.........
PLEASE spill your guts Cohen!

And spill his guts he did..........:hangloose:

The repugnant members of the committee kept asking why they should believe a liar...

If Cohen lied up there about things that the PROSECUTORS already know, he could get more charges leveled, his short sentence lengthened, and lose all cooperation deals! So, the fact that none of them spent time defending the pumpkin is VERY telling...they know it is all true!

Wish I was more optimistic about this information making any difference at all.

I agree with this. I think Mueller has done a good job but I have thought for a long time that ultimately it will be SDNY (if anyone) that brings the Trump family down.

Don't know about you, but I have no idea what Mueller or the SDNY are up to. I just nod my head when I hear/see this "expert" or that "expert" depending on who seems closer to my own ideology...that's a lousy way to predict the future .

I suppose his testimony mattered, but I couldn't care much.

Obviously, the state of New York can file charges that Trump can't pardon himself for. I don't think the pardon is an issue though because I don't think they'll file before the election. This Supreme Court will not allow a sitting president to be indicted. I do think that figuratively, if not literally, Trump will leave the White House in handcuffs.

Indicting Trump
 

I have learned a lot from watching Rachel Maddow, whom I absolutely adore. From her show, I have understood that there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents the indictment of a sitting President. Apparently, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

That was from Article II, Section 4, of the American Constitution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arti...s_Constitution

Agnew was threatened with being indicted unless he resigned because they were afraid that after Nixon left - the rationale being that they didn't want Agnew to end up as the President (Agnew was a crook), hence the threat. So Agnew quit, and got a slight slap on the wrist...

Maddow explained the why and how of that situation clearly, as follows:

“The key point is that "under Justice Department rules,” that is a reference in fact to the standing internal Justice Department policy that says a sitting president of the United States can't be indicted. It's not a law that says a president can't be indicted. It's not written into Justice Department regulation. It's just a department policy. And it is a policy that derives from a very specific place.
...

“I mean, what the Dixon memo said in 1973, what that memo said was you could indict a vice president but incidentally you couldn't indict a president. And the way that the history of it has been remembered since then is that that 1973 OLC memo was written specifically with the Richard Nixon Watergate problem in mind and it was a definitive look at whether a president can be indicted, and even in the context of Watergate they believed that Nixon – really it was about Agnew and specifically trying to get to an outcome where the answer would be, yes, you can bring charges against Agnew.”

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rac...how/2019-02-21

~
 

First ~ I wish every American who can would open a window and yell "YOUR FIRED" as the handcuff Trump and take him out of OUR White House ~ :)))

Second ~ I adore Rachel Maddow as well ~

I just wanted to share a mental picture of what I saw while reading this post ! lolol

I understand that it's legally possible to indict a sitting President. I just don't believe this Supreme Court will allow it.

The Justice Department
 

I'm glad you are aware of that fact, but I'm not sure that many Americans understand that fact.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a world of difference between the "policy" of the Justice Department (and the A.G.) as well as that of politicians (in general) and what the Constitution actually says.

I find that policy itself betrays what it means to be American; in other words, policy itself is un-American.

So, the core issue for me is not to be concerned as to whether or not the Supreme Court will indict the President. That is a classical "straw-man" argument - which seeks to deflect the real issue into some debatable and complicated argument. It is more likely that the Justice Department (and the A.G.) will be extremely reluctant to actually apply the Constitution, not to speak of the politicians themselves.

As I have often heard muttered quietly in the background (but I listened):

"The System is corrupt."

I will go further, and state most emphatically, that any System is but a reflection of "vested interests" of any small group of people (any gang or clique), and is therefore inherently corrupt. Historically, the policy of any System always regresses, degenerates, and devolves into "authority" - in other words, to authoritarian doctrine. And this authoritarian doctrine is always - repeat “always” - reflected and exemplified in the belief in a “leader”, which is nothing more than the co-dependent (i.e. neurotic) belief that there is hope and promise that there is someone out there who will save you from whatever mess you are in. This belief is always sustained by the most vulnerable and damaged part of the population, and every politician knows that, and uses that belief for self-aggrandisement, as a justification and rationalization for their drive for "leadership". And that is why "The System is corrupt."

Please understand that as a young adult, I often saw people of my generation (here in Canada) wearing that button: "Question authority" - which originally had came out from California at that time. Unfortunately, most people do not understand what that phrase implies. But it is really interesting if one goes deeply into that phrase "Question authority".

The "Smoking Gun".....
 

Well, the state of New York is probably willing, but I doubt that they will based on the makeup of the Supreme Court. He's going to go to jail anyway, just later rather than sooner. There is no way to get him out of office other than electing a Democrat. I say concentrate on that.

So what do y’all think of the Ilhan Omar situation and the house anti-semitism resolution (which appears to be falling apart.)

I do not think her original remark was anti-semitic, it was anti-AIPAC. To me it is not the same thing but I am not Jewish

Chelsea Clinton Confronted by Students at New Zealand Vigil: You 'Stoked' Islamophobia

Chelsea Clinton was confronted by a group of college students who claimed at a vigil on Friday that the former first daughter was partly responsible for the New Zealand mosque shootings, claiming she had previously “stoked” hatred against Muslims.

According to the Washington Post, Clinton, who is pregnant with her third child, attended a vigil in New York City for the victims of the Christchurch mass shooting, which left at least 49 people dead and 20 injured at two mosques on Friday. Clinton, who co-founded the Of Many Institute, an multifaith organization at NYU, had been invited to attend the vigil.

“This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,” one student can be heard telling Clinton, 39, in a video of the confrontation, which was initially posted by fellow student Rose Asaf, who has since deleted her Twitter account.

“I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deep down inside. Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there,” the student added.

Maintaining her composure throughout the video, Clinton responded by saying, “I’m so sorry that you feel that way.”

“Certainly, it was never my intention. I do believe words matter. I believe we have to show solidarity,” she added.

Before the end of the clip, another student, who was not visible, could be heard asking Clinton, “What does ‘I’m sorry you feel that way’ mean?”

<snip>

The students’ comments appear to be in reference to Clinton’s earlier condemnation of Minnesota State Rep. Ilhan Omar, who was recently accused of making anti-Semitic comments enforcing hateful cultural stereotypes.

In February, 37-year-old Omar — who is one of the first Muslim women to ever be elected to Congress — issued an apology after sharing tweets that suggested U.S. relations with Israel centered around money, NPR reported.

Clinton was one of many who spoke out against Omar, writing on Twitter at the time, “We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.”

According to NPR, following the backlash over Omar’s comments, the House went on to pass a resolution condemning “anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry.”

What do we think?

I think the student had a point (everyone who complained about Omar last week should be called on it this week) but was her position strengthened by this action? A whole bunch of mainstream dems were outraged on Chelsea's behalf, and then all of them got dogpiled by leftist twitter, with the result that the division between the normie and progressive wings of the anti-Trump side are even more divided.

Personally, i think it's a mistake for Chelsea to be as visible as she is. She should not have been confronted, but she also should not have been there.

My reason for saying this is that she was a featured speaker at our conference a couple of years ago, and she just does not have anything much to say.

She's not that smart! There is no reason for her to be out there except nepotism.

I don't get the connection between criticizing Rep. Omar and the hate crime in New Zealand. Did the manifesto mention that? Those white supremacists have a long history of anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric to draw on.

I think Rep. Omar was right to criticize the lobby in support of Israel, but that dual allegiance comment that followed was fucked up.

Re Chelsea, she is dull. She has a Stanford undergraduate education and a doctorate from Oxford, yet she is so unmotivated that she's never held a real job in her field.

I read she did clean up the Clinton Foundation some, making it less an obviously pay for access enterprise.

The reason she has nothing to say is that the neo-liberal tradition out of which she comes is intellectually bankrupt. It has nothing to offer. She could go in other directions, really working in, say, international women's rights. But she's happier as an influential Manhattan socialite.

I mean, Princess Diana picked land mines. Come on, Chelsea.

She's like the Joel Osteen of neoliberals, in a riding-parental-coattails sense

She is a Clinton. If she's not going to get money, status or influence out of it, it's not going to get much of her time. I imagine she's interested in her kids. But who isn't?

I don't think she'll ever run for office. It's too much work. She'll just keep being on boards, teaching the occasional graduate seminar, and writing children's books.