ChrisWeigant.com

Has Michael Cohen Already Flipped On Trump?

[ Posted Monday, July 9th, 2018 – 15:16 PDT ]

Last week, there was much speculation among politics-watchers over whether Michael Cohen was possibly on the brink of flipping on Donald Trump. This would be big news, of course, since Cohen himself regularly described himself as "Trump's fixer," meaning he probably knows where a whole lot of metaphorical bodies were buried from the Trump organization's various antics and shenanigans over the past decade or so. One week later, I can't help but wonder if that point has already passed. Perhaps the question now isn't whether Cohen will flip sometime soon -- but whether he already has.

I admit this is nothing short of sheer speculation on my point. I have no inside sources. I have not talked to Cohen or his legal team. I know nothing more than anyone else watching this drama play out on television. But after watching Rudy Giuliani on this week's Sunday political chatfests, it seems rather obvious to wonder whether Cohen has already flipped and is now singing like a little birdie to the prosecutors.

Let's start with the timeline. Cohen began by professing solidarity with Trump and personal loyalty to the president, to the point where he would gladly "take a bullet" for Trump rather than flip. These days, however, he is feeling much less inclined towards being Trump's personal cannon fodder. In the interview last week which set off all the speculation, Cohen pointedly said, when asked about his loyalty to Trump: "My wife, my daughter and my son have my first loyalty, and always will. I put my family first." He also spoke of putting "country" before Trump as well, which can't be a good sign for Trump's legal team.

At the same time last week, it was revealed that Cohen had switched legal teams, to one with much more experience dealing with the New York federal attorney who is investigating -- and will be prosecuting -- the case against Cohen (Special Counsel Bob Mueller handed this entire case off, and is not technically part of it anymore). Cohen also pointedly closed down a "joint defense" agreement with Trump's legal team, which allowed the sharing of information and legal defense strategy between the two men's legal teams. This is exactly what you would expect, if Cohen were about to flip, as many pointed out at the time.

Which brings us to Rudy Giuliani's rather bizarre interview this week on ABC's Sunday morning show. George Stephanopoulos sat across from Giuliani, and began by talking about Cohen. When asked what Trump's reaction to Cohen's recent interview was, Giuliani showed no concern whatsoever. This led to Giuliani giving Cohen some rather astonishing legal advice:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's start right there. What was the president's reaction to that interview from Michael Cohen?

RUDY GIULIANI: Same as mine, which is fine. I mean, Michael Cohen should -- should cooperate with the government. We have -- we have no reason to believe he did anything wrong. The president did nothing wrong with him, so we've gone through every document we can. We see no evidence of it. The fact that Mueller gave....

STEPHANOPOULOS: All 1.3 million documents?

GIULIANI: 1.4 that we produced. Also, Mueller himself has indicated that there's nothing here because he would have given it away. And he hasn't taken it back. And every indication we have is the president is not involved in that. Now, I'm hoping that Michael is able to clear himself because I think what was done to him was really unfair and I know he's being sensible and calm and trying to say the prosecutors did nothing wrong. But invading a lawyer's office? I don't know, George. That doesn't seem right to me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well he -- he said it wasn't invasion. He had no problem, as you saw, with how that....

GIULIANI: Well, I think -- if you were in his position, I think I'd advise you to say that too.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you have no concerns at all about anything that Michael Cohen might tell the prosecutors?

GIULIANI: Zero. None. As long as he tells the truth, we're -- we're -- we're home free.

Rudy reiterated this point a little later in the interview, again stating: "We want Michael to handle this in a way that's most helpful to him. Michael's not going to lie, he's going to tell the truth. Long as he does that, we have nothing to fear."

This is either an unbelievable amount of legal confidence, or sheer legal malpractice. After all, Trump knows exactly what Cohen knows about what he was asked to do for Trump over the years. After all, Trump himself asked him to do all that stuff. So either Trump is supremely confident that there isn't even a hint of anything illegal in those 1.4 million documents, or something else is going on here.

If Trump does know about dirty secrets that might be uncovered, why would he send his new legal eagle out to the Sunday talk shows to almost urge Cohen to flip? Any lawyer who knew his client would be in jeopardy from such a move would flat-out refuse to publicly suggest such a thing, after all. This is where the possibility of malpractice comes into play, however this does seem pretty far-fetched. This wasn't some momentary lapse of reason or a slip of the tongue -- Rudy appeared on multiple shows this weekend and gave the same advice, almost word-for-word, as he did in the Stephanopoulos interview: Trump doesn't care if Cohen flips, because Trump did nothing wrong, therefore if Cohen "tells the truth" then there is simply nothing to be worried about. [This led, today, to Cohen's new lawyer tweeting some snark in Rudy's direction, calling any sentence with "Giuliani" and "the truth" in it an oxymoron.]

There's one other possibility to consider before I re-pose my headline's question. Is Trump just downright delusional about what is and is not illegal? Does he not remember what is actually contained within those 1.4 million documents? Is he so certain of this delusion that he's now convinced Rudy Giuliani that there is nothing whatsoever to fear from Cohen flipping on him? That's really the only other possible explanation.

Except, of course, for the most obvious one. Has Cohen already flipped on Trump? He's certainly done all the groundwork and sent signals that he was on the brink of flipping. He fired his legal team and hired a new one, he backed out of that joint defense agreement with Trump's legal team, and he publicly complained that Trump wasn't footing his entire legal bill (as, assumably, Trump had promised he'd do at some point). Then he baldly stated that his days of taking a bullet for Trump were over, and his family and his country would now come first.

What leads me directly to this speculation is how these things normally happen. The public learns about a target of an investigation flipping not when it happens, but rather weeks or sometimes months later. An indictment will be filed against the target (which puts everything in the public record), but it will be accompanied by a plea deal for the judge's consideration. This plea deal usually begins with: "The subject has been cooperating with prosecutors for the past two months...." You don't get an actual plea deal until after you've spilled your guts, in other words. You've got to prove you've got the goods on someone else before you get the sweet legal deal.

This really makes the most sense, when considered with Giuliani's recent round of interviews. Either Giuliani knows that Cohen has already flipped, or he and Trump are convinced that if it hasn't actually happened, it could any day now. If this is a done deal, then Trump can only project confidence by appearing not to care one whit about what Cohen might say. Which was Rudy's message yesterday, in a nutshell.

If Cohen has already flipped, then it is useless to protest or warn against it any more. Better to go with the flow and profess complete indifference, since a lot of this is being fought not in a courtroom (at least, not until Paul Manafort's trials begin) but in the court of public opinion. By expressing confidence that -- if Cohen sticks to "the truth" -- there is nothing whatsoever to fear, Trump's team leaves open the possibility to later claim that anything bad Cohen comes up with is a lie, plain and simple. That is a legal strategy that makes sense, rather than being a reason for a malpractice complaint.

We won't have the answer to the question of whether Michael Cohen has already flipped on Donald Trump until an indictment is filed against Cohen (probably for the money laundering charge, which would be the easiest to prove with a paper trail). If this indictment is filed together with a plea deal, then we'll find out exactly when Cohen did flip. And, should this come to pass, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to later learn that Cohen didn't just think about flipping last week, but that that was when he began his imitation of a singing canary. This really makes the most sense, after seeing Giuliani all but dare Cohen to flip on this week's Sunday shows.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

52 Comments on “Has Michael Cohen Already Flipped On Trump?”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I admit this is nothing short of sheer speculation on my point.

    That's what I like about you, CW.. You speculate like crazy but at least you acknowledge it..

    You don't try and pass off your speculation as fact...

    But ya know what is really noticeable??

    Throughout your entire commentary on Cohen's legal issues......

    You don't say a WORD about Russians or Collusion or the Election......

    Funny how, inadvertently, you appear to concede that the issue with Cohen has NOTHING to do with Russians, Collusion or the Election.. :D

    Freudian Slip??? :D

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I don't think the prosecution is anxious to hear from Cohen just yet. They haven't had enough time organize the 1.3 million documents into a reference encyclopedia. The prosecution needs to know how effective Cohen is likely to be as a witness. The prosecution wants Cohen to know that they know the case history better than either Trump or Cohen or Rudi do. This shouldn't be hard given that the Cohen legal practice seems to have been a one man operation and a bunch of file drawers. It's hard not to forget a lot of the stuff you've filed over a decade, including what it means and why you bothered to save it.

    Cohen is signaling a willingness, perhaps even an eagerness to sing for a better supper, but the prosecutors would be crazy to talk to him, let alone sign him up before he has completed a lengthy audition showing he can stay on pitch and stick to the libretto.

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [2] - correct.

    Now that Trump picked the obvious choice for SCOTUS (the guy who stated that he doesn't think the executive branch can be prosecuted - was there ever any real doubt?), we are looking at trashing Trump's already beleaguered reputation, then prosecuting him after 2020 for money laundering. His family are probably screwed sooner as they won't be able to hide behind our flag.

    Mueller can now take his time, build his case and unleash hell.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    it would appear, contrary to everything we've heard for a year-and-a-half, that whatever hell actually does get unleashed, it will not involve the words "Russian" or "collusion", right?

    Gawdamity, there is going to be a lot of blood oozing from slashed wrists in the land of Weigantia! Can't begin to say how bad that makes me feel!!

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    "Russian" or "collusion"

    Oh for Pete's sake, how many times do I have to state that the Russians interfered with the election, but are too clever to involve Trump because the man is a moron who can't keep his mouth shut about anything.

    Trump, however, is heavily involved with money laundering, probably criminally, especially in Trump Soho.

    The person who says "Russia" and "Collusion" most often is Trump himself - he is trying to define the criminal investigation into an area he is too dumb to have been included in.

    He is also very likely guilty of obstruction of justice for the lies he concocted about the Trump Tower meeting - are you really naive enough to believe the whole thing was about "Russian orphans"?

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    Very nerdy, but the Ohio vs. American Express ruling by SCOTUS is absurd. Basically Amex can stop businesses from telling us the truth.

    This is intricate, so I'll just link to the New Economics Perspective overview on Youtube.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=475&v=ovqjj_hNAYw

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sorry - the link about starts half way thru. Here is the correct link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovqjj_hNAYw

  8. [8] 
    John M wrote:

    Guess I won those 1,000 quatloos Michale, since I called it correctly, and your woman was NOT nominated for the Supreme Court.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carp!! I hate it when I am wrong.. :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Guess I won those 1,000 quatloos Michale, since I called it correctly, and your woman was NOT nominated for the Supreme Court.

    Yup.. The payment has been transferred to your account..

    President Trump had a golden opportunity to really stick it to the Dems..

    Well, I am sure he know what he is doing...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the plus side....

    https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment

    Judge Kavanaugh is clearly all in for the 2nd Amendment..

    That is definitely a plus in his favor...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for those of you who think destroying our democracy as a response to President Trump is a good idea??

    Commentary: Don't destroy the Supreme Court to save it from Trump

    "Democracy in Peril" is the headline at the liberal webmag "Salon."

    At the socialist publication "Jacobin," leftist activists say the danger is so great that Democrats must pack the Supreme Court to protect it from the legacy of President Trump.

    On CBS' "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," liberal celebrity and activist Michael Moore says it's time to get rid of the Electoral College.

    Meanwhile, former Republican Max Boot writes in the Washington Post that the GOP, "like postwar [Nazi] Germany and [Imperial] Japan must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt."

    Ripping the Electoral College out of the Constitution, packing the U.S. Supreme Court and wiping out the party of Lincoln wouldn't have sounded extreme three years ago. No, it would have sounded insane.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-dont-destroy-the-supreme-court-to-save-it-from-trump/

    You should be ashamed of yourselves..

    You see, ya'alls' problem is ya'all think MY TEAM IS LOSING means the same thing as THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN

    "That's arrogant presumption.."
    -Captain James T Kirk

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Galvanized by contempt

    In the span of two weeks, there have been four instances of Trump administration officials being approached and videoed at restaurants, being asked to leave restaurants or being forced to leave for their own safety because they work in the Trump administration.

    On July 2, a woman spoke to then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt at a Washington, D.C., restaurant while holding her young son and looking at notes that she had prepared. She told Mr. Pruitt that he should resign. She then posted the encounter on social media. (Mr. Pruitt announced his resignation on July 5.)

    On June 17, White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller was accosted by a patron at the Washington, D.C., restaurant Espita Mezcaleria and called a “real-life fascist.”

    When the Metro D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America received word that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was at MXDC Cocina Mexicana on June 19, at least 15 protesters showed up shouting “Shame!” until she was forced to leave.

    On June 22, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were asked to leave The Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia, during the middle of their dinner. She did so without causing a scene and a restaurant staffer quickly wrote about it on social media.

    Rather than condemning these actions, members of the left have instead encouraged more hostility. The same weekend as the Huckabee Sanders incident, Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, told attendees at an event to continue publicly harassing members of President Trump’s Cabinet.

    This increasing personal nastiness reflects the left’s understanding that they are losing. They can’t win the argument, so they use intimidation, aggression and spectacle.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/8/the-left-recognizes-trumps-agenda-is-working-and-t/

    This bears repeating...

    This increasing personal nastiness reflects the left’s understanding that they are losing. They can’t win the argument, so they use intimidation, aggression and spectacle.

    Nothing indicates more that the hysterical Left knows they are losing and losing big time than their resorting to mob violence and harassment..

    I say, "Keep It Up, Democrats!!" It'll be 1968 all over again and will guarantee a Red Tsunami in November...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh for Pete's sake, how many times do I have to state that the Russians interfered with the election, but are too clever to involve Trump because the man is a moron who can't keep his mouth shut about anything.

    Which has NOTHING to do with my point.. But thanx for playing.. :D

    Trump, however, is heavily involved with money laundering, probably criminally, especially in Trump Soho.

    Even if that is factually accurate, that has NOTHING to do with Mueller's investigation..

    Which means you have just confirmed that Mueller's investigation is NOTHING but a witch hunt designed to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Thank you for confirming that..

    "Thank you."
    -Officer Murphy, ROBOCOP

    He is also very likely guilty of obstruction of justice for the lies he concocted about the Trump Tower meeting - are you really naive enough to believe the whole thing was about "Russian orphans"?

    Who cares???

    Talking to Russians about opposition research on Hillary is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than Hillary talking to Ukrainians about opposition research on Trump.

    What part of IT'S NOT A CRIME do you not understand???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh for Pete's sake, how many times do I have to state that the Russians interfered with the election, but are too clever to involve Trump because the man is a moron who can't keep his mouth shut about anything.

    Which has NOTHING to do with my point.. But thanx for playing.. :D

    Trump, however, is heavily involved with money laundering, probably criminally, especially in Trump Soho.

    Even if that is factually accurate, that has NOTHING to do with Mueller's investigation..

    Which means you have just confirmed that Mueller's investigation is NOTHING but a witch hunt designed to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Thank you for confirming that..

    "Thank you."
    -Officer Murphy, ROBOCOP

    He is also very likely guilty of obstruction of justice for the lies he concocted about the Trump Tower meeting - are you really naive enough to believe the whole thing was about "Russian orphans"?

    Who cares???

    Talking to Russians about opposition research on Hillary is absolutely NO DIFFERENT than Hillary talking to Ukrainians about opposition research on Trump.

    What part of IT'S NOT A CRIME do you not understand???

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    it would appear, contrary to everything we've heard for a year-and-a-half, that whatever hell actually does get unleashed, it will not involve the words "Russian" or "collusion", right?

    Gawdamity, there is going to be a lot of blood oozing from slashed wrists in the land of Weigantia! Can't begin to say how bad that makes me feel!!

    heh...

    That's what I have been saying for the last year and a half...

    This witch hunt has NOTHING to do with Russians or collusion or anything..

    This witch hunt's SOLE function is to negate a free, fair and legal election result because the Left are butt hurt that their coronation did not go as planned..

    I am glad to see all of Weigantia is now on the same page in that regard...

    And, I ain't moppin' up all the blood...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everyone agrees we have the right to disagree???

    This Is the Left: Fox’s Shannon Bream Forced to ‘Bail’ on SCOTUS Set After Threats, ‘Volatile’ Scene
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2018/07/09/left-foxs-shannon-bream-forced-bail-scotus-set-after-threats

    Apparently... not...

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    Even if that is factually accurate, that has NOTHING to do with Mueller's investigation..

    Yes it does. Mueller is required, by the instructions given to him, to follow any adjunct lines of criminal behavior.

    This is what Trump is really scared about and why Rudi won't let Trump talk to Mueller.

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Mueller investigation - the first of 19 ("Benghazi!!! 2") if the Democrats win the House in November - will open the door for a wide range of investigations into Trump's business deals that he, and a lot of his owners, will not be happy to see.

    One possibility is that Trump will get word from Putin to step down due to "family pressures due to the impact of nasty Democrats on his family and his businesses" at their meeting in Helsinki.

    A nice resignation and a President Pence will leave everybody happy - the right will gloat about Pence, the left will celebrate the demise of the clown, and Putin will get an invigorated House off his back before they even get started.

  20. [20] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mueller is required, by the instructions given to him, to follow any adjunct lines of criminal behavior.

    You claim to be an expert due to your LEO background, but you seem to (willfully) misunderstand how the law works.

    If a cop is investigating a car theft and uncovers a murder, do you think she is going to return the car to the owner with the dead body in the back seat because that wasn't part of her original investigation?

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    One possibility is that Trump will get word from Putin to step down due to "family pressures due to the impact of nasty Democrats on his family and his businesses" at their meeting in Helsinki.

    Any FACTS to support this?? Nope.. Nothing but wishful thinking..

    If a cop is investigating a car theft and uncovers a murder, do you think she is going to return the car to the owner with the dead body in the

    If this was a run of the mill LEO case, you would have a point. But it's not, so you don't..

    This is an attempt by a bunch of whiny sore losers to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Nothing more...

    As such normal LEO procedures are rendered moot...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mueller is required, by the instructions given to him, to follow any adjunct lines of criminal behavior.

    adjunct

    connected or added to something, typically in an auxiliary way.

    As you have just conceded, Mueller's case against every American is NOT connected to the case of Trump's alleged collusion with Russia..

    Ergo, Mueller is off his mandate.. Given the prior instances of Mueller's total incompetence, this is simply more of the same...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    ICE Protestors in Ohio Chant ‘Fuck the Police’
    Eight people involved in the protest were arrested according to the Columbus Dispatch.

    https://ntknetwork.com/ice-protestors-in-ohio-chant-fck-the-police/

    Ahhh yes.. The Democrat Party really love LEOs and First Responders... :^/

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I strongly supported Hillary Clinton… [but] it is hard to name anyone with judicial credential as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.”
    -Liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-19

    It would make more sense for the Russians to let Trump - and the USA - twist in the wind for a full 8 years. That would maximize disruption of the USA and its allies. The Russian disinformation operation shows no sign of winding down...the bots are still working, the misinfornation campaign continues. The Russians will reveal (drop by drop) what they did after Trump leaves office...to rub our noses in the shit pile they left on our doorstep. The Russians are historically very good at this game...Czarist, Communist, whatever the Hell they are now.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    While you're in speculation mode, why not speculate aboot One Demand and the opportunity to mobilize some of the citizens that vote in presidential elections but don't vote in off year elections to participate in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting?

    If you can speculate on gut feeling, then you certainly should be able to speculate aboot these very real people and this very real idea.

    Just as you won't have the answers to the questions on Cohen flipping until an indictment is filed, we won't have answers to the questions aboot One Demand until citizens are informed aboot this opportunity.

    And we won't have an answer on why you won't address this opportunity until you address my questions with real responses and a complete conversation instead of the bullshit excuses for not addressing this opportunity like "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" that is clearly not a valid excuse because it doesn't address why you did not respond when I asked nice and directly led to any vinegar.

    There is no valid reason that you can't find one day this week to write aboot this opportunity. Even Trump's Supreme Court nomination will be an issue for quite a while so putting off an article on that for one day or until next week should not stop you from informing citizens about this opportunity NOW, because it should have been done long ago.

    Write the article or explain why you won't without the bullshit excuses now. Not because you owe it to me- but because you owe it to reality and it is your responsibility as a journalist to address the reality you claim to be addressing.

    And yes, that is a demand. I have been asking long enough and since you have chosen to not address this when I ask except with bullshit excuses, misrepresentations and misinterpretations of what One Demand is you have left me no choice but to make it a demand.

    Of course, there is nothing I can do to force you to meet this demand, all I can do is appeal to your integrity that should compel you to meet your responsibility as a reality based blogger and hope that you will finally do the right thing.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhtuqpLW4AAAP_A.jpg

    Manufactured outrage based on NOTHING but hysterical Party bigotry...

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig [25]

    Re "The Russian disinformation/misinformation operation", please tell me where this "operation" is actually operating.

    Am I being exposed to it without recognizing it for what it actually is, or is it a "Social Media" (Facebook maybe?) thing that I'm too smart, or too old, to give a damn about?

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re "The Russian disinformation/misinformation operation", please tell me where this "operation" is actually operating.

    I would add to that request, "Please provide FACTS that prove that is operating.."

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    John Leguizamo
    ?Verified account
    @JohnLeguizamo
    2h2 hours ago

    #TheMcConnellRule: NO VOTE until after midterms AND until after the Mueller investigation!

    I swear.. When people go to Hollywood, do they lose ALL brain cells and intelligence???

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!!! It's as lively as a Vulcan funeral dirge around here!!!

    Don't tell me ya'all are BUMMED!!???

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If this was a run of the mill LEO case, you would have a point. But it's not, so you don't..

    This is an attempt by a bunch of whiny sore losers to nullify a free, fair and legal election..

    Nothing more...

    As such normal LEO procedures are rendered moot...

    I usually appreciate your defense of law enforcement on here...but then you go and make idiotic comments like this that makes me just shake my head! There have been over a dozen indictments filed and a handful of guilty pleas entered as a result of this investigation. Your claim that Mueller’s intent is to “nullify a free, fair, and legal election” is BS. Will his findings and Trump’s crimes nullify Trump’s presidency? That is a strong possibility, but that will be Trump’s fault; not Mueller’s.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    There have been over a dozen indictments filed and a handful of guilty pleas entered as a result of this investigation.

    NONE of which, sans Mueller's bone headed Russians indictment, have ANYTHING to do with Trump, the Russians or the election. Hell, even a federal judge said that Mueller was a disgrace...

    Your claim that Mueller’s intent is to “nullify a free, fair, and legal election” is BS.

    Yet, factually accurate. Neil even conceded as much..

    . Will his findings and Trump’s crimes nullify Trump’s presidency?

    If it does, guess what??

    Civil war...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I usually appreciate your defense of law enforcement on here.

    While I sincerely appreciate the compliment, no matter how you want to pretend otherwise, this is NOT a law enforcement issue...

    If only for the FACT that "collusion" is NOT even a crime..

    The is solely, completely and unequivocally a POLITICAL issue...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    . Will his findings and Trump’s crimes nullify Trump’s presidency?

    If it does, guess what??

    Civil war...

    To clarify so that there is no misunderstanding??

    If Democrats remove President Trump based on ANYTHING except for Russian Collusion to win the 2016 election???

    People *WILL* take to the streets.. And they WILL be armed...

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Democrats Still Don't Understand What They're Up Against

    Democratic politicians have a seemingly endless well of good faith for their Republican colleagues. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and even Bernie Sanders all speak with the language of decency, full of assurances that Republicans will be heard, understood and engaged. They offer appeals to morality, norms and shared values as if saying it often enough will make it true.

    But there is no salvaging the Republican Party. Its leaders are beyond shame, beyond rules, beyond reason. Democrats can speak in the dialogue of peace, but the only dialect Republicans understand is power.

    In the face of an unspeakable atrocity on our southern border ? constructed, announced and implemented by President Donald Trump’s administration, this Republican-led Congress does nothing and leverages none of its authority as a co-equal branch of government. Despite years of rhetoric about family values and shining cities on hills, the Republican Party allowed and tacitly condoned separating, perhaps irreparably, asylum seekers from the very children they fled here to save. Then, with more than 2,000 children still stranded away from their parents, they went on vacation.
    _______________

    Democrats, by refusing to defend their authority to govern on behalf of their constituents and prioritizing the sentiments and responses of Republican voters, have sacrificed the instruments of power for the perception of principle. Continuing this strategy is to misunderstand this moment in history. The Republican Party has already conceded to its extremism, codified it and entrenched it. There is no political no norm it will not break, no kindness or tolerance its leaders will reciprocate. They do not believe in government by the people, for the people, but in government by Republicans for Republicans. To accommodate them is only to empower them.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy...

    Yer absolutely right..

    Democrats should enact the HODGKISON OPTION...

    They are more than halfway there already....

    :^/

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy.. Here's an exercise for ya that will illustrate perfectly EXACTLY where the author of your little diddy is coming from...

    Change "Democrats" to "White People" and change "Republicans" to "Black People"...

    Apparently, the author of your little diddy has not fallen far from his/her/ze/kanf/zang/koof/pow KKK, Jim Crow, Slavery and Racist roots... :^/

    He/she/ze/kenf/zeng/keef/pew have just traded racial bigotry for political bigotry...

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If only for the FACT that "collusion" is NOT even a crime.

    So you're saying that if proof were to have emerged that Obama won the 2012 election with the help of a surreptitious propaganda and espionage effort by Venezuela, you would have been perfectly down with that.

    Ha. HaHa.

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Civil War! Hahahahahahahahahaha!

    The majority of Trump supporters are white’s over 65yo. I’m sure your Confederate soldier’s uniform still fits, but do you really think your Rascals will handle being off-road very long?

    Are you honestly going to still support Trump if there is evidence of collusion with Russia? Are you going to cry that the evidence is fake if Trump is indicted?

    You support a president that in his one hour rally in Montana, 76% of his statements were false, not entirely true, or not supported by any facts! How do you justify such dishonesty?

    I know, I know.... “Obama said you could keep your doctors...” That one example got used up Day 1 of Trump’s presidency! He has told lies almost every single day he has made a public statement since taking office! Your daily barrage of examples of liberals doing wrong doesn’t come close to offsetting the actions of Trump all by his lonesome!

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [37]*rolls eyes*

    [38] Caught you not looking: the author is a black woman.

    booooooooooooom!

    I can go have coffee now. See ya.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    [38] Caught you not looking: the author is a black woman.

    What does THAT have to do with anything???

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    [38] Caught you not looking: the author is a black woman.

    What does THAT have to do with anything???

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The majority of Trump supporters are white’s over 65yo.

    Prove it..

    You can't because it's a bullshit stat...

    Are you honestly going to still support Trump if there is evidence of collusion with Russia?

    Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem.. Read my comment again.. I know you won't admit you made a mistake.. I accept your concession anyways...

    He has told lies almost every single day he has made a public statement since taking office!

    As YOU define "lies"... But YOUR definition of lie is President Trump saying, "It's gonna be a great day" and it turns out to rain that day somewhere in the US.

    THAT is how you define a "LIE" when it comes to President Trump...

    Your daily barrage of examples of liberals doing wrong doesn’t come close to offsetting the actions of Trump all by his lonesome!

    In YOUR opinion..

    Apparently, patriotic Americans feel differently...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liberals Are Furious Over the Nomination of [Insert Name Here] to Supreme Court
    http://freebeacon.com/blog/liberals-are-furious-over-the-nomination-of-insert-name-here-to-supreme-court/

    This is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take liberals seriously..

    They just spew things by rote, they don't care what, as long as it's against ANYONE who doesn't tow their ideological slavery line.... :^/

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    not a lie, just a low bar. donald got 58% of whites, 53% of males and 53% over 65. he also got 53% 50-64, but in general the statement about his voter demographics was correct.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is the makeup of the 53% over 65??

    Can you prove it's ALL male???

    Nope.. it's just like Mark Twain said..

    "There are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics"

    Majority White Over 65... prove it. Go..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Here's hoping the Vulcan funeral dirge atmosphere dissipates by morning..

    Time for Bosch.. Ni ni all..

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Can you prove it's ALL male???

    not all, russ just said a majority, which is over 50%. as i said, a low bar. that doesn't make it a lie though.

    JL

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    Thanks for picking up my slack (had to put out a few fires since I posted).

    Michale,

    Prove me wrong if you think you can. You can’t and you know you can’t.

    And for the record, I didn’t see your response #35 before I replied.

    You are right, collusion isn’t a crime...but Trump is the one claiming that is what the investigation is all about. You avoid having to answer whether you will refuse to accept any findings that Trump has broken the law based on the investigation...which wasn’t too big of a shock.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are right, collusion isn’t a crime...but Trump is the one claiming that is what the investigation is all about.

    Really!??

    TRUMP says it's about collusion??

    A hysterical Left Winger NEVER said ANYTHING about "collusion"???

    THAT is the bullshit you are going with???

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you're saying that if proof were to have emerged that Obama won the 2012 election with the help of a surreptitious propaganda and espionage effort by Venezuela, you would have been perfectly down with that.

    Ha. HaHa.

    No.. I am saying that collusion is not a crime.. And that's a FACT...

    How you choose to interpret that FACT says a lot more about you than it says about me..

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]