I largely agree with California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s take on Michael Cohen’s testimony yesterday. I didn’t pay close attention and he has credibility problems.
Here are my observations:
- Democrats already think that Trump is a racist, conman, and cheat.
- Even if he were provably not a racist, conman, or cheat, many Democrats would be ready to impeach him.
- Republicans need much more evidence to remove him from office.
- The testimony didn’t provide it.
We return now to your regularly scheduled programming.
This is the regularly scheduled programming. Republicans bet it all on this Deep State idiocy. Now we’re going to have two years of House investigations into Trump’s fake business empire. Will he be impeached? No. Will he be exposed as a cheap criminal who was almost certainly blackmailed and used like a toy by Russians? Oh yeah. I expect his dumbest son is probably going to go down for this Trump Tower thing. Meanwhile, the Republicans are going to be talking about how Hillary Clinton is behind it all.
There is always something captivating about a drama involving someone turning on their patron.
E.g. the Passion of Jesus, Julius Caesar.
Through I do not think the hearing enhanced the standing of anyone involved; the questioners, the witness, or the subject.
Yeah. Didn’t watch, but heard some snippets and commentary. I’d say it was a grotesque display of the small minded, and further evidence of just how low media and certain members of Congress have gone. And we expect these people to run the health care system, education or national energy policy?
The only question of interest to me is who is ultimately behind this. It has the narcissistic, evil and scorched earth stench of the Clintons all over it.
“This is the regularly scheduled programming”
You took my first comment.
Next one: Cohen is and has been under duress for a long time. Looks like Stockholm syndrome to me.
There have been claims that it was engineered by Lanny Davis who is the Clintons’ bagman.
It’s possible, I guess. The Clintons are shmucks but they’re not the only shmucks.
I don’t think I’ve learned a thing from Cohen’s testimony that I didn’t know in October 2016. For some retracing old ground is apparently the primary work of Congress. I don’t think that it makes any more sense than the endless rehashing of the debacle at Benghazi did. Less, even.
Surprised you left off the following.
5) If he is provably a racist, conman and cheat the Republicans will not care. (Do we really need the if?)
Thanks for the laughs guys. No Clinton has held office for over 6 years and everything is still their fault. We should start a pool and bet on how many years Republicans can carry on with this. Also, it is just too much to hear anyone, conservative/Republican, whatever, complaining about Cohen being a liar when they support Trump. The guy has only the faintest acquaintance with the truth.
Steve
Apparently, you missed the revelation that the DNC was (and may still be!) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton campaign.
I’m not a Republican. But I recognize the hold that the Clintons have had on the Democratic Party and gravely disapprove of it.
You simply cannot be that big of a fool, steve. Clintonites still infest the party like ticks.
“I don’t think I’ve learned a thing from Cohen’s testimony that I didn’t know in October……”
Correct. Some may be true or close to true. Most is just garden variety shit slinging, and, conveniently for the one making the charges, unproveable, but certainly red meat for broadcast. And that of course is the purpose. I’m not good at making predictions about public reaction to things, but the only people who matter, swing voters, may have tired of endless silliness about Trump hitting his wife or pee-pee videos, or claims he suppers with Boris Badanov……………..
“Apparently, you missed the revelation that the DNC was (and may still be!) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton campaign.”
Apparently you have missed it when I said I thought Clinton was the second worst POTUS candidate in my lifetime. You also seem to be missing the fact that we arent seeing the current candidates falling over themselves to embrace Hillary. Sure, there are still people who supported them in office, but they have either moved on or are moving on.
Steve
You’re changing the subject. The subject is Clinton influence and control in the present and recent past not in the future. The Clintons still have plenty of influence and control in the DNC and with prominent Democrats, many of whom are Clintonistas.
“not in the future”
There already a couple of thousand Democrats who have declared they are running for POTUS. That is not the future. Yes, they controlled the party in the past, which is called the past for a reason. I am not seeing much evidence that they run things now, nor that the party is interested in having them take over again. Nonetheless my prediction is that the Republicans will continue to blame everything on them for at least 10 more years, unless they find a better bogeyman. (Interesting that they skipped past Obama fo rah most part.)
Steve
That’s easy to explain. Obama built no organization. In fact he did the opposite. There were fewer Democratic officeholders when he left office than when he entered.
Look at the last several chairs of the DNC. They’ve all been Clintonistas. That’s influence. Beto O’Rourke is a headline not an influence. Kamala Harris has a little more pull because she actually won her election. And so on down the line.
AOC is attracting followers but she has no real pull in the party today. 5 or 10 years from now may be another story.
I think the Clintons are passing. They’ll be important this cycle for money, but after that, they’ll be done IMO.
The future of the party seems to be up for grabs, but the far-left/progressive elements appear to have the most momentum.
I agree with that assessment. But today they’re still influential.
The far left gets the most press because the press is far left. Black voters, the most important constituency in the party, are not particularly far left. Not a lot of attention is paid to that, at least in part because it would harsh the mellow.