Patterico's Pontifications

8/23/2018

Did Trump Know About the Cohen Payoffs in Advance? Of Course He Did

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:43 am



The Wall Street Journal has this tantalizing but ultimately unsatisfying tidbit this morning:

Michael Cohen had many reasons to play ball last weekend when his legal team sat down to talk to federal prosecutors.

The Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office had testimony from Mr. Cohen’s accountant and business partners, along with bank records, tax filings and loan applications that implicated not only Mr. Cohen in potential criminal activity, but also his wife, who filed taxes jointly with her husband. Prosecutors signaled Mr. Cohen would face nearly 20 criminal counts, potentially carrying a lengthy prison sentence and staggering financial penalties.

Adding to the pressure, David Pecker, the chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, provided prosecutors with details about payments Mr. Cohen arranged with women who alleged sexual encounters with President Trump, including Mr. Trump’s knowledge of the deals.

They don’t explicitly say “advance” knowledge here, but that is certainly a strong possibility. Think about it. Do we truly believe that, in all the evidence that the feds seized from Cohen, they uncovered nothing to demonstrate advance knowledge? Gabriel Malor has a good explainer about the Cohen plea here, and this passage caught my attention:

Here, Trump says he did not even know of the payments until after the fact. Cohen counters that he made both deals under Trump’s express orders. Federal prosecutors would not have let Cohen plead guilty to facts that they did not believe to be true, so presumably there is additional evidence on this point that has not been made public yet. Keep in mind that Cohen has already released one recording of a conversation he had with Trump about paying McDougal, although that payment ultimately came from American Media Inc., not Cohen or Trump.

Ah, well. Trump’s taking it all in stride. He’s a chill customer — a cool cucumber, who displays grace under press– hey what’s this?

Dude, it’s 1:10 am in Washington D.C. Go the ^&(&* to sleep.

(I’m one to talk. I woke up in the middle of the night sneezing and gave up at about 3:30 a.m. and just decided to go ahead and get up, so that my wife wouldn’t have to listen to my sniffling and sneezing any more. Maybe Mr. The Donald was having a similar problem!) (Except that the chances Melania sleeps with him — literally or figuratively — are vanishingly small.)

Yeah, I think that “Individual 1” seems worried. And not without some reason.

Gabriel’s column answers a lot of questions you might have about the Cohen plea, including the “why is it a crime” question:

Federal law generally prohibits corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any election to federal office. Here, Cohen induced such a prohibited payment from American Media Inc. for the express purpose of influencing the election. By structuring the payment this way, Cohen also avoided having the payment show up in the campaign’s FEC filings.

Put another way, American Media Inc was contributing illegally to Trump’s election, and Cohen’s payment structure deprived the American public of information it was legally entitled to about a candidate for public office.

With respect to the second charge, federal law generally prohibits individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a candidate (for the 2016 election cycle). Contributions include “expenditures made by any person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate.” Here, Cohen made an expenditure well outside the $2,700 limit when he paid Daniels with the intent to influence the election and at the request of Trump.

Like the first campaign crime, by structuring the payment this way, Cohen (and Trump, if Cohen and federal prosecutors are to be believed) engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the public by hiding the payment despite mandatory disclosure laws.

I know it seems like nothing can touch this guy, but these payments were made just after the Access Hollywood tape broke — and that (in case you have forgotten) was what Joe Biden would call a Big $(^%*($& Deal. Trump even apologized for it, for God’s sake. If it then became public that he had slept with a porn star and a Playboy Playmate while married, it could have been a problem for him. In any event, the theory is that the public has a right to know about such payments, when they are made to influence a campaign. And according to Cohen (and possibly other evidence), they were.

I’m not sure if I’ve pointed it out yet, but this seems like a good time to mention this: remember the Cohen recording that has been released? (You can listen to it again here.) The recording starts with Trump talking on the phone to someone, and Cohen praising him for a “great poll.” But then Cohen starts talking about a New York Times effort to unseal his divorce records with Ivana. Trump yells at someone to get him a Coke, opines that the effort won’t be successful (Cohen agrees), and then this exchange happens at 1:58:

TRUMP: All you have to do is delay it for…

COHEN: Even after that, it’s never going to be opened.

Clearly, they’re talking about the election here. And moments later is when Cohen talks about the transfer regarding “our friend David” and Trump’s worry that “maybe he gets hit by a truck.”

It’s all about the election, and their pre-existing agreement with David Pecker that the story wasn’t going to run and that Pecker would be reimbursed. Here is Cohen telling the judge about it:

Count Seven

Count Eight

You can tell me all you like that you don’t care. Sure, it’s a violation of federal law. Who cares? The thing is, if there’s a blue wave, Democrats could retake the House. And then, I suspect, they are going to be all:

Meanwhile, Trump keeps talking like a mob boss. In his new interview with Ainsley “Communist Japan” Earhardt, Trump says that it “almost” should be illegal for people to receive deals to testify:

This whole thing about flipping, they call it. I know all about flipping, for 30, 40 years I have been watching flippers. Everything is wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is, or as high as you can go. It almost ought to be outlawed. It’s not fair, because if somebody going to spend five years like Michael Cohen or 10 of 15 years in jail because of a taxicab deal, because he defrauded some bank. Campaign violations are considered not a big deal, frankly. But if somebody defrauded a bank and he is going to get 10 years in jail or 20 years in jail but if you can say something bad about Donald Trump and you will go down to two years or three years, which is the deal he made, in all fairness to him, most people are going to do that. And I have seen it many times. I have had many friends involved in this stuff. It’s called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal. You get 10 years in jail. But if you say bad things about somebody, in other words make up stories, they just make up lies…They make up things and now they go from 10 years to they’re a national hero. They have a statue erected in their honor. It’s not a fair thing.

The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t. But since when do things like facts get in the way of Donald Trump word salads?

So yeah, Donald. Just keep repeating “NO COLLUSION” and “WITCH HUNT” to anyone who will listen.

The thing about this “witch hunt” is that some witches have been caught. And the Wall Street Journal article linked above reminds us of a fun tidbit about Michael Cohen:

Initially, Mr. Cohen seemed unlikely to turn on the president. Although their relationship was at times turbulent, Mr. Trump appreciated Mr. Cohen’s absolute loyalty. On the day of the raids, Mr. Trump called the move a “disgrace” and a “witch hunt.”

Huh. And now Mr. Cohen has pled guilty to eight felonies, and implicated the President of the United States as his co-conspirator in federal felonies.

How about that. Some “witch hunt.”

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

419 Responses to “Did Trump Know About the Cohen Payoffs in Advance? Of Course He Did”

  1. #10 Wet Dream

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  2. Don’t worry, Colonel. Trump won’t be removed. But he may be disgraced — in the eyes of rational people not wedded to a toxic form of tribalism, I mean.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. I posted a link from the court transcript, showing how one juror refused to admit Manafort attorney had presented a defense.

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. “Virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.

    In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

    “Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    Yet even the “extremely narrow” search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.

    Our premier counterintelligence agency was more concerned with Clinton ass-covering than with national security. But somehow that pales in comparison to sex with a porn star.

    Anyway, read the whole thing.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/305592/

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  5. I posted a link from the court transcript, showing how one juror refused to admit Manafort attorney had presented a defense.

    That misstates what you posted. The accusation was that a juror didn’t think the defense would be able to present much of a defense. This colloquy obviously took place before the defense case. The juror explained that he or she was merely saying that it would be tough to defend against the case that had been presented (i.e., the prosecution case had been overwhelming).

    My guess is that the accusation was made by the person who ended up being the holdout.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. Zito’s article describes where a lot of people are right now. I don’t know if this is good or bad.

    I just wish we had better candidates.

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/

    Simon Jester (c2dcde)

  7. So he wasn’t going to let himself get jack ryaned, what was the value of holding back the Khalidi tape, the Farrakhan connection, well besides the journalist who were conspiring with him.

    Narciso (56d311)

  8. How many reporter’s submitted their copy to the opponents campaign before publishing,

    Narciso (56d311)

  9. what was the value of holding back the Khalidi tape

    I’ve addressed this many times. They had to promise not to publish it as part of the bargain to report about it. You know about it because of the L.A. Times’s reporting.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  10. 2… look to the FEC campaign finance laws and put trust in the words of former commissioners that is commensurate to your hatred for teh Prez, Professor Moriar… er, Patterico.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  11. There isn’t going to be a blue wave, except maybe in California, who knows what goes on There, did they publish the tape, like they seem to do with every scrap of paper from Cohen’s waste paper basket, the special master was an expensive joke.

    Narciso (56d311)

  12. “Federal prosecutors would not have let Cohen plead guilty to facts that they did not believe to be true, so presumably there is additional evidence on this point that has not been made public yet.”

    This is known to have happened in the past. Why, based on their recent performance, would anyone believe the Federal prosecutors to be above this?

    “A federal judge Thursday ordered the government to pay more than $101 million in the case of four men who spent decades in prison for a 1965 murder they did not commit after the FBI withheld evidence of their innocence.

    The judge called the government’s defense that the FBI had no duty to get involved because it was a state case “absurd.”

    Peter Limone, Joseph Salvati and the families of the two other men who died in prison had sued the federal government for malicious prosecution.

    They argued Boston FBI agents knew mob hitman Joseph “The Animal” Barboza lied when he named them as killers in the 1965 death of Edward Deegan. They said Barboza was protecting a fellow FBI informant, Vincent “Jimmy” Flemmi, who was involved.

    The government argued that federal authorities had no duty to share information with state officials who prosecuted Limone, Salvati, Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco. Federal authorities cannot be held responsible for the results of a state prosecution, a Justice Department lawyer argued.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  13. “Campaign violations are considered not a big deal, frankly.”

    – President if the United States

    This in the face of some pretty serious evidence to the contrary – ask Michael Cohen! But choose your words carefully when you do!

    Leviticus (304063)

  14. CA played with unemployment numbers to keep 800,000 food stamp recipients from having to work during record low unemployment. If that won’t buy you a blue wave what will?

    Will Democrat voting welfare recipients ever wake up and have their own $15 minimum movement? They have been selling their votes to cheap for to long.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  15. SQUIRREL

    Leviticus (304063)

  16. 6 Great Ny Post article.

    Pat and all the other Never Trumpers, let’s say we agree Trump is to much, who are you offering as a replacement? Don’t want to put words in your mouth but I’m guessing more of the same that got Trump elected in the first place? If you want Trump gone or not reelected is it unreasonable to meet us half way and put up a palatable alternative?

    “In the aftermath of Tuesday’s news that both former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his lawyer Michael Cohen were found on the wrong side of the law in separate court cases, the question asked most frequently by the press, Democrats and “Never Trump” Republicans is, “Where do Trump voters go now?”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  17. It does seem like a witch hunt.

    Dejectedhead (dc85ba)

  18. There’s really not much revealed here, about Stormy and Kate, that we did not already know. Trump is already disgraced in the eyes of everybody who would not forgive him for gunning down someone on Fifth Avenue.

    But you know … there was this girl Kate Steinle and this other one Mollie Tibbetts, and I can’t help but wonder how many other girls like them are still alive because of Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. A Cohen deal made in April was sat on until it could be released to coincide with the results of another case two months before the election, and you want to talk about election-influencing actions? Or does this not count because it was made by “nonpartisan” government actors not affiliated with the campaign, who we may now expect to be the next big employment racket for all political actions taken?

    Sorry, that won’t wash. When we say ‘campaign violations aren’t a big deal,’ it’s precisely because everybody and their mother violates them in letter and spirit during a campaign and only the clearest, most anodyne, and most cut-and-dried examples are ever enforced (while we’re on the subject, do we have ANY of Obama’s official college records, or are those still under CIA lock and key?)

    In any case, the clearest problem with both DISPASSIONATELY ENFORCING ARE HOLY AND NOBLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, much like DISPASSIONATELY ENFORCING ARE HOLY AND NOBLE TERMS OF SERVICE, is selective partisan enforcement by unaccountable judges, managers, and administrators to the specific benefit or detriment of one party or another. That is what serious people with serious expectation of changing things worry about, not an obviously partisan effort that will be handwaved away as soon as it affects the other party (and that ends up enriching the handwaving class if pursued with any level of seriousness.)

    Essence Thief (cbbe5a)

  20. So you have an illegitimately appointed counsel collaborating with the news media and the Democratic party, presenting a four month old plea agreement as news.

    Narciso (56d311)

  21. Of course the history of some of these prosecutors and how they had been admonished before the court couldn’t be submitted.

    Narciso (56d311)

  22. Certainly the account of the Coney memos that were the pretext of the special counsel were fraudulent, as for manafort he could have prosecuted by local officials, but they chose not to do so in 2013.

    Narciso (56d311)

  23. I am always somewhat amused by the hyper-partisan dissection of law by commenters on this blog when it fits their tribe.

    Per the California DMV website, the maximum speed in the state is 70 miles per hour.

    Riddle me this – a car traveling down the road at 70mph is pulled over and issued a speeding ticket for traveling 1,882,000 miles over the speed limit. Why you may ask? Well it was Mr. PDT driving the car, and while the car was moving at 70mph down the road, relative to the asphalt, because I’m a hyper-partisan stickler for the rule of law – I’ve deduced that Mr. PDT was actually traveling at:

    Speed down the highway – 70 mph
    Rotation of the earth – 1,000 mph
    Revolve around the sun – 67,000 mph
    Solar system thru the galaxy – 514,000 mph
    Galaxy thru the universe – 1,300,000 mph

    If you want to go down that road, please bear in mind – you today, me tomorrow.

    bendover (8f3556)

  24. Narciso – you are right, we truly have the news media we deserve. I’ll just quote Howard Beale:

    Howard Beale from the movie Network – So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a G*d-d*** amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to G*d! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.

    bendover (8f3556)

  25. Meanwhile, let’s see whether a bipartisan humor website can see the throwaway joke that makes the rest of this post’s overheated legalistic seriousness fall flat:

    https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1032035004656824321

    Hundreds Of People Exactly Like Manafort, Cohen Enjoy Another Day Without Any Consequences Whatsoever

    Essence Thief (cbbe5a)

  26. At least Hillary doesn’t still have her security clearance after all that…..right?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  27. Some interesting developments in China:

    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/08/22/xi-jinping-urges-unity-thinking-end-vulgar-internet-propaganda-conference/

    “Xi has also used his power in an attempt to contain the growing popularity of Western culture, particularly rap music and hip-hop culture, which China essentially banned from television in January unless it promotes the Communist Party.

    “Uphold a clean and righteous internet space,” Xinhua says that Xi told senior propaganda officials at the meeting, occurring on Tuesday and Wednesday. “Reject the vulgar, the base and the kitsch. Put forward more healthy, high quality internet works of culture and art.”

    Xinhua’s English-language coverage of the meeting does not mention the internet. Instead, it highlights Xi’s insistence that propaganda leaders promote “unity of thinking and gathering strength” and, especially “traditional Chinese culture.”

    “In order to do a better publicity and ideological work under the new circumstances, Xi underlined holding high the banner of Marxism and socialism with Chinese characteristics,” Xinhua reports. “He also stressed adhering to the path of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics and developing a great socialist culture in China.”

    “We will improve our ability to engage in international communication so as to tell China’s stories well, make the voice of China heard, and present a true, multi-dimensional, and panoramic view of China to the world,” Xi announced, explicitly noting that “China’s traditional culture serves as the cultural foundation of the Chinese nation.”

    The insistence of “traditional” Chinese culture comes as Beijing braces for potential censorship of the second season of The Rap of China, which debuted in July. The first season of the show, an American Idol-style reality competition pitting Chinese rappers against each other, became a breakthrough hit for the streaming service iQiyi last year.

    The show became a nightmare for Chinese propagandists, who spent years attempting to promote “patriotic hip-hop” celebrating “Big Daddy Xi” to no avail.”

    Shorter version: Chinese Communists used the wholesale destruction of traditional Chinese society, culture, nation, and people to come to power via imported socialist revolution, now frantically tries to go ‘traditionalist’, ‘cultural socialist’, and even ‘national socialist’ as the poverty of that approach to creating anything resembling a loyal or liveable society becomes apparent.

    Serves them right for propping their national spiritual poverty up by tolerating a massive cultural trade deficit! Jack Black can make lots of money borrowing from traditional Chinese cultural artifacts, no one ever wanted to teach their kids with figures from the Cultural Revolution!

    Essence Thief (cbbe5a)

  28. Wow. Fascinating. So what?

    Meanwhile, Clapper lied under oath, Bill Clinton Lied under oath, Clinton set up an illegal server and “Lost” 30,000 emails. And who knows how many crimes Comey, McCabe, et al have committed.

    But lets talk about Stormy Daniels. Because…important.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  29. Hi Patrick

    The LA Times probably would not have honored a deal like that with Trump.

    Sorta like Apple holding the San Bernardino shooters iPhone key but volunteering Manaforts iCloud.

    Two tiered system all the way around, two sets of principles.

    And good health to you. If its allergies I hope it passes, and if it is a summer cold, get it done in 24 HRS (I hate summer colds). Either way get well soon, and hope you both sleep through the night.

    You’ve got another month until you move your daughter up. Enjoy it all.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  30. We have elected politicians violating the immigration laws, and setting up sanctuary cities and all that gets from the Never Trumpers is a big yawn.

    So don’t give me the “Rule of Law” nonsense.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  31. Getting rid of Trump, we’ll lead to a disaster in 2020, just like getting rid of Nixon in 1974 led to Jimmy Carter. But as the Never-Trumpers showed in 2016, they’re not really interested in the real world, or even stopping liberalism. Its all about Character! I hear, Elizabeth Warren has a great one. So, look for Kristol etc. to support her in 2020.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  32. 16 – you left out the meat, which I posted in an earlier thread:

    Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington. That’s it. He’s their only option. You’ve got to pick the insiders or him.

    harkin (c0421f)

  33. The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t. But since when do things like facts get in the way of Donald Trump word salads?

    Naive.

    The nature of the deal here is a “charge bargain.”

    Do you see Cohen’s wife charged in the tax counts?

    Do you think Cohen’s only fraud was not declaring on his taxes the interest income from the taxicab medallion loans he made?

    Do you think that the HELOC was the only loan he obtained using fraudulent information?

    Have you considered the fact that the crimes charged in the information just sneak over the $1.5 million mark — which is a benchmark in the sentencing guideline loss table?

    Two months ago Cohen was widely quoted in the media saying the payment to Daniels had nothing to do with the campaign — it was done by him to protect his long-time friend and client Donald Trump.

    Now he says it was done for the “primary purpose” of influencing the election. I look forward to the jury instruction on that — that was a particular point of disagreement that produced a mess in the Edwards case.

    I’m not saying Cohen was telling the truth before and is lying now. I’m saying that at some point, if Cohen is ever cross-examined on this issue, he’s going to get crucified on his credibility and bias — much like Edwards’ assistant was crucified on CX.

    When that is over, a jury is going to have his widely quoted comment from a couple months ago, and his statement to a judge when he was pleading guilty to avoid a litany of additional charges against him and his wife.

    Let’s recall how explicit his earlier denial was”

    “people are mistaking this for a thing about the campaign. What I did defensively for my personal client, and my friend, is what attorneys do for their high-profile clients. I would have done it in 2006. I would have done it in 2011. I truly care about him and the family — more than just as an employee and an attorney.”

    It’s easy to say he was lying, but in a trial that “defense” of Cohen is going to run headlong into the fact that he only changed his story and implicated Trump AFTER his tax and bank fraud problems were uncovered and he faced the prospect of going to jail for a long time.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  34. I agree that the mostly likely outcome here is a political one — if the Dems control the House they will vote along party lines to impeach him.

    But there won’t be 67 votes in the Senate to convict him and remove him from office.

    BUT the price of those GOP “no” votes might likely be a backroom deal where he agrees to not run for a second term — but holds off making that announcement until late in his first term in order to avoid an 18 month intra-party fight over who runs. I think there is a strong likelihood of a Pence candidacy that comes into being in the late fall of 2019, before other candidates can get the funding and organization in place to mount a challenge in the early primaries.

    Trump can spend his final year railing against the swamp, talking about his accomplishments over 3+ years — including at least 2 Supreme Court nominees — and then head off as a one-term President based on his own decision.

    I’m not convinced he ever really liked the idea of being President more than he liked the idea of being a candidate for President and having people tell him they wanted him to be President. That adulation plays into his ego and personality — the stress of the day-to-day mechanics of actually serving in the position– not so much.

    He’s in his 70s, and the job has beat down many younger men who came into office much younger. The smart thing to do would be to just go, and proclaim that he made his mark in a unique and distinctive fashion.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  35. But lets talk about Stormy Daniels. Because…important.

    Clapper, Comey and McCabe are “retired”, Bill Clinton hasn’t been president for 18 years, and Hillary’s political career is toast. Meantime, we have a current Leader of the Free World and commander-in-chief who concealed two bimbo eruptions from the American people by conspiring to pay them hush money, all in order to win an election. Yeah, it’s important to know what Trump knew and voters didn’t.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  36. This sums up a lot of how I feel about Trump and why I resent being called Trumpaloo or Trumpkin etc by certain people

    “Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington. That’s it. He’s their only option.”

    There are other options of course, but none of them can win. That deep and wide Republican bench was for a bunch of fat asses who can’t play.
    Dick Vitale used to call them the All Airport team… they looked great in the airport, got beat by 20, thought a back door cut or pick and roll was voodoo unstoppable.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  37. Meanwhile…..

    On Tuesday, a federal district court judge in Texas ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to return more than $839 million that bureaucrats effectively stole from six states in a violation of the plain text of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

    “This is a prime example of how the administrative state works — and how difficult it can be to unravel the work of deep state bureaucrats,” Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, who helped argue the case, told PJ Media.

    In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had unlawfully required six states — Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin — to foot the bill for health care providers, paying a fee that Obamacare clearly exempted them from.

    Obamacare mandated that more Americans purchase health insurance. In order to avoid enriching health care providers — known as Managed Care Organizations or MCOs — the law levied a health insurance provider fee (HIPF). Due to an actuarial rule established under Alex Azar, secretary of the department of Health and Human Services, states had to pay the HIPFs, to the tune of hundreds of millions.

    “The law expressly forbids imposing the fee on states,” Liz Murrill told PJ Media. “It was intended to basically take back some of the profits insurers would achieve from the expansion of insurers and the associated increase in premiums (projected to come from a less sick, younger population).”

    Instead, the deep state bureaucrats forced the states to foot the bill.

    “Obamacare has always been an economic house of cards, and this ruling has again exposed it for what it is: a money laundering scheme,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a statement. “This is a prime example of the deep administrative state doing something that Congress expressly forbid.”

    Landry argued that the deep state broke the law it was attempting to apply. “Even though the Affordable Care Act forbid imposing the Health Insurance Providers Fee (HIPF) on states, the federal government found a way to do it anyway,” he explained.“

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/judge-foils-deep-state-bureaucrats-in-obamacare-case-demands-irs-return-839m-to-6-states/

    harkin (c0421f)

  38. Brad Smith, former chairman of the FEC, takes to the Washington Post Op-Ed page to suggest that the payments, while unseemly, are likely not illegal:

    The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has extracted a guilty plea from Cohen for “knowingly and willfully” violating campaign finance laws by arranging for payments to two women accusing Trump of extramarital affairs. Cohen admitted he did so under the direction of “a candidate” — obviously referencing Trump — to “influence” an election. Cohen was facing multiple tax and fraud charges that could have landed him in jail for the rest of his life, even if he beat the campaign finance allegations. By pleading guilty, he limits his jail time to just a few years.

    However, regardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

    At a different site I used the example of Al Gore. In their 1998 tax return, the Gores famously declared a paltry $350 in charitable donations. The next year, as he geared up for his Presidential run, that number was suddenly $15,000. Under the logic that people are using against Trump (assuming that Trump himself paid the hush money), wouldn’t Gore have to declare that additional expense of $14,650 as a campaign contribution to himself, seeing as how he almost certainly only spent that money only to avoid looking like a parsimonious dick to the voters?

    JVW (42615e)

  39. The new format with alternating comments in grey is nice. Makes it much easier to scroll down through the comments.

    JVW (42615e)

  40. “Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington. That’s it. He’s their only option.”

    Yes, thank God we have Donald Trump to keep “the keys to Washington” in the hands of decent folk like Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, Mike Flynn, Duncan Hunter and Omarosa Manigault!

    Dave (445e97)

  41. “I’m not saying Cohen was telling the truth before and is lying now. I’m saying that at some point, if Cohen is ever cross-examined on this issue, he’s going to get crucified on his credibility and bias — much like Edwards’ assistant was crucified on CX.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    And much like Rick Gates was crucified on cross-examination in the Manafort trial. How’d that turn out for Manafort?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  42. Clapper, Comey and McCabe are “retired”, Bill Clinton hasn’t been president for 18 years, and Hillary’s political career is toast. Meantime, we have a current Leader of the Free World and commander-in-chief who concealed two bimbo eruptions from the American people by conspiring to pay them hush money, all in order to win an election. Yeah, it’s important to know what Trump knew and voters didn’t.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2) — 8/23/2018 @ 8:27 am

    Exactly. When Trump and his movement sought the highest office in the free world, they sought transparency and accountability. Trump is president. Y’all won. Congratulations. With winning comes a lot more responsibility and attention.

    Besides, Trump promised to put Hillary behind bars. If you’re mad she’s not, ask Trump about that. My guess is that Trump backed off from all that talk because he’s the last guy to want actual criminal investigations, given all he’s hiding.

    —-

    JVW, I think you’re lumping in too much stuff as similar. Perhaps the argument could be made that Al Gore’s charitable donations was like his makeup on debate night, and meant to make him look good, and therefore as campaign expense. But in Gore’s favor is that he broadcast this spending. He wasn’t hiding anything from the American people. The spirit of disclosure was obviously satisfied.

    Trump, on the other hand, was spending A) a hell of a lot more for B) a much more sinister purpose. Trump was paying off his …. basically prostitutes at this point. He did it because a sex scandal emerged that rocked his campaign. He talked about hiding the truth from the American people with his lawyers, one of whom admits this is criminal conduct.

    With Trump the spirit of disclosure is obviously not met. He was trying to cheat.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  43. https://nypost.com/2018/08/22/why-trumps-supporters-wont-care-about-cohen-and-manaforts-convictions/

    Accurate article. Also an article that Facebook is blocking and calling spam. I wonder why?

    NJRob (b00189)

  44. Getting rid of Trump, we’ll lead to a disaster in 2020, just like getting rid of Nixon in 1974 led to Jimmy Carter. But as the Never-Trumpers showed in 2016, they’re not really interested in the real world, or even stopping liberalism. Its all about Character! I hear, Elizabeth Warren has a great one. So, look for Kristol etc. to support her in 2020.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 8/23/2018 @ 8:13 am

    You think Cruz’s supporters aren’t interested in the real world or in conservative policies? Are you serious? Trump’s the one with the liberal policies, at least on spending and entitlement programs.

    At any rate, you’re right that Trump could lead to a disaster turn to the far left, but that’s not Trump’s critics fault. I warned you about this before Trump was elected. He was always going to be harmful to the conservative movement. Don’t elect sleazy people and then complain when they are scandalized. When the left reaps the benefits of Trump’s scandals, look at your own refusal to accept reality as the root cause. Trump never should have earned more than 1% of the primary vote.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  45. “Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.”

    – JVW

    Really? When we were having all of the Citizens United “money is speech” arguments here, back in the day, I was repeatedly assured by a lot of conservatives that money is fungible and therefore limiting the expenditure of money on behalf of candidates was limiting speech.

    The consistent conservative argument here, it seems, would be “these campaign finance laws are unconstitutional in the first place.” I’m surprised I haven’t seen more of that from the pro-Trump crowd (not you, JVW, I know), which has instead resorted (lazily) to “who cares if the law was broken?” If the Trumpkins were even marginally savvy, they would be using Cohen’s conviction as a rallying cry against our remaining campaign finance laws.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  46. Glad you posted it as well Simon.

    Someone on Ace brought up a good point, if a payoff to an escort is illegal, what about all the harassment claims paid off by the government slush fund to protect current politicians?

    NJRob (b00189)

  47. Whoops – I mistakenly attributed that quote to JVW, when JVW was in fact quoting Brad Smith. My bad.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  48. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

    This is shameful and disingenuous spin to mislead the credulous.

    The statute explicitly addresses and excludes routine personal expenses like clothing and grooming, and he (as a former FEC chairman) knows that perfectly well. He is trying to confuse people with a strawman argument he knows to be 100% bogus.

    Paying somebody (a TV or radio station) to say unflattering things about your opponent (by broadcasting your campaign ad) is a perfectly well-established use of campaign funds.

    Paying somebody not to say unflattering things about you is little different, and equally valid (although when the law is followed and such expenditures are lawfully reported instead of fraudulently concealed, it may be self-defeating, by drawing attention to the “dirty little secret”).

    Dave (445e97)

  49. “At any rate, you’re right that Trump could lead to a disaster turn to the far left, but that’s not Trump’s critics fault.”

    >>It’s not our fault that the sole issues we constantly and near-exclusively boost have consistently lost elections in the interests of our voters.

    “I warned you about this before Trump was elected.”

    >>We threatened you fair and square

    “He was always going to be harmful to the conservative movement.”

    >>We were always going to be unrepentant collaborators with leftists

    “Don’t elect sleazy people and then complain when they are scandalized.”

    >>Don’t expect us to defend people on our side in the way the other side defends its own when the people we usually defend are against our paydays

    “When the left reaps the benefits of Trump’s scandals, look at your own refusal to accept reality as the root cause.”

    >>Well yes, we really should have purged the NeverTrumpers earlier, but Republicans are perennial suckers for the ‘cheap, in-place labor force with built-in domain specific knowledge’ argument.

    “Trump never should have earned more than 1% of the primary vote.”

    >>WHY WASN’T RUBIO 50 POINTS AHEAD AND WHY CAN’T THE PEOPLE SHUT UP AND LET US PICK THEIR CANDIDATES FOR THEM

    Essence Thief (cbbe5a)

  50. I am glad JVW is presenting a lot of the more rational arguments in Trump’s favor. It is so tedious reading those same arguments mixed in with the endless dumb insults.

    The problem for Trump and his fans is that the American people just aren’t that stupid. There is nothing defensible about what Trump was hiding. He is a sleazy and dishonest guy who wanted to be as dishonest with America about ‘fake news’ that was true as he was to his wife when he promised to honor her.

    It’s bad enough that America’s voters actually wanted Trump to lose. It’s bad enough that Trump’s arguments about Russian collusion are probably BS.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  51. This won’t happen.

    The president should confess his affairs, admit he wanted to keep them quiet and apologize to the public for his deception.

    I can’t remember hearing Trump apologize for anything, ever. He may not follow any other of Gibbs’ Rules, but he does for #6: Never apologize–it’s a sign of weakness.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  52. 47 while in appearance no different I believe those were all severance packages.

    DC it’s now what you do wrong but your political party and how you wrap it.

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  53. Essence Thief (cbbe5a) — 8/23/2018 @ 8:58 am

    Your anger at my point of view is unfortunate as you’re resisting listening to me. I never supported Rubio, but I think Cruz was a better politician than Trump and would have made a much better president.

    As for why Trump prevailed, well we see here that Trump was cheating. You can go on all day that Trump won, but he won dishonestly and I would say without legitimacy. Not only was Trump hiding the truth and lying to us every day, he was calling his honest opponents things like “Lyin’ Ted” every ten seconds, insulting their families, and otherwise misleading the voters.

    At the end of the day, most American voters saw through the BS and rejected Trump at the polls. Trump is very, very lucky that the American people honor our strange election laws and permit him in the White House when we all know he’s a terrible man, and we all know most voters rejected him. But that same respect for the rule of law means Trump is now subject to investigations for his crimes.

    I warned you guys in advance that Trump would ultimately be a boon to the left. Don’t blame Trump’s critics when they were right all along.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  54. And they went after Richard helms for what now, (for the record I think the support for allendes opposition was the right thing to do) what proof is there, mcdougal and Daniels word,

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. 52 how long would it take you to Google that Paul? You make it very clear you don’t care about being honest or right, just spreading your Bs.

    He has apologized numerous times. Factcheck even called out Bernie for lying lying like you.

    “Sen. Bernie Sanders wrongly said President Donald Trump has never apologized for his comments on the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about sexually inappropriate behavior.

    Trump did apologize at the time for his comments in a press release, a video statement and during a presidential debate. Some have questioned the sincerity or quality of the apology, but he did apologize.”

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  56. Someone on Ace brought up a good point, if a payoff to an escort is illegal, what about all the harassment claims paid off by the government slush fund to protect current politicians?

    Do you really not understand that who was paid off is not the issue, but rather the unlawful manner by which they were paid off?

    If Michael Cohen had spent $130K of his own money to fly a troop of boy scouts or a convent full of nuns to one of Trump’s campaign events, it would have been equally illegal.

    Dave (445e97)

  57. Who paid to get Bill’s stain off Monica’s dress?

    mg (9e54f8)

  58. If Trump is really so bad why do the Never Trumpers resort to obvious lies so often?

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  59. Mittens/Dustin/2020

    mg (9e54f8)

  60. That Friedersdorf article is a pile of BS because he completely mis-states the purpose of the campaign finance reform laws that are alleged — and I’m not convinced this interpretation is correct — to require the disclosure of the types of deals involved here.

    His conclusion: “With his willful machinations to conceal the truth about a six-figure outlay, Cohen robbed voters of relevant information they were owed.”

    Being a candidate for the Office of President doesn’t involve making “full disclosure” in the way a seller must disclose known defects in a house before closing a deal with the buyer.

    The purpose of campaign finance disclosure laws that require the identification through filing with the FEC reports on contributions and contributors is so that voters can know the identities of people and groups who are funding the campaign of the candidate — the purpose had nothing to do with preventing efforts by candidates from shielding from scrutiny certain aspects of their lives before entering politics.

    IMO its far from settled law that the question of whether the payment of what might be called an effort at extortion can be transformed into a federal campaign law violation.

    It’s not against the law to pay money in exchange for a promise that derogatory information will not be publicly disclosed.

    To make the existence of a candidacy for office suddenly subject to a criminal penalty for that very act is a matter that has not been litigated to my knowledge, because no candidate has ever been charged.

    Every statute that has ever been invalidated has had that process begin in a district court — a trial court. Judges are not involved in opining on the constitutionality of statutes at the time they are passed — there are no advisory opinions issued by the Supreme Court before legislation is passed or signed by the President.

    So the question of what satisfies the statutory phrase “primary purpose to influence the outcome of an election” is untested until a candidate is prosecuted and raises the issue in a district court.

    Such challenges do not arise when defendant’s plead guilty. Judges do not question the application or language of a particular statute when a challenge to that statute is not presented to them in the record of the case. But even if the matter were upheld by a district court judge, it would get pushed to the appeals court only after a conviction and appeal. If there is no conviction, then the questionable application of the statute to a given set of facts is still legally untested.

    I haven’t made an exhaustive effort to look for every possible case where a candidate was charged under similar circumstances — i’ve made a cursory effort through various federal case reporters — and the only one i know of which is similar is the Edwards case.

    But here is a key distinction in Edwards — he was a lawyer and had run for federal office before. To criminalize the conduct at issue here, the actions must be “knowing and willful.”

    “Knowing” is generally established just by showing that the act in question was not an accident or mistake — the action was meant to happen.

    “Willful”, on the other hand, is much different. Generally — and there are a few exceptions — it means that the person charged must have known at the time that what they did was against the law. This is not just “everyone is presumed to know the law.” “Willful” means that the candidate undertook a course of action after being advised that the action contemplated would be illegal if carried out.

    Part of the evidence presented by the government against Edwards was his history as a candidate for federal office prior to 2008, the fact that his campaign’s legal counsel regularly briefed various senior campaign staff and Edwards himself on the various types of contribution limits and disclosure requirements.

    So far as I could tell from the record that I was able to read, Edwards’ lawyers decided to not contest the case on that basis — they didn’t claim he didn’t understand the law. In fact, part of their defense was that he did understand the law, and took steps to make sure that the assistance being given to his mistress was in accordance with the campaign finance laws — i.e., the primary purpose was not to benefit the campaign.

    It would have been hard to argue “He didn’t understand the law, but he undertook significant efforts to make sure the law was complied with.”

    Trump could certainly make that defense — never having run for office before, and not being a lawyer.
    this argument would be buttressed by the fact that he has a history of entering into similar types of agreements.

    So, before we rush off headlong into accepting the press reporting that its a given that the campaign finance laws can be applied to Trump in this circumstance, bear in mind there is no prior case like this that has been tested at the appellate level — none that I have found — so whether any such effort would s stand up remains an open question.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  61. Would you prefer election laws like those that keep Angela merkel in power, after she committed her country to suicide.

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. Do you really not understand that who was paid off is not the issue, but rather the unlawful manner by which they were paid off?

    If Michael Cohen had spent $130K of his own money to fly a troop of boy scouts or a convent full of nuns to one of Trump’s campaign events, it would have been equally illegal.

    Dave (445e97) — 8/23/2018 @ 9:06 am

    The claim is that the payoff was done with the intent of influencing the election. Are you claiming that government payoffs to silence victims of sexual harassment by Congressmen isn’t influencing the election? What planet are you from?

    NJRob (b00189)

  63. 57 really Dave? All of the African American churches that bus members to events? All the union attendance at events and rallies? Public school kids bussed to rallies.

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  64. https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/1032627858290745344

    And here’s Ms. Zito directly stating that Facebook is blocking her content.

    NJRob (b00189)

  65. “At any rate, you’re right that Trump could lead to a disaster turn to the far left, but that’s not Trump’s critics fault.”

    >>It’s not our fault that the sole issues we constantly and near-exclusively boost have consistently lost elections in the interests of our voters.

    It’s not our fault that issues we boost have consistently lost elections because it’s not even true.

    Between January 2009 and January 2015, before Donald Trump arrived to “save” the Republican party, GOP candidates gained over 1000 seats across the country, in Congress, state houses and governors’ mansions.

    Dave (445e97)

  66. If it wasn’t a guy we didn’t like, most of us would be saying McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional or at least bad policy. This is not child murder we’re talking about here. It’s a hyper-technical political campaign finance law, 90% of which has already been ruled unconstitutional.

    nk (dbc370)

  67. 42 — Leviticus. Do you read much?

    I can’t proclaim in depth knowledge of the record in the Manafort trial, but the analysis of the outcome that I read is that the jury convicted on every count that did not in some fashion rely on Gates’ testimony.

    The counts they hung up on all involved Gates’ testimony.

    That’s your trial lesson for today.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  68. Looking forward to the eventual prosecution of all the leftist professors that give “extra credit” to their students for campaigning for the leftist candidate. Unreported contributions.

    NJRob (b00189)

  69. 47 – NJRob, nice find.

    The question is when the Congress authorizes the settlement off a sexual harassment claim made against a sitting representative or senator, and then does not publicly disclose that payoff, and the representative or senator does not file a disclosure of the payoff with the FEC as a contribution made for the purpose of influencing an election, has the representative or senator committed the same campaign finance law violation??

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  70. Y’know — and this is a reflection on the wanderings of this thread.

    Most of us believes the government often acts in a way that is effectively abusive or lawless. Harkin’s linked article above is a pretty good example of the sort of thing many of us despised, and specifically despised about the administration of the Affordable Care Act.

    There are two ways that this sort of thing tends to lead people. One is that it’s a real bad idea to put into place people who have rejected the rule of law (whether leftist or rightest) because they will continue to be lawless, and this sort of thing will keep happening. Problem with 2016 for this group is that Hillary and Trump were reject the rule of law types.

    Then there is the group that feel like, just like it says in “Rules for Radicals”, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. They live in the hopes you can just beat the other tribe into submission, and any attempt to be lawful while the other tribe thrives is just silly. I’m afraid we have a lot of that right now. They believe that other people deserve to get what we voted for, and they deserve to get it good and hard.

    The escalation, and where it ends, will not be fun the watch. The one thing we might discover is whether anyone in the GOP has any character whatsoever, or is will to stake their reelection on doing one or two right things.

    Appalled (2e19e3)

  71. Mittens/Dustin/2020

    mg (9e54f8) — 8/23/2018 @ 9:08 am

    LOL I’m an equal opportunity critic. I’ve bashed Mitt Romney more than I’ve bashed Donald Trump actually. They are just very different sorts of mistaken. Now that you mention it, I would vote Mitt over Trump I guess.

    But this whole claim I see so often, that Trump’s critics are really just secret liberal squishes who are pretending to care about scandal because they are sad a true conservative like Trump is president is a real load of bull. Trump’s failure in foreign policy, in domestic spending, all make him well to the left of a Cruz administration, and probably to the left of even a Romney one. Trump’s fans just wouldn’t listen when they were warned Trump wasn’t much of a conservative but would definitely rally the left by the time it’s all said and done.

    Being a candidate for the Office of President doesn’t involve making “full disclosure” in the way a seller must disclose known defects in a house before closing a deal with the buyer.

    SWC, I do respect your background but I don’t think you’re seeing the point. Americans deserved a more honest president who didn’t hide his scandals and lie that they were ‘fake news’. Lying is wrong even if a lawyer can figure out a way to lie legally. BTW this wasn’t legal but that’s only the minor part of the problem. This is why Trump’s screwed. He can go on all day that it was technically OK to deceive us while telling us that the truth was ‘fake news’, but that truth, what he was doing, from grabbing women’s genitals to sleeping with all these prostitutes, to whatever Russia was probably using to blackmail him*, it’s all good reason why we shouldn’t trust Trump with power.

    * oh yes

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  72. “That’s your trial lesson for today.”

    – shipwreckedcrew

    At what point do you think it’s fair for me to question the value of your experience and foresight in these matters? You were stating with absolute confidence in March we wouldn’t be exactly where we are today. I can go pull more of your pronouncements from the old threads, if I haven’t made my point to your satisfaction.

    Just for the record: if Trump ends up getting charged with anything based on Cohen’s subsequent agreement (between now and December) to cooperate as a witness, what kind of crow will you eat?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  73. They get to abuse every agency, every institution against us, referendums don’t matter with regards to the courts 187 229 an 1070, private businesses are threatened with bankruptcy because some views are deemed crime think. Vast monies are awarded to our most fiersome foes for the last 40 years.

    Narciso (653133)

  74. Yes hobby lobby was spared this tome, but it only takes another vengeful procurator like teachout to judge shop any other corporation into submission.

    Btw Mr. Task after notching the Edwards case, ended

    Narciso (653133)

  75. Tsai for Kampala Harris, a prospective presidential candidate in her own mind.

    Narciso (653133)

  76. 57 really Dave? All of the African American churches that bus members to events? All the union attendance at events and rallies? Public school kids bussed to rallies.

    Yes, really.

    The law has an exception for travel expenses of less than $1000 per individual per candidate per election (not to exceed a total of $2000 per individual per election total)

    I had in mind airfare, hotel lodging, etc that would exceed that.

    I don’t believe it is a contribution to pay for someone to be driven across town to a rally or location where volunteers work, for instance. (52 USC 30101 (8)(B)(iv) )

    Dave (445e97)

  77. Reality winner gets five years for being a fool.

    Narciso (653133)

  78. Then there is the group that feel like, just like it says in “Rules for Radicals”, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. They live in the hopes you can just beat the other tribe into submission, and any attempt to be lawful while the other tribe thrives is just silly. I’m afraid we have a lot of that right now. They believe that other people deserve to get what we voted for, and they deserve to get it good and hard.

    Appalled, well said. And we all get the appeal. We got tired of Lois Lerner’s vicious abuse of Tea Party groups. The timing for ‘revenge’ on morality was terrible, though. 2016 was a golden opportunity, and I do suspect Trump winning the GOP primary remains a huge triumph for the left.
    We had great candidates like Walker and Cruz who wanted to make the hard calls and be conservative leadership, and they were going to face Hillary, one of the least appealing candidates in history. Instead of winning with a conservative, the left really won because Trump spends more like Obama than like a conservative. He’s totally unable to make deals or coalitions that would support conservative reforms, and beyond his inability, he lacks any interest in conservative government. Now, conservatism is redefined as hateful and dishonest. Every argument against every scandal of the Obama administration is laughed away by most Americans, and for good reason: Trump is indeed far less ethical than Obama was. Obama will be remembered as a scandal free and good spirited guy, even if this isn’t completely true. The left won so big with Trump being nominated. I don’t think anyone expected him to win the general election (Trump famously lied that the election was rigged against him) but the long term result will actually be better for the left now.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  79. how long would it take you to Google that Paul? You make it very clear you don’t care about being honest or right, just spreading your Bs.

    Hi, smearboy. It was a true statement that I couldn’t remember hearing Trump apologize for anything, ever. But hey, with the apology for the pu$$y-grabbing, I’m now aware of one apology.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  80. Walker was slimed by another nazgul John Chisholm, Cyndi archers home was raided so he could get a scalp or two, but she wasn’t at fault. The seventh circuit said it was fine for that reason.

    Narciso (653133)

  81. Are you claiming that government payoffs to silence victims of sexual harassment by Congressmen isn’t influencing the election?

    That is not the primary purpose, no. The primary purpose is to compensate the victims.

    Also, the government is not a “person” subject to the campaign finance laws (52 USC 30101 (11)):

    (11) The term “person” includes an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group of persons, but such term does not include the Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government.

    Keep chasing those squirrels though!

    Dave (445e97)

  82. 80 so your not dishonest just willfully ignorant?

    ““I said very good things about her” in the interview, Trump said. “She’s a total professional, because when I saw her this morning I said, ‘I want to apologize, because I said such good things about you.””

    There is #2 on Google search for you.

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  83. “Clapper, Comey and McCabe are “retired”,”

    The actions of the latter two are currently under investigation. When you combine them with others in the top tier leadership of the nation’s premier law enforcement org who have been disgraced or at least under a cloud of suspicion… we’ll, wake up and smell the catfood.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  84. David pecker gets immunity, much like the banker the associate the accountant did in the last case.

    Narciso (653133)

  85. Also on first page of Google search;

    Trump ‘Apologizes’ For Pocahontas Slur,

    Nate Ogden (15a45a)

  86. Looking forward to the eventual prosecution of all the leftist professors that give “extra credit” to their students for campaigning for the leftist candidate. Unreported contributions.

    Nope, volunteer labor is not a contribution.

    Dave (445e97)

  87. Tsai for Kampala Harris, a prospective presidential candidate in her own mind.

    Narciso (653133) — 8/23/2018 @ 9:31 am

    Indeed I guarantee she is very glad Trump was elected president. Meanwhile a lot of conservatives aren’t. We all know why that is. Denial and anger often is directed at those closest to us, which is why Trump’s conservative fans are more hostile to Trump’s conservative critics. But we all know why Kamala won big when Trump won the White House.

    If, and only if, Trump was able to keep a squeaky clean and successful administration, would he have overcome the idea he’s a blowhard con artist. Paul’s belief Trump doesn’t admit fault is obviously reasonable: Trump would rather lie, payoff, and claim ‘fake news’ when he makes a mistake. We wouldn’t be talking about his criminal enterprise if this weren’t so. I know Trump’s fans were hoping Trump made America Great Again, and proved his critics paranoid and weak, but that’s not what happened and it’s time for the GOP to move forward and impeach Trump before the democrats can. Get him out of there. Pence will be better and it’s not like Trump is accomplishing anything.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  88. Chisholm leaked all of the files he collected illegally to the guardian, you remember snowden primary publisher.

    Narciso (653133)

  89. 73 — where are we today?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  90. so your not dishonest just willfully ignorant?

    Well, now you’ve established a couple of things, smearboy. One, you still don’t understand the meanings of basic words like “lie” and, two, you’re not above the intellectually lazy and dishonest practice of mindreading with that “willfully” business. So thanks, you’ve only made your bad-faith commenting all the more clearer.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  91. 39… thanks for noticing Bradley Smith, JVW. He’s a man in the know and the fellow I’ve mentioned numerous times now to help throw some desiccant on the wet dreams of the Democrats and their cabin boy attendants here at PP.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  92. Well have to wait till the appeals, ask delay and Mcdonnell about those, also Conrad black, and what’s left of Arthur andersen

    narciso (d1f714)

  93. swc,

    We are still talking about Trump’s payoff of Stormy Daniels, with greater and greater specificity and import. We are in a place where Michael Cohen is guilty of a campaign finance felony (among other felonies) related to his payments to Stormy Daniels. We are in a place where Michael Cohen has publicly and under oath stated that he made those payments at Donald Trump’s behest. We are in a place where Cohen’s lawyer is making very public threats to Trump about Cohen testifying against Trump in the ongoing investigations into these matters.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  94. Also on first page of Google search;

    Trump ‘Apologizes’ For Pocahontas Slur,

    Now why did you leave out what came after the comma, Mr. Paradigm of Honesty and Forthrightness?

    Here’s the full title and link to that search hit:

    Trump ‘Apologizes’ For Pocahontas Slur, Uses It Again 2 Seconds Later

    Dave (445e97)

  95. Did you or did you not anticipate that we would find ourselves in this place?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  96. Also on first page of Google search;

    Trump ‘Apologizes’ For Pocahontas Slur,

    Nate Ogden (15a45a) — 8/23/2018 @ 9:38 am

    This is your example of Trump apologizing? LOL!

    Click on your links man!

    “Oh, no, I want to apologize,” Trump continued, as his audience protested against his apology.

    “Pocahontas, I apologize to you,” he said mockingly. “To you, I apologize. To the fake Pocahontas, I won’t.”

    Trump was refusing to apologize in this case, and being kinda obnoxious about it. This is your example that Trump apologizes? What a dishonest argument, Nate Ogden. You should admit your error.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  97. We already covered that ground, saul Goodman, yes he never imagined the bureau the company and justice would be weaponized against him, in this way

    Narciso (653133)

  98. Now why did you leave out what came after the comma, Mr. Paradigm of Honesty and Forthrightness?

    I think it was smearboys like Nate that Patrick was talking about in his final paragraph here. He could’ve just disagreed and been civil about Trump’s thin history of apologies, but instead he went personal, not once but twice.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  99. Good point, Leviticus.

    Given the mental state of leftwing Democrats over the past two decades – especially since 11/8/16 – the only surprise is that there haven’t been multiple attempts on the duly elected president’s life.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  100. Elizabeth Warren has been an utter fraud for 32 year, probably an academic fraud for maybe half that period.

    Narciso (653133)

  101. 73 — if Trump gets charged I will loudly proclaim here that I was wrong.

    But everything about yesterday’s plea suggests he’s not getting charged — setting aside the fact that he can’t be charged under DOJ policy.

    But this never comes back on him in a criminal matter even after he leaves office.

    If they really intended to charge Trump or Pecker, what would be the purpose of taking Cohen’s plea yesterday?

    Given the press coverage you knew would follow, if it had been my case I would have kept Cohen on ice. There are no statute issues — there was no urgency in terms of timing to move forward.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  102. It’s actually Fauxahontas. She cannot be slurred enough and nobody should apologize for it. The real Pocahontas — Trump was right to apologize to her spirit.

    nk (dbc370)

  103. As for ainsley, she doesn’t compare to mika ‘lincoln is founding father’s brezinski, Columbia is so proud.

    Narciso (653133)

  104. I don’t put anything past Robert Mueller, given his record,

    Narciso (653133)

  105. Because they wanted to create fake news with a plea negotiated four months ago.

    Narciso (653133)

  106. So don’t give me the “Rule of Law” nonsense.

    rcocean (1a839e) — 8/23/2018 @ 8:11 am

    Agreed. There is no meaningful Rule of Law or Truth now that Trump has convinced the GOP to act like Democrats.

    DRJ (15874d)

  107. BTW I think calling Sen. Warren Pocahontas was hilarious. But using this as proof Trump admits errors and apologizes is a lie. It’s a lot like how Trump lies, so I guess it’s just another sad example of the corrosion Trump has spread on the conservative movement.

    I’ve mentioned numerous times now to help throw some desiccant on the wet dreams of the Democrats and their cabin boy attendants here at PP.

    Did Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert write this gross argument? Anyone else notice that some of Trump’s most die-hard shills are always thinking about men ejaculating and how scary it homosexuals are, completely out of the blue? How many times do these guys dismiss actual criminal activity by saying “ha ha you’re a cuck!” What in the hell?

    The actions of the latter two are currently under investigation. When you combine them with others in the top tier leadership of the nation’s premier law enforcement org who have been disgraced or at least under a cloud of suspicion…

    Oh, and now we are impressed by the cloud of suspicion. P’shaw.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  108. Rule of law defined as the house falling for Ronnie earles phony indictment, same with McDonnell and Stevens, but it worked didn’t it.

    Narciso (653133)

  109. Elizabeth Warren has been an utter fraud for 32 year, probably an academic fraud for maybe half that period.

    Narciso (653133) — 8/23/2018 @ 9:57 am

    Then why did Trump apologize to her? Why are his fans using that apology as an example of Trump’s humble honesty? Why would someone lie in order to demonstrate integrity? This all goes back to that ‘Lyin Ted’s dad killed JFK and his wife is ugly’ stuff. Why attack character while ruining your own? There’s something desperate and intricate going on with this kind of attack.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  110. Well hastert was thoroughly useless he gave the parliamentary exception for William Jefferson, his attorney is the next to judge manafort.

    Narciso (653133)

  111. Sure, narciso. The only thing all lawyers and courts do is indict Republican politicians. That’s it. Abolish them all!

    DRJ (15874d)

  112. I almost forgot. They also continually and exclusively cover up for Democrats.

    DRJ (15874d)

  113. I gave you three examples where the democrats got their way, one might add the Libby case which should have never happened,

    Narciso (653133)

  114. Allahpundit on Don Covfefe making convicted felons great again:

    Trump: Cooperating with law enforcement for a reduced sentence maybe ought to be illegal

    [continuing] this week’s “omerta” theme from the head of the executive branch. Unlike the amoral value-less left, Republicans bring their kids up right by teaching them that … law enforcement is unethical garbage and people who make deals are rats?

    Out: Law and order. In: Stop snitching.

    Dave (445e97)

  115. No sometimes like with David Rivera they cover for republicans too, as he falsified his income for a decade.

    Narciso (653133)

  116. And I agreed. Law and lawyers are useless. You win. We can all be like famous law bloggers who tell folks whatever they want to hear.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. Ruh-roh.

    Sessions fires back directly at Trump’s insults earlier today:

    “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the President’s agenda — one that protects the safety and security and rights of the American people, reduces violent crime, enforces our immigration laws, promotes economic growth, and advances religious liberty,” Sessions said in a statement.

    “While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action. However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States.”

    “I am proud to serve with them and proud of the work we have done in successfully advancing the rule of law,” he added.

    Dave (445e97)

  118. As a side point, it’s long been reported that Trump is one of those people who only sleeps 3-4 hours a night. He goes to sleep at 3-4 am and wakes at 6-7 which is why he can be tweeting at all hours. (Shades of Phil Hartman’s Ronald Reagan Mastermind skit.)

    And he still can get more done than me on a day with 10 hours sleep.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9)

  119. But this never comes back on him in a criminal matter even after he leaves office.

    I agree that Trump will never be charged while he’s in office. There’s the OLC opinion, plus Rosy affirmed a few months back that it wouldn’t happen. But, far as I know, there’s nothing preventing Trump from being charged for a crime when he’s no longer president. We haven’t really seen this tested though, given how Ford prospectively pardoned Nixon. I also wonder if there’s some sort of unspoken agreement between presidents, because I remember how the Liberal World wanted Obama to prosecute Bush for Gitmo, war crimes, etc., and he didn’t pull the trigger, which really angered the SJW crowd.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  120. I’m not sure I can ever forgive Sessions for being the first senator to endorse Trump, but if he had proved to be the pliant accomplice that Trump wanted, I shudder to think where we’d be today.

    Dave (445e97)

  121. As a side point, it’s long been reported that Trump is one of those people who only sleeps 3-4 hours a night. He goes to sleep at 3-4 am and wakes at 6-7 which is why he can be tweeting at all hours. (Shades of Phil Hartman’s Ronald Reagan Mastermind skit.)

    And he still can get more done than me on a day with 10 hours sleep.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9) — 8/23/2018 @ 10:25 am

    bwahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa
    hahahahahahahahaa

    LOL yeah he’s such a healthy and hard working guy, that Trump. No wonder he’s kept all those campaign promises.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  122. Oh, by the way, David Pecker just got immunity to cooperate against Trump, will testify Trump specifically directed both Pecker and Cohen to quash the McDougal story to keep it out of the election.

    Colonel Klink (3714bc)

  123. The problem is always whether someone who flips for a reduced sentence is ‘singing’ or ‘composing’. And if they’re ‘composing’ to please the prosecutor who holds their plea deal.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9)

  124. She cannot be slurred enough

    Would you call Rachael Dolezal an n-word?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  125. All the promises I received have been kept.
    Strangely enough, I am well aware of Congress’s role.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9)

  126. Soul man want intended as a how to guide.

    narciso (d1f714)

  127. All the promises I received have been kept.
    Strangely enough, I am well aware of Congress’s role.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9) — 8/23/2018 @ 10:39 am

    Yeah, he’s balanced the budget, eliminated ISIS and repealed and replaced Obamacare, then released his tax returns. Such a high achieving promise keeper, that Trump!

    Or maybe he’s a liar who does very little but play?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  128. Would you call Rachael Dolezal an n-word?

    No, why would I? Cuckoo-bird, maybe.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. The problem is always whether someone who flips for a reduced sentence is ‘singing’ or ‘composing’. And if they’re ‘composing’ to please the prosecutor who holds their plea deal.

    Ingot9455 (4db0d9) — 8/23/2018 @ 10:37 am

    Actually, the problem is that Trump and his lawyer broke the effing law. They lied to the American people about Trump’s sexual behavior, while simultaneously calling the story “fake news” and paying off the blackmailers, while breaking the law about how they did so. Your concern is that the American people are learning the truth, but the buck stops with the President’s decisions.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  130. This can’t go sideways:

    Yawn.

    Donald Trump called for violent overthrow of the government and nullification of an election by mob rule as recently as 2012.

    In the same series of tweets where he said that any president elected without winning the popular vote was illegitimate and called for elimination of the electoral college, in fact.

    Dave (445e97)

  131. @130

    Would you call an actual Native American lady Pocahontas? Red Squaw? (this one is for narcisso). Why is it acceptable to use a slur if the target isn’t actually part of the slurred group?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  132. I get the feeling there’s a wrestling coach in Dustin’s past…

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  133. And just another day:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45281902

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. He does like to play, 191 days at one of his resorts so far, 213 vacation days total, out of 580 days. He’s on target to surpass GHWB in his 4 years, and he was in Kennebunkport for damn near half his term. He’ll definitely eclipse Obama, Clinton, and Reagan’s 8 year totals, within 3 years.

    Barack Obama took 328 vacation days in eight years
    George W. Bush took 1,020 vacation days while in office
    Bill Clinton took 345 vacation days in eight years
    George H. W. Bush took 543 vacation days during his term
    Ronald Reagan took 335 vacation days during his White House years
    Jimmy Carter took 79 vacation days

    Colonel Klink (2991b3)

  135. Would you call an actual Native American lady Pocahontas? Red Squaw? (this one is for narcisso). Why is it acceptable to use a slur if the target isn’t actually part of the slurred group?

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 8/23/2018 @ 10:49 am

    I thought it was funny. but the real controversy is that Trump’s fans repeatedly used that as an example that Trump is honest, admits his mistakes, and apologizes. And that’s a lie. This is an example of Trump refusing to apologize and being obnoxious in a non-apology.

    Litigating whether Trump should have apologized is a different matter. Fact is his fans tried to find an example and this was the best they had.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  136. And Sessions is at the White House, maybe getting fired by John Kelly. Wouldn’t be Trump, because he’s such a lily-livered coward.

    Colonel Klink (2991b3)

  137. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

    This is shameful and disingenuous spin to mislead the credulous.

    Well, on the one hand you have the opinion of the former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, who is presumably familiar with the actual election laws.

    On the other hand, you have the opinion of Dave on the Internet.

    JVW (42615e)

  138. Poll: Mueller approval rating jumps 11 points

    Encouraging, but with his enforced silence in the face of round-the-clock slander from the bad guys, it’s guaranteed to drop again.

    Dave (445e97)

  139. He does like to play, 191 days at one of his resorts so far, 213 vacation days total, out of 580 days. He’s on target to surpass GHWB in his 4 years, and he was in Kennebunkport for damn near half his term. He’ll definitely eclipse Obama, Clinton, and Reagan’s 8 year totals, within 3 years.

    And every day he vacations he makes a lot of cash. Foreign leaders, lobbyists, they all need to pay his doubled room fees to access Trump. If Obama did that, the same people defending him would be losing their minds over it.

    But yeah, larger point, Trump’s incredibly lazy and a poor performer, making his way through life as the world’s most successful con artist. His play on the paranoia of conservatives, that everything about him upsets the left and is therefore good, has been brilliant. 100 generations in the future, this will be a story everyone knows. How do you convince someone that evil is good? With hate, that’s how!

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  140. Well, on the one hand you have the opinion of the former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, who is presumably familiar with the actual election laws.

    Well in this case, we have Trump’s lawyer saying Trump’s lawyer was intentionally breaking the law at Trump’s direction, so there’s that.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  141. I’m not sure I can ever forgive Sessions for being the first senator to endorse Trump, but if he had proved to be the pliant accomplice that Trump wanted, I shudder to think where we’d be today.

    It’s not that hard to conjure up: just recall the eight years under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

    JVW (42615e)

  142. I would call Warren Fauxahontas or Liawatha. She deliberately, with malice aforethought and the intent to defraud in order to gain a substantive benefit for herself, lied about having American Indian ancestry. She is not *entitled* to be called Pocahontas who was a real American Indian woman.

    nk (dbc370)

  143. He should have called her Fauxcahontas, much more apt as she is a fake who lied about heritage for preferential treatment, which is 1000 times worse than saying Pocahontas.

    harkin (c0421f)

  144. Anyone can say evidence, Lanny Davis also chuck todd he had no such evidence.

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. Well in this case, we have Trump’s lawyer saying Trump’s lawyer was intentionally breaking the law at Trump’s direction, so there’s that.

    True, but you can also spin this as you have a convicted criminal making claims against his former boss as part of a plea deal.

    If I had to guess one way or the other I would say that Trump probably is guilty of everything that Cohen accuses him of. But given the way that people like the Clintons and John Edwards are given kid-gloves treatment for similar, and in some cases even more serious, violations I want the government to make something more than a pro forma case buttressed by a friendly national media climate.

    JVW (42615e)

  146. He should have called her Fauxcahontas, much more apt as she is a fake who lied about heritage for preferential treatment, which is 1000 times worse than saying Pocahontas.

    It aggravates me to no end that Trump botches that great line so badly. Certainly someone in his orbit has told him that Fauxcahontas is the more clever name, but I think either he’s too thick to understand that or he assumes his supporters are too thick.

    JVW (42615e)

  147. Anhthing, besides take your chances with a new York jury. Which have rendered feral by an irresponsible press.

    narciso (d1f714)

  148. Lemme ax you dis, oh profound and perspicacious prophet of political propriety? Would it be a slur to call Sarah Palin “Betsy Ross”?

    nk (dbc370)

  149. On the other hand, you have the opinion of Dave on the Internet.

    Such a dishonest characterization. I thought you were better than this.

    I have quoted the statutes. Multiple times.

    His argument is as follows:

    “It’s true that the statutes say exactly what Dave says they do (any expenditure made with the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution), but golly, if that’s what they say, then things like haircuts and clothes would be campaign expenses too, and that can’t be right!”

    All the while ignoring that the statutes SPECIFICALLY exclude those items as exceptions, making his argument completely and utterly bogus.

    But tribalists will ignore the verbatim text of the statutes, and parrot whatever dim-witted nonsense they’re fed, I guess.

    Dave (445e97)

  150. True, but you can also spin this as you have a convicted criminal making claims against his former boss as part of a plea deal.

    And he’s a slimeball, and the prosecution seems very politically motivated. It’s been dragging on for a really long time, and it’s clear as a bell the idea is to impact the coming election. So I’ll give you that, but the recording and Cohen’s confession are just an example of what Trump’s been like for his whole life.

    I want the government to make something more than a pro forma case buttressed by a friendly national media climate.

    It’s hard to see how that happens if the GOP doesn’t impeach Trump. The democrats would make this a farce if they impeach him next year. And I do think there’s a bombshell planned regarding Russia. I think the whole thing does wind up being about collusion. This stuff we’re getting right now is battlespace preparation.

    What is the downside to impeachment? I guess some of Trump’s fans get upset a little bit earlier at all the deep state bla bla whatever in the GOP, but that’s going to happen either way. I guess there’s also the idea that it makes this investigation tactic a success, but I disagree. The only thing that made this Mueller’s investigation a success was Trump’s campaign’s behavior.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  151. @150

    I don’t think you understand my point. I don’t care about and am not defending Warren.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  152. But tribalists will ignore the verbatim text of the statutes, and parrot whatever dim-witted nonsense they’re fed, I guess.

    Dave (445e97) — 8/23/2018 @ 11:08 am

    I think JVW is trying to convey the ‘other’ side of the argument without the ugliness. He’s right that this is a controversial subject and that we’re just the peanut gallery. It’s not dim-witted, even if a lot of the people offering the same headlines are indeed just parroting stuff. I sure don’t get the vibe JVW is carrying water, even if I do not agree with his post.

    That’s why I keep going back to the larger point. Was Trump calling this story fake news while lying about it? Yep. Does he lie a lot? Yep. Is he a creep? Yep. Every time he called Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted” without specifying any lies, Trump was actively engaged in lying to the American people about his entire administration platform, as well as many scandals he was involved with.

    And then there’s the larger, larger point. All the people motivated to support Trump because they hate the left, and at the same time insinuate Trump’s critics are ‘cuck’ ‘deep state’ ‘leftist shills’ … those people were wrong. Trump was predictably a gift to the left, long term.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  153. I don’t think you understand my point. I don’t care about and am not defending Warren.

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 8/23/2018 @ 11:13 am

    Oh they get it. This is called muddying the waters. They used this as an example of Trump apologizing, showing what a humble and honest guy he was, and when it’s shown that Trump didn’t apologize, instead of… being humble and honest they just move on to ‘well he was right not to apologize.’

    This is a constant style of debate, not only from Trump, but consistent from the political tribalists on both sides. Never admit any fault. Always deflect to some other matter. No one cares about Liz Warren. Zero people have offered any praise to her in this thread. It’s pathetic these guys don’t apologize to Paul, but also consistent with Trump’s own refusal to apologize.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  154. Sessions is standing up to Spanky-Poo?

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired back at President Donald Trump Thursday afternoon, after Trump said he “never took control” of the Justice Department.
    While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action. However, no nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States,” Sessions said in a statement

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/jeff-sessions-donald-trump/index.html

    Tillman (d34303)

  155. Lemme ax you dis, oh profound and perspicacious prophet of political propriety? Would it be a slur to call Sarah Palin “Betsy Ross”?

    The historian David Hackett Fischer has an interesting conjecture regarding Betsy Ross. Hessian Colonel Carl von Donop chose to keep his troops near Mount Holly, NJ for Christmas of 1776 because he had taken a young woman of the town as his mistress and wanted to spend the holiday with her. As a result, his troops were too far away to lend support to the Hessian troops at Trenton, who were attacked and routed the day after Christmas. The young mistress remains unknown to history, but Fischer posits a scenario where it could very well have been Betsy Ross.

    Uh, was that legend of Betsy Ross what you were referring to with respect to Sarah Palin, nk?

    JVW (42615e)

  156. Err, no, it was the most legendary white American woman I could think of.

    nk (dbc370)

  157. So she saw Russia in her house?

    urbanleftbehind (cc7e6a)

  158. Well, she say a Russian in her doublewide. She was sitting on the couch in the front yard watching TeeVee, when she saw a figure inside.

    Colonel Klink (2991b3)

  159. For over fifty years, we have only had Land O’Lakes butter in the house. (Unsalted.) Now, thanks to you guys, I’m going to go check if they still have the picture of the Indian girl on the box.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. That was Tina Fey on SNL, BTW. Palin never said that.

    nk (dbc370)

  161. But tribalists will ignore the verbatim text of the statutes, and parrot whatever dim-witted nonsense they’re fed, I guess.

    Yeah, that’s me the tribalist — the guy who wrote in pretty much the next sentence that I would guess Trump probably is guilty of what Cohen accuses him of. But two summers ago I, like the rest of you, saw James Comey torture the federal statues regarding the handling of classified material in order to come up with an incredibly weak rationale for why the Democrats’ nominee for President shouldn’t be prosecuted. So please spare me the notion that justice is blind in Washington, DC, and that it’s perfectly obvious that Trump should be charged. If there was such a thing as equality under the law I might be inclined to agree, but with the way things are in our nation’s capital, I’m still going to reserve judgement until something more substantial than Michael Cohen’s word comes along.

    JVW (42615e)

  162. Err, no, it was the most legendary white American woman I could think of.

    Geez, talk about a failure of the imagination…

    Dave (445e97)

  163. You guys think that the $5,400 contribution limit is a good law? $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general? Show of hands?

    nk (dbc370)

  164. Nk is going to rub one out now. http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics3/LandOLakes.html

    urbanleftbehind (cc7e6a)

  165. Somewhat tangential to the last Dave posting, has anyone heard from Beldar?

    urbanleftbehind (cc7e6a)

  166. You’re spending way too much time browsing the internet, urbanleftbehind.

    nk (dbc370)

  167. What Palin actually said was technically true, but barely more valid.

    Yes. Russia and Alaska are divided by the Bering Strait, which is about 55 miles at its narrowest point. In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other. The Diomede Islands are often blanketed by persistent fog, which makes visibility difficult. On a clear day, though, a person standing at sea level can see a little less than three miles across the ocean. You can see farther if you go higher—at the highest altitude on Little Diomede (919 feet), you can see for about 37 miles. (Between mid-December and mid-June, when the water between the two islands freezes, an intrepid explorer can just walk from one to the other.)

    The tactical importance of this proximity is debatable, however: Big Diomede has no permanent population though it does house an important weather station. Alaskans can, however, see into the future from Little Diomede since Big Diomede (or Ratmanov Island, as it’s known to the Russians) is on the other side of the International Date Line.

    You can also see Russia from other points in Alaska. According to a New York Times article written in the waning years of the Cold War (when the Alaska-Siberia border was known as the “Ice Curtain”), if you stand on high ground on the tip of St. Lawrence Island—a larger Alaskan island in the Bering Sea, southwest of the Diomedes—you can see the Russian mainland, about 37 miles away. The same article claims that you can see Russia from the Tin City Air Force facility at Cape Prince of Wales, which is the westernmost point of the mainland Americas.The station chief at Tin City confirms that, for roughly half the year, you can see Siberian mountain ranges from the highest part of the facility.

    It’s not as if Alaskans can see into the heart of the Kremlin, though. The region you’d be seeing from these vantage points is the Chukotka autonomous district, a massive, desolate expanse of about 285,000 square miles with a population of about 55,000. (That’s an area roughly the size of Texas with a population the size of Pine Bluff, Ark.) Chukotka has fewer than 400 miles of road and no railroad infrastructure; the population is mostly employed in mining and subsistence hunting. The more strategic areas of the Russian coastline, militarily speaking—the Kamchatka Peninsula, home to a nuclear submarine base, or Vladivostok, headquarters of the Russian Pacific Fleet are 2,572 Miles to the closest point in the United States.

    Colonel Klink (2991b3)

  168. You guys think that the $5,400 contribution limit is a good law? $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general? Show of hands?

    If the alternative is no limit, I’d say yes.

    If the alternative is some other amount, there is nothing magical about $5400.

    Dave (445e97)

  169. Of course Bradley Smith is correct. And yet these pathetic, armchair lawyer anti-Trumpinistas continue to ignore that truth. What gives… must they have their olfactory protuberances rubbed in it?

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  170. Sure, all these felonies are fine, it’s not Russia crime, so it’s cool. How many felons did GWB, to GHWB have in their administration or campaigns, and a Campaign Chairman, 2 heads of the RNC finance committee no less.

    Colonel Klink (2991b3)

  171. Duncan Hunter and his wife plead not guilty to all 60 counts of fraud, conspiracy and stealing $250,000 from his campaign fund.

    You can read the indictment, which documents hundreds of individual fraudulent transactions with precise dates, times and amounts, here.

    Hunter has gone for a full tribal defense, claiming he is a “victim” like Donald Trump and the charges are all a politically-motivated witch-hunt orchestrated by the … the Trump Justice Department. His prosecutor was appointed by Jeff Sessions last November.

    His defense attorney, noting the Hunters “don’t have any substantial assets whatsoever”, asked for and was granted a low bail amount.

    The indictment also noted that the value of all the Hunters’ personal assets was less than $1000, that they had overdrawn their personal checking account more than 1,100 times in a seven year period, that they had incurred $37,761 in overdraft fees, and paid $24,600 in finance charges and fees on their five-digit, maxed-out personal credit card balances.

    Sounds like a deep state frame-up job for sure!

    Dave (445e97)

  172. Kinda ironic that people trying to diss Palin’s intelligence attempt to do so by butchering quotes from Tina Fey.

    harkin (c0421f)

  173. …Trump won’t be removed. But he may be disgraced — in the eyes of rational people not wedded to a toxic form of tribalism…

    Disgraced in the eyes of rationale people? Meh; tough sell. Americans adores bad boys they love to hate. JR Ewing was welcomed into homes for 13 seasons then years later, 3 more on top of that. All In The Family aired for 8 seasons; Archie Bunker’s Place ran for four seasons after that. He was from Queens, too.

    ‘Disgrace’ the likes of a George Steinbrenner, a Leona Helmsley, or a Donald Trump? Good luck with that.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  174. ^ typo: rational

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  175. “Since when do things like facts get in the way of Donald Trump word salads?” Broad grin and two thumbs up. I won’t dare to predict what will happen now.

    bordenl (2b9352)

  176. 174.Kinda ironic that people trying to diss Palin’s intelligence attempt to do so by butchering quotes from Tina Fey.

    Tina Fey Quotes Sarah Palin Word For Word…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgRA8oTk8ig

    Trying?!?!

    “You betcha.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  177. @177. The Fast Food King knows his base and knows the drill: “Hold his pickle, spend some lettuce, secret payoffs don’t upset us.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  178. 36 Paul, you can’t give a correct answer on anything. Hillary is toast?

    “The instant, in-house nature of Demand Justice was reflected by the name of its executive director: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign press secretary.

    In truth, Fallon’s role doesn’t tell us something we didn’t know. Onward Together, formed in May 2017, is a Clinton 2020 campaign vehicle in waiting.

    Its homepage says the group “is dedicated to advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

    She’s out raising millions every month, exactly how is that toast?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  179. She’s out raising millions every month, exactly how is that toast?

    Indeed.

    We were promised that she’d be locked up, weren’t we?

    Dave (445e97)

  180. Paul, you can’t give a correct answer on anything. Hillary is toast?

    And now you’ve established a third thing, smearboy. One, you fail to comprehend basic words like lies, two, you engage in the intellectually lazy and dishonest practice of mindreading and, three, you don’t understand the difference between facts and opinions.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  181. Persuasive, but premature. I’ll withhold judgement until I’ve read Mueller’s final report to Rosy.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  182. Dustin, what about 56 and 83? Learn to count.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  183. You guys think that the $5,400 contribution limit is a good law? $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general? Show of hands?

    nk (dbc370) — 8/23/2018 @ 11:42 am

    If contributing to the cause of political advertisements is speech, these limits are limits on free speech. So I think it’s a bad law. Like many bad laws, they have good intentions, but they only send the same corruption underground. Besides, speech is cheap now. These campaigns cost a billion dollars, but anybody can reach a lot of people these days.

    I do think contributions should be tracked, public, and open to review, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with contributions.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  184. So what! Alan dershewitz has pointed out that it is not a crime.

    wendell (fb3bf8)

  185. It is a crime, Cohen just pleaded guilty to jail time for two of them, and Pecker has corroborated it. I saw Dershewitz, he admitted it is a crime, then he built a strawman to create a situation where it might not apply, just happened to have zero to do with the actual situation.

    Being willfully ignorant is a special skill, and you are very skilled.

    Colonel Klink (825c4e)

  186. Who cares who fires Elmer sessions, just get him out.

    mg (9e54f8)

  187. Anybody remember ProtestWarrior from the years after 9/11?

    They infiltrated left-wing “peace” rallies, carrying signs that were just … slightly … out of place.

    Their first sign appeared to say, in big letters:

    WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING

    If you got closer, you could that it actually said:

    ———
    Other than ending slavery, fascism, nazism and communism
    WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING
    ——–

    They were very fun to watch, because it was a subversive yet subtle way of fighting the left’s ideas with better ones.

    I went to a few local “peace marches” myself with posters inspired by their work. For example, I printed a big Iraqi poster of a smiling Saddam Hussein, and inscribed it with the caption

    ———
    Saddam only kills his own people
    IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!
    ———

    This was (one of) the left’s real arguments against deposing Hussein, but, oddly, they were uncomfortable seeing it expressed this way (the original ProtestWarrior version had an image of gassed Kurdish children lying dead in the street, IIRC).

    The reason I bring this up is that I wonder if a ProtestWarrior-like effort could be mounted against Trumpism.

    Here are a few drafts of ProtestWarrior 2.0 concepts

    ————–
    MORE TARIFFS
    We need higher prices, less purchasing power, fewer choices, uncompetitive industries and a lower standard of living!

    —————
    FIRE MUELLER
    President Trump is above the law!

    ————–
    STRONGER TOGETHER
    (picture of Trump and Putin gazing at each other in adoration beneath Hillary’s campaign slogan…)

    ————–
    YES, WE CAN!
    (picture of Trump and Kim glad-handing each other beneath Obama’s campaign slogan…)

    ———–

    Who’s with me?!

    Dave (445e97)

  188. R.I.P. Ed King, guitarist/songwriter for Lynyrd Skynyrd on their first three albums

    Icy (df4bf1)

  189. “True, but you can also spin this as you have a convicted criminal making claims against his former boss as part of a plea deal.”

    – JVW

    Lots and lots of criminal prosecutions could be characterized in this way.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  190. U.S. Soldiers – The true Freedom Fighters
    Until booooosh put lawyers all over Afghanistan and Iraq. He killed our soldiers with his happy birthday rules of engagement.

    mg (9e54f8)

  191. The Rot at the Top

    Yikes.

    The morning after Manafort’s conviction on eight felony counts, Trump tweeted out praise for his refusal to “break,” by cooperating with prosecutors. “Such respect for a brave man!” the president of the United States wrote of a man who faces 80 years in prison for committing federal crimes and defrauding the U.S. government.

    In tone and substance, Trump sounded more like a mob boss than an occupant of the office once held by Abraham Lincoln. But in GOP circles, it merited scarcely a raised eyebrow. Whether because of cowardice or cynicism, Republican leaders have made their peace with Trump’s swamp.

    Unfortunately for the GOP, that may be the fatal legacy of Trumpism.

    Trump (and his many imitators) know that they can count on a supine party and sycophants in the conservative media to deflect or rationalize pretty much anything. It helps that there is an apparently infinite appetite for reputational self-immolation among Trump defenders.

    Just as dangerous is Trump’s effect on others in his orbit who seem to have absorbed his arrogant amoralism and the smug conviction that they are immune from consequences.

    Having convinced themselves that nothing matters, Republicans have encouraged the notion that they can get away with pretty much anything because their tribal allies will always provide them cover. The consequence has not only been an extraordinary tolerance for deception, corruption, and cruelty, but an embrace of a free-floating moral relativism that is wholly alien to the traditional notions of conservatism.

    The congressional GOP is not simply collateral damage here. Their own invertebrate quiescence has not simply enabled Trumpism’s worst and most dangerous instincts, but actually has encouraged them.

    Read the whole thing.

    Dave (445e97)

  192. “R.I.P. Ed King, guitarist/songwriter for Lynyrd Skynyrd on their first three albums”

    Glendale boy, the only non-southerner of the band. Met them when his band Strawberry Alarm Clock opened for Skynyrd in the late 60s.

    IIRC – That’s his riff that opens Sweet Home Alabama.

    https://youtu.be/ye5BuYf8q4o

    harkin (c0421f)

  193. Strawberry Alarm Clock… “Incense and Peppermints”… I remember my 9th grade Spanish teacher going off in class for a solid 20 minutes about “who cares what games we choose, little to win but nothing to lose”, lol…

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)


  194. SURPRISE! FBI DIDN’T REVIEW ALL 700K CLINTON EMAILS ON HUMA’S LAPTOP: Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress and the world that agents reviewed all of the nearly 700,000 Clinton email messages found on the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner laptop just before the 2016 election.

    But now Real Clear Investigations’ Paul Sperry reveals that Comey’s claim was an outright lie. The truth is, as outrageous as was the FBI whitewash in July 2016 of Clinton’s extensive misuse of classified information with her homebrew email between 2009 and 2015, it pales in blatant, outright falsification with the October Surprise.

    I know, you aren’t surprised and neither am I, but Sperry uncovers all kinds of facts that show the corruption ran deep and wide at the highest levels of the FBI and the Department of Justice. As one famous guy might once have said, “no friggin’ wonder she got away with it!”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/surprise-fbi-didnt-review-all-700k-clinton-emails-on-humas-laptop-former-fbi-director-james-come/

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  195. I’m waiting for ConDave “Kitty Kelley”’s tell-all book about Trump… who’s been living totes rent-free in his head for 20 months now…

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  196. Waaa, Hillary Clinton didn’t get arrested for her crime, so Trump doesn’t get to have problems with his.

    Of course, the reality of Clinton’s emails was made public, and she lost the election by roughly 70k votes in 3 swing states. Trump, with Cohen and Pecker, audio of it, Cohen admitted it, Pecker admitted it, Guiliani admitted it, 11 days before the election paying hush money to at least one of his hookers, if you’re paying for sex, it’s hookers, might very well influence an election.

    Nah, the fact that Trump is a john to multiple hookers is cool, so covering up his hookers is also cool. No way suburban married white ladies would have had a problem with the hookers.

    Oh, and there seems to be this other thing with Russia, something, that didn’t leak in the run-up to the election.

    Colonel Klink (335e06)

  197. It has now been annoiunece dthat David Pecker has now been granted immunity.

    The question I have is are David Pecker and Moichael Cohen covering up for somebody else besides Donald Trump.

    Everything about this indicates that they seem to have been much more anxious to pay off these two womnen than was Donald Trump.

    I mean the National Enquirer lays out money to pay Karen McDougal before getting any agreement from Donald trump to reimburse them – and in fact he did not. And Michael Cohen pays off Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford and never once goes to Trump and says: “I have trouble raising the money!”

    It’s a mystery as to why these relationships (which everything about the way Trump handled this indicates really did happen) took place in the frst place.

    I think somebody in Lake tahoe tried to make that happen. To the point where Donald Trump was told Karen McDougal was a prostitute and Karen McDougal was told that Trump was interested in her. WQhen she refused to take the money he really did get interested in her and they saww eacxh otehr for ten months. And somebody put Strmy Cklifford and Donald Trump together without exactly saying anything.

    Who knows what other attempts were made?

    Here is one attempt from afew months ago to explain the events at Lake Tahoe in 2006. My own explanation is that somebody, probably with amob background, wanted to have something to hold over Donald Trump

    https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-karen-mcdougal-tahoe-weekend

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  198. Yeah, Trump didn’t even bone those ladies. Definitely not, didn’t happen. Oh, Trump’s admitted it multiple times? Oh, McDougal had texts? Oh, but maybe it’s not Trump, maybe these hot ladies were Cohen’s hookers, yeah, that’s it, that’s the ticket.

    Colonel Klink (335e06)

  199. Sound jealous it wasn’t you Klink.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  200. 200 cause using hookers is so much worse than sharing top secret and classified information with multiple enemy nations.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  201. @197

    God you guys are gullible. I almost feel sorry for you.

    People you trust blindly are lying to you and manipulating you pretty much continuously. And you fall for it every time.

    Comey’s letter said “During that process we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State”

    See the difference between the truth and the lie you swallowed? They told you Comey said “reviewed all the communications” when he really said something much more specific and limited.

    He never said they had reviewed all 700,000 messages on Weiner’s laptop. Misquoting him and calling his claim an outright lie is … an outright lie.

    Dave (445e97)

  202. Sorry Kitty, dig deeper…

    “When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had “reviewed all of the communications” discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
    At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the “hundreds of thousands” of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former New York Democratic congressman.
    Comey (pictured above left) later told Congress that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as “duplicates” of emails they’d previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked “night after night after night” to scrutinize the remaining material.
    But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
    In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
    Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
    Yet even the “extremely narrow” search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said.
    Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
    Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated “damage assessment” directive.
    The newly discovered classified material “was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review,” the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
    Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
    One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to “bury” the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.
    RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI’s handling of the massive new email discovery from the “Weiner laptop.” This months-long investigation included a review of federal court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel, along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
    Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest lawyers.
    If the FBI “soft-pedaled” the original investigation of Clinton’s emails, as some critics have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for this article said.
    “There was no real investigation and no real search,” said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. “It was all just show — eyewash — to make it look like there was an investigation before the election.”
    Although the FBI’s New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on August 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016.
    Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.”

    https://www.lifezette.com/2018/08/despite-comey-assurances-vast-bulk-of-weiner-laptop-emails-were-never-examined/

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  203. Did Trump Know About the Cohen Payoffs in Advance? Of Course He Did

    Everything about this indicates to me that he did not, although he may have discussed the idea orf trying to pay off these two women (likely at Cohen’s instigation, which is somehow changed into Trump’s direction. Legally maybe his direction. Not really.)

    But I don’t think Trump ever made a decision to pay money or before it was done or approved an amount. His minions were going ahead without him and actually laying out the money. You have to wonder why. These weren’t even very important allegations, except maybe from the viewpoint of how it might affect Trump’s marriage.

    Here, Trump says he did not even know of the payments until after the fact. Cohen counters that he made both deals under Trump’s express orders.

    No, he doesn’t. He says he discussed paying the women money at Trump’s direction, which really means his consent. It’s very carefully worded.

    Never does he say that Trump approved the payment to Karen McDougal before, or even after, it was made. In count 7 he says they “worked together” to keep an individual from disclosing facts. Probably that means Trump spoke with Karen McDougal on the phone. He says “we accomplished the goal” What is the goal? Obviously not talking. Does he say Trump approved of the method in advance – the payment of money by the National Enquirer? No, he doesn’t. Does he say Trump asked the National Enquirer to do this? No he doesn’t. So, no he doesn’t say he made the deal with Karen McDougal at Trump’s express orders.

    In count 8 he says he arranged to make a payment to Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Clifford “in co-ordination” with “and at the direction of” Trump. He doesn’t say how much Trump was advised about the details.

    He says the reason he did it the way he did it…it sounds like he wanted to keep the money under his control. Why is that important? He could be afraid somebody would embezzle the money. Now that would be if he was acting without Trump’s backing.

    If he was acting under Trump’s direction, and express orders, what is really difficult to believe, is that when he has has difficultly coming up with the cash, he never once goes to Trump and says: “I have trouble raising the money and we have to change this.”

    If he’s not acting behind Trump’s back, why this reticence?

    And then he says he was reimbursed but he doesn’t say that Trump agreed to reimburse him before he made the payments!

    What kind of lawyer would do this? Just lay out over $100,000 he doesn’t have? Without, as far as we know, getting anything in writing from the client? From a client who is even known not to pay his debts?

    And what is Lanny Davis doing hinting that Trump knew about some Russian hacking in advance? (one allegation in the Steele dossier is that Michael Cohen took a trip to Prague where he agreed to split the cost of future hacking with Russian government)

    This looks, in part, like an attempt to swindle prosecutors

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  204. more cold fusion with his minds, coronello, much like in Firestarter, comey had Rosenstein’s job, 14 years ago, and he decided that despite knowing that Armitage had leaked to novak, and miller, the job must go on, Armitage went on to be Erdogan’s man in Washington, so one can’t charge him,

    narciso (d1f714)

  205. At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the “hundreds of thousands” of emails residing on the machine

    They used a computer program to search the emails.

    Which means nobody would ever see any evidence of an unrelated crime that they weren’t looking for..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  206. Waaa! Hillary should have never been elected president with those emails hanging over her head. Oh, wait, carry on…

    Colonel Klink (6e76a9)

  207. a solid fellow:

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/ford-motor-co-vp-named-new-special-envoy-to-north-korea/

    someone who has been willing to stand up, when it’s unpopular,

    narciso (d1f714)

  208. “When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had “reviewed all of the communications” discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

    I stopped here. As demonstrated, that sentence is a lie.

    It’s not an accidental mistake to falsely quote Comey either. The truth follows in the very next words that the writer intentionally omitted to deceive you.

    Words mean things. Do you understand that there is a crucial difference between

    “reviewed of all the communications” discovered on a personal laptop …

    and (what Comey actually wrote):

    “reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State”?

    Do you understand that the author intentionally deceived you, hoping to make you believe something which is not true, by not showing you the truthful quote?

    Do you understand that repeating a lie, once you have been shown that it’s a lie, makes you a liar too?

    Dave (445e97)

  209. It’s all about the election, and their pre-existing agreement with David Pecker that the story wasn’t going to run and that Pecker would be reimbursed.

    Two points:

    1) The recording is chopped off, meaning that what follows might show a different picture than what Lanny Davis is trying to paint.

    2) Cohen discusses how he proposes they reimburse the National Enquirer. He starts talking about financing arranged by someone who works for Trump. What financing says Trump? He says just pay cash. (this is real estate terminology, meaning without borrowing, It doesn’t mean use unmarked $10 and $20 bills.)

    Cohen says: no, no, no, no no.

    In the end Trump did not pay the money to the Natioal Enquirer’s parent company..

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  210. Which means nobody would ever see any evidence of an unrelated crime that they weren’t looking for..

    They had to obtain a search warrant to inspect those emails, and the search warrant would have specified exactly what they were looking for in connection with a particular suspected crime, no?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Dave (445e97)

  211. From CBS This Morning:

    NORAH O’DONNELL, ‘CBS THIS MORNING’ CO-HOST: Your client said he made those payments to the two women in coordination with and at the direction of Mr. Trump implicating the president in a federal crime. Does Michael Cohen have evidence of that?

    LANNY DAVIS, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL COHEN: Look, this is one thing I’d like to do this morning above all, which is it’s not about evidence, it is definitive, indisputable that Donald Trump’s lawyers said in a letter to the special counsel that President Trump directed, the same word that Michael Cohen used in court yesterday under oath, directed Michael Cohen to make illegal payments. It’s not a dispute, it’s not about credibility. His own lawyers used the word “directed.”

    Now, he lied on air force one when he said he knew nothing about it and Rudy Giuliani said he can lie to the American people and it’s not a crime. But his lawyers are the witnesses against him that he directed Michael Cohen. There’s no dispute on that.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  212. Dave, Dave, come on, the Clinton investigation didn’t review all of the emails on Weiner’s laptop, that’s just a fact. Now, the Weiner investigation did review all of the emails on Weiner’s laptop. So the FBI reviewed it, just not the guy splitting hairs for effect.

    It’s not like a guy who has then made a new career on the alt-news would ever hedge. Nah, I mean he was on the Clinton investigation right? Oh, no, well he was in the chain of command right? Uhh, no, well he was on the Weiner investigation surely? No, really, then how does he know this? Dave, that’s a really good question.

    Man, if only information about her emails would have been available, she might have lost the election. She definitely shouldn’t have paid to delay the release of that damaging information for a couple of weeks until after the election, that would totally have ruined her chances.

    Colonel Klink (6e76a9)

  213. Your reading comprehension needs improvement, ConDave.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  214. “Although the FBI’s New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on August 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016.
    Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.”

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  215. “Between January 2009 and January 2015, before Donald Trump arrived to “save” the Republican party, GOP candidates gained over 1000 seats across the country, in Congress, state houses and governors’ mansions.”

    Not a single one was able to beat Trump or outflank him to the right on issues that the voters cared about. They were mostly time-servers running on ‘we’re less bad than the other side’, and did not coordinate to do anything but line their own pockets and deliver for their donors.

    Trump got massive crossover appeal because HE CREDIBLY PROMISED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IMMIGRATION first and foremost.

    None of the other candidates were credible on that front because none were free of debt to lobbyists.

    Also, it’s long past time to remove DC and eventually northern Virginia from any jury pool, they acquitted John Hinckley Jr and Imran Awan.

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  216. “One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to “bury” the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.
    RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI’s handling of the massive new email discovery from the “Weiner laptop.” This months-long investigation included a review of federal court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel, along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
    Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest lawyers.
    If the FBI “soft-pedaled” the original investigation of Clinton’s emails, as some critics have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for this article said.
    “There was no real investigation and no real search,” said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. “It was all just show — eyewash — to make it look like there was an investigation before the election.”

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  217. “Comey later told Congress that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as “duplicates” of emails they’d previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked “night after night after night” to scrutinize the remaining material.
    But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
    In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
    Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
    Yet even the “extremely narrow” search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said.
    Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
    Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated “damage assessment” directive.”

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  218. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-tabloids-payoffs.html

    And as early as August 2015, prosecutors revealed, Mr. Cohen communicated with the chairman of American Media, David J. Pecker, who agreed to turn the organization’s tip line into a trip wire that could detect potential trouble for Mr. Trump. Mr. Pecker agreed to “help deal with negative stories,” about Mr. Trump’s “relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.”

    Mr. Pecker made that promise, prosecutors said, “in coordination with” Mr. Cohen, “and one or more members of the campaign.”

    Prosecutors and Mr. Cohen said that he undertook his work with A.M.I. at Mr. Trump’s direction — an assertion the president denied, telling Fox News on Wednesday that he learned of the payments only later. In the campaign’s early days in 2015, Mr. Trump was operating a bare-bones staff that included his communications director, Hope Hicks; his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski; and, until that August, his longtime consigliere, Roger Stone.

    This article also says he met Karen McDougal at a Playboy mansion. But that was also in Lake Tahoe I don’t think they are unrelated.

    Another story:

    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/23/us/ap-us-trump-national-enquirer.html

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  219. They had to obtain a search warrant to inspect those emails, and the search warrant would have specified exactly what they were looking for in connection with a particular suspected crime, no?

    They would need another search warrant to seize or copy them but not to look at them.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  220. Ooh, it’s make believe story time, I’m in.

    Georgia isn’t good at snow. Two inches fell in Atlanta last month and, amidst car crashes and television parodies, snow skepticism was born. Georgians bravely took to YouTube, determined to demonstrate that neither matches nor lighters nor blowtorches (a disproportionate number of Georgians seem to own blowtorches) could melt that strange, white stuff that the government insisted was just frozen water. On film, the snow blackens, twists like plastic, and stubbornly refuses to melt.

    Although entire Web pages are dedicated to debunking the chemical snow theory, the simplest way to deal with snow skeptics is to put the stuff in a microwave or on the stove. Spoiler: It melts. The blackened snow was caused by soot from the lighter, because butane burns inefficiently, and as snow turns into slush under a blowtorch, it only appears not to melt. Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait explains how the snow is, in fact, slowly melting.

    The entire episode, however, brings up a good question: Who was the first Georgian to decide to burn the snow, just to see what would happen?

    Colonel Klink (6e76a9)

  221. Sorry forgot the bold.

    What is July 27, 2014? Check your calendar, and you’ll notice that it’s a Sunday. But ask Siri, and you might discover that the 27th is the appointed time for the Opening of the Gates of Hades. Several shocked iPhone users reported last month that Siri had officially scheduled the apocalypse for this summer, in an odd move that the usual suspects took quite seriously.

    Colonel Klink (6e76a9)

  222. Cohen’s behavior as an attorney really bothers me.

    Rochf (877dba)

  223. Duncan Hunter pled guklty ti using campaign money for personal expenses.

    That’s why Trump said it would have been a little dicey to use campaign money.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  224. What matters is less who makes the law than who enforces it…sadly Northern Virginia and Washington DC are pricing and selecting out any pool of people who are likely to have nonpartisan appraisals of how the law works and was previously applied-and even then the national media will work as an unpaid agent of organizing influence against favored sources.

    F*** the Oligarchy.

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  225. Weeee!!!!..


    Scientists were pretty much asking for it. A natural successor to Area 51, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a secret underground laboratory that just begs conspiracy theorists to speculate wildly. And speculate they have.

    Conspiracy theorists tried to sue CERN in 2008 for almost sucking the entire planet into a black hole, but another idea is far more creative. Turns out, the occult scientists at CERN are building a star gate to revive Osiris, ancient Egyptian god of the dead. And they have photographic proof: A statue of the Hindu god Shiva stands at the entrance to the LHC.

    Put aside the fact that physics experiments can’t bring back the dead. Fine. But what the heck does a statue of a multiarmed Hindu god have to do with reviving Osiris? One of the largest Hindu sects in India considers Shiva their supreme god, and odds are that a religious researcher at CERN decided to invite his lord into the lab. Admittedly, it made for a pretty interesting Bring Your God to Work Day.

    Colonel Klink (6e76a9)

  226. 228.Duncan Hunter pled guklty ti using campaign money for personal expenses.

    Except he didn’t, Sammy.

    Duncan Hunter arraigned in California, pleads not guilty…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/duncan-hunter-arraigned-in-california

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  227. ALL THE LEFTIST PEOPLE YOU’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT AREN’T IN OFFICE

    They’re also NOT PUNISHED by their fellow leftists.

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  228. Trump got massive crossover appeal because HE CREDIBLY PROMISED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IMMIGRATION first and foremost.

    Right, the guy who four years earlier criticized Romney’s immigration policy, and the GOP as a whole, as too “mean-spirited” on immigration:

    The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax.

    Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.

    (If you recall, the GOP’s weakness with Latinos was very much the conventional wisdom in the aftermath of Romney’s defeat, so Trump, as usual, was simply parroting what he had heard other people saying.)

    Nobody who was paying attention could have given credence to anything Trump said, but was able to con “low-information” people into believing him regardless, because (as he explains in his book) he lies and tells them exactly what they want to hear.

    Also, it’s long past time to remove DC and eventually northern Virginia from any jury pool, they acquitted John Hinckley Jr and Imran Awan.

    Nice that you’re eager to deprive others of their constitutional rights, but in the real world, Imran Awan was never tried or acquitted by any jury.

    Dave (445e97)

  229. When ConDave errs – which is quite often – he always seems to err on the side of the Democrats.

    And he’s a conservative… hahahaha hahahaha

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  230. ConDave discovered Higgs-Boson… and he’s quite teh raconteur.

    Colonel Haiku (ec669d)

  231. Scientists were pretty much asking for it. A natural successor to Area 51, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a secret underground laboratory that just begs conspiracy theorists to speculate wildly. And speculate they have.

    I work on an experiment at the LHC, and I can confirm that all conspiracy theories involving it are true.

    Dave (445e97)

  232. ConDave discovered Higgs-Boson

    Now Colonel, what did we just say about telling the truth? You’re telling fibs again.

    I joined the experiment after it discovered the Higgs boson, thus, I share none of the credit for that discovery (and have never claimed any…)

    Dave (445e97)

  233. whoever this Colonel Klink is I’m ready to subscribe to his newsletter. Love the mountain of irrelevant bolded copypasta.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  234. I thought it was Colonel story day, so I just continued the theme.

    Colonel Klink (9e4613)

  235. Fern does open the star gate, and so goes the goauld fleet

    narciso (d1f714)

  236. Fern does open the star gate, and so goes the goauld fleet

    Great point. Helpful to know about that aspect the star gate.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  237. Narrative dysphoria alert:

    Rutgers fires a (white) history professor for anti-Caucasian remarks on Facebook.

    Outrage must be maintained at all times, so do we condemn the university for giving in to a politically correct lynch mob, or do we insist (in the total absence of any supporting evidence) that if he were Asian, Black, Latino, etc, he would have kept his job?

    Dave (445e97)

  238. Neither Trump not Cohen committed a campaign finance crime. Cohen pled guilty to one because it was that of be tried on many other charges that they had him dead to rights on.

    This is all theater, for the mass of Democrats and their running dogs to quote. Not one fact has been adjudicated, beginning with “is this kind of payment a legitimate campaign expense?” Most would instinctively think not, and to say that all expense during a campaign are campaign-related is to deny history, law and several current events. Starting with Congressman Hunter.

    But apparently all that matters in people’s minds is whether they hate Trump or love him. Logic, facts, precedent and all that stuff is immaterial to their froth.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  239. but in the real world, Imran Awan was never tried or acquitted by any jury.

    Neither was Michael Cohen.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  240. Dave, you are right regarding Rutgers. All the professor did was make a fool out of himself, claiming that all those white Yuppies gentrifying Harlem were messing up the place he just moved to.

    Kevin M (5d3e49)

  241. Neither Trump not Cohen committed a campaign finance crime.

    Yeah? Well, you know, that’s just like, uh, your opinion man.

    Dave (445e97)

  242. “Nice that you’re eager to deprive others of their constitutional rights, but in the real world, Imran Awan was never tried or acquitted by any jury.”

    HOW CONVENIENT.

    “Outrage must be maintained at all times, so do we condemn the university for giving in to a politically correct lynch mob, or do we insist (in the total absence of any supporting evidence) that if he were Asian, Black, Latino, etc, he would have kept his job?”

    You do love your false equivalencies, don’t you? He deserved to be fired not just for the racisms that he tweeted but because he was TEACHING LIES:

    “Professor Livingston argues that his initial Facebook post is not racist because Caucasians, as the group holding the most “social capital, ” cannot be discriminated against. In other words, his position is that “reverse racism” does not exist.

    While Professor Livingston’s assertion is frequently espoused in academic circles, applicable federal and state laws do not exclude any race from their protections. Similarly, the university makes no such distinction, but blanketly prohibits discrimination based on any race. As such, from a legal and Policy perspective, “reverse racism,” to the extent it is defined as treating someone unfairly because they are white, is indeed possible and prohibited.”

    This is nothing but good news! We must congratulate Rutgers on a job well done and encourage them strongly to explore all firing options on the thousands of AA hires who may think they’re exempt, this isn’t even a question.

    The Academy has gotten uppity and insular ever since credentialism came into vogue. They induct students into undischargeable debt-slavery and spread hateful Communist lies among them when they complain that their required classes didn’t actually lead to a better chance of getting a job. They discriminate HEAVILY against well-qualified Asian and poor white applicants.

    They were spared the wrath of Trump, who doesn’t really strike me as primarily concerned about university issues, but they shall not be spared the wrath of the wider Right.

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  243. “Senator Rand Paul

    Verified account

    @RandPaul
    Follow Follow @RandPaul
    More
    My amendment would end funding to Planned Parenthood, but it is being blocked by… Republicans.”

    THE PRINCIPLED RIGHT THAT WE MUST TURN AWAY FROM TRUMP AND RE-EMBRACE, EVERYONE

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  244. Collins and Murkowski are your idea of the “principled right”?

    Paul’s Amendment:

    The Senate rejected an effort by GOP Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) to attach a provision blocking federal funding for Planned Parenthood to a massive government spending bill.

    Senators voted 45-48 on Paul’s amendment, with 60 votes needed to add the provision into the spending bill. GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats to oppose the amendment.

    The vote came after Paul was initially blocked from bringing up his amendment Leadership has agreed to block “poison pill” provisions, which would threaten the bipartisan support for the Defense-Education-Labor-Health and Human Services bill.

    Paul’s amendment would prevent federal funding from going to the organization and others that provide abortions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  245. My amendment would end funding to Planned Parenthood, but it is being blocked by… Republicans.”

    THE PRINCIPLED RIGHT THAT WE MUST TURN AWAY FROM TRUMP AND RE-EMBRACE, EVERYONE

    You’ve been lied to again, and you believed it. Again.

    The vote on Paul’s amendment was 45 “yeas” to 48 “nays,” with moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining Democrats in voting no. Sixty votes would have been required to pass the amendment, which would have ended federal funding for Planned Parenthood, even though the group is already prohibited from using federal funds for abortions.

    (emphasis added)

    It needed 60 votes to pass. “Republicans” didn’t block it.

    Rand Paul lied to you, to manipulate you into serving as his tool and spreading his lie further. Doesn’t it make you angry when people you trust lie to you?

    Dave (445e97)

  246. “Of course, Curie, Noether and Wu were pioneers in a field dominated almost exclusively by men at the time, but today particle physics is approaching gender parity. The leader of my experiment when it co-discovered the Higgs boson was a woman, who is now director-general of the world’s premier particle physics lab (CERN) where the discovery took place.”

    Dave (445e97) https://patterico.com/2018/08/20/then-and-now/#comment-2143994

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  247. Darn you DRJ! 🙂

    Dave (445e97)

  248. Essence Thief’s Russian-English translator is remarkably good – or at least Essence Thief’s initial marching orders are remarkably focused.

    Leviticus (304063)

  249. I guess ConDave forgot what he posted 3 days ago…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  250. The leader of my experiment when it co-discovered the Higgs boson was a woman,

    True statement.

    Like an Apple employee saying “The CEO of my company when it invented the PC was Steve Jobs”.

    Doesn’t mean the person was there at the time.

    Dave (445e97)

  251. 3 days is a long time ago in Con/Grift spacen’time…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  252. They ate the ones the obamacare repeal was geared to, how did that work out again?

    narciso (d1f714)

  253. I guess ConDave forgot what he posted 3 days ago…

    Nope.

    You just don’t understand English as well as you should.

    Dave (445e97)

  254. “Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joining Democrats in voting no.”

    Where’s the lie, again?

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  255. I guess it depends on what the words “my experiment” mean…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  256. Cohen seems to think he committed a crime, Session’s thinks it’s a crime. David Pecker and Dylan Howard are taking immunity deals to corroborate Cohen’s crimes, which would have incriminated them.

    But don’t worry, those hookers were cool, campaign finance crimes are fine, tax evasion is fine.

    “For 30, 40 years I’ve been watching flippers. Everything’s wonderful and then they get 10 years in jail and they-they flip on whoever the next highest one is, or as high as you can go. I’ve had many friends involved in this stuff. It’s called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal.”

    Flipping is terrible…in 1981, Trump offered to ‘fully cooperate’ with the bureau, proposing that FBI agents work undercover in a casino he was considering opening in Atlantic City. FBI agents even prepared an ‘undercover proposal concerning the TRUMP casino’ that senior agents and Trump planned to discuss.

    And why do you have “many friends” that are flipping or being flipped on? I think most people don’t know a single person that has flipped or been flipped on, seems to be hanging around a bad group of people.

    But sure, those crimes that people are pleading guilty to, aren’t crimes, and anyway, Stormy Daniels isn’t her real name, and he didn’t bang her anyway, and again, even if he did, and even if he paid for it, and even if he paid hush money, and even if the hush money was illegal, it’s fine, who cares.

    Colonel Klink (9e4613)

  257. A little over an hour ago… “I joined the experiment after it discovered the Higgs boson, thus, I share none of the credit for that discovery (and have never claimed any…)”

    Funny stuff, ConDave.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  258. So you do think Collins and Murkowski are the “principled right,” but I would describe them as moderate or establishment Republicans.

    DRJ (15874d)

  259. Dave strikes me as the type of guy to make grand claims about THE FAILURE OF TRUMP’S AGENDA ITEMS and then completely ignore the existence of these ‘moderate’ Republicans in the Senate. Why is he all of a sudden paying attention to them? Has he been acting in bad faith this whole time? Does he pretend not to know things he clearly knows about already to score Good Boy Points?

    Was he, in fact, A Democrat All Along?

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  260. You can’t make this stuff up. And to think you hounded the veteran Hoagie out of here…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  261. The special counsel may claim that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal conspiracy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  262. Why is Dave pretending that the justified firing of a professor for straightforward racism (it either exists under a common definition or it doesn’t, none of this ‘make fun of the white man and you get a pass, say anything even slightly disparaging about literally anyone else and you go to Pound Town’ BS) is a moral dilemma? Does he in fact sympathize with the anti-whites? Or is he a Russian spy trying to sow division via ever-changing definitions and arbitrary policies?

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  263. Where’s the lie, again?

    “My amendment would end funding to Planned Parenthood, but it is being blocked by… Republicans.

    It would not have passed even with unanimous Republican support, hence, it was not “blocked” by Republicans.

    Even saying it was being “opposed” by Republicans (without indicating how many) would be misleading, since all but two Republicans voted in favor of it.

    Dave (445e97)

  264. The special counsel may claim that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal conspiracy.
    DRJ (15874d) — 8/23/2018 @ 5:52 pm

    Yeah, that’s the most likely outcome of all the criminal cases, since the remedy for a sitting president is impeachment. It’s what happened in Watergate.

    After that, you can always have an amended indictment, as long as the statute of limitations hasn’t expired.

    Colonel Klink (9e4613)

  265. “So you do think Collins and Murkowski are the “principled right,” but I would describe them as moderate or establishment Republicans.”

    Going against Trump (still technically a ‘moderate’ Republican) means letting the next squishiest, most litigious, most unappealing, and most troublesome moderates like these set the policy.

    Essence Thief (3ceea3)

  266. By the way, who is the Republican that doesn’t support Trump? Rand Paul, because Trump does the Establishment’s bidding:

    Critics of Trump-skeptical Republicans are right about at least one thing: GOP senators, even those most leery of him, are backing the president’s policy agenda. According to FiveThirtyEight’s Trump score, the most anti-Trump Republican in the Senate is not Flake or Tennessee’s Bob Corker (people who have the political freedom to oppose Trump since they are not running for re-election) but Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who opposes the president’s positions about 25 percent of the time. Flake, Corker, Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski support the president’s position about 80 percent of the time, putting them close to the bottom of the GOP conference but way ahead of any Democrat. (West Virginia’s Joe Manchin has backed the Trump position 60 percent of the time, leading his party in the Senate.)

    But here’s the big question: Are these senators, in their votes and other moves, embracing the policy vision of Trump, specifically? Or is Trump basically endorsing the views of establishment Republicans?

    “Trump really isn’t driving the legislative agenda at all,” Glassman said. “He’s mostly just cheerleading for whatever congressional leaders decide to pass. That was true on Obamacare repeal — he literally supported basically every variation they came up with — and it was largely true on taxes as well.”

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. From 3 days ago…

    “Of course, Curie, Noether and Wu were pioneers in a field dominated almost exclusively by men at the time, but today particle physics is approaching gender parity. The leader of my experiment when it co-discovered the Higgs boson was a woman, who is now director-general of the world’s premier particle physics lab (CERN) where the discovery took place.”

    Dave (445e97) http://patterico.co

    From a little over an hour ago…

    “Now Colonel, what did we just say about telling the truth? You’re telling fibs again.

    I joined the experiment after it discovered the Higgs boson, thus, I share none of the credit for that discovery (and have never claimed any…)”

    Dave (445e97) — 8/23/2018 @ 4:51 pm

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  268. You seem to agree with me that Trump is a moderate. If so, Trump is the reason moderates are setting GOP policy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  269. It sounds like Dave is saying a woman was the co-leader when the discovery was made, and Dave joined after the disvovery was made — hence he could not claim any credit for the discovery.

    DRJ (15874d)

  270. Didn’t flake vote no on repeal, hasn’t he pushed against the wall. Hes been three weeks in Africa, communing with the antelope, when the votes matter, he is against or awol.

    Narciso (af5641)

  271. “The leader of my experiment when it co-discovered the Higgs boson”

    Maybe that’ll fly in Texas…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  272. Sounds like he’s claimed some credit 3 days ago.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  273. Leviticus says to swc:

    At what point do you think it’s fair for me to question the value of your experience and foresight in these matters? You were stating with absolute confidence in March we wouldn’t be exactly where we are today. I can go pull more of your pronouncements from the old threads, if I haven’t made my point to your satisfaction.

    That gave me an idea. I just pulled this swc pronouncement from an old thread:

    swc, 3-27-18:

    But I think the effort right now is to simply let the whole thing blow over, and cooler heads inside the White House are telling Trump “Remember Mike Wolff’s book?? Who is talking about that now? Nobody.”

    The same will probably be true with respect to Stormy in 2 weeks.

    Yeah, well…

    I remember it because it was a comment made in a thread full of vituperation from swc against me, as a result of which I imposed on swc the rules of the Jury Talks Back. Which he is a hair’s breadth away from violating when he responds to this comment by me:

    The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t. But since when do things like facts get in the way of Donald Trump word salads?

    With this:

    Naive.

    The nature of the deal here is a “charge bargain.”

    Do you see Cohen’s wife charged in the tax counts?

    Do you think Cohen’s only fraud was not declaring on his taxes the interest income from the taxicab medallion loans he made?

    Do you think that the HELOC was the only loan he obtained using fraudulent information?

    Do you think that there is a “charge bargain” here that contains a secret term requiring Cohen to testify?

    Another swc pronouncement:

    Rosenstein’s decision to send this to the SDNY is a HUGE benefit for Trump and Cohen. It makes it much more likely that the entire matter goes away in the normal course — not in an illegitimate fashion — and Mueller’s gang loses its opportunity to pressure Cohen.

    I can explain if you want — its a matter of prosecutorial discretion and internal guidelines, i.e., I’m 99.9% certain the SDNY declines to pursue bank fraud cases that don’t have a loss of more than $1 million.

    And yet: Cohen Pleads Guilty To Tax Evasion, Bank Fraud & Campaign Finance Law Violations

    That .1% sure has a nasty bite!

    Here’s one I may have missed the proof of, from 3-29-18:

    Andy McCabe got a target letter, and will likely be indicted soon

    I was admittedly out of town at some national parks without internet access for a couple of weeks not too long ago. Was McCabe indicted when I wasn’t looking? Or is it still “soon”?

    I didn’t mean to steal Leviticus’s thunder. Maybe he has some examples of his own. This “naive” blogger would like to see them!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  274. And yet podesta and Weber were redirected to new York why, so khuzaimi can drop the case, he was legendary for not going after prominent subprime bankers, well he came from Deutsche bank, where everyone seems to be tied btw

    Narciso (af5641)

  275. It sounds like Dave is saying a woman was the co-leader when the discovery was made, and Dave joined after the disvovery was made — hence he could not claim any credit for the discovery.

    Exactly.

    In the original sentence, I was trying to tell the story of a woman who 1) led a team of thousands of scientists in making an important discovery (several years ago), and 2) is today the boss of the most important physics lab in the world (where the discovery was made). Thus, the sentence refers to two different points in time. The sentence starts out by establishing the first time-frame:

    “The leader of my experiment when it co-discovered the Higgs boson”

    I could have said “The leader of ATLAS when it co-discovered the Higgs boson…”, but the name of the experiment isn’t important and most people don’t know it, so the sentence would have either been confusing or required further elaboration of what “ATLAS” is.

    If I had been a member when the discovery was made, I would have written

    “The leader of my experiment when we co-discovered the Higgs boson…”

    I was careful not to write that, though, since I wasn’t.

    And if I had been trying to take credit for something I wasn’t involved in, I wouldn’t have immediately corrected Colonel Haiku @235 when he erroneously (in a characteristically inept attempt to insult me) suggested I was part of the discovery.

    And to think you hounded the veteran Hoagie out of here…

    If you miss Hoagie, I can make up some stories about my own service in Vietnam. They’ll be more believable than his, I promise you.

    Dave (445e97)

  276. Makes you wonder why McCabe went to the trouble of raising money through the gofund me account, it’s a nice gig.

    Narciso (af5641)

  277. Another fun swc quote from that thread: “And the idea that Mueller or anyone else would chase this down as a campaign law violation is laughable.” Hmmmm.

    Granted, he was focusing more on any possible case against Trump than against Cohen. But a) Trump isn’t likely to be indicted while President, so b) the issue is more whether it seems like a potential impeachment count against Trump.

    And in that thread I said the timing (no action for 10 years, then sudden action right before the election) strengthens the case. And got a steady stream of LOLOL PATTERICO IS AN IDIOT comments, on and on and on. Seriously. Go back and read the thread. It’s full of stuff like “Legal brilliance on display” and other put-downs.

    Well, the notion that Trump had the intent to violate the campaign finance laws suddenly looks a lot less “let’s all point and laugh at Patterico” ridiculous, doesn’t it?

    (I’m speaking to the non-tribalists here. The rest of you: sssshhhhh. Adults are talking.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  278. At what point do you think it’s fair for me to question the value of your experience and foresight in these matters?

    At this point?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  279. Are you really Joseph Ellis, Dave, it striking how he just followed up writing books since he had totally made up his life story.

    Narciso (af5641)

  280. Going against Trump (still technically a ‘moderate’ Republican) means letting the next squishiest, most litigious, most unappealing, and most troublesome moderates like these set the policy.

    When you only have 50 – 51 seats, every senator – moderate, conservative or wacko bird – can “set the policy”, because they all have the equivalent of a veto.

    Simple math dictates that right now, the Republicans in the Senate can only pass legislation they all agree on.

    Dave (445e97)

  281. When the host wants to take me on re the question of what works at trial, he does so at his own risk.

    — swc, from that thread.

    I mean…

    I have never prosecuted a campaign finance violation case and never will. But my trial record, especially compared to your average AUSA (they don’t go to trial much)…well, I’ll just say that it doesn’t merit the dripping level of condescension you see there. And I’ll leave it at that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  282. Stepping back from all this, it is mildly amusing watching these players from Noo Yawk– Trump, Giuliani, Cohen, Pecker, Hannity, etc., bluster and bitch-slap the country day after day. It’s what made Leona and George famous– or infamous. You’d think the dummies in fly-over country – would have caught on to this shtick by now and pushed back accordingly. But then, that’s New Yorkers for ‘ya.

    It’s been so entertaining and the show must go on. Bring on the Rockettes!!!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  283. DCSCA, the impeachment would be the best show of all! Imagine the ratings!!!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  284. Leona ended up in prison for tax evasion.

    DRJ (15874d)

  285. Salacious Trump stories kept in a National Enquirer safe.

    The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press.

    I assume “other damaging stories” means other than Stormy and McDougal, which means more bimbo eruptions that were shut down.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  286. That’s New Yorkers for ya.

    DRJ (15874d)

  287. FWIW, I think swc has been receptive to constructive exchanges and projecting a generally positive vibe since his recent return.

    Dave (445e97)

  288. @288. LOL yeah, but he already told us the market will collapse and we’ll all be poor if that show goes to air.

    Are we scared yet?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  289. Salacious Trump stories kept in a National Enquirer safe.

    Geraldo, call your office…

    Dave (445e97)

  290. FWIW, I think swc has been receptive to constructive exchanges and projecting a generally positive vibe since his recent return.

    He’s been better. Calling me “naive” is not subsumed within the “generally” description.

    I’m still waiting to hear whether he thinks DoJ has a secret agreement with Cohen to testify. Are there any documents related to this plea that remain sealed?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  291. @289. But not before putting on a helluva show for years, DRJ, while the little people paid taxes! The Queen of Mean’s TeeVee spots were great– mints on the pillows, too… and she did 60 Minutes! Mike Wallace, no less! 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  292. @288. LOL yeah, but he already told us the market will collapse and we’ll all be poor if that show goes to air

    Rudy promised blood in the streets earlier this evening, too.

    Dave (445e97)

  293. BTW, what happened to Beldar?

    Dave (445e97)

  294. 278 — shall we go for daggers or swords for this duel?

    Or will you simply run from the fight by placing me on vacation when you feel insulted?

    What did I post previously about prosecutorial discretion and not charging him with bank fraud, I referred to a loss from the fraud lower than $1 million. Most large US Attorney Offices — and SDNY and CDCA are at the top of the list — decline to pursue bank fraud loss cases of less than $1 million. The have more than they can handle with losses twice that large.

    I had no information when I made the earlier comment that Cohen was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest on loans made as part of his tax medallion investment and not paying taxes on that money. I suspected that he had some problems connected to loan transactions involving his real estate business — that seemed to fit pretty easily into the reporting, and was a reasonable scenario for why DOJ would have Mueller spin that case off to the SDNY.

    Even if there was fraud in connection with the HELOC loan, the loan amount was only $131,000 — though the “loss” amount for pros purposes would have been the max available credit under the line.

    But there are also pros guidelines for tax cases to be pursued criminally. Or did you not realize that?

    What’s the tax loss in Cohen’s case — just from 2012 to 2016 as set forth in the information, and pertaining ONLY to the unreported interest paid to him by the people leasing his taxi medallions from him?

    Have you read the information? Are you confident you understand it?

    When I read it, I added up the tax loss to the government — $1.49 million.

    All tax cases have to be approved by Tax Division, and they have guidelines. The reason they have guidelines is because of the policy of having even-handed enforcement of tax cases as a criminal matter across the country.

    It looks bad if someone goes to jail in Topeka for a $50,000 tax evasion, and someone in NYC has a $2 million tax evasion handled as a civil enforcement matter. So Tax Division in DC must approve, and the tax loss has to exceed a certain minimum threshold.

    So had it been reported at the time that Cohen was under investigation for having failed to report more than a million in interest income on loans he made to taxi cab operators, I would have confidently said “He’s getting indicted”, because everyone who has a million dollar tax evasion gets indicted when it’s something as basic and obvious as not reporting interest income. That’s just a matter of policy.

    As for the charge bargain, it’s been reported that Cohen and his wife filed joint returns — which means she is legally culpable for the false information in the returns. But she wasn’t charged — and that is a very common “deal”. But a part of that deal is that the husband who pleads guilty must submit to an interview and answer all questions truthfully.

    That’s a form of “cooperation” that does not have to be reflected in the plea agreement.

    The more obvious form of cooperation is testifying — but not all cooperation involves testifying.

    Just because a plea agreement doesn’t have an express term obligating you to appear as a witness and testify truthfully if called, does not mean you are not cooperating. Cohen is clearly cooperating — and that cooperation might include a willingness to testify if they want him to. But the deal does not obligate him to testify.

    But you know what else the deal doesn’t say? It doesn’t say that they won’t indict his wife.

    So, they could — if he doesn’t cooperate.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  295. At the end of the day, there’s no chance the Senate is going to collect 67 votes to convict in impeachment for a campaign violation. I’ve no idea why not though, Pence has to be better as beige-man placeholder until 2020.

    If this campaign violation is of the criminal variety and is the second article, maybe, but still probably not.

    There’s no chance that Trump does the Nixonian thing and resigns before impeachment. If Trump is on the ballot in 2020, the Democrats can run a wet noodle and it will be a landslide and probably a blue wave in the Senate. Of course, a wet noodle might actually be better than some of their candidates.

    Can the Republican Party actually figure out how to run a primary against Trump the troll? I’m not sure, if its 16 others fighting over 60% of the rest of the base, then they split it, Trump wins the primary, and gets shellacked by a ham sandwich, or noodle.

    Colonel Klink (9e4613)

  296. BTW, what happened to Beldar?

    He’s lurking. I think he was driven off by idiots, but even after 2 or 3 of them self-deported rather than concede that they had made up stuff about me, the lure of posting here has not regained its former luster. I know how he feels. Increasingly I look at some of the spin here and wonder what substances people ingested that last so many months and have such a powerfully debilitating effect on the rational parts of the brain.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  297. Here are the Cohen documents we know about. I don’t know if there are more that have not been released. There certainly could be.

    DRJ (15874d)

  298. You know, Patterico, you outta take some time and do a thoughtful piece on the sweep of time through the past few decades that has led the culture down to this point. Criminality and political mischief will always be with us but the elements and environment that has accelerated this descent to acceptable carnival is really long over due to be flushed out.

    But then, we’re too busy watching the show, aren’t we.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  299. I have been trying to stay at The Jury and not comment here, in support of Beldar. Obviously I have not been as disciplined as he.

    DRJ (15874d)

  300. @297. You mean his ‘what a revoltin’ development this is’ crack from a golf cart safe in Scotland?

    Did anyone bother ask, sundress or a kilt today, Rudy?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  301. Can the Republican Party actually figure out how to run a primary against Trump the troll? I’m not sure, if its 16 others fighting over 60% of the rest of the base, then they split it, Trump wins the primary, and gets shellacked by a ham sandwich, or noodle.

    Colonel Klink (9e4613) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:23 pm

    The extreme cost of a run-off is more than worth it. It’s the only reform I can think of, short of the establishment outright fixing the primary the way the democrats do, that can solve the problem.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  302. Colonel Haiku, thanks, you crack me up.

    #161, nk, the Land-O-Lakes Indian girl is still on the carton in my refrigerator, but the butter itself seems to come from all over. Lots of California dairy farms around Chino, and from Bakersfield to Fresno proudly display LOL affiliated signs.

    ropelight (3050e9)

  303. The problem is more elemental, I think largely due to Paul singer, any senators willing to support him were waved off, there was a United front there, remember the sea island conference. Who did singer back, and why?

    Narciso (af5641)

  304. As for McCabe — no one goes out and hires Mike Bromwich unless they got a target letter.

    Take a moment to look him up.

    But let’s consider the context of the comment you refer to, and evaluate the fairness or mischaracterization of Patterico here:

    I wrote on 3/29/18:

    Andy McCabe got a target letter, and will likely be indicted soon, because:

    1. Sessions identified the US Attorney for Utah as the “outside” federal prosecutor he asked to work with the IG on investigating various matters, and
    2. Andy McCabe announced today that he’s established a legal defense fund, and is taking contributions.

    The Utah US Attorney, John Huber, is a career prosecutor first appointed US Attorney by Obama in 2015, and reappointed by Trump in 2017.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/29/2018 @ 2:50 pm

    The Inspector General issued his report Andrew McCabe on April 13, 2018. Look it up if you don’t beleive me.

    As part of that report, the Inspector General referred McCabe to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, which was confirmed by reporting in multiple news outlets on April 19.

    So, three weeks before it was publicly confirmed that he had been referred for criminal prosecution, and two weeks before the IG report was released to the public which detailed the multiple episodes of McCabe lying to first FBI investigators, and later to IG investigators – I predicted he would be indicted.

    Does the passage of 4 months since the referral without a charge being filed lead you to believe he’s going to escape uncharged?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  305. I had no information when I made the earlier comment that Cohen was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest on loans made as part of his tax medallion investment and not paying taxes on that money.

    Making confident pronouncements on limited information seems to be your forte.

    So have we forgotten about Stormy?

    Has McCabe been indicted?

    As for the charge bargain, it’s been reported that Cohen and his wife filed joint returns — which means she is legally culpable for the false information in the returns.

    After your dozens of comments in March reaming me about Trump’s scienter in a case where he is presidential candidate, you think you’re going to blithely assume Cohen’s wife knew about this dirty arrangement — and you think I’m not going to call you on that? Puh-frick’-leeeze. The chances Trump knew about the payment in advance, and authorized it as part of his effort to become President of the United States, is multiple times the chance that Cohen’s wife knew every jot and tittle of his sordid henchman’s work for lowlife Donald Trump.

    Now, let’s be very careful here. Michael Cohen went under oath with the judge and assured him that the terms of the agreement set forth on the record — which contained no requirement of testimony or an interview or any cooperation whatsoever — constituted his entire agreement with the government. And he also said he had not been threatened. But don’t trust me! Let’s consult the transcript of the colloquy, linked in this very post, and take a look at this screenshot I just took:

    Whole Agreement

    Now, you’re asking me to believe that an AUSA sat there in court and watched Cohen make these representations, and said nothing, knowing that…what? That he had privately threatened Cohen’s wife with prosecution? That he had a secret side agreement with Cohen to cooperate?

    And I am “naive” for thinking that situation is incredibly unlikely??

    I don’t know how they did things in your office, but that would not fly in mine, and I suspect it doesn’t fly in the SDNY.

    But hey. Maybe I’m just “naive.”

    If so, and if facts contrary to this sworn statement emerge, there will be hell to pay.

    I doubt it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  306. Yes, California is usually #2 In dairy production to #1 Wisconsin. And those 2 states are neck and neck for most Geography majors per capita, I learned early in my work life.

    urbanleftbehind (cc7e6a)

  307. Does the passage of 4 months since the referral without a charge being filed lead you to believe he’s going to escape uncharged?

    Heh. The feds and state prosecutors have different definitions of “soon.”

    Have we forgotten about Stormy yet?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  308. Riders On The Storm Writers on teh Vox

    Writers on teh Vox
    Writers on teh Vox
    Their writing smells like socks
    They can’t think out teh box
    Like Hoagie fought at Chosin
    ConDave claims teh Higgs-Boson
    Writers on teh Vox

    Donald Trump is now teh Prez
    He’s teh best or so he says
    Takes a long holiday
    With Melania he’ll play
    If ya give this man a chance
    The market will advance
    Trump is now teh Prez

    Kids you gotta write teh truth
    Kids you gotta write teh truth
    Don’t make it so uncouth
    In the pool like Baby Ruth
    At teh end you’ll wear Depends
    Change’em often keep your friends
    Gotta write teh truth, yeah

    Yeah!

    Writers on teh Vox
    Writers on teh Vox
    Their writing smells like socks
    They can’t think out teh box
    Like Hoagie fought at Chosin
    ConDave claims teh Higgs-Boson
    Writers on teh Vox

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  309. The extreme cost of a run-off is more than worth it. It’s the only reform I can think of, short of the establishment outright fixing the primary the way the democrats do, that can solve the problem.

    Run-off would be fine with me, but it seems unlikely to happen.

    I don’t think we should rig things like the Democrats do, but IMO Trump should have never been allowed to compete in the Republican primaries.

    I’m not even sure there needs to be formal mechanism for this type of vetting; Trump is sui generis, and Preibus, Ryan and/or some combination of other mucky-mucks/past nominees/whatever should have formed an ad hoc committee, voted, and sent him on his way.

    Dave (445e97)

  310. The only other Cohen document I found is the appearance Bond, but PACER might have much more. I don’t want to go there. Beldar usually handled that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  311. A simple “I was a dick and I’m sorry, and gee, the case against Trump looks worse for him than I initially imagined” would go a long way.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  312. One note Trumpeteers never seem to blow in his favor is how much less he needed to spend to win the office. There’s a lesson in that some place. OTOH, ‘you get what you pay for.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  313. Hoagie never claimed to be a Korean vet.
    (BTW, my stepfather actually was a veteran of the Chosin Reservoir, although that is not actually relevant to anything here).

    kishnevi (2bcf76)

  314. “Have we forgotten about Stormy yet?“

    Some have, some haven’t. And there are those who choose to elevate teh pornstar. I remember a time when being fvcked on film was frowned upon. We call ‘em the good old days.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  315. Dave, that sounds great because we don’t like Trump, but it’s undemocratic. And besides, the establishment kinda picked Trump in order to prevent a Cruz administration. The GOP didn’t expect him to actually win the general, but if they preferred to be a minority party to being a conservative one, I don’t want the party to be able to send candidates on their way.

    The problem is two-fold: one that our culture is so corroded at this point, so frankly Godless, that Trump, a terrible man, can be trusted at all. He’s an expression of hatred and trolling. People support him only because he’s the anti. They’ve stopped loving one another. The first problem is that our culture is rotten. Can’t really organize out of that one.

    The second problem is mechanical. We keep seeing a few good options split the vote, because those good options bitterly fight instead of working towards the big picture. Why couldn’t Walker, Rubio, Cruz, and Paul agree to drop out in favor of the leading option after the first couple of states? Because they suck. Perhaps some sort of formal and public agreement amongst the sane candidates to do this from now on would solve the problem.

    At any rate, no solution has emerged, and Trump could plausibly be nominated again. We’ll have to see.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  316. 318… I needed to rhyme with Higgs-boson, kishnevi… choices were slim.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  317. “Have we forgotten about Stormy yet?“

    Some have, some haven’t.

    I think an awful lot of the country has been transfixed by the statements of the President’s lawyer that the President directed him to commit a federal felony while a candidate. But then, I live outside Tribalism Central.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  318. As for the campaign finance case, in that same thread on March 29, I wrote the following:

    Cohen’s predicament as a possible campaign finance law violation is closer to a prosecutable case. But he would still have defenses, namely that its a “specific intent” crime, and the statute requires a showing of “willfulness” — i.e., that he knew the payment would be a violation of campaign finance laws, and did so purposely.

    There are many many prosecutions of people who evade the contribution limits — but most are like the D’Souza case where the allegation was that he funded contributions made by others in their names as a way to evade the contribution limits.

    Here Cohen possible evaded the contribution limit — but the payment didn’t go to the campaign. So you have to both ask the jury to conclude that it was his intent that he aid the campaign or influence the election by making the payment, AND that he knew doing so was a violation of campaign finance laws.

    The first really is an inference in the absence of some direct evidence or testimony that he expressed a desire to assist in Trump’s election by making the payment. Asking a jury to make that inference in a criminal case based on the temporal relationship alone is a tricky proposition.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/29/2018 @ 2:22 pm

    If Patterico was fair, he would acknowledge that I said Cohen had potential exposure on the campaign finance charge with respect to the Daniels payment.

    I said it might be a hard charge to prove if temporal proximity of the payment to the campaign was the only basis upon which you could ask the jury to infer an intent to influence the election.

    You didn’t claim that the timing made the case stronger — you pointed to a Bush FEC commissioner who said that, and he didn’t know what he was talking about because HIS claim was that the Trump case was stronger than the Edwards case because the Edwards payments came a year before the election, whereas the Trump payment came only a month before the election.

    Ignored by you — although I posted a LONG recital of the facts based on transcripts from the Edwards trial, was the fact that there were multiple payments on Edwards behalf to his mistress, they began before the voting in the Iowa caucuses, and continued right on through Super Tuesday when Edwards dropped out.

    The FEC Comm whose argument you endorsed “mistakenly” assumed that payments to Edwards mistress in Dec 2007 and Jan 2008 were almost a year before the 2008 election — when that wasn’t the election in issue in the trial. It was the series of primaries in January and February that were the issue.

    And did I miss something today where Mueller announced he was pursuing a campaign finance charge against anyone?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  319. That personal recognizance bond, secured only by threat of $500,000 liability, is very instructive, DRJ. Thank you! Compare it to Manafort’s $11 million bond secured by cash and other assets.

    nk (dbc370)

  320. “But then, I live outside Tribalism Central.“

    You only think you do, lol. Fool yourself.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  321. Col H…poetic necessity? I can understand that.

    kishnevi (2bcf76)

  322. It looks like one of Cohen’s motivations was to protect his wife because they filed jointly, but there’s no evidence that she was actually in on it (link). The other factor is that Pecker told prosecutors about the payments, so Cohen was boxed in, especially with all the other evidence they confiscated.

    Paul Montagu (9dcfd2)

  323. California, the other tribe is an endangered species, like the grey tailed ostrich.

    Narciso (af5641)

  324. Patterico,

    Do you think that this case would be a good precedent for the removal a President from office via impeachment?

    Dejectedhead (dc85ba)

  325. Some intern at Fox outta pull a ‘Ron Burgundy’ on Tucker Carlson and tag his C-block teleprompter with a line, ‘Next up, why Diet Coke in cans can kill you.’ Across 6th, MSNBC would hire the kid in a NY minute.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  326. You didn’t claim that the timing made the case stronger

    Um, yes, I did.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  327. By which I meant that the timing — a payment 10 years after the fact, just before an election — strengthened the case.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  328. Do you think that this case would be a good precedent for the removal a President from office via impeachment?

    It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what the House is willing to do after the election.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  329. @319. =Haikodak!= Gesundsplice!

    An 8mm man, eh.

    Sad.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  330. 333. Just asking your personal opinion.

    Dejectedhead (dc85ba)

  331. swc:

    You didn’t claim that the timing made the case stronger

    Me:

    The timing makes it a stronger case

    Patterico (115b1f)

  332. Just asking your personal opinion.

    I’d have to know more about the full extent of the evidence against him. I have a feeling we don’t know everything yet.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  333. SWC, why do you continue to believe that a campaign contribution must be monetary AND come from the campaign? That’s not what the law says.

    The same argument that applies to hooker-like hush money, that also applies to Russian assistance. This shows a pattern of behavior.

    This whole thing feels like building a RICO type case, he settled a RICO case last year for $25M, where DJT ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator. You only need 2 of a list of violations in a 10-year period, of which I see 6 that are at least possible for the Org/Trust/Campaign.

    Colonel Klink (ce15d9)

  334. Dustin (ba94b2) — 8/23/2018 @ 7:55 pm

    I can’t disagree.

    The really, truly most astonishing thing is that Trump won the key early primaries, and the nomination, by somehow carrying the Christian evangelical vote. Donald. Effing. Trump.

    You wanna talk godless? Even the supposedly god-fearing, values-oriented people sold their souls to this devil.

    My mother became an evangelist minister later in life. I was never a believer, but I did meet a fair number of her friends (many of them also ministers) over the years. It is hard for me to comprehend how anyone who takes the Bible seriously could support Donald Trump. My mother worked in the Philippines and passed away unexpectedly just as the 2016 presidential race was picking up, so I never got to find out what she thought about Agent Orange. She had a lot of anxiety about cultural issues, like some Trump supporters here, but she was also shrewd and not one to taken in by sweet-talk and big promises. I hope she would have seen through his con, but I’ll never know.

    Dave (445e97)

  335. Like the hackers who were able to get into the exchanges because Michelle Obama’s college roommate provides insecure,networks the 20 million records hacked by China, where was the quid there.

    Narciso (af5641)

  336. Impeachment is really a matter of what the House defines as a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ anyway… one day, making a Diet Coke Float using chocolate ice cream or having orange hair might be enough.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  337. swc, you have always gone on and on (and on and on and on) about the fact that there were primaries in the Edwards case. But what you ignore is that a full 10 years had passed since Trump’s affair. Then there are the points I made in the post about how all discussions with Cohen were about the election, including the payoff here.

    To me, honestly, the real issue is what an incredible dick you were in that thread. So I thought I’d tweak you, since you never apologized and are still beating your chest in this thread, about the fact that you told us all that the nation would forget about Stormy Daniels within two weeks.

    Yeah, not so much, huh?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  338. 310 — you are going to tell me about the required plea colloquy in a federal criminal case?????

    And you are going to question me about whether there are “understandings” reached with a defendant and counsel that do not constitute an “agreement.” It goes something like this:

    “You understand that your wife has not been charged, correct? You understand that the decision to not charge her is a discretionary decision, correct? You understand that a change in circumstances with regard to your case could cause a reconsideration of that discretionary decision, correct?”

    It’s not a deal — noting is being promised. The plea of guilty is not being exchanged for an agreement to not indict the wife. The plea only must be knowing and voluntary. He knows his wife is at risk because his attorney has told him she’s at risk. She hasn’t been charged — the easiest way to keep things that way is to do what is asked. It’s the job of his attorney to make him understand the circumstances.

    That is not an agreement of any type with the government.

    And, while it is quite true that AUSA’s do not try the same quantity of cases as state court prosecutors, i was a bit of an outlier — especially while in the Central Valley. I had 51 jury trials to verdict in 23 years. The shortest was 2 days, the longest was 5 months. In 51 cases, I lost the entire case only twice — each time with a single defendant. Both were in Hawaii. One I advised against filing because I didn’t have trial evidence I was going to need to prove intent — the key witness was a citizen of the Peoples Republic of China, and I doubted they would honor my subpoena. As for the other — at the end of the 2 day trial I was concerned that my witnesses mis-interpreted what had happened to them on board an airliner, and the defendant who didn’t speak English was probably innocent.

    Besides those two cases, i never lost a main defendant in a case, and only lost 9 of 143 defendants total in the other 49 trials.

    And I never had a conviction reversed on appeal.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  339. Again, from that thread:

    “Just 15 minutes of research on the history of the Edwards prosecution would have made 44 unlikely. But is just another of those ‘too good to check’ moments.”

    “Legal brilliance on display.”

    “I’ll tell you what I understand better than you do”

    “Its [sic] not that hard to look this stuff up, rather than rely on answers from biased partisan [sic] which reflect a very poor understanding on his part of the facts which are the subject of his commentary.”

    “Patterico caught with his pants down — and punts.”

    “Relying on laughable and incorrect analysis of Trevor Potter — without taking the time to attempt to defend Potter’s analysis before moving on, while discounting an actual effort to look behind Potter’s nonsense — invites insult”

    “Patrick gets most upset when he realizes I’m right, but he cannot admit it”

    A guy who prances about like that, while assuring us all that we will forget about Stormy Daniels in two weeks, deserves to have his nose rubbed in it when Stormy Daniels presents the strongest ground for impeachment we have yet seen: Trump’s lawyer saying Trump directed him to commit a federal crime.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  340. 312 — you are certainly correct about that. A false claims case is not “reactionary”. there is no urgency attached to the charging decision. McCabe isn’t going anywhere, and there are likely other investigations ongoing which might touch upon him — maybe he’s cooperating.

    There are a myriad of potential reasons why 4 months have passed with no movement.

    I’d say the least likely potential reason is that the case has been declined and he’s not going to be prosecuted.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  341. Dave, that really does blow my mind. Not just because of Trump’s sex scandals and how he’s treated his wives. He represents a rejection of loving one’s brother, and a rejection of character.

    Trump’s fans do believe they are seeking the greater good, of course, but they define the good as misery for ‘nevertrumpers’ and the left (so ill-defined that our deficit can explode and Trump’s somehow not on the left).

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  342. 310 — you are going to tell me about the required plea colloquy in a federal criminal case?????

    And you are going to question me about whether there are “understandings” reached with a defendant and counsel that do not constitute an “agreement.” It goes something like this:

    “You understand that your wife has not been charged, correct? You understand that the decision to not charge her is a discretionary decision, correct? You understand that a change in circumstances with regard to your case could cause a reconsideration of that discretionary decision, correct?”

    It’s not a deal — noting is being promised. The plea of guilty is not being exchanged for an agreement to not indict the wife. The plea only must be knowing and voluntary. He knows his wife is at risk because his attorney has told him she’s at risk. She hasn’t been charged — the easiest way to keep things that way is to do what is asked. It’s the job of his attorney to make him understand the circumstances.

    That is not an agreement of any type with the government.

    This started when I said: “The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t.” You called that “naive.” Now you’re telling me that Cohen has no agreement. You’re also spinning a fantasy where a barely veiled threat was made concerning the wife, which was not revealed to the judge and which Cohen denied (by denying that there was ANYTHING to the agreement beyond what was explicitly stated).

    I sure wouldn’t pull the kind of shit you describe above. That’s a threat.

    I had 51 jury trials to verdict in 23 years.

    Not bad. Nearly 2/3 the number I did in 20 years.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  343. That’s amusing and she decided to give her story a month before the election why again, pity she found few takers mostly becaysevthey assumed Hillary would win.

    Narciso (af5641)

  344. Impeachment is really a matter of what the House defines as a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ anyway… one day, making a Diet Coke Float using chocolate ice cream or having orange hair might be enough.
    DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/23/2018 @ 8:21 pm

    No, ketchup on well-done steak is certainly an impeachable offense.

    Colonel Klink (ce15d9)

  345. (Counting felonies only, that is. Nobody really counts misdemeanors but I did about 15 of those too.)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  346. @349. Heinz would be; Delmonte and Hunt’s merit mere censure.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  347. 316 — I think somewhere above i wrote:

    I agree that the mostly likely outcome here is a political one — if the Dems control the House they will vote along party lines to impeach him.

    But there won’t be 67 votes in the Senate to convict him and remove him from office.

    BUT the price of those GOP “no” votes might likely be a backroom deal where he agrees to not run for a second term — but holds off making that announcement until late in his first term in order to avoid an 18 month intra-party fight over who runs. I think there is a strong likelihood of a Pence candidacy that comes into being in the late fall of 2019, before other candidates can get the funding and organization in place to mount a challenge in the early primaries.

    Oh, right — its comment 35.

    But, on the question of whether he’ll ever be prosecuted, in or out of office, maybe your favorite outlet Politico will persuade you (I’m not linking them out of respect for your views of them):

    But a very high legal standard that is applied in criminal cases involving alleged campaign finance violations means Trump might not be guilty even if his lawyer is.

    “Under the law, it’s quite easy for two people involved in the same act to have different criminal consequences,” said Andy Grewal, a University of Iowa law professor.

    That distinction is particularly critical in campaign finance cases because the law limits criminal prosecutions on those charges to instances where someone “knowingly and willfully” defied legal requirements.

    Proving that Trump knew at the time that the payouts were intended to influence the presidential race, and that he knew they were illegal, could be much harder. Perhaps such records exist, or maybe Cohen is prepared to say that he told Trump the way they were handling it was illegal, but the lawyer never said that in court on Tuesday.

    But questions of how the law treats payments that have both personal and electoral benefits prompt a lot of disputes even among attorneys who are experts in the field, he said.

    “If that many people don’t know what the law means, then it can be very hard to convict anybody of violating a campaign finance law,” Baran said.

    If prosecutors are seeking to establish whether Trump had criminal intent, they’ll scramble to find proof that he understood that money paid to influence an election had to be reported and couldn’t lawfully be paid through a corporation in coordination with a candidate or campaign. They might even need proof that Trump knew expenses arguably of a personal nature could be considered campaign donations.

    If there’s no direct or strong proof that Cohen told Trump the payments were illegal, Trump could also have another defense: that it was reasonable to assume that his lawyer was making arrangements that were legal.

    “One way to show you didn’t willfully or knowingly break the law, you assume, would be to say you relied on your lawyer,” said Grewal, the University of Iowa law professor. “If you’re just bumbling around and telling your lawyer to do things, you would imagine your lawyer taking care of those things would not break the law.”

    So, as I said earlier — Trump is in a worse case politically with Cohen’s plea, but it’s way too early to tell if he’s in any legal jeopardy as a result.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  348. 338 — Colonel — the point I have repeatedly made is that this particular statute has never been tested in court when it comes to the candidate him/herself, as opposed to the contributor.

    As noted in the Politico article that I quoted from in the above post, campaign finance law experts disagree on how the law can distinguish payments made where there are mixed motives for making the payment.

    And, as someone who has spent almost 30 years pretty much exclusively in federal court on criminal cases, the government runs into a brick wall when the Court asks a question like “How was the defendant supposed to know that his payment was illegal if there isn’t any consensus in the case law on whether his motive in making the payment must be exclusively related to the campaign, or is it enough that he thought I might influence the campaign while at the same time resolving other matters important to him? How can someone be sent to jail when the law doesn’t clearly define for him what is prohibited and what is allowed?

    There is no definitive case decision that I’ve ever found holding that it’s enough to show that only partial motivation — or mixed motives — is enough to trigger the reporting requirement Trump is said to have violated.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  349. The John ensign isn’t particularly dispositive either, then again he was one of the class of 94 a promise keeper, the least likely person you would think would have a mistress and pay her whole family off, that was with tax payer funds I believem

    Narciso (af5641)

  350. Dave #339 –
    Astonishing, isn’t it? Trump’s “intellectual” boosters claim that evangelicals flocked to DJT because they were “desperate” and “had nowhere else to turn” when their values were under attack. Apparently their values could not have been defended by any of the candidates who had not violated them so conspicuously themselves.

    We’re told that Trump gallantly defends “religious voters” from snobs who mock their beliefs as backward – but meanwhile Trumpistas ridicule the unsophisticated notion of the Trump-critics that leaders ought to have a modicum of character, or at least should try to act as though they do in public. As for the defense that Trump is really a better person than he generally seems: that would be a very rare situation in human life.

    I don’t have much sympathy for complaints that Trump is now the victim of double standards, considering how his fans have insisted on making a virtue of any double standard that benefits Trump.

    Radegunda (8392fa)

  351. 347 — I’m going to back up and admit an error in my response to what you wrote.

    You did write that Cohen had no deal to testify — and that is correct. His plea agreement does not obligate him to testify.

    So, to the extent that i have argued — or that it can be suggested that my argument meant you were wrong in saying he did not have a deal to testify — that was a step too far.

    I think its clear he is cooperating — he’s going to do what they ask him to do so that his wife doesn’t get prosecuted, and they don’t look further into his records for additional crimes.

    And it’s not just his wife being left out that leads me to this conclusion — it’s the fact that the only tax loss the prosecutor set forth in the information is the unpaid taxes on the interest he earned on the loans he made.

    It doesn’t ring true to me that a scouring of his tax returns would turn up only that specific instance of under-reporting of income.

    So, this strikes me as one of those cases where the prosecutor calls the defense attorney and says “This is what we’ve found. We’ll accept a plea on the following terms, and stop our review. If your client declines, we are going to continue digging into his returns and his business dealings.

    In a financial case, the amount of loss drives the sentence. Reaching a deal that stops the meter is the only way to limit the sentence exposure.

    And the terms of the deal offered — I’m 100% certain — included Cohen submitting to as many interviews as the gov’t wants, and answering whatever questions they put to him.

    The way to limit the case to exactly where it stands — in terms of the loss calculation, and the defendants named, is to continue to do what you are asked to do.

    That is not a deal that has to be disclosed to the Court.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  352. Cohen also saved millions in legal fees he doesn’t have.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  353. 353 30 years in federal criminal court, that’s one heck of a crime spree.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  354. Radegunda @355

    Astonishing, isn’t it? Trump’s “intellectual” boosters claim that evangelicals flocked to DJT because they were “desperate” and “had nowhere else to turn” when their values were under attack. Apparently their values could not have been defended by any of the candidates who had not violated them so conspicuously themselves.

    Great observations. Another thing that blew my mind was how badly Trump flailed in his comic attempts to pretend he was a Christian. It was crass and nauseating for me to watch even as a non-believer but the evangelicals just nodded their heads and played along like something out of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Trump normally picks up what to say by watching TV but it’s clear he didn’t have a clue about anything spiritual.

    Those folks should have loved Ted, an authentic believer with a minister for a father, and solidly conservative positions on every social issue. Why they went for the phony instead of the real thing is pretty much the key question of the entire campaign.

    Dave (7f91aa)

  355. SWC, there appears to be other substantiation in this case based on documentary and other witnesses. Of course, we haven’t seen it or heard it, but you don’t see the black hole either you infer it based on the effects around it.

    We might not ever know those details, as I can’t see a way Trump himself is indicted as a sitting , key thing that, President, (there’s no statutory reason he can’t, it’s policy based, as there are potential issues with article 2 powers, but I doubt anyone really actually wants to test it), but if Cohen is telling the truth, and the documentary evidence backs up his testimony, absolutely Trump would be in violation, of the letter of the law, and of course the spirit, which might matter to Congress.

    Edwards was prosecuted for this, your interpretation that it must be a direct cash outlay by the campaign is flawed. As long is was of value, and it wasn’t reported, and the value exceeded individual or corporate limitations, which it vastly did, then it counts as a contribution and had to be accounted for. On top of that were the instructions that Cohen testified to with Trump directing payment through fee’s through Cohen and to the Org (Daniel’s case), or via the new corporate entity that Cohen was going to create in the case of AMI (Audio), that’s also potentially additional fraud and conspiracy charges.

    It still feels more like they’re bringing a racketeering charge on this single case, or a RICO case based on a number of Title 18 violations, Trump isn’t directly charged, Unindicted Co-Conspirator and all that, and that’s part of the report to Congress. That may have 1, 2, 10 different articles in it.

    All of these investigations are directly leading to a variety of enterprise corruption charges for a number of the Trump affiliated endeavors, the campaign, and since some has been ongoing, as president. I still feel the Trump Foundation is the hidden part of the iceberg, where the whole family is exposed.

    Of course, since I haven’t seen the evidence that forced Cohen to plead guilty and throw himself at the prosecution desperate for a future deal, I could be completely wrong, and this is all to get Jr, or Weiselberg(SP?). But I kind of doubt, it looks more like they’ve broken the dam, and Trump is just going to have to hope the Senate can’t find 67 votes for conviction.

    Plus, who knows what was in the National Enquirer safe, and that doesn’t even account for any Russia bit, or the next dirty Trump secret that comes out next week that makes this week look tame.

    Colonel Klink (4bf39a)

  356. 339 ” It is hard for me to comprehend how anyone who takes the Bible seriously could support Donald Trump.”

    If you had read the Bible you would know it’s not their place to judge and they are too forgive. To major principals and two of the most basic.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  357. Those folks should have loved Ted, an authentic believer with a minister for a father, and solidly conservative positions on every social issue. Why they went for the phony instead of the real thing is pretty much the key question of the entire campaign.

    Nobody likes him; he’s preachy.

    Marist Poll from Wed.,: Tedtoo 45%; Beto 41%.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  358. Indifference to sin and iniquitous behavior isn’t part of the Bible’s message.

    Dave (7f91aa)

  359. 303 DCSCA do you think we are Descending? I was just reading about the battle of Athens TN in 1946 which seems far worse than anything today but not as bad as Tammany Hall. I think we are better informed about the corruption, not sure if there is more of it.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  360. You might as well be speaking in conversational Sanskrit, nate, California is effectively a one party state and how well that was worked out.

    Narciso (af5641)

  361. 363 many sinners have served the Lord and in major ways. You telling God how to do his job now?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  362. 365 I think CA has done an excellent job of attracting like minded people to coagulat in large numbers. This has allowed the majority of the States to operate in a more efficient and conservative manner. Just imagine if all those Liberals and never Trumpers were dispersed over the rest of the country!

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  363. Dave @359:
    Another odd thing is how such a blatant self-promoter was painted as someone acting in an extraordinarily self-sacrificial spirit. Fans have spoken of Trump in veritably messianic terms: “He gave up his wonderful life, and he didn’t have to do it. He did it FOR US!” He just loves America (us!) so very much.

    There’s a weird psychology at work, with many evangelicals (and others) perhaps thinking of Trump in the same way that a foolish girl thinks of her bad-boy boyfriend: “Look how he has turned into a loving and devoted protector, for my sake!”

    Radegunda (8392fa)

  364. Some positive news to brighten everyone’s day;

    “The Internal Revenue Service put the tri-state area on notice: The charitable workarounds New York, New Jersey and Connecticut approved following the new federal cap on deductions for state and local taxes aren’t acceptable to the federal government.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  365. The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. — Proverbs, 16:4

    I’m told that “day” in the context of the Poverb means “time” and it could be as long as four years. But when have you seen Trump appeal to the Christian virtues of his supporters? He appeals to their materialism, their fear, their anger, their resentment, and their hate.

    nk (dbc370)

  366. I think [it’s] clear he is cooperating

    I do too. I’m told you get credit in the federal sentencing system for cooperation. That does not mean it’s part of a deal, and I apprefiate your acknowledgement that I was not wrong to say there was no deal.

    And the terms of the deal offered — I’m 100% certain — included Cohen submitting to as many interviews as the gov’t wants, and answering whatever questions they put to him.

    Then the federal system requires people to lie about the terms of their deal. Because under any English language interpretation of what I quoted above in a screenshot of the colloquy, Cohen should have disclose that. If it was part of the deal.

    Patterico (a4a3d0)

  367. But when have you seen Trump appeal to the Christian virtues of his supporters?

    Oh, that would be completely impossible, since those virtues are entirely alien to him.

    He might as well try to perform Latvian opera or give a lecture on Riemannian geometry…

    Dave (445e97)

  368. Latvian opera is easy:

    One potato, two potato, three potato, four;
    Five potato, six potato, seven potato, more!
    To dream the impossible dream ….

    nk (dbc370)

  369. But when have you seen Trump appeal to the Christian virtues of his supporters?

    Some of Trump’s biggest boosters have suggested that “religious voters” saw Trump as the best defender of their religious and moral values against the hostility and condescension of secular elites. He does speak vaguely of defending “the Christians,” but essentially as an interest group and fan base, not as spiritual brethren.

    Radegunda (8392fa)

  370. But when have you seen Trump appeal to the Christian virtues of his supporters? He appeals to their materialism, their fear, their anger, their resentment, and their hate.

    nk (dbc370) — 8/23/2018 @ 10:12 pm

    I think he appeals to their fear of oppression. I believe his campaign had a coordinated effort to talk about Trump’s ‘beautiful family’ and explain how Trump must be a great dad to have such a great looking family bla bla bla. I heard that line from callers on a bunch of radio programs. Of course, binary choice. Hillary isn’t the 13th disciple.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  371. 344 — You relied on Potter, and Potter had the basic facts wrong. You did not explain why you thought the temporal relationship was significant — you have done more here than you ever did in that earlier thread. I do AGREE with you that the fact that Trump did nothing for 10 years to quiet Daniels, but then sought to pay her a few weeks before the election, is strongly suggestive of his intent to keep her from impacting the election. That was never the point — and you didn’t make that argument in that thread back in March.

    Let’s go through the thread in order:

    You:

    My update to the RedState post:

    UPDATE: There is a serious angle to this, you realize. Cohen’s hush money probably violated campaign contribution laws. If Trump colluded with him on that, Trump is vulnerable. As the 60 Minutes piece notes, John Edwards was indicted for similar activity, although his case did not result in a conviction. There are indeed lurid aspects to the story, but it’s not a joke.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:00 am

    Me:

    And the idea that Mueller or anyone else would chase this down as a campaign law violation is laughable. The effort by the Obama DOJ to prosecute edwards on a similar theory was roundly ridiculed, and the case against edwards on that theory was much much stronger. He was acquitted on one count, and the jury hung on the others, with a majority favoring acquittal on all counts. The gov’t chose to not retry the case. There were a ton of unresolved legal questions that didn’t get answers because of how the case ended in terms of ambiguity in the campaign finance laws in a criminal arena.

    For example, is it necessary for the “intent” to influence the outcome of an election to be the “sole intent” of the contribution at issue, or is it enough that the “intent” is one of several motivating factors in the expenditure of funds? Would it be necessary for the gov’t to prove that protecting the campaign from Stormygate was the only reason for payment of the $!30,000, or could the defense defeat that claim by showing there were other, equally valid reasons, for trying to prevent her disclosure — especially since the story was already in the press as early as 2011.

    If that question is unresolved — and it was unresolved in the Edwards prosecution — how would a guilty verdict survive a “void for vagueness” challenge regarding the language of the statute? How would someone know their conduct was potentially in violation of the campaign finance law if they had equally compelling, non-campaign related reasons for trying to keep the story under wraps?

    Just 15 minutes of research on the history of the Edwards prosecution would have made 44 unlikely. But is just another of those “too good to check” moments.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/26/2018 @ 12:40 pm

    You:

    The timing makes it a stronger case, and makes your snide and snippy little comment out of line and overwrought. As usual. You’re not doing very well on respectful disagreement.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 3/26/2018 @ 6:50 pm

    Me:

    “The timing makes it a stronger case.”

    Legal brilliance on display.

    “I was in the middle of an election campaign that was the subject of national media attention, and did not want my 10 year old son exposed to what I expected might be 24/7 sensationalized press coverage of the allegations that was sure to follow if she told her story publicly, which she had previously done in 2011. To avoid exposing him to that, I directed my attorney to explore whether she would agree to not submit to any press interviews. Given my admitted past history, I had no concerns at all about whether the news would impact the view of voters towards my candidacy.”

    The conduct engaged in by Edwards was so extensive and lasted for so long — including recruiting a close campaign aide Andrew Young to falsely claim that the child was his before the baby was even born — that it was a slam dunk to prove that he did it all to preserve his candidacy in the series of Democrat primaries that were underway shortly after the National Enquirer first ran the story.

    The idea this a possible criminal violation of campaign finance laws is TDS catnip, nothing more.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/26/2018 @ 7:22 pm

    Me:

    When the host wants to take me on re the question of what works at trial, he does so at his own risk. If he makes a legal claim, he should back it up. Not leave it hanging there.

    I said the Edwards case was folly, and explained why.

    He responded the “timing” makes the Trump case better?

    Really??? Why?

    Or are we expected to just take him on his word?

    How about the words of the Edwards prosecutors?

    MAYBE I know a bit more about this than I’ve let on.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/26/2018 @ 8:04 pm

    Me:

    Note that I haven’t once tried to defend Trump’s conduct here.

    My comments have all been in response to the Hosts comments, not the post opening up a “Stormy Monday” thread.

    But it was the “John Edwards was prosecuted for the same thing” that set off the ridicule meter. Anyone paying attention to the Edwards prosecution — and I did — knew what a ridiculous effort it was — on the part of an Obama DOJ Public Integrity Section still reeling from the debacle of the Ted Stevens prosecution.

    And inside DOJ it was seen as a “heads we win, tails you lose” case, where if they won the Obama DOJ would show themselves as aggressive enforcers of campaign finance laws, Citizens United notwithstanding; and, if they lost, a poster child for why tougher campaign finance laws — or even publicly financing of campaigns — were needed.

    The case was duplicity on multiple levels, and career prosecutors inside Public Integrity weren’t afraid to say so.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 3/26/2018 @ 8:14 pm

    I didn’t note at that time that one of the Public Integrity lawyers who did some of the pretrial work on the case — but was not part of the trial team — was a friend of mine. The views I expressed were his views as expressed to me. The Edwards case was a trainwreck for the government — many DOJ attorneys were relieved the jury hung because they were convinced any conviction would have been reversed on appeal. The decision to not retry him was one of those “Glad we avoided that falling piano” moments.

    You:

    shipwreckedcrew mocks me:

    “The timing makes it a stronger case.”

    Legal brilliance on display.

    “I was in the middle of an election campaign that was the subject of national media attention, and did not want my 10 year old son exposed to what I expected might be 24/7 sensationalized press coverage of the allegations that was sure to follow if she told her story publicly, which she had previously done in 2011. To avoid exposing him to that, I directed my attorney to explore whether she would agree to not submit to any press interviews. Given my admitted past history, I had no concerns at all about whether the news would impact the view of voters towards my candidacy.”

    [You] My, the smugness and snideness.

    A former chairman of the Federal Election Commission believes the payment President Trump’s attorney made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to cover up the illicit affair between the president and the porn star is a six-figure campaign finance violation.

    Trevor Potter, who served as chair of the FEC during President George H.W. Bush’s administration, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” the $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, would be an in-kind contribution to Trump’s campaign. It would be about $126,500 more than is legally allowed.

    Cohen has admitted to making the payment in October 2016, just weeks before his long-time client won the presidential election. The payment was meant to enforce a non-disclosure agreement that would keep Daniels from speaking about the affair.

    “It’s a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give,” Potter said. “And if he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.”

    Cohen, who did not respond to requests for comment by CBS, previously said he made the payment with his own money. That could put him in even more hot water than if he was just a go-between for Trump to pay Daniels.

    “If he was then reimbursed by the president, that doesn’t remove the fact that the initial payment violated Cohen’s contribution limits,” Potter said. “I guess it mitigates it if he’s paid back by the candidate because the candidate could have paid for it without limit.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stormy-daniels-60-minutes-interview-hush-money-could-be-6-figure-campaign-finance-violation-for-trumps-lawyer#!

    Video:

    https://www.facebook.com/axiosnews/videos/2107078532872214/

    Fuller discussion at 21:31 here. John Edwards case mentioned at 23:19. Potter says this is a stronger case, because of the timing. Rather than being the year before the election, the payoff here was right in the run-up to the election when everyone was talking about Trump’s treatment of women. (Few remember that he actually apologized for the Access Hollywood tape. That was a seismic event in the campaign.)

    But hey. A chairman for the FEC under a Republican president doesn’t know as much as shipwreckedcrew. Just listen to shipwreckedcrew and he’ll tell you so.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 3/26/2018 @ 9:04 pm

    But lets got to the transcript of the Potter interview on 60 Minutes — the one you were touting on the “timing” issue. What did Potter actually say?

    Anderson Cooper: Is there any recent precedent for p– prosecuting somebody for an undisclosed campaign contribution?

    Trevor Potter: As it happens, there is. There’s sort of a pretty spectacular one.

    Former senator John Edwards was prosecuted, but never convicted, for payments a supporter and his campaign finance chairman made a year before the 2008 election to a woman who’d had Edwards’ child.

    Trevor Potter: I think the Edwards case is not as strong as the facts we have so far in the Trump case.

    Anderson Cooper: Why do you think the potential case against Cohen or Trump is a stronger case than the Edwards case?

    Trevor Potter: The timing of it. It wasn’t the year before the election. It’s right in the middle of the run-up to Election Day. When– Trump’s conduct with women was a prime campaign issue. In fact, it was what everyone was focused on.

    WHOOP THERE IT IS … WHOOP THERE IT IS.

    So, I’ll say it again — Potter didn’t know the facts of the Edwards case. Actually he did — he knew that the payments in the Edwards case were a year before the 2008 election.

    BUT EDWARDS WASN’T A CANDIDATE IN ANY ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 2008!!!!!!!!!!

    SOME NEW GUY NAMED BARACK OBAMA HAD BEATEN EDWARDS FOR THE NOMINATION.

    Edwards was a declared candidate from mid-2007 on. He was on primary ballots in Jan, Feb, and March before dropping out.

    There were numerous payments made to, and expenditures made for the benefit of Hunter through all those months.

    That is not what Potter referred to. He said the payments were a year before the 2008 election — which Edwards was not invovled in.

    You adopted Potter’s justification for why the “timing was better”.

    You NEVER said the 10 year gap between the incident with Daniels and the payment only weeks before the election was the “timing” you were referring to.

    Even after I asked you to explain why.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  372. @364. I think we are better informed about the corruption, not sure if there is more of it.

    Carnivale! Depends on your POV and numb you choose to get. Long way from chuckling at the The Big Dick’s ‘Sock-it-to-me?!?!’ to upchucking about boinking bunnies and porn stars.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  373. Stay dry shipwreckedcrew. Had a dozen inches in Kamuela.

    mg (822552)

  374. @377. typo- how numb you choose to get.

    ______

    swc- hope you have ‘umbrella’ insurance. Stay high and dry at your hurricane party.

    ______

    Thing is, Patterico, unless Mueller flushes out some solid waste definitively revealing some kind of Trump/Russian collusion/conspiracy, should the House flip, sure, there’s a chance he’ll get an article of impeachment or two but given the political environment it’s doubtful he’d get convicted in the Senate over campaign finance issues alone for paying off bimbos. Censured, maybe. Either way he’ll spin it into wins and wear it all as badges of honor.

    Then become more emboldened than ever at rallies, on Twitter and Fox, crowing ‘See, they tried to impeach me but they can’t stop us makin’ America great again!”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  375. Poop pickeruppers in the gay bay have a lifelong job. Way to go Cantafordya.

    mg (822552)

  376. “I do AGREE with you that the fact that Trump did nothing for 10 years to quiet Daniels, but then sought to pay her a few weeks before the election, is strongly suggestive of his intent to keep her from impacting the election.”

    I thought she never threatened Trump previously? My recollection is she hired an attorney and contacted him. Can’t he argue he wasn’t trying to influence the election but respond to an ultimatum presented him?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  377. Follow up to 381, why isn’t Daniels blackmail and exposure a campaign contribution to Hillary? She waited ten years till it benefited the campaign to sell her silence then expose it.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  378. You did not explain why you thought the temporal relationship was significant . . .You NEVER said the 10 year gap between the incident with Daniels and the payment only weeks before the election was the “timing” you were referring to.

    Oh my! The ALL CAPS. And quite wrong, too. You could not possibly be more wrong, in fact.

    I quoted Leviticus as saying Potter’s main point was that Cohen committed a crime, and then quoted DRJ as saying:

    That “solely” is why the timing of the payment to Stormy matters since it was made in October 2016 — just weeks before the election, even though the alleged affair had happened in 2006. Why would Trump or Cohen or anyone on Trump’s team worry about this hurting Trump’s family in 2016 when they hadn’t worried about it for 10 years? Unless they sent someone to warn her in 2011, but that opens up even more problems for Trump, doesn’t it?

    And I said:

    These comments both strike me as quite correct.

    In other words, the timing matters, and there could be a crime here if it was done with Trump’s knowledge, and the timing is relevant to these issues.

    I don’t remember saying the John Edwards prosecution was the most awesome and bulletproof prosecution of all time. I remember saying that John Edwards was indicted for similar activity, although his case did not result in a conviction, and that the timing makes this a stronger case. All that still seems to me to be true, what with the general election being days off, Trump’s treatment of women being a hot topic at the time, and a ten-years-old allegation being squashed with just days to go in the election.

    I’m still a little amazed this rather mild opinion became cause for an avalanche of wordy and repetitive insulting vituperation.

    I guess apologies are out of fashion in the Trump era.

    I showed earlier that you claimed I never said the timing made the case stronger, I just relied on another guy’s flawed opinion — and I proved I did say that and that you were wrong. You then claimed I never explained how the timing matters. I just showed you that I did. You are flatly wrong. Flatly. And you owe me an apology. (Another one.)

    As usual, you’re battling this phantom Patterico in your head who makes stupid arguments and never makes good ones. And as you conduct that battle you repeatedly misstate my position and make false claims about my position.

    You. Can’t. Help. Arguing. This Way.

    You have always done it, and apparently you always will.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  379. “I didn’t mean to steal Leviticus’s thunder. Maybe he has some examples of his own. This “naive” blogger would like to see them!”

    – Patterico

    The only other one I had lined up, beyond the “people will forget about Stormy Daniels in two weeks” one that you presented, was:

    “I don’t think the collateral consequences of the Stormy affair will impact [Cohen] too severely.”

    – shipwreckedcrew 3/29/18 @1:04pm

    Leviticus (efada1)

  380. This was my take at the time, from the same thread:

    “If Trump didn’t know about the payments, and there were never any conversations between Trump and Cohen about the payments, then Trump could never have paid Cohen back for the payments. Doesn’t this put Cohen squarely in the crosshairs of a criminal indictment, if DOJ can convince a grand jury that Cohen probably made this payment (three weeks before the general election) to help Trump’s campaign?”

    This was my take, from the thread that Patterico and shipwreckedcrew are discussing:

    “1. As things currently stand, is Potter wrong that Cohen is exposed to indictment?

    2. If Cohen were indicted, would there not be a significant risk that he would flip on Trump?

    3. If Cohen flipped on Trump, would Trump not be exposed to indictment?”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  381. To swc’s credit, he acknowledged that point with this:

    “347 — I wouldn’t put anything past Mueller’s team. I know a lot of DOJ attorneys who don’t have a very high regard for Andrew Weissman, but no one would say he’s not aggressive.

    But I think there are many on Mueller’s team who would say such an effort might be a “Bridge Too Far” — especially for Mueller.”

    Leviticus (efada1)

  382. Now let’s see if he acknowledges that I made the point about the 10-year delay in that same thread, despite his ALL CAPS assurance in this thread that I NEVER did.

    Patterico (d97543)

  383. I don’t think I would have bothered with this had he not called me “naive” for asserting that there was no deal for Cohen’s cooperation — which he has now admitted I was right about.

    Patterico (d97543)

  384. Leviticus (efada1) — 8/24/2018 @ 10:34 am

    “If Trump didn’t know about the payments, and there were never any conversations between Trump and Cohen about the payments, then Trump could never have paid Cohen back for the payments.

    No, they could have misled him about what he was paying back. And it doesn’t prove he approved the payments in advance, at least in more than general terms, i.e. you can spend up to $100,000 or whatever a year to protect my reputation.

    Now it looks like with regard to Karen McDougal, Cohen attempts to convince Trump that he should reimburse the National Enquirer’s parent company (and Trump doesn’t see why any complicated financial arrangements are necessary) The part of the recording that was released is chopped off (undoubtaly dishonestly) before they go into more detail taht coudl reveal Trump’s thinking or something about the background. But we know we have a recording at a point in time when Karen McDougal has been paid off (and she had to misled about becoming acolumnist for the National Enquirer to agree to that) but Trump hasn’t yet agreed to pay back the National Enquirer.

    In any case, they are considering a time period well after the election Cohen says that the National Enquirer could change its policy or David Pecker could be hit by a truck [sic – that should be bus – the cliche is bus. It’s supposed to be a bus, not a truck! ]

    Now they are not talking about the possibility of the National Enquirer changing its position and attitude toward Donald Trump in the next few days. It’s Trump’s long term reputation in general.

    Is anyone going to argue they weree thinking of the 2020 campaign or some other possible campaigns??

    The reason that purchase may never have taken place may however hqave nothing to do with Donald trump’s reluctance. It could be because the National Enquirer’s parent company conclusted other lawyers, who advised that if they sold the rights to Karen McDougal’s story to Donald Trump, that could make what they had done into an illegal uncollaterized loan. It would remove their defense of journalistic motive. Better to risk it being categorized as an illegal corporate campaign contribution. If they had no contact with Donald Trump it would be, at worst, an independent political expenditure. If Donald Trump paid them for the story, it would be hard to deny co-ordination and a political motive. So the best advice might be to just swallow the loss.

    The payment to Stormy Daniels was so irregular that it boggles the mind that Donald Trump would have expected his lawyer to go into deep personal debt to pay it. What hold or what what opportunity would he offer to give to Michael Cohen to induce him to do that?

    And there was no reason to do that. It came so late in the campaign it would not have been reported before the election anyway. And in any case it could have been disguised as legal fees. This is what the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Commitee did when they paid Fusion GPS. (they are still trying to fool people into thinking that anybody else previously hired Christopher Steele to communicate with Russian officials to find out the true reason Putin 2as so much in favor of Trump. The Washington Free Beacon had hored Fusio GPS for something much simpler: apublic records search, and Steele was hired by the Democrats while The Washington Free Beacon was still paying Fusion GPS. The DNC did not “take over” the investigation. They were two separate investigations)

    So what do we say? Donald Trump did things this wasy because he was not as experienced at coverups as was Hillary Clinton, and that’s why he’s in trouble? Are only the most venal and corrupt politicians to be elected, and in this field maybe Donald Trump was only an apprentice?

    There is some question as to whether or not what the Clinton campaign and the DNC did in accounting for the Fusion GPS payments in a way (running it through a law firm) so as to avoid all disclosure was truly legal – but one thing is there was no avenue of invewstigation likely whereby the truth would be disclosed.

    It only came out because the Republicans had control of Congress and the Steele dossier became a big issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  385. * It could be because the National Enquirer’s parent company consulted other lawyers..

    I wonder if the National Enquirer was used to being reimbursed by celebrities when they caught and killed a story the celebrity did not want to get out, and if so, whether we’ll find that out.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  386. Guess I’m not going to get that acknowledgment.

    Patterico (d97543)

  387. The question as with some of lanny Davis’s claims how many can be corroborated. Some have certainly been revised

    Narciso (0a4db9)

  388. How about this:

    You:

    3/26 — 9:00 am: There is a serious angle to this. John Edwards was prosecuted on similar charges

    Me

    12:40 pm: Edwards case was much stronger — with explanation re difficulties in proving intent.

    You:
    6:60 pm: Timing makes Trump case stronger — bald claim, not explanation or analysis.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  389. Inadvertant enter:

    How about this:

    You:

    3/26 — 9:00 am: There is a serious angle to this. John Edwards was prosecuted on similar charges

    Me

    12:40 pm: Edwards case was much stronger — with explanation re difficulties in proving intent

    .

    You:

    6:60 pm: “Timing makes Trump case stronger”. Bald claim by you, not explanation or analysis.

    Me

    7:22 pm: Where is analysis? Edwards case stronger because payments go on for months, begin before baby born and continue well after birth all through months while Edwards running in primaries. Trump is a one-time payment where he could posit the explanation that he didn’t want family exposed, and evidence of his philandering in the past already well known.

    You:

    9:04 pm: Trevor Potter says case against Trump is stronger BECAUSE OF THE TIMING — payments to Daniels were not a year before the election, as in Edwards case, but only weeks before. But hey, A chairman for the FEC under a Republican president doesn’t know as much as shipwreckedcrew. Just listen to shipwreckedcrew and he’ll tell you so

    Right there you were standing on Potter’s claim about timing — not what you say now. Potter’s claim was factual horse crap — he didn’t know what he was talking about when he said payments in Edwards case were year before election.

    How about you simply admit that — Potter’s claim was factual nonsense, and you accepted it and promoted it without looking at the actual facts.

    If you can’t acknowledge that — and I acknowledge my mistakes, as I did in this very thread — then you should look in a mirror and ask yourself why.

    It was almost 24 hours later that you said this:

    3/27 — 7:35 pm: Quoted Leviticus and DRJ.
    DRJ: “Why would Trump or Cohen or anyone on Trump’s team worry about this hurting Trump’s family in 2016 when they hadn’t worried about it for 10 years?”
    You:
    All that still seems to me to be true, what with the general election being days off, Trump’s treatment of women being a hot topic at the time, and a ten-years-old allegation being squashed with just days to go in the election.

    Which was your actual position — that because the Edwards payments were a year ahead of the election, and the Trump payment was 3 weeks before the election (Potter’s theory) that the Edwards case was weaker, or that the fact nothing was done about Daniels for 10 years (not 100% accurate, but not close enough) only to have her paid off 3 weeks before the election makes it stronger than Edwards?

    Or will you admit that you “switched horses in the middle of the stream”?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  390. DRJ actually came back with an interesting point at the bottom of that thread that never was responded to because the thread was abandoned.

    I want to revisit this topic now that some time has passed and our passions have cooled.

    IMO these facts support the argument Edwards made that the payments to Rielle Hunter were primarily to protect his marriage, not his candidacy. Why? Because they were made over the time she was pregnant and after her baby was born, spanning a period of several months or years, including for months after he ended his Presidential campaign in January 2008.

    On the other hand, Trump apparently did nothing about Stormy Daniels for 10 years, and Cohen only negotiated the NDA a month or so before the general election.

    The timing in these cases makes a big difference.

    DRJ (15874d) — 3/30/2018 @ 7:22 am

    This isn’t factually accurate.

    That might have been true for the early payments made by Bunny Melon directly to Andrew Young, which he then used to support Hunter. Those started in May 2007, and continued through January, 2008.

    But the Enquirer began chasing the story, which it finally published in October 2007. By in the period of Oct-Dec, Fred Baron was paying all the expenses of flying her around, putting her up in hotels or rented houses on the west coast, letting her stay in his Aspen home, etc.

    After the Enquirer story, Elizabeth Edwards knew about Hunter and the baby. She confronted Baron about why he was flying her around and keeping her stashed away. Baron told her it was to keep her away from any legit reporters who might be chasing the story. The campaign had called the Enquirer story “trash for cash”, and the mainstream media was mostly uninterested.

    But Baron didn’t want to take any chances.

    So the trial evidence was clear and undeniable that by late 2017, all the money being contributed and spent on Hunter was part of an effort to keep the existence of her child with Edwards out of the mainstream media, and it had nothing to do with saving his marriage because Elizabeth Edwards already knew.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  391. Will the Keebler Elf please show up and do his job…

    mg (8cbc69)

  392. You may want to refresh your recollection about the second day of the Edwards’ trial — the testimony of Andrew Young. Elizabeth knew about Rielle before the tabloid story and, after it, Andrew Young claimed to be her lover. That is when they went away at Baron’s expense. The issue wasn’t whether Edwards’ motivation was campaign-related or marriage-related. There was testimony showing both motivations.

    DRJ (15874d)

  393. Where is the evidence that Trump cared about his marriage since he only tried to silence Stormy when he was running for President in 2011 and 2016 (an attempt in 2011 and a completed payment in 2016)?

    DRJ (15874d)

  394. Where is the evidence that Trump cared about his marriage

    Any “reasonable doubt” that relies on Trump caring about his marriage doesn’t seem very reasonable…

    Dave (445e97)

  395. SWC sez:

    You did not explain why you thought the temporal relationship was significant . . .You NEVER said the 10 year gap between the incident with Daniels and the payment only weeks before the election was the “timing” you were referring to.

    The next comment SWC leaves on my site will acknowledge that was wrong and will apologize for it. If this does not happen, his time commenting here is done.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  396. I have moderated him to ensure this.

    That comment will not contain a bunch of blah blah blah about John Edwards or Trevor Potter, either. It will be a simple apology and acknowledgment that the above quote is wrong.

    If he can’t manage that, then his work here is done.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  397. Edwards was having the affair while his wife was in remission from cancer, what level of hell that earns you, is yet to be seen,

    narciso (d1f714)

  398. Let’s sum up.

    1. I was naive for saying there was no agreement for Cohen to cooperate. Except it turns out I was right.

    2. I “NEVER” said the 10 year gap between the incident and the payoff was significant. Except I did.

    3. I didn’t claim that the timing made the case stronger. Except that I did.

    You know what? I want an apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing for EACH of these. I’m tired of having someone come on here and repeatedly make false claims about what I say, and EACH ONE of the three false claims I just outlined was wrong.

    I don’t think SWC has the humility to acknowledge each of these claims was wrong and apologize. But I require it before he ever comments here again. I’ve absolutely had it with his penchant for mischaracterizing me, and there are going to be consequences, and a clear retraction and apology for each of these three misstatements is a start.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  399. daniels chose to surface these accusation, 10 years after the alleged event, like alred’s parade of 24, another in kind contribution to Hillary,

    narciso (d1f714)

  400. Well, that escalated quickly.

    Dave (445e97)

  401. I’ve never fully understood the hosts personal code of honor, but it is his site so if he wants to pitch a fit over this, it’s his call.
    Reminds me of this:

    From: Eskify.com
    “The Duke of Wellington got into a heated debate with the Earl of Winchilsea, and they furiously exchanged letters with each other until their contempt for each other eventually boiled over into a duel between the two of them. Wellington was prime minister at the time, and many people felt it was irresponsible for him to enter into a duel over an argument but he did it anyway. They met on Battersea fields, but the duel took an unexpected turn. Winchilsea refused to fire at Wellington and fired into the air. Wellington returned the favour and deliberately missed as well, and they ended their dispute peacefully”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  402. Actually, SWC points out in moderation that my claim was that Cohen entered no deal to testify. That is what SWC claimed I was naive for saying, and then admitted I was right.

    As I suspected, he refuses to apologize for the three areas above where he misrepresented what I said, or insulted me for things that he later admitted I was right about. So he’s now gone from the site too, and good riddance.

    If readers are starting to suspect I am less patient with bullshit these days, they’re right.

    Mischaracterize me persistently and refuse to apologize, and you too can leave forever. Do you think I will miss such people?

    Random Viking? Anon Y. Mous? Richard Aubrey? If I think about these people at all, it’s only long enough to smile at the fact that I don’t have to waste my time correcting their misstatements of my arguments. That’s how it will be with SWC too.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  403. if he wants to pitch a fit over this, it’s his call

    “Pitch a fit” implies I’m wrong. You want to debate this, steveg? Really?

    If you’re not paying attention closely enough to see that I am merely demanding accountability for those who misrepresent what I say, then you should keep your mouth shut. If you think you ARE paying close enough attention to throw down, then let’s do it — but you’re subject to the same rule that is getting a lot of people tossed. You want to play?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  404. They met on Battersea fields, but the duel took an unexpected turn. Winchilsea refused to fire at Wellington and fired into the air. Wellington returned the favour and deliberately missed as well, and they ended their dispute peacefully

    Actually, the “unexpected turn” was quite common in duels of that era.

    The party challenged (the one accused of wrongly besmirching the honor of the challenger) would initiate the duel. Intentionally missing was a demonstration that he meant no harm to the aggrieved party. The challenger then often fired wide of the mark as well, so the “honor” (*and* lives) of both parties were preserved.

    It is believed that Alexander Hamilton (who was an expert shot and could not have missed if he were aiming) intentionally fired wide in his duel with Aaron Burr, and Burr (who had challenged him) then murdered him by aiming true.

    Burr, the sitting vice President at the time, but on the outs with President Jefferson, thought killing Hamilton (who was the bugbear of Jefferson and Burr’s party) would restore his political fortunes.

    Dave (445e97)

  405. Intentionally missing with the first shot was also implicitly a statement of trust and respect: “I believe you are a gentleman and will not take my life after I have spared yours.”

    Unfortunately, Burr was no gentleman.

    Dave (445e97)

  406. Bring back the duel.

    mg (8cbc69)

  407. I’ve never fully understood the hosts personal code of honor …

    Have you considered asking questions or trying to educate yourself about things you don’t understand? My guess is you don’t care and this is simply a snide comment but, if not, blissful ignorance is typically not a smart choice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  408. I don’t think this escalated quickly, Dave. This has been going on for some time. Disagreement is interesting but swc has personalized his disagreements with Patterico by adding insults or snide comments like calling him naive. They go back too long for this to be acceptable, especially from friends.

    Did you know swc used to blog here as a regular guest poster? Guest posters never have to agree with the host but I think that relationship should earn the host a modicum of civility from swc. Patterico gave swc the keys to the blog because he trusted his judgment. Years later, swc is returning that trust with insults, not civility. It stings me to see it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  409. Insults, snide comments, and a nearly constant stream of misrepresentations regarding what I say, culminating in the three listed above. There’s only so much of that a person can take. It’s sad to me, too. But it is what it is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  410. Mueller is not like you Patrick, neither is his team, I would trust you to do the right thing, whatever our political opinions, his record has left plenty of red flags,

    Narciso (1eb6be)

  411. I didn’t see any insults this time, DRJ. Everybody seemed to be disagreeing in a respectful way. A fair amount of criticism was being directed at swc for his incorrect, overconfident and/or dismissive predictions in the past, and he seemed to take it gamely.

    Of course, I have been on the receiving end of swc’s venom when he gets snarky, and we rarely agree on substance. On the other hand, there are very few Trump supporters here capable of formulating an even facially intelligent argument (Kevin M and JVW, to the extent the latter is the most Trump-tolerant of the three people who post).

    I don’t mean to condone or excuse any disrespect to Patrick, but I was sorry to see the exchange end as it did.

    Dave (445e97)

  412. Here is my hopefully final word on swc in general, and my exchange with swc in this thread in particular.

    swc has been in moderated (and now deleted) comments quadupling down, calling me “duplicitous and dishonest” and “pathologically incapable of acknowledging your own errors.” That latter bit appears to be a reference to the Trevor Potter comment in that old thread. I did at one point quote Potter as saying that the timing is stronger in the Trump case, and while the timing of the Trump case is indeed stronger in my mind, for many reasons, one of the reasons I quoted from Potter is the only one swc focuses on. It relates to the fact that in the Edwards case we had a series of payments beginning some 7 months before the first caucuses and primary elections and continuing through those elections, while in the Trump case we had a payment 11 days before the presidential election, but Potter mischaracterized the timing by saying the payments were made “a year before the election.” swc claimed that I ran with that as my sole basis for my claim. Here’s what I said: “Potter says this is a stronger case, because of the timing. Rather than being the year before the election, the payoff here was right in the run-up to the election when everyone was talking about Trump’s treatment of women.”

    Now, it’s worth noting that my characterization is right in some respects. The payoffs in the Edwards case did continue through the elections, but they began in the year before the election — and that includes the primaries and caucuses. The payments started in May 2007, and the elections started in calendar year 2008. So the payoff did at least begin in the year before the election.

    But my relying on Potter here was erroneous in a couple of ways, nevertheless. The payments did continue through the elections, and more importantly, the relevant election was the primaries. That’s a good point, and had swc made that point in an adult way, that would have been a good contribution. (He did not make the point like an adult, but rather insulted me throughout the thread. I collected some of the insults here.) It’s not a point that was evident in Potter’s written piece, which was the first thing I cited, but if I had had swc’s encyclopedic knowledge of the Edwards case facts I might have caught that point when I watched the video. I did not.

    (swc has some long and no doubt very important to him disquisition on when I made the point about the 10-year gap (hint: he doesn’t like something about it and it shows this bad thing and that bad thing about me). I don’t really care about all that.)

    However, swc has, in his usual fashion, misstated my argument in several ways that made me seem far more clueless than I actually was, and my argument far sillier than it actually was — which was not at all. I will list them swc’s falsehoods/unfair statements again here in one place, and the reader can note that two of the three falsehoods or unfair statements he wrote in this thread relate to his attempt to msicharacterize my argument from that earlier thread:

    1. FALSEHOOD/UNFAIR STATEMENT #1 BY SWC:

    Here:

    You NEVER said the 10 year gap between the incident with Daniels and the payment only weeks before the election was the “timing” you were referring to.

    Refuted by this link in which I quoted DRJ as saying:

    That “solely” is why the timing of the payment to Stormy matters since it was made in October 2016 — just weeks before the election, even though the alleged affair had happened in 2006. Why would Trump or Cohen or anyone on Trump’s team worry about this hurting Trump’s family in 2016 when they hadn’t worried about it for 10 years? Unless they sent someone to warn her in 2011, but that opens up even more problems for Trump, doesn’t it?

    And I said:

    These comments both strike me as quite correct.

    In other words, the timing matters, and there could be a crime here if it was done with Trump’s knowledge, and the timing is relevant to these issues.

    I don’t remember saying the John Edwards prosecution was the most awesome and bulletproof prosecution of all time. I remember saying that John Edwards was indicted for similar activity, although his case did not result in a conviction, and that the timing makes this a stronger case. All that still seems to me to be true, what with the general election being days off, Trump’s treatment of women being a hot topic at the time, and a ten-years-old allegation being squashed with just days to go in the election.

    FALSEHOOD/UNFAIR STATEMENT BY SWC #2:

    Here:

    You didn’t claim that the timing made the case stronger

    That is refuted by this link from that thread in which I said:

    The timing makes it a stronger case

    FALSEHOOD/UNFAIR STATEMENT BY SWC #3:

    (This one is more in the nature of an unfair statement than a falsehood, but it represents swc being snide and nasty and haughty on a matter where he later admitted I was right and he was wrong:

    I said in the post: “The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t. But since when do things like facts get in the way of Donald Trump word salads?”

    And swc quoted that and replied here that I was being “[n]aive.” He then set out several points of pressure that could have been applied to Cohen. I noted that he denied under oath in the colloquy, with the AUSA sitting there, that there were hidden parts of the plea bargain that had not been placed on the record, and said that if there had been, the AUSA would have spoken up. swc then laid out a scenario in which the AUSA is implicitly threatening Cohen with the prospect of prosecuting his wife, and said that in that situation there was “not an agreement of any type with the government.” I reminded swc:

    This started when I said: “The hidden assumption here, of course, is that Cohen got a deal to testify. Which he didn’t.” You called that “naive.” Now you’re telling me that Cohen has no agreement.

    And swc finally admitted error, but did not apologize:

    I’m going to back up and admit an error in my response to what you wrote.

    You did write that Cohen had no deal to testify — and that is correct. His plea agreement does not obligate him to testify.

    So, to the extent that i have argued — or that it can be suggested that my argument meant you were wrong in saying he did not have a deal to testify — that was a step too far.

    He went on to note that Cohen is cooperating, which is obvious and which I never denied.

    I think a decent person, having called me “naive” for a statement that they ultimately admit is correct, would apologize in addition to admitting error.

    Above, I demanded a clear acknowledgment and apology for each of these three falsehoods and/or unfair statements. In the spirit of the day and to uncloud my head, I forgive swc for these statements even though he has not apologized. However, I think it best that he remain moderated.

    As DRJ notes, swc’s attitude towards me has turned snide and personal. It’s a recurring problem that I have tried to address many times, each time refusing to acknowledge what was staring me in the face: it’s not going to get better. The relationship is corrosive and allowing him to continue to comment here under the present circumstances just makes no sense. His principal mission appears to be to show me up, and his method for doing so is to twist my arguments into something I never said, and then to mock me. I’ve tried to deal with it many times before and it hasn’t worked.

    IF he were to give a clear, unambiguous retraction and apology, unadultered by other carping, I would not be inclined to have him resume commenting immediately. There would be a cooling off period, likely through the end of the year. Frankly, I don’t expect him to do it and at this point I don’t really want him to, so I think this long comment is the last I will mention him on the site. Before the election of Donald Trump, we had some good times, and I’ll try to remember those and put the post-Trump era out of my memories.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  413. It’s become a pattern, Dave. SWC insults, Patterico responds/denies, swc doubles down, Patterico demands an apology, and swc retracts (but reluctantly or as little as possible) … and then the process repeats again and again.

    My impression is that Patterico put up with this for much longer than he would normally have because of their history and swc makes interesting pro-Trump arguments. It is nice to have someone who can do that. It’s unfortunate that making those arguments isn’t enough for swc, and he thinks he has to be snide, too.

    DRJ (15874d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6712 secs.