Reason Roundup

Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Paid by AT&T, Swiss Drug Giant, and Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch: Reason Roundup

Plus: hate-crime protection for cops, gig-economy good news, and fringe candidate losses in primary elections

|

Jeenah Moon/REUTERS/Newscom

The FBI raid on Michael Cohen's office is beginning to make more sense. Tuesday night it came out that Cohen—Trump's personal lawyer and the man who made the now-infamous 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels—received funds from major companies with interests before the U.S. government and from a firm linked to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. News of all this came to light after Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, tweeted about the payments.

Avenatti shared an unsourced document titled "Preliminary Report of Findings," sending Trump reporters on a frenzy to fact-check the contents. Much of it has been confirmed.

Cohen's payment to Daniels was brokered through a shell company called Essential Consultants LLC. The company also received:

  • around $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm whose biggest client is controlled by Vekselberg.
  • $99,980 from the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis.
  • $150,000 from Korea Aerospace Industries, which is currently competing for a multi-billion-dollar U.S. military contract.
  • $200,000 from AT&T, whose desired merger with Time Warner depends on federal approval.

"Transactions adding up to at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January," concludes The New York Times.

Last month it came out that "Cohen also used the company to collect $250,000 after arranging payments in 2017 and 2018 by a major Republican donor, Elliott Broidy, to a former Playboy model he allegedly impregnated," the Times adds.

A Columbus Nova statement says that the money was a fee for Cohen's consulting work and had nothing to do with the firm's relationship with Vekselberg.

AT&T claims that "Essential Consulting was one of several firms we engaged in early 2017 to provide insights into understanding the new administration." The firm "did no legal or lobbying work for us, and the contract ended in December 2017," said a company statement.

This isn't likely to be the last corporate crisis PR we're in store for here.

FREE MINDS

Fringe candidates lose in primaries. Don Blankenship—West Virginia coal executive, open racist, ex-convict, and U.S. Senate hopeful—lost his Republican primary bid against the state's attorney general, Patrick Morrisey. Here's how the folks supporting Mitch McConnell, whom Blankenship had called "Cocaine Mitch," responded:

In Ohio, "Republican Mike DeWine and Democrat Richard Cordray were expected to win in the governor's race, and it's no surprise they each won easily," says the Cincinnati Enquirer. Still, "it is somewhat surprising they both obliterated the competition, each beating candidates who tried to position themselves as being the most like Trump and Bernie."

It adds:

DeWine and Cordray are as boring as a corporate training session, so get ready for one monotonous talking point after another the next six months. But that's OK. Maybe we'll actually get a race that's more about policy and less about personality.

FREE MARKETS

"Gig economy" workers largely there by choice. "The gig economy is a substantial and growing sector of the U.S. economy, comprising nearly one-third of U.S. workers, and rising quickly," writes Adrian Moore, vice president of policy here at the Reason Foundation, in a new report. Within this gig economy workforce, Moore includes an array of "alternative work arrangements," including independent contractors, workers provided through contracting firms, temp-agency workers, on-call workers, and "supplementers."

Moore says this has been and will continue to be a good thing. "Rather than threatening the entrenched traditional work model, much of the gig economy fills niches in the goods, services and labor market," which "allows more workers to serve more customers more cheaply and on their own terms, increasing the workforce and the standard of living for all," Moore writes. But to reap these benefits fully, lawmakers need to let go. Trying to force gig economy companies "to mimic the traditional workplace model harms workers and consumers," he writes:

The gig economy emerged from market-driven autonomy and flexibility for both companies and workers, and it thrives despite a few challenges. Accordingly, the market will likely address these challenges—as long as we let it.

A large 2016 study from the McKinsey Global Institute ("Independent Work: Choice, Necessity, and the Gig Economy") found that nearly three-quarters (72 percent) said they were working this way by choice, including 32 percent for whom it was their primary source of income and 40 percent for whom it provided supplemental funds. Only around 14 percent did it as a primary job because they couldn't find other work arrangements, and slightly less reluctantly did it as a part-time job because they were financially strapped.

JUSTICE WATCH

Protect us from the "Protect and Serve Act." New legislation concerning cops and "hate crime" is underway, courtesy of the eternally busybodying Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and the apparently-determined-to-wreak-havoc-before-he-retires Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Called the Protect and Serve Act of 2018, the bill would make it a federal hate crime to "to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer."

We already see local cops using "resisting arrest" overbroadly to take people in. Under this law, any attempts to evade a cop—or protect oneself from them—that ended up hurting the officer could wind up as a federal hate crime. Not only could that screw a lot of people (and ratchet up prison populations and federal partnership with local law enforcement), but it's redundant: "police already have substantial protections under federal and state law, rendering this bill superfluous," as a letter co-signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund points out.

The letter also notes:

This bill signals that there is a "war on police," which is not only untrue, but an unhelpful and dangerous narrative to uplift.

QUICK HITS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

224 responses to “Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Paid by AT&T, Swiss Drug Giant, and Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch: Reason Roundup

  1. Tuesday night it came out that Cohen?Trump’s personal lawyer and the man who made the now-infamous 2016 payment to Stormy Daniels?was received money from major U.S. companies and from a firm linked to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.

    Finally, the smoking gun.

    1. Hello.

      Hey, something is finally paying off in the witch hunt?

      If only they went this hard against Hillary.

      But whatev.

    2. Don’t expect a retraction with this one craps out too.

      1. Especially since these payments were made after the Russia investigation first began (which shows what smart people Trump picks to work for him), so this is a “future crime” and the scary Russian oligarch was also a funder of the Daily Beast, ergo I guess they are also a Russian front

        1. Yeah, when I saw this line

          “This isn’t likely to be the last corporate crisis PR we’re in store for here.”

          I wondered what corporate crises she is talking about, cuz this ain’t it.

          1. There’s a difference between what ENB said (corporate crisis PR) and you said (corporate crises) and it ain’t singular vs plural.

            Nice strawman ya got there. Be a shame if some logic were applied to it.

        2. I can’t tell if it’s just because I’m stupid, but I can barely follow this stuff anymore. I feel like every example I see is treated like a smoking gun, but when I read details I can’t see what the big deal is.

          Maybe it’s because early on this was called a hacking and so my expectations were that we would have literally hacking and vote changing. But as of now, I can barely pay attention to this plotline.

          1. If you missed a single episode you might as well give up. There’s been so much parallel universe nonsense that it’s near impossible to follow anymore.

          2. Maybe it’s because early on this was called a hacking and so my expectations were that we would have literally hacking and vote changing.

            You weren’t paying attention then. Exceedingly ‘early on’ (like, before the inauguration) vote tampering was outright and definitively dismissed on both sides and any hacking that wasn’t done with Social Media as the final deployment vehicle required DNC staffers to be absolute morons about INFOSEC and violate their own internal policies.

          3. I can’t tell if it’s just because I’m stupid, but I can barely follow this stuff anymore. I feel like every example I see is treated like a smoking gun, but when I read details I can’t see what the big deal is.

            That’s because those “smoking gun” articles you mentioned are meant to appeal to an audience with a conspiracy narrative firmly in place: that Russia and Putin essentially installed Trump in the White House.

            That’s how conspiracy theories work. Begin with a conclusion, then pick and choose all the “evidence” that fits that conclusion.

        3. That should say *Gawker* not *The Daily Beast*. I get my click bait sites confused

    3. And how, exactly, did this information end up in the hands of a lawyer for a stripper? Here is a clue:

      “Avenatti worked at a political opposition research and media firm run by Rahm Emmanuel. During his time there, he worked on over 150 Democratic campaigns in 42 states, including Joe Biden’s U.S. Senate campaign.

      Avenatti is being paid for his Stormy Daniels work by Obama’s group Organizing for Action.”

      1. No conspiracy going on with lefties though. Absolutely nothing to see there.

        Thanks for that info AustinRoth. I did not know.

  2. It’s really queers and anarchists and sex workers and punks who fund this project…

    THIS ADMISSION COMPLETELY INVALIDATES YOUR WORK, OBVIOUSLY.

    1. Every punk or queer I’ve ever known has been a sex worker. And don’t get me started on anarchists.

  3. It’s likely that the United States will soon be in a situation where there are more job openings than job seekers…

    Robots, save us!

    1. Finally an end to the welfare state, right? Negative unemployment will save us all!

      1. Unfortunately, the masses of long term welfare recipients are by and large not engineers.

        1. Just give everybody a free education and then open a bunch of education jobs, duh!

  4. The U.S. is officially out of the Iran nuclear deal…

    Bust a deal, face the zeal… of the press to declare disaster.

  5. …and negotiate the release of three Americans being held prisoner there for alleged anti-state activities.

    Done. (According to the president.)

  6. “Report: America is losing its best farmland”
    […]
    “”We’ve lost far too many farms and ranches in the Bay Area and across the country,” said Matt Vander Sluis, deputy director of the Greenbelt Alliance in San Francisco, which advocates for protecting the Bay Area’s natural and agricultural lands. “Sprawl and development continue to threaten our local food economy and the natural value our farms and ranches provide.””
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/food/article/Report-
    America-is-losing-its-best-farmland-
    12898810.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Alternate headline:
    “US Producing More Food than Ever From Less and Less Land”
    Screw the Green Belt Alliance, the American Farmland Trust and every other purveyor of the ‘romantic family farm’ myths.

    1. No Rain on the Scarecrow?

      No Farm-Aid reboot?

      1. “No Farm-Aid reboot?”

        Yeah, that’ll do it. A bunch of gray-haired guitar pickers whining in Iowa.

      2. Less work for me, oh noes!

    2. California is going to have to rely on those fly-over country rubes even more. Soy lattes don’t grow in Starbucks, it turns out.

      1. Well, not until hydroponic cultivation gets a lot more efficient.

    3. I wonder what all the Bay Area farmers who like to drink their morning coffee naked in the Castro district are going to do?

      1. Can you reword that a little bit?

    4. This is going to hurt the Bay Area farmers who drink their coffee naked in the rural parts of the Castro district.

      1. Thanks!

      2. “…the rural parts of the Castro district.”

        None left. Zuckerberg bought it and put a fence around it.

  7. …the bill would make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer.”

    What kind of self-respecting Republican wouldn’t vote for a federal hate crime act? And what kind of self-respecting Democrat wouldn’t vote for legislation that weakens any achievement sought by the Black Lives Matters movement?

  8. Wait just a doggone minute!

    I thought Cohen had only three clients.

  9. But to reap these benefits fully, lawmakers need to let go.

    These benefits aren’t the ones that concern lawmakers. Donations and lobby money are the only benefits they seek.

  10. If scandalous and mayhaps even illegal activity that was overlooked before hits the news now because this time Donald J. Trump did it, then the story might be that we have bigger problems than Trump.

    1. bigger problems than Trump

      Nice band name.

      1. But maybe too similar to “Better Than Ezra”.

        1. And in music news, number one on the college charts this summer was Better Than Ezra. And at number two? Ezra.

          /Norm Macdonald

          1. I feel like Norm’s sense of humor would fit in nicely in HnR.

  11. make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer.”

    make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a teacher or educator.”

    make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a person holding or with access to money.”

    make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as an ‘easy target’.”

    1. This law discriminates in favor of certain members of Village People cover bands.

  12. “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in North Korea (his second trip in six weeks) to prepare the way for Trump’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and negotiate the release of three Americans being held prisoner there for alleged anti-state activities.”

    The three captives have now been freed and are on the plane home with Pompeo.

    This augers well for Kim negotiating in good faith in the upcoming summit–mere weeks away?

    Oh, and those of you who favored capitulating to Iran and their nuclear program via Obama’s agreement should keep in mind–the North Koreans are watching.

    For that reason alone, Trump staying in the Iran agreement might have been incompetent. No, North Korea, we won’t let you dodge verification safeguards–we didn’t let Iran get away with that either.

    1. Explain to me what business the US has in dictating nuclear policy to Iran?

      1. Maybe the problem is that we have no business in any of this to begin with. But, I’m sure John Bolton sees it that way. He’s a calm and level headed man who only wrote an article titled “Bomb Iran” just a few months ago

        1. It was also a hit song for the Beach Boys.

          1. The John McCain version

      2. The kind that has Trump caressing Ken’s hair at night, whispering sweet 16D chess moves into his ears as he drifts to sleep.

      3. Do you believe in international treaties and that they ought to be followed by the participants?

        It’s not the US “dictating nuclear policy to Iran”. Iran voluntarily chose to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, they may be violating the terms of the agreement that they signed, and the world has the right to know if they are or not.

      4. “Explain to me what business the US has in dictating nuclear policy to Iran?”

        The legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights. The legitimate purpose of foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats. One of the best ways to accomplish that protection is through alliances and treaties, and our Constitution provided a means to enter into treaties for that reason. We entered into such a treaty to protect us from the threat of rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons in the form of NPT. Iran is also a signatory. They already have the capability to launch satellites with multi-stage rockets, and they’re a self-described enemy of the United States. The U.S. government has a legitimate libertarian responsibility to protect our rights from such threats–and that is why Iran’s nuclear program is, in fact, our business. If the our government were ignoring this threat to our rights, it would be shirking its legitimate responsibility.

        1. Does Iran pose a threat to the US homeland?

          1. Have I personally inspected their space program? No, but if their multi-stage rockets are capable of launching high orbit satellites, then it’s probably safe to assume they’re capable of delivering a payload like a nuclear warhead.

            Regardless, the question isn’t what we should do after they become a nuclear threat. The NPT was meant to provide peaceful means to prevent rogue states from becoming a threat in the first place. Once they’ve developed a nuclear warhead and demonstrated the ability to deliver it with an ICBM (to us or our allies), then it’s already too late.

            Putting out fires makes sense. Preventing fores from breaking out in the first place makes more sense.

            1. Ken, it really looks like you’re using the NPT as justification for something we shouldn’t be involved in.

              And, your explanation isn’t very convincing. We basically strongarmed Iran into accepting our oversight of their self-defense strategy.

              1. Our government shouldn’t be involved in protecting our rights from foreign threats like nuclear ICBMs?

                If there’s an unpersuasive argument in this thread, then that’s it.

                1. “Our government shouldn’t be involved in protecting our rights from foreign threats like nuclear ICBMs?”

                  Ok, I guess we’ve reached the point in this thread where you have to straw man me.

                  “If there’s an unpersuasive argument in this thread, then that’s it.”

                  I agree, you’ve reached the point where you’re fabricating arguments I never made out of thin air, and yes, that is very unpersuasive.

                  Ken, it really looks like you’re using the NPT as justification for something we shouldn’t be involved in.

                  Nothing about not protecting our rights.

                  And, your explanation isn’t very convincing. We basically strongarmed Iran into accepting our oversight of their self-defense strategy.

                  Again, nothing about not protecting our rights.

                  You’re better than lame ass straw men Ken.

                  1. Are you Tulpa?

                    1. Is that supposed to mean something?

                      A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you.

                      I don’t get how it applies here.

                    2. So what you’re really saying is that the United States shouldn’t have signed onto the NPT, and that Iran shouldn’t have signed it either, but since both of them did your argument is…that the United States should also not honor signed treaties with foreign nations? Or that if a foreign power violates a treaty they signed, we should just shrug and say ‘ok, that’s fine’? Can I ask if you think any treaty the United States signs are valid? I see that historically, treaties are usually violated by one or both parties as soon as they find it convenient, but should we return to the type of policy the United States had when it signed treaties with, say, Indians?

                      From where I’m sitting, it looks like you just don’t understand what that treaty is, or why it might have more force than an ‘Executive Agreement’.

          2. Yes. They are the largest sponsors of terror in the world and are diligently working to build missiles with enough range to reach the US and nuclear weapons to put on them. They have said for 30 years that the US is the Great Satan and that they want to destoy us. Maybe they don’t really mean it. But it is a bit fucking rich to now act shocked when we take them at their word and consider them a threat such that we do not want them to have nuclear weapons. Maybe Iran should ask themselves why we hate them so much?

            1. “They are the largest sponsors of terror in the world”

              Yeah, you have them confused with the Saudis

              1. Seems to me that Iran is the concern of the Saudis and Israelis. There’s no threat to us. Much like Russia is a threat to Europe. It’s not our deal.

                1. That is nice but the actual leaders of Iran see it differently. They consider themselves to be quite a threat to us and make threats against us daily.

                  1. Why don’t we bomb Venezuela then? Their government makes threats against us and uses us as a scapegoat for all their problems all the time. And they’re within our hemisphere

                    1. Because Venezuela doesn’t have nukes, and is precisely zero threat to the United States?

                2. “Seems to me that Iran is the concern of the Saudis and Israelis.”

                  This is willful ignorance.

                  You don’t want hem to be a threat, so they aren’t?

                  The reason Hezbollah and Iran have mostly avoided targeting the U.S. directly since 1983 is because they are afraid of us letting Israel off its leash or massive retaliation on the part of the United States.

                  If you take those concerns away–because Iran now has a nuclear ICBM–then all those bets are off. The reason Hezbollah hasn’t targeted Americans specifically in the past certainly wasn’t because they believe in the NAP or because of the warmness in their hearts. It’s only because they fear our retaliation.

              2. Does the name “Hezbollah” ring a bell?

                1. The same Hezbollah that is based out of Lebanon and bombs Israelis, but not Americans except for the 1980’s when we occupied Lebanon? The same Hezbollah that was fighting ISIS in Syria?

                  Is that the Hezbollah you’re talking about?

                  1. Because Hezbollah actively avoided targeting Americans when Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons is no reason to assume that Hezbollah won’t target Americans once Iran has a nuclear deterrent.

                    To the contrary, the nuclear deterrent during the Cold War sparked proxy wars all over the world, and that’s what we should expect if and when Iran procures nuclear weapons.

                    Why wouldn’t Hezbollah target us if Iran had a nuclear deterrent?

                    Do you imagine they believe in the NAP?

              3. You both have them confused with the USA.
                Oh, it’s not terrorism when we drone-murder civilians in countries with whom we are not at war?
                Well, isn’t that special.

                1. Oh, it’s not terrorism when we drone-murder civilians in countries with whom we are not at war?

                  Don’t be so naive, Shirley. Those people said mean things.

                2. Our drone murders are woke af. Our drones check their aerial privilege before they bomb bridal parties and kill American citizens without oversight from congress or the judiciary

                3. Oh, it’s not terrorism when we drone-murder civilians in countries with whom we are not at war?

                  Maybe it is, but that had nothing to do with Iran sponsoring terrorism. Sorry but the fact that the US does mean things and drone strikes a few sacred Muslims doesn’t make it okay for Iran to nuke us or mean the US should allow it because it feels guilty or something.

                  If the Muslim world doesn’t like us drone striking them, maybe they should tell the other members of their religion to stop murdering people here. Otherwise, I really don’t give a shit. I doubt the typical guy in Afghanistan gives a shit about the people who were murdered in Orlando. So, why should I give a shit about the CIA drone striking his ass?

                  1. Iran sponsors terrorism that only attacks Saudi and Israeli interests. I’m not seeing how any of this involves us.

                    And the irony of mentioning Orlando is that the guy was inspired by ISIS, which the Iranian backed Hezbollah group was fighting against in Syria.

                    What the hell kind of neoconservative double talk are you pushing here?

                4. This isn’t a college class about ethics.

                  This is about defending our rights from a nuclear Iran with ICBMs.

                  The suggestion that we should bend over and spread our cheeks for Iran because of our own sins is ridiculous. We need to defend ourselves by insisting Iran abide by the NPT regardless of whatever mistakes and ethical lapses we’ve made in the past.

                  Meanwhile, there is no good reason to assume that Iran would go to war with the U.S. and its allies rather comply with the NPT.

                  1. Do you have a straw man factory somewhere? Because nobody said any of that shit.

                    When should we get to bombing Pakistan? They’ve made threats, support terrorism, and already completed much of their nuclear program.

                    1. gormadoc|5.9.18 @ 11:39AM|#
                      Do you have a straw man factory somewhere? Because nobody said any of that shit.
                      When should we get to bombing Pakistan? They’ve made threats, support terrorism, and already completed much of their nuclear program.

                      Pakistan has not threatened to nuke the USA. Pakistan also has no long range ICBMs capable of hitting the USA. Pakistan’s more worried about India, Afghanistan, and China than the USA.

            2. When a looney neighbor makes multiple threats you call the police. It would be stupid to not treat Iran like the looney neighbor.

              1. Exactly Ron.

                Once a credible threat to you is made, the NAP is n longer in effect. A credible threat being one where the aggressor can injure you. Nukes capable of reaching the USA are a credible threat.

      5. Iran signed a treaty saying they would allow it? It’s not like we’re inserting our dick here without invitation, it’s just that after the fact Iran wants to claim they never asked for it even though their name is on the contract.

        1. “Just Say’n|5.9.18 @ 10:51AM|#

          Our drone murders are woke af. Our drones check their aerial privilege before they bomb bridal parties and kill American citizens without oversight from congress or the judiciary”

          That’s hilarious- especially aerial privilege.
          There’s really nothing to criticize about your post. Well played. I sincerely enjoyed it and lol-ed.

          Yet, I’m going to argue against you.
          The US is telling Iran, “if you do A, we’ll do B” – That is all. Iran has a choice here. The US is simply telling them the consequences for such a choice.

  13. “Study says Oakland school district lost $57.4 million last year because of charters”
    […]
    “”The high costs of charter schools have led to decreases in neighborhood public schools in counseling, libraries, music and art programs, lab sciences, field trips, reading tutors, special education funding, and even the most basic supplies like toilet paper,” said the researcher, political science Professor Gordon Lafer. “Unlimited charter school expansion is pushing some of California’s school districts toward a financial tipping point, from which they will be unable to return.”
    The research was sponsored by In the Public Interest, a nonprofit opposed to the privatization of public services and critical of charter schools, which are public schools but independently run.”
    https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/
    Study-says-Oakland-school-
    district-lost-57-4-12898930.php

    Alternate headline:
    “Oakland Parents Really Hate the Oakland Public Schools”
    Note the study was done by the Poly Sci dept and who funded it. Don’t see any peer-review cites. Wanna bet every penny the schools lost that year got blamed on charter schools? Wanna bet the teacher-count hasn’t dropped?

    1. “Study says Oakland school district lost $57.4 million last year because of charters”

      Did they expect to keep receiving the same amount of gov money for the job of educating many fewer students?

    2. “Don’t see any peer-review cites. ”

      Huh? That doesn’t make any sense. Do you know how original research is done? Because syaing that makes it look like you don’t know how original research is done. It’s like you’re dismissing it because it has no grape jelly, you’re not just wrong, your objections are gibberish.

      1. Oh, goody. A brand new pedant who shows up to whine about comments on charter schools.
        Hmmm… Wonder what brought you here.

        1. It was really more a whine about your lack of understanding about how research is done. Sorry to be “pedantic.”

          1. Yes, I’m sure.

      2. Not peer-reviewed studies are suspect at the best of times.

        And most good, non-industrial, research is peer-reviewed. Doesn’t matter if it’s “original” or not.

      3. Sure you understand the definition of the word “review”?

        Whether you do or don’t, your comment is moronic.

    3. If electing not to send a child into the public school system is tantamount to stealing money from the public school system, shouldn’t we be protesting the billions of dollars Planned Parenthood has stolen from the schools?

      1. Or maybe the billions of dollars taken from people who pay taxes but do not have children to send to school?

      2. More than likely the school district has fewer students since everyone with kids is moving out of the hell hole that Oakland has become

  14. Can somebody remind me again, is Stormy Daniels suing Trump, and if so, for what? Or is Trump suing her? Is it just that she wants to be released from her NDA? She’s already broken that one. I has a confuse.

    1. Yes, she’s suing Trump. Her argument isn’t very good but Cohen has been shooting himself in the foot every chance he gets. It probably intersected the Mueller investigation with the shell company, as it was the entity used to represent Trump in the contract.

      1. Except the payments from the spooky Russian oligarch (who also funded the Daily Beast) came after the Russian investigation began. Which means that (1) Trump’s people are as incompetent as he is and (2) the Mueller team leaked this to justify the continuation of the investigation that has hit a dead end, since the payments have nothing to do with “interference in the election”

        1. Should say *Gawker* not *The Daily Beast*. I get my click bait sites confused

        2. Cohen’s case got referred to SDNY.

          1. Which would suggest that there is even less to this story. Why would Mueller refer Cohen’s case to SDNY if there was a clear connection to Russia fever dreams? Isn’t that the purpose of his investigation?

            1. Well funny you ask. I understood it as a way of keeping the investigation going if Trump starts firing investigators again. It also strengthens the credibility of the investigation when its done by different authorities.

            2. My point is that Mueller probably did refer it because it isn’t related to collusion, which also makes the notion that this is just to keep the investigation going unlikely (though Zebra’s explanation is possible).

              Regardless of any Russia connection, the president’s fixer getting all this money from people is a little bit suspicious, no? Let’s see where this leads.

            3. The process probably went like this:

              Mueller learned of the shell company’s suspicious foreign connections.

              The combined evidence and importance of further evidence convinced the necessary people that a raid was warranted.

              After the raid they turned evidence of crimes not deemed relevant to the Russia investigation (perhaps all of it) over to authorities who could investigate.

      2. But what is she suing for? If it is just to be free of the NDA, what’s that got to do with Cohen? The NDA is a valid contract or it isn’t. I guess I could google it. I’ll report back if I learn anything.

        1. Ok, that didn’t take long. First suit was to be released from NDA. Seems weak. She took the money. She broke the NDA before a legal decision was renedered.

          Second suit was for defamation because Trump said her composite sketch of some guy who allegedly threatened her was bogus.

          Neither suit should depend on who paid her the $130,000 because she received the agreed amount, but Mueller conveniently raided Cohen right in the middle of her case. Hmm.

          1. The second suit is worse than the first. Her suing the President and claiming she was threatened made her a public figure. That means she has to prove that Trump acted with malice when he said that, which is virtually impossible. Also, defamation must be a statement of fact, not an opinion. Trump has a right to say what he thinks of the sketch even if his opinion turns out not to be true.

            1. If we find out Trump knew about Cohen’s practice of gooning people then Trump is acting with malice even if Trump didn’t direct the threats himself. We know Cohen made a habit of threatening people so I wouldn’t be surprised Trump knew more about the practice then most anyone ekse. Trump sent his goons to intimate his old doctor so that evidence goes against Trump.

              1. A lawyer threatened someone? Let me get the fainting couch.

                Whatever we find out, no one other than people like you who already hate Trump is going to care. That is just how it is. You are wasting your time with this. In fact, you are helping Trump by taking media time that could be spent on issues that might actually do damage to him.

                1. Billions in free publicity…again!

          2. Shouldn’t/couldn’t she sue Avenatti for giving her really, really shitty legal advice (it’s ok to violate the NDA)? I mean, she could (should) be liable for millions in damages. Avenatti clearly has an agenda and is using Stormy to achieve his own ends. Seems pretty f***ing unethical.

  15. The gig economy emerged from market-driven autonomy and flexibility for both companies and workers

    Yeah, but don’t you get it? Market-driven anything is a threat to the livelihoods of any number of government bureaucrats. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE ‘CRATS

  16. There are 6.6 million job openings in the U.S. right now, according to the Labor Department’s latest report. “It’s likely that the United States will soon be in a situation where there are more job openings than job seekers,” writes Heather Long at Wonkblog.

    Full employment looks an awful lot like near-record numbers of people out of the labor force and a jobs market that has no idea how to leverage that.

    1. Obviously the solution is *mandated* $15/yr jobs for anyone who is out of the labor force.

      1. “$15/yr jobs”

        That wage can’t get much more minimum.

        1. It baffles me that Venezuela is happening in real-time south of us, and people keep recommending the same course of action Venezuela took/is taking. Do we really want to copy that example? But in their heads, we’re not doing the same thing. And that’s pure crazy talk until one realizes that two people doing the same thing while it’s only wrong and bad for one of them, depending on who they are, is pretty normalized thinking these days. Doesn’t work, and yet there’s plenty of folks doing it.

          1. It baffles me that a thousand or so miles south of the US, Atlas Shrugged is being played out in real life, only even worse than even Rand ever imagined and all Reason has had to say about it is some dumb ass article on Bitcoin. All of the horrors of socialism are being played out in front of us and Reason is too busy writing articles on hookers, uber and TRUMP to fucking notice.

            1. Would you be happy if they ran a story every day saying “In today’s news, Venezuela is still shitty”?

              1. Yes. There are a million stories about the insanity that is going on there. It is like a laboratory experiment in the insanity of socialism. You would think that anyone who wants to make the case against socialism would see what is occurring there as a gold mine. It is almost like they don’t really give a fuck about making the case against socialism or something. Or at the very least are not as interested in making it as they are in making the case for forcing everyone to believe in transgenerism or opening the country to the wonders of UBer.

                1. So they’re more interested in reporting about things that actually affect Americans than reporting about things that don’t? How fucking dare they.

                  1. So they’re more interested in reporting about things that actually affect Americans than reporting about things that don’t?

                    Too local?

                    This is a really bad joke, and I’m posting it anyway.

                    1. Too local?

                      This is a really bad joke, and I’m posting it anyway.

                      Even funnier is that I was trying to figure out how to work that in too.

                  2. Yeah they only report on things that affect Americans. That is why they reported Brexit to death or covered the Pussy Riot story in Russia like crazy. Jesus Fucking Christ Sparky, who are you trying to kid here other than yourself?

                    1. So them no endlessly harping on Venezuela means they love socialism. You sure got them good this time.

                    2. No Sparky it means they don’t think making the case against socialism is that important.

                  3. what is happening in Venezuala does have an effect on us since so many Americans want to fashion our government after theirs. If you want to teach kids why they shouldn’t walk into traffic show them a traffic accident Venezulas failures need to be shown for what they are

            2. I agree. The talent and opportunity here appear to be going mainly to fluff and clickbait trolling.

              Maybe it’s neurological. Human brains are wired to protect our narrative. I’m leaning toward the just-world hypothesis actually being an expression of confirmation bias and narrative protection: If our narrative is that “bad things don’t happen here/these days” then we reject or ignore anything which challenges this.

              If writers live in surroundings with nothing more serious than Trump sleeping with a hooker, then the world will appear to them to be a place where the most serious story is Trump sleeping with a hooker.

              Pure, idle speculation on my part, and likely unfair to some degree. And yet, journalism does have a pattern.

    2. Full employment means people have more leverage over their employers. That great restricts employers’ ability to insist on things like drug tests or diversity training or other bullshit that does not directly relate to productivity. Full employment means more freedom.

      1. I wasn’t dogging full employment, John. My bad, let me clarify. I like full employment, and I don’t think “full employment” and “near-record numbers of people out of the labor force” are things that happen together. I know, yes, yes, it’s not in keeping with mainstream economic thinking, and it’s pretty eccentric, and yet there we go. Can’t help thinking it, so I just keep on a-thinkin’ it.

        1. I like full employment, and I don’t think “full employment” and “near-record numbers of people out of the labor force” are things that happen together.

          They are the same thing. “Full employment” means everyone who can and wants to is working to the fullest extent possible.

          1. And yet the near-record numbers of people out of the workforce would seem to indicate that this might not be so.

            1. I agree. But I think the term is fairly meaningless anyway.

              1. Yeah. You’re getting me. I was essentially saying, “Wanna hear a joke? The official definition of full employment, ba-dump-TISH!”

            2. Always remember that Obama changed the definition of Employment Rate.

            3. Yeah, reporting that there are tons of jobs that are going unfilled is meant to be a push for ‘moar immugrents’ to fill those ‘jarbs’ that ‘muricans won’t do’ or something like that.

              The whole ‘but what about the labor force participation rate’ would stick a pin in that inflated narrative, so of course mentioning it makes you a heretic. I’m sure they’ll blame ‘retiring baby boomers’ which probably has some truth to it but…tellingly they aren’t included in the labor force participation rate last I checked since they aren’t potential workers anymore.

              Correct me if I’m wrong there, by all means.

    3. Full employment is when they stop counting the people that are out of work, right?

      1. ^ Exactly.

        Full employment is only ever achieved when we ignore the labor participation rate and pretend like it doesn’t matter

      2. It is a bit of an amorphous term. In an absolute sense, you will never have full employment. There is always going to be someone out of work for some reason. “Full Employment” as a term of art means the point at which an economy’s labor participation rate can go no higher and its employment rate can go no lower without sparking inflation. What that is, depends on the economy and the circumstances. As far as I am concerned, it is a meaningless term. In practice, it has just become an excuse for Keynsians to screw with the economy.

      1. Yes it is.

  17. Avenatti shared an unsourced document titled “Preliminary Report of Findings,” sending Trump reporters on a frenzy to fact-check the contents. Much of it has been confirmed.

    How exactly did he obtain this unsourced document? Last I looked you couldn’t just call up and get someone’s bank records. Why would a porn star’s lawyer have such a thing? The whole thing is absurd.

    1. Are we pretending like we don’t know who gave him the document that beyond the headlines doesn’t actually prove anything since the payments were made after the Russia investigation began. It’s meant to justify the continued investigation that has hit a dead end

      1. The intelligence community spying on private citizens and then giving the information to crooked lawyers who then leak it to humiliate the person is just the price of civilization. Whatever it is, it is nothing for Libertarians to worry about because TRUMP!!

        1. Exactly John. The media has been ignoring that the intel community is neck deep in partisan politics and the left does not consider that a problem.

  18. In case you, too, were wondering: “why the internet is suddenly protesting on net neutrality all over again.”

    Honestly, i have nothing to do with the internet anymore, and so didn’t notice.

    1. My apps have been bothering me about it lately.

      1. I’m from the ’90s when “apps” were the food you ate before you ate the food, so i can’t help but interpret your comment as a complaint about tummy troubles.

  19. Yes, but what kind of jobs? Shit jobs that are usually done by migrants?

    1. They had jolly well better be *documented* jobs!

    2. Shit jobs are better than no jobs.

      1. Not when there’s welfare.

        1. Not even then.

            1. To some people working for a living is always better than being a bum. It must really suck to be so poisoned by your politics that you can’t be happy over people having jobs.

              1. Juice is just pissed that some of him bum buddies might have to take jobs.

              2. One of the worst things of welfare is when we create sitatuations that actively discourage people from work.

                Orthogonal to this discussion, but something that bothers me a lot.

        2. What is your point here? That full employment is a bad thing? I don’t know what the jobs are. But I am sure you could get some idea if you bothered to do some looking. Why don’t you do that if this interests you so much? Otherwise, it doesn’t seem that you have much of a point other than to be butthurt over what should be considered a good thing.

    3. Make Americans Clean Toilets Again

      1. Actually, scrolling up the main page, it might be more like Make Americans Drive Uber.

    4. “Yes, but what kind of jobs? Shit jobs that are usually done by migrants?”

      Yeah, probably the last jobs filled are the least desirable ones. Works that way.
      Are we to preserve a couple of CEO openings so your feelings aren’t hurt?

      1. My feelings? Are your feelings hurt, Mr. Projectionist?

        1. If your feelings are not hurt, then what are you saying here? I get it, the entire world is supposed to collapse so that the world can be punished for the evil deed of electing Trump. Yeah well sorry but sometimes your hopes and dreams don’t work out like you want them to. It is just how life is.

        2. “My feelings?”

          Yes, Mr. Walkback.

  20. http://www.accredited-times.com/2018/…..ian-agent/

    My new favorite Russia fever dream: Kanye is a Russian agent

  21. http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10876

    Leandra Westbrook, a junior at Kent State University, was detained by campus police after students overheard her say “how it is a shame that I cannot carry a gun on campus, considering I have my carry license” on the phone.
    Police officers removed Westbrook from the lecture hall of 200 students where she was about to take a quiz, after which she said that she was “was too shaken up and disturbed to return back to class.”

    1. More like Kent State elementary school. These “students” that called the campus police are the same ones who ratted out kids on the playground in 2nd grade for making a gun gesture with their fingers. Only they never grew up, and now they are ratting people out as adults.

      1. It’s been 5 years since I’ve been able to eat a pop tart.

    2. I think it’s pretty obvious that because the NRA hasn’t yet risen to her defense, that they are a bigoted, sexist, and anti-gun fossil-puppet of the wilted husk that is the GOP. If they were a real libertarian, Constitutionally-oriented, 2A organization they would’ve teamed up with FIRE and laid siege to a couple dozen Universities and burned all the buildings to the ground. No middle ground, no compromise.

  22. The U.S. is officially out of the Iran nuclear deal (for now anyway), per President Trump’s Tuesday afternoon announcement.

    I’m not sure that’s how it works.

  23. There are 6.6 million job openings in the U.S. right now, according to the Labor Department’s latest report. “It’s likely that the United States will soon be in a situation where there are more job openings than job seekers,” writes Heather Long at Wonkblog.

    The real question* is why in the world some people want to maintain a 1960s immigration policy for a 2018 economy.

    *This isn’t a real question, I know exactly why so many people push for this, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with filling all those job openings.

  24. http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/…..tchywidget

    Jim Acosta makes the case for Trump’s re-election.

    1. You actually think that the United States being the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement is a result of us having a uniquely genius head of state.

      1. The fact that the Europeans are not abiding by the rules of the agreement and our carbon outputs have decreased faster than theirs after exiting the agreement suggests the Paris agreement was basically “give us money, US”

        1. After all, what role should the richest and one of the most polluting countries have in contributing to protecting the global environment for the human species?

          1. If they’re already doing that, it doesn’t count unless they’re part of a club?

            1. If nothing else it’s extremely embarrassing. Trump is diminishing the US, and the rest of the civilized world is, at best, figuring out how to do without us until he’s gone. China is taking advantage of our stupidity to attempt to take our place as the global leader. That’s a nominally communist state, by the way, in case you didn’t know, which makes one wonder why you see it necessary to defend Trump’s random post?Big Mac policy reflexes that lead to such diminishing.

              1. you see it necessary to defend Trump

                I guess these days everything is a defense of Trump so I can’t see how I could have avoided it.

                What I was calling out was the fact that Just Say’n claimed that the US is doing more while out of the group than members of the group are doing and your response was that the US is out of the group and that looks bad. It’s kind of a lazy response but I’m sure you know that.

                1. Is he referring to the US states that are continuing Paris-consistent actions in defiance of Trump’s move?

                  1. Is he referring to the US states that are continuing Paris-consistent actions in defiance of Trump’s move?

                    Beats me, but does it matter? If the US in total is exceeding what the Paris agreement called for, are you going to continue to insist that it doesn’t count because the US isn’t officially in on it?

                    1. The agreement was never going to solve the problem, but considering the US is the single country on the planet that backed out, I think the onus is on those defending that action considering that it is manifestly embarrassing and a ceding of American leadership on this issue and others.

                    2. it is manifestly embarrassing

                      So the short answer is “yes”.

                      I find it funny that when it comes to something like individual rights you’re Captain Pragmatism but when it comes to “ecological disaster” then suddenly perception is all that matters.

                    3. I find it funny that when it comes to something like individual rights you’re Captain Pragmatism but when it comes to “ecological disaster” then suddenly perception is all that matters.

                      When you’re Tony, you compromise your principles to suit your arguments, it’s what you do.

                      Read above where he slants Trump and tries to shame us and the US for ‘allowing’ China to take the lead on AGW. Capitalist-funded proxy wars are a terrible evil that killed more people and wrecked more marxian utopias in 50 yrs. than any other ideology in the history of man until the Marxian Utopias you see being built aren’t his kind of Marxian Utopias, then shame on the capitalists for not being more interventionist.

                    4. You wanna see my 5-year plan for climate change?

                    5. The agreement was never going to solve the problem

                      It’s refreshing that you’re admitting the agreement is an exercise in pointless virtue-signaling. They’ll be putting that remark on the tombstone of every progressive busybody in about 30 years.

              2. “…If nothing else it’s extremely embarrassing….”

                You’re the idiot screaming about how the hag should have won; you SHOULD be embarrassed about that. Instead we get this…
                you’ll forgive me if I find your ‘feelings’ to be NWS.

          2. Something tells me you haven’t actually read the agreement, nor the individual statements submitted by the countries.

            The fact that India and China, two of the worst polluting nations on earth with first-world level economies, are classified as “developing nations” by this agreement shows that it’s really just a managerialist wet dream to siphon money from the US.

            The fact that the head of Goldman Sachs is in favor of this is proof enough that it’s a scam.

            1. Everyone on the planet is in favor of it except the US Republican party.

              That’s obviously because they’re the most smartest.

              1. Everyone on the planet is in favor of it except the US Republican party.

                That’s obviously because they’re the most smartest.

                Well, sure, why wouldn’t third-worlders and their shitlib enablers support an international wealth-transfer agreement financed via loans from global banks?

              2. Tony|5.9.18 @ 11:27AM|#
                Everyone on the planet is in favor of it except the US Republican party.
                That’s obviously because they’re the most smartest.

                This is the same argument Tony uses for Nazis not being socialists. Every socialist believes Nazis were not socialists, so lefties are the most smartest.

                1. Ok, for the five billionth time Hitler had the socialists literally fucking murdered during the Night of Long Knives so you’ll forgive people when they doubt that Hitler actually gave a flying fuck about the useful idiots that might have supported him from the socialist wing.

                  I know what they were called but since fucking when was Hitler known for being a truthful son of a bitch?

                  1. And Stalin had the socialists literally purged as well. Guess Soviet Russia wasnt a socialist state either!

          3. Uhh…you should do at least a modicum of research into which countries are ‘the most polluting’ before opening your idiot mount. Hint: The U.S. is not among those countries.

            1. No. 2 in total emissions and no. 7 in per capita emissions.

      2. “You actually think that the United States being the only country in the world not in the Paris agreement is a result of us having a uniquely genius head of state.”

        Naah. That’s just one of his accomplishments. Getting us out an expensive pity-party which does nothing other than provide excursion baksheesh for greenies.

  25. We are just getting started…

    ? Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 8, 2018

    Wait, you’re just getting started now? What the hell has all that other dicking around been then?

    1. And exactly what are they going to find that Mueller, the FBI, and the entire US intelligence community has not? This has to be the saddest political circus of all time.

  26. The was watching the local news this morning and they took the time to promote a story they’re working on for the evening program. Their investigative team will be doing a report on how the police not ticketing enough people for enough things is costing the state millions of dollars every year.

    What a great time to be alive.

  27. increasing the workforce and the standard of living for all

    Then why is Roseanne on foodstamps? I know it’s just a TV show, but still.

    1. Is she on food stamps in the show?

      1. Yes, and she drives for Uber.

        1. Why is anyone watching this show again?

          1. My wife watches it, she’s been a fan forever. But she thinks Will and Grace is funny too so… *shrug*

          2. Why did anyone ever watch it?

            1. It used to be on between Simpsons episodes back when they were still pretty good.

            2. Why did anyone ever watch it?

              Sarah Chalke.

              That’s my final answer.

        2. Rosanne also wears underwear with dick holes in ’em.

      2. You can have a job and be on food stamps.

  28. Thing I never thought I’d ever say: Funny joke, Mitch McConnell!

    1. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: recent events prove conclusively that nothing really matters and everything is possible.

      1. Way to out yourself as an Illuminati assassin.

  29. Thanks ENB, for the schmear of DemoGOP LeftandRight backstabbing, bad-mouthing, faece-flinging and generally generous cornucopia of reasons for voters to switch to the burgeoning Libertarian party just to see what happens.

    1. I rarely understand what you are saying.

      1. You’re not alone.

        1. Sometimes i think i might agree with Hank Phillips, but his writing style is so contrived and off-putting that i can’t be bothered to puzzle it out.

          1. It could be worse, he could be Shikha Dalmia.

            1. You sure are sure about that.

  30. …make it a federal hate crime to “to knowingly cause bodily injury to any person, or attempts to do so, because of the actual or perceived status of the person as a law enforcement officer.

    And this is why “hate crime” legislation is inherently problematic: it’s arbitrary law. Legislators can indefinitely add more and more arbitrary criteria to these laws, which pollutes the entire system of law in that it considers some victims more “worthy” than others. It’s a flagrant rejection of blind justice.

    1. It is indeed, and it’s truly off-putting. Plus, I thought it was already a separate and serious crime to assault a police officer? I thought hate crimes only justification was that it was a crime based upon immutable characteristics of the person, but last I checked you can choose to stop being a cop…which means even the thin and ridiculous justification that existed is now gone.

      It’s just a fun way to get around double jeopardy and a way to twist your arm to get a guilty plea since, if you don’t, you’re risking the next 8000 years of your life into the hands of 12 ‘strangers’ that were preselected and vetted by the state specifically for your case.

      Yikes. I’ve thought that even allowing the state to question potential jurors is itself jury tampering. I get why it’s done, and they’re not awful arguments, but the end result is of questionable use. And yes, I understand that your own lawyer is just as involved but it’s little consolation that you’re both allowed to blatantly load the jury.

  31. “a firm linked to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg.”

    and how many firms that paid Hillary are linked to Russia. If its wrong for Cohen then is was twice as wrong for Hillary since she had political power to use. I’m fine if its found criminal I doubt it but i want crimes prosecuted equally no matter what political party you belong to.

  32. Does anybody have a definitive number on the total count of Russian oligarchs or what defines them as a member of the oligarchy? It seems like it would either be a pretty small community and rather easy to keep tabs on* or it’s not exactly an oligarchy as much as your regular, old Pareto distribution except evil, and Russian (but I repeat myself).

    *Assuming a modestly competent intelligence services.

    1. Does the UN or some magazine issue a yearly list of “official Russian oligarchs” or something? What does it take to get on the list?

      1. How do you not know? Look, if you let your subscription to Oligark??????? lapse, that’s on you.

    2. Simple: If they are involved in big business in Russia they are by definition an oligarch. Which is…honestly a pretty apt description.

      What we ignore are guys like Buffet, Steyer, Musk, and yes even the Koch’s are also oligarch’s (just to name a few).

      Awkward, but true. All it really means is ‘rich as fuck business person with lots of political clout’.

  33. Cohen’s payment to Daniels was brokered through a shell company called Essential Consultants LLC. The company also received:
    around $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm whose biggest client is controlled by Vekselberg.
    $99,980 from the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis.
    $150,000 from Korea Aerospace Industries, which is currently competing for a multi-billion-dollar U.S. military contract.
    $200,000 from AT&T, whose desired merger with Time Warner depends on federal approval.

    How is any of this illegal?

    Nearly every politician on Congress has ensured that payments like these are not considered corruption and bribery to purchase favors.

    This is business as usual in Washington DC. The lefties just hate it because they cannot get Trump because these payments went to Trump’s lawyer and not Trump.

    1. It’s shady, for sure, and I generally think these types of things aren’t good for the Republic but you’re not wrong that it’s also generally accepted in Washington, D.C.

      I don’t necessarily consider it a bad thing that they’re willing to cut off their nose to spite their face ‘because Trump’ though. What I’m concerned about is the dual-justice on display since, to date, the only candidate that ‘conspired’ (using their phony and loaded criteria for ‘collusion’) has thus far been Clinton.

      So the fact they aren’t going after Clinton for the Fusion GPS nonsense is proof positive that there are two separate considerations for collusion based on your party affiliation.

      Banana Republic Status: Confirmed.

      And that status only becomes more obvious when you consider the active role of government intelligence services acting hand-in-hand with a political party. I think what Trump has done is drive those people out of the shadows as their TDS has made them take a lot of stupid risks to get to their preferred result. That doesn’t make Trump ‘good’, it means the system is ‘bad’.

    2. Nearly every politician on Congress has ensured that payments like these are not considered corruption and bribery to purchase favors.

      I don’t see why anyone would consider this to be bribery or say that it’s shady. All this says is that Trump has a lawyer that has a client that has a client that is owned by a Russian oligarch. There’s nothing wrong with the President having a lawyer. And there’s nothing wrong with him having a lawyer that has other clients.

  34. So the AM Links are buried as “Quick Hits” now, at the end of some TL;DR article? Geez.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.