Capo's Consigliere: Crime Boss Directed the Operations.... (and, let me tell you where the bodies are burried)

Finally, Congress--well, the House, 'cause the Republican Senate was checking executive power only when Obama was president--is looking into Trump's crimes. I don't know what more someone needs to finally accept the reality that Trump cares only about himself and committing fraud-crimes has been his only skill. 

You don't have to believe M. Cohen's testimony to Congress. Don't take his word for it. But, check the evidence and sources to more evidence he provides. I think he had no incentive to lie in his latest testimony; he's already a convicted felon. But, he, and many others, in Trump's inner circle has been saying the same story about Trump and his crooked family. Further, several of those persons have been indicted, plead guilty, and sentenced for various crimes. It's only a matter of time, the crime boss goes down too.

Ah, those damn emails of crooked Hillary.... Wouldn't you take that scandal over what we're witnessing under Trump?

Obviously, the Repubs would attack the credibility of Cohen, but offered no rebuttal to the evidence or arguments he made. They acted like mafia boss lawyers defending their client. Cohen provided insights and ways for Congress to find those "buried bodies." 

It's more than apparent that Trump has cheated, lied, colluded, defrauded, betrayed all sorts of people and the country. Some cognitively-challenged persons can't go past their biases. Trump could indeed shoot someone in the middle of Manhattan and some people would blame the victims for walking in front of his bullets.  Others are indeed deplorables --those who don't care about Trump's crimes.  Of course, they would've started a revolution if Obama had committed a fraction of Trump's crimes. Ah, yeah, those were the good ol' days of a presidential tenure free of scandals...except those "damn emails" that the FBI and Congress investigated ad nauseam .

The whole Trump family, going back to his father, has been a mafia-type operation. They've cheated on taxes; set up a fraudulent foundation, a fraudulent"university", scammed contractors and buyers, profited from bankruptcies, colluded with a foreign power against the US, made deals with foreign interests while running for president, then as president promising to lift sanctions against Russia, and since have been profiting by selling influence, and taking bribes!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was brilliant in her 5' questioning of Cohen. She put on the record other people who have knowledge about Trump's illegal dealings, which is how Cohen can corroborate his statements. She, twice, made a point that if the Committee was to verify Cohen's statements, Congress needs access to Trump's tax records, which, against tradition of presidential candidates, have not been made available to the public, because Trump has been lying about being under audit..... In itself a stupid excuse since an IRS audit doesn't prohibit anyone from releasing their taxes.  Cohen said that Trump was not under IRS audit, and he might be if he released his taxes, that would show the fraud he's been committing, plus his sources of income!

I can't wait for Muller's report. He may not issue conclusions and leave it up to Congress (and the states) to do so, as well any further legal actions. But, Muller's report will add to the momentum of exposing one of the worst frauds in our history, which may be the biggest considering that a crime family made it to the White House!

I wholly recommend Rachael Maddow's podcast, Bagman. It's about the Nixon-Agnew saga. The similarities between those crime figures and Trump are striking! So much for the party of ..values!  


Update, 3/1/19: It's worth noting what resurfaced in the news today. Trump overruled our intelligent agencies to give Jared Kushner top security clearance! Trump's own chief of staff at the time, John Kelly, wrote an internal memo saying how disgusted he was about this matter. Nepotism is the least trespass here. It's an issue of national security and how the Trump crime family is all about their own interests damn the country!

Sanders to Run for Prez in 2020

A socialist from Vermont

I am a Bernie fan. I think he has almost single-handedly moved the Democratic party to the left and made certain topics part of the mainstream, like higher taxes for the rich, pro-environment, universal health care, etc. Of course the conservatives and the advocates of the "donor class" don't like this kind of socialistic talk, but there are now majorities in America that support, well, socialism!

The word socialism may have a negative connotation but mostly with older Americans who experienced the Cold War and communist/socialist dictatorships in the second half of the 20th century. But the world and our country have changed. 

Younger people are more socially-minded. They do want to tax the super rich. They do want social services. They do care about the environment. They do want regulations in the marketplace, consumer protections, etc.

When the Cons point to Venezuela as a bad example of.. socialism, the reply should be, an authoritarian regime can be socialist, or fascist/Nazi (national socialism), or communist, or, capitalist.

Most people are already aware of Canada and ..Denmark and the rest of the Scandinavian countries who practice democratic socialism. These countries have some very desirable & enviable outcomes. They beat us in happiness, quality of life, health care, education, longevity, leisure, etc, so they must be doing something right.

We should be pointing out that all western type countries are liberal-social-democracies. Liberal, because they promote individual freedoms, social because of social safety net (i.e., Social Security), and democratic, because of free expression, etc. The basics are the same, the recipes vary. But, if we want better outcomes, it's time we try what other countries have done to surpass the US in many critical outcomes.

Bernie will be a good addition to the Dem class of presidential candidates, because he'll raise important issues and force the other candidates to respond. Primary voters of both parties are more to the left and right than the general population, so any serious candidate may have to steer to the more extreme wings of their party. However, I think Trump will be the nominee of the Repubs, unless he's indicted and resigns--which is a probability. I don't think he'll be impeached, nor would I advise the Dems to start such process unless they could secure the 67 votes in the Senate required for removal of a president.

On the other hand, the Democratic candidates will veer to the left during the primaries for sure, though I believe the eventual nominee will be the one mostly considered as the stronger candidate to defeat Trump. Who will be the one to cater to the left but also present themselves as one who could get the independent votes, plus excite people to actually get out and vote? Turnout is always the key to success. HRC could have won if more than 70,000 Dem voters in three states had done that. And, yes, Dems had millions more votes--their turnout was lower than four years earlier!

Perhaps, you noticed that I am not expecting Sanders to be the nominee. He is the most progressive, like Senator E. Warren, but I don't think the Dems will take a chance selecting the most progressive candidate, since the base and most independents find the current buffoon in the White House totally unacceptable, they'll opt for a safer choice. I don't think Warren will fare well in the contest. Sanders might, but not her; it just a hunch... they'll be appealing to same group of voters. 

There are two reasons for both of them not being the nominee. One, the Dems want someone who can beat DJT, so they'll go with the safer choice, and two, the age of Bernie (79 on election day), and Warren (71). Oh, Biden too (78). The presidency is very demanding, if, unlike Trump, the CEO of the USA actually works. 

I also think the Dems would like the next Dem prez to be a two-termer, so all three--Sanders, Warren, Biden--have a great disadvantage. It's not impossible but if you're pushing 90...

The Democratic parties have rules that are mostly proportional representation at the convention. It's much easier for someone with even 25% consistent support, in a field of dozens, to win the nomination in a winner-take-all system, like many Republican parties have. This system made it easier for Trump to win, whereas the PR% system allowed Obama to win in 2008. Hillary Clinton won all the big states but didn't win all their delegates.

We have an interesting system of selecting and electing presidents in the US. Until the 1970s and 1980s, the two major political parties decided their nominees mostly within a closed system of party bosses with the general public excluded. After the disaster of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, the Democrats opened up the primaries to regular voters. By the 1980s, the Republicans followed too. This democratic (small "d") development weakened the political parties further--their power had been declining since the 1960s with the emergence of media politics (TV). It also made the process messier and more expensive.  

Each state, plus DC and US territories, have their own parties with their own rules of voting for committed delegates to the national party convention. Most use simple straight voting (also called a primary). Some used a more complicated and time-consuming process, known as a caucus. The national party committees--the DNC and the RNC--control the conventions and decide on the role of the super-delegates, who are party stalwarts, and are not committed to any particular candidate (at least in theory). The Dems reduced their numbers and impact on selecting the nominee.

Anyway, it's going to be very interesting. I see it as the beginning of the end of a very bad choice the country made in 2016.

======
The Faux News network for a long while now is harping about the "coup d'etat" against Trump.... There was no coup. I wonder what the cons would say if Obama had a similar relationship with the Chinese leader, against the advice of his own security agencies, that he was being bribed by foreign countries & persons while running and after being elected president, when dozens of his top people in his campaign and in his close circle were indicted, under investigation, or plead guilty...   When his campaign colluded with the Russians...

Yes, it's reasonable to begin to discuss the possibility of removing a president who may be a foreign agent...

Today we found out that Trump wanted to give nuclear secrets to the Saudis against NSA advice!