know, Lanny lives for one reason: to serve Hillary. She got him out of trouble at Yale (I think TIAX2 remembers the details) and he has made it his life’s work to be her servant. I’m not kidding.
              A more faithful poodle you’ll never find.

          1. Lanny Davis is Cohen’s lawyer and mouthpiece.
            I think Davis was the one who started the “Go Fund Me” account for Cohen.
            I couldn’t tell where that Go Fund Me $Money$ was going; I think Lanny Davis is supposedly representing Cohen pro bono, but when these GF Me accounts are set up and the cash comes rolling in, I don’t know if the representation becomes “No Bono” if there’s a decision to reimburse Davis for his services.
            Questions, and some suspicions, about the Cohen/Davis Go Fund Me accounts prevented me from making the contribution I was going to give to that GF Me account for Cohen/Davis.😉😏
            If the legal situation of Trump is discussed, Guiliani and Jay Suckelow and others are “relevant” to that conversation.
            Just as Lanny Davis is relevant as Cohen’s attorney.

            1. Pro bono doesn’t mean you CANT accept payment.
              It means there is no contract and no expectation of repayment. Thus no basis in restitution either.

              That is, no restitution expected from the client. Of course Lanny expects this one’s going to pay back seventy-seven fold!

        1. One of the ways that confidence artists succeed is that, sometimes, it is too painful for some gulls, marks, pigeons and dupes to admit that they’ve been conned. So much so, in fact, that, on occasion, some gulls, marks, pigeons and dupes find it far less painful actively to protect and to defend the very fraudster who conned them.

          Exhibit A: Gym Jordan insinuating that Cohen was a Clinton operative implanted in the Trump Organization way back in 2007 when Hillary knew ahead of that she would need an “insurance policy” just in case Trump won the 2016 election 9 years later. Huh? What?

          Well, don’t you see? Cohen conned Trump? Therefore, Trump is the gull, mark, pigeon and dupe–not Gym Jordan. No.

          1. Some of “the marks/pigeons” here who have bought into L4B’s “analysis” and prophesies realize they’ve ben conned, but may or may not admit it.

            1. Bad behavior must be punished. Rewarding bad behavior only gets you more bad behavior. My “analyses” and “prophecies” are fully intended in “The Spirit of Spanking.” If there are any readers here who have “bought into” their own “spanking,” then all they have to do to stop the pain is to engage in good behavior, which must be rewarded, so that there will be more good behavior.

              P. S. Snarling, growling, barking and the baring of teeth are all very bad behaviors.

              1. IMO, a pretentious gasbag and propagandist who “acts like” she knows what she’s talking about is engaging in “bad behavior”.
                It seems that the off-the-wall “analysis” and prophesies that make her look foolish would discourage this “bad behavior”.
                I actually prefer to avoid the “bad”, moral judgemental adjective.
                Ongoing moronic behavior is a preferable description of L4B’s propaganda campaign and columns here.

                1. Gnash said, “Some of “the marks/pigeons” here who have bought into L4B’s “analysis” and prophesies realize they’ve been conned.”

                  Gnash also said, “Ongoing moronic behavior is a preferable description of L4B’s propaganda campaign and columns here.”

                  Thusly does Ptom too easily persuade himself that his adversaries are “conned” by “ongoing moronic behavior” despite Ptom’s own persistently diligent efforts at disparaging the same as a “propaganda campaign.” One might conclude that Gnash has a desperate need to believe his adversaries to be such incomparable gulls, marks, pigeons and dupes as to render the sum total of Gnash’s counter-propaganda hopelessly feckless and futile. Or else Ptom secretly enjoys his daily spanking.

                  1. I actually became convinced of L4B’s duplicity and foolishness and dishonesty over a period of time.
                    I mentioned a few days ago that our resident propagandists here will usually start out as if they are actually interested in real debate, and have some measure of objectivity and intellectual honesty.
                    Then, after the initial “fake out” period of introduction, the propagandists do what propagandists do; distort the words of others, play games, tell readers that they are the good guys😇 and the big, bad people on the other side are the villains, etc.
                    That comes through loud and clear in L4D’s daily columns here.
                    And being flat-out wrong does not seem to phase her in the least
                    A more clever gasbag would maybe learn something after being called out on the stupidity and arrogance of telling readers. “What Mueller knows, “what Trump knows”, “what Trump’s lawyers know”, “what Trump knows that Mueller knows”, what Manafort, Cohen, et al know and can prove, what indictments the OSC will issue and when, how she distorts the words in the column and comments to suit and frame her “debate” and “review” of the columns, etc., etc.
                    It’s not like I need a list to keep track of the most common stunts she repeatedly pulls her on her 3-5 hour early AM shift.
                    So sure, in her “mind”, such as it is, she is just overwhelming everyone because she is so clever and brilliant and knowledgeable.
                    Those characteristics are not uncommon in an arrogant, pretentious gasbag like L4B.
                    It’s not that difficult to determine who is playing it straight here in these threads, and the trolls and propagandists who clutter up the threads.

                    1. There’s a lot to be said for simply scrolling past the two resident gasbags L4D and Peter H.

                    2. FF Sierra,…
                      I have calluses from scrolling past much of what our two propagandists write.
                      When I or my staff catch something especially questionable about the accuracy of what’s being cranked out by those propaganda machines, I might comment on it.
                      I mentioned earlier that there no “one correct way” to deal with liars, trolls, and propagandists.
                      I’m not critical of those who always scroll past, or have installed a specialized spam filter to block them out.😉
                      Nor is there anything wrong with calling them on it and countering their propaganda campaigns.
                      They’re now a fixture in these threads; anyone who thinks ignoring them will “make them go away” hasn’t read the extended conversations that each holds with themselves.
                      Nor is there any real expectation that calling them out on their stunts will make them leave.
                      But I do think it’s a good idea, at least every now and then, to point out the games they’re playing, the distortions, the lack of interest in any real debate, and their rabid, blind partisanship.
                      That at least provides some counter-balance to the prolific propagandists’ campaigns.

  8. At Michael Cohen Hearing..



    Lynne Patton’s unusual appearance during the hearing was immediately panned by black politicians and journalists.

    “So . . . you bring out the president’s black employee. And say, see, how could he be racist? This is something,” tweeted Lena Tillett, a reporter at WRAL in Raleigh.

    Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) said during the hearing that she, as a black person, has “endured the public comments of racism from the sitting president.”

    “To prop up one member of our entire race of black people and say that that nullifies that is totally insulting,” Lawrence said.

    “He brought out a black woman who is loyal to President Trump to prove that President Trump is not racist,” tweeted Yamiche Alcindor, White House correspondent for PBS NewsHour. “It was like show and tell. Incredible.”

    Patton dismissed criticism that she’s being used because of her race. “Everyone keeps spinning it as ‘tokenism,’ but in my mind, it’s just two people who know the president well and disagree,” she said. “Just one person’s word against another.”

    Patton’s appearance during the hearing confused HUD employees, who were expecting her to show up to work Wednesday. Patton said she took an official leave and will partially reimburse the government for her travel costs.

    She interrupted her highly publicized month-long stay in New York public housing complexes to be in Washington this week. Her stay, chronicled by the New York media as well as Patton herself, is supposed to highlight the troubled condition — mold, rodents, lead, lack of heat and hot water — of low-income apartments run by the nation’s largest housing authority. Already Patton has been rescued from a stuck elevator and fielded a call from Trump angry about what she characterized as “the inhumane conditions of his fellow New Yorkers.”

    Patton, who revels in the limelight, has drawn criticism for her quick rise in the administration, culminating in a $160,000-a-year post despite having no housing expertise. She’s also made tabloid headlines for public spats, including with Omarosa Manigault Newman, former reality TV star and White House staffer who called Trump a racist after she was fired.

    Patton, in her Tuesday Instagram post, wrote, “The bottom line is that, much like Omarosa Manigault Newman, it does not take someone 15 years to figure out someone is a racist. Unless, of course, they’re not one.”

    Edited from: “Why Did A GOP Congressman Invite This HUD Official To Stand Behind Him At The Michael Cohen Hearing?”


    Lynne Patton was a Trump employee who ran Eric Trump’s foundation at one point. She is now Regional Director for the Department of Housing and Urban Development overseeing New York and New Jersey. And ‘no’, she didn’t have any experience for such a position. But then her new boss, Ben Carson, had no experience for his job either. Coincidently Carson’s boss, Donald Trump, had no experience for his current job.



      If a black person sits on the Trump side WaPo pans the action and if no black folks are there WaPo claims racism. However, when it comes to jobs the WaPo opposes Trump’s efforts to control immigration which helps blacks and other minorities.


        1. It’s OK Fishwings. Blacks are doing better. You can deny it but that doesn’t mean a thing. I’m concerned for Americans. Too many anti-American Democrats so while you guys are playing around with a serial liar Trump is doing the heavy lifting and trying to get N. Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions.

          1. Excellent, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make are absolutely squealing about the fate of the day glo bozo! Please post more materials Just. Like. This. It’s immensely gratifying; thanks for playing and so sorry for your condition.

            this is to “is that ticking sound loud ’nuff for ya?” allan / allen

            1. I hate it when he makes me feel sorry for him.

              First Gym Jordan and Meadowlark Meadows complained most bitterly that they had not received 24 hours notice of Cohen’s prepared statement and the documents that Cohen brought with him.

              Second, Gym and Meadowlark produce a rebuttal witness to Cohen before the end of business that day.

              Third, Allaninny forgets to put the comma in between the words serial liar Trump in the consequently continuous clause “while you guys are playing around with a serial liar Trump is doing the heavy lifting.”

              1. If you overlook the preposition “with,” then you’ll stumble into the accidental truth that “while you guys are playing around, a serial liar Trump is doing the heavy lifting.”

            2. pretty soon the clock is gonna tick down alright, tick down to the end of the term and Trump won’t be impeached or removed, and your “clock” will end with a buzzer.

              and, don’t be surprised, if trump gets reelected. that’s where the smart Democrats are plotting now, on re-election. Impeachment has clearly been abandoned. Or maybe you can’t read a calendar.

    2. ““He brought out a black woman who is loyal to President Trump to prove that President Trump is not racist,”

      So Trump is not a racist but the Virginia Democrat Governor has stepped into it again!!!

      They just cant help themselves those white Dem folk and how they treat their slaves. Me thinks they want them back tending to their cooking and PLAN-TAY-SHUN


      “First lady Pam Northam under fire for handing out piece of cotton during tour of Executive Mansion slave quarters”


      Virginia first lady Pam Northam is facing criticism from the daughter of a state employee, who says Northam tried to hand her and a fellow African-American page a piece of cotton and asked them to “imagine being an enslaved person.”

      The 8th grade student, Alexandra Walker, detailed the incident in a Feb. 25 letter to lawmakers, describing it as “beyond inappropriate, especially considering recent events” involving Gov. Ralph Northam.

      “It was very testing to know I had to go somewhere, and I had no choice as to if I went, I had to be respectful, and be on my best behavior, even when the people in positions of power I was around were not doing the same,” she wrote.

      Pam Northam said in a written statement: “I regret that I upset anyone.”

      An administration spokeswoman said the first lady has reached out to the families of the pages involved to set up an in-person meeting, but those efforts have not yet been successful.

      Alexandra Walker’s mother, Leah Dozier Walker, who oversees the Office of Equity and Community Engagement at the state Department of Education, also wrote to lawmakers, saying that the incident runs against the governor and first lady’s requests for forgiveness over “racially insensitive past actions.”

      “But the actions of Mrs. Northam, just last week, do not lead me to believe that this Governor’s office has taken seriously the harm and hurt they have caused African-Americans in Virginia or that they are deserving of our forgiveness,” Walker wrote. The letter was first reported by The Washington Post.“

      1. I think what she said was funny. She probably didn’t mean it as a joke but I laughed.

      2. that line would have been good enough for a comedy skit with that one guy, “the amazing racist” check that out on youtube

Comments are closed.