Michael Cohen would be 6 ft under if hed be Clintons atty

Mevater

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 4:47 pm

Considering how many people who worked closely with the Clintons were found murdered, anyone else think that if Michael Cohen would be Clinton's attorney and have potentially incriminating information, hed be 6 ft under for a long time?

Does anyone think theres ONE politician in recent history, including Pres Obama, who didnt surround themselves with very crooked people, and who didnt have similar deals/situations or worse, that they were hiding?

Anyone with familiarity with politics, knows, that no one gets as far as a presidential candidacy without kissing up to and deal-making with a large number of very dishonest people.

Last edited by Mevater on Tue, Aug 21 2018, 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Rubber Ducky

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 6:52 pm

Agreed. The double standards here are galling.

Mevater

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 7:17 pm

All of a sudden lieing to hide extra-marital affairs is an impeachable offense.

What about John Kennedy? With current legal definitions and standards, President Kennedy and perhaps other Presidents ought to be retroactively impeached.

naftala

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 7:48 pm

Mevater wrote:

All of a sudden lieing to hide extra-marital affairs is an impeachable offense.

They impeached Bill Clinton for lying, under oath, about an extra-marital affair. And he deserved it.

1untamedgirl

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 8:15 pm

Maybe Cuomo will pardon him just like he pardoned illegal aliens-- https://nypost.com/2018/08/21/.....ring/

Mevater

Tue, Aug 21 2018, 8:21 pm

Im thinking the only politician I can think of who hasnt been involved in any scandals that Ive heard of, is Joe Lieberman.

Outside of him, theyre all, Republicans and Democrats, crooks, in varying degrees.

Fox

Wed, Aug 22 2018, 11:06 am

You guys know me, lol! I'm normally willing to bash the Democratic Party (at least in its current state), the Clintons, and President Obama just for the exercise.

However, this is a topic where shadows are long, memories are short, and nobody has the moral high ground. In fact, virtually everyone is racing for the moral basement.

The use of an independent counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing among high-level government officials dates back to the post-Watergate era. The DOJ Office of Special Counsel was created as part of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978, though the Attorney General can also appoint independent counsel on his/her own authority.

The biggest problem is that there are virtually no limits on the scope of an independent counsel investigation, nor is there any limit on the budget. For example, an independent counsel was appointed in 1994 to investigate the suicide of Vince Foster and the Clintons' Whitewater investment. Over 3 years, that morphed into an investigation of the WH Travel Office, scores of Clinton associates, and ultimately into wiretaps on Monica Lewinsky.

I'm certainly no defender of President Clinton's Oval Office shenanigans nor his lying under oath, but how on earth did we get from a land deal in the Ozarks to Monica Lewinsky?

In another Clinton-era example, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was the subject of a lengthy investigation costing approximately $20 million. The results: 30 separate indictments that he received a total of $35K in improper gifts from regulated companies. When he came to trial, he was acquitted on all 30 counts. During the trial, the prosecution's star witness shot back at the prosecutor, "G-d knows, if I had $30 million, I could find dirt on you, sir."

So the practice of using an independent counsel to annoy and distract one's political opponents is not exactly something the Democrats came up with on their own.

The unintended consequence, obviously, is that unchecked independent counsel investigations provide incentives for all the wrong people.

The most fawning, ambitious DOJ lawyers love them because they provide plenty of CSPAN exposure, a big boost up the career ladder, and the chance to parlay their name recognition into a cushy job at a big law firm.

The somewhat less ambitious DOJ lawyers love them because they get a few years of job security and the chance to move up the ranks.

The defense attorneys love them because, hey, billable hours!

Political operatives love them for purposes of torturing their opponents.

And for people considering a career in public service or accepting a Presidential appointment? Well, you'd better be close to having a diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder if you want to survive. A lot of the most talented people say, "You know what? I don't need this in my life" and stay far away from Washington.

Do independent counsel investigations really prevent corruption? There's a good deal of evidence that they don't, or as in the Espy case, that they defy common sense in the way they treat relatively minor violations. Most law enforcement operates under the rubric of starting with the fact of a crime and identifying a perpetrator. Special counsel investigations increasingly start with the perpetrator and keep working until they find a crime.

It's time for Congress to put some limits on the power of these investigations. The Democrats will thank them when they're in power again.

itsmeima

Wed, Aug 22 2018, 11:45 am

Mevater wrote:

Considering how many people who worked closely with the Clintons were found murdered...

Pray tell, who?

Maya

Wed, Aug 22 2018, 1:22 pm

Mevater wrote:

I’m so disappointed with this post. You seem like someone who is smarter than to believe such fake news and conspiracy theories that were likely spread by Russian bots.

sarahleah88

Wed, Aug 22 2018, 1:52 pm

There’s one big difference between Trump and those who have come before him, (in recent history). Previous presidents, going back in my memory to Eisenhower, Kennedy and so forth, may have engaged in extra marital affair, made “deals” and so forth. I don’t dispute that. However, Donald Trump is a serious sociopath, a man who presents a clear and present danger to all of us. He has no filter and, frankly, he is dumb. It appears that he has neither the desire not the capacity to learn how to govern, how to get along with people, how to make clear decisions and back them up and I could go on and on. Michael Pence has his own drawbacks but I do feel that, after Trump is impeached, Mike Pence will come forward and lead us to the next election in a safe manner. Then, and only then, can we make our own decisions about who will lead us in the coming years. Hopefully, we will never be led down the Rabbit Hole again. Glad Michael Cohen has come forward. He’s been no angel but perhaps he will be the courageous one who will bring down this madman Trump.

Fox

Wed, Aug 22 2018, 4:29 pm

sarahleah88 wrote:

I could go on and on.

People have been going "on and on" for two years straight now. Yet, curiously, the world has not yet ended.

Given that the Senate failed to convict an impeached President for lying under oath, those hoping to remove Trump from office on the grounds of being generally obnoxious may have a tough row to hoe. It's not clear that (a) a crime was committed (in fact, Cohen's actually pleaded guilty to two contradictory statutes); or that (b) the crime could be packaged as impeachment-worthy. Typically, the FEC handles these kinds of things with fines.

In fact, the people who support the Trump administration's lesser-publicized and more boring activities, such as the appointment of originalist federal judges and deregulation at the federal level, are quite happy to have Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media chasing after Cohen, Stormy, Omarosa, and whoever else comes along. These people are the human equivalent of laser cat toys.

Ruchel

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 3:38 am

I couldn't read the title!

Sadie

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 3:41 am

Imamother sure doesn’t disappoint!

anon for this

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 8:13 am

Mevater wrote:

If you open your post with an unironic mention of the Clinton body count, many people will find it difficult to take anything else you say seriously. Here are some facts for anyone who's interested in those:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch.....bags/

Fox

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 8:30 am

I assumed the title was at least somewhat ironic. But, then, I am also assuming that anyone still recommending Snopes isn't being completely serious, either.

anon for this

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 8:32 am

Fox wrote:

I assumed the title was at least somewhat ironic. But, then, I am also assuming that anyone still recommending Snopes isn't being completely serious, either.

Actually I am.

simcha2

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 9:15 am

Fox wrote:

I assumed the title was at least somewhat ironic. But, then, I am also assuming that anyone still recommending Snopes isn't being completely serious, either.

Can you explain this comment regarding snopes? The best I can find on line is accusations of bias in the explanations (from both sides of the political divide), but no proof of inaccuracy.

itsmeima

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 11:48 am

Fox wrote:

I assumed the title was at least somewhat ironic. But, then, I am also assuming that anyone still recommending Snopes isn't being completely serious, either.

Is Snopes also "fake news" nowadays?

Sadie

Thu, Aug 23 2018, 12:17 pm

itsmeima wrote:

Is Snopes also "fake news" nowadays?

Everything is fake news nowadays, except for American Pravda

Fox

Mon, Aug 27 2018, 1:28 pm

simcha2 wrote:

Can you explain this comment regarding snopes? The best I can find on line is accusations of bias in the explanations (from both sides of the political divide), but no proof of inaccuracy.

The problem is not a matter of left-wing or right-wing bias. It's a problem inherent in the emerging fact-checking business: transparency and the facts one chooses to check.

During their rise to fame, Snopes concentrated on checking "facts" like "Is Elvis really dead?" But their model doesn't really support investigating more complex matters that may require specialized knowledge; involve multiple viewpoints; or calls of judgment regarding whether something is true in spirit or in fact.

Snopes has come in for criticism subsequent to the acrimonious divorce of its founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson. Eventually, Barbara Mikkelson sold her stake in the company to an organization called Proper Media, which ended up in a slew of lawsuits and countersuits with David Mikkelson.

Since Barbara Mikkelson left the organization, it has grown to a larger number of employees, and David Mikkelson refuses to discuss how fact-checkers are selected; what criteria are used to select facts to be checked; or what criteria they use when determining the "truth" of a particular story.

Fact-checking is kind of like authenticating a used luxury handbag: before plunking down my money, I want to know who authenticated the bag; what makes him/her an expert; and at least the general criteria he/she typically uses to make the determination. Mikkelson's answer has basically been, "None of your business," which is not really acceptable to most people.

Snopes or other fact-checkers are fine for narrowing down research or for chasing down urban legends (we can assume that Elvis is indeed dead). But for anything more complex, it's not enough to rely on any fact-checker as the final word.

The very best conspiracies remain crackpot ideas because they are never revealed or they come to light long after everyone has lost interest. For example, I'm assuming few of you are running to fact-checkers to ascertain if Richard III was truly responsible for the deaths of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury in 1483.

So when it comes to analyzing so-called conspiracy theories, fact-checkers can only sift through and weigh the evidence. If something could be thoroughly proven or disproven, well, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy theory. So do the Clintons genuinely "suicide" people who get in their way? More likely Hillary screams at them until death seems a better alternative. On the other hand, I'm pretty convinced it was Henry VII who offed the Princes in the Tower.

Forbes: Checking the Fact-Checkers

Daily Mail

Wired