Trump furious as his former 'executive vice president' testifies Trump is a 'racist conman' - and worse

Donald Trump has responded angrily to reports his former lawyer will testify that he is a racist conman, claiming Michael Cohen's allegations are an attempt to reduce his prison time.

The president's former attorney is expected to tell the House oversight committee on Wednesday he is a "racist, a conman and a cheat" and that he was negotiating a business deal in Russia on his client's behalf during the 2016 presidential election.

But in his first public response to the revelations, Mr Trump said on Twitter: "Michael Cohen was one of many lawyers who represented me (unfortunately).

"He had other clients also. He was just disbarred by the State Supreme Court for lying & fraud. He did bad things unrelated to Trump. He is lying in order to reduce his prison time. Using Crooked’s lawyer!"

Mr Trump's claim Cohen was merely "one of many lawyers" - an apparent attempt to distance himself from the 52-year-old - is in stark contrast to a 2012 tweet in which he described Mr Cohen as his EVP (executive vice president).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-michael-cohen-congress-testimony-twitter-a8798906.html

As explosive as this is, I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Cohen was testifying in secret on more sensitive topics to Congressional panels.

I've been watching his testimony on cable TV. He's doing quite well, actually.

Original Quill wrote:I've been watching his testimony on cable TV.  He's doing quite well, actually.

Good for him, especially considering the threats he's received.

I predict 6-10 minds will be changed by all of this and CSPAN will get some good ratings.

Hopefully this will be a source for some good memes too.

Well, judging by this past election, probably only 6-10 minds are still with Trump.

I think it's a powerful showing of Trump's criminal behavior, and it's burning into the minds of Americans as we speak.

Maddog wrote:I predict 6-10 minds will be changed by all of this and CSPAN will get some good ratings.  

Hopefully this will be a source for some good memes too.  

Just a question - you're a libertarian, so you think people should in general be trusted with most if not all decisions, right? Please correct me if I have that wrong.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:I predict 6-10 minds will be changed by all of this and CSPAN will get some good ratings.  

Hopefully this will be a source for some good memes too.  

Just a question - you're a libertarian, so you think people should in general be trusted with most if not all decisions, right? Please correct  me if I have that wrong.

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers. I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:I predict 6-10 minds will be changed by all of this and CSPAN will get some good ratings.  

Hopefully this will be a source for some good memes too.  

Just a question - you're a libertarian, so you think people should in general be trusted with most if not all decisions, right? Please correct  me if I have that wrong.

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers.  I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.  

But that didn't answer my question.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Just a question - you're a libertarian, so you think people should in general be trusted with most if not all decisions, right? Please correct  me if I have that wrong.

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers.  I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.  

How much so?

Without then the nation providing you with people as teachers, nurses, doctors, care workers etc

If you want a way of life devoid from this, there is already groups like the Amish

So what is stopping you?

The reality is, "you cannot simultaneously retain your cake and eat it"

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers.  I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.  

But that didn't answer my question.

The general principle around libertarianism is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) .

So people can be trusted, until they harm (aggress) others, in which case there needs to be a government to punish them, and protect the innocent. Anarcho Capitalists believe that the aggressors can be punished without a government. I don't believe that, so I'm more of a minarchist or a classic liberal.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers.  I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.  

But that didn't answer my question.

The general principle around libertarianism is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) .

So people can be trusted, until they harm (aggress) others, in which case there needs to be a government to punish them, and protect the innocent. Anarcho Capitalists believe that the aggressors can be punished without a government. I don't believe that, so I'm more of a minarchist or a classic liberal.



 

Still not an answer to what I actually asked.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I believe people should be left alone a great deal more.

Libertarian is a big tent. My politics align pretty much with Gary Johnson and the like. Or most of the founding fathers.  I'm not an Anarchist or even an Anarcho Capitalist.  

How much so?

Without then the nation providing you with people as teachers, nurses, doctors, care workers etc

If you want a way of life devoid from this, there is already groups like the Amish

So what is stopping you?

The reality is, "you cannot simultaneously retain your cake and eat it"

All of those professions exist outside of government.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The general principle around libertarianism is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) .

So people can be trusted, until they harm (aggress) others, in which case there needs to be a government to punish them, and protect the innocent. Anarcho Capitalists believe that the aggressors can be punished without a government. I don't believe that, so I'm more of a minarchist or a classic liberal.



 

Still not an answer to what I actually asked.

Yes it.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear.

People cannot always be trusted.

Is that better?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

How much so?

Without then the nation providing you with people as teachers, nurses, doctors, care workers etc

If you want a way of life devoid from this, there is already groups like the Amish

So what is stopping you?

The reality is, "you cannot simultaneously retain your cake and eat it"

All of those professions exist outside of government.  

How do you train these people without Governement?

How do you get many resources without governement?

Unless you want to lead a life devoid of scientif advancement and learning, then by your reasoning, you have to cut yourself off from others. As your self principle means, you have to look after your very small community.

Is that what you really want?

Then what do you do, when you need help, from the rest of the nation, whe you have a natural disaster?

You see, every time I hear this argument about a view to help a small view, it always falls down

Its gotten to the point, the whole world needs each other

As tell me how many societies cut off from the world have actually advanced or even survived against disease?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

All of those professions exist outside of government.  

How do you train these people without Governement?

How do you get many resources without governement?

Unless you want to lead a life devoid of scientif advancement and learning, then by your reasoning, you have to cut yourself off from others. As your self principle means, you have to look after your very small community.

Is that what you really want?

Then what do you do, when you need help, from the rest of the nation, whe you have a natural disaster?

You see, every time I hear this argument about a view to help a small view, it always falls down

Its gotten to the point, the whole world needs each other

As tell me how many societies cut off from the world have actually advanced or even survived against disease?

Have you heard of the private sector?

It's amazing what they have accomplished.

And again. If you read my comments, I'm not an Anarcho Capitalist.

I'm more of a Classical Liberal like the men that founded my country and created a very small and limited government.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

How do you train these people without Governement?

How do you get many resources without governement?

Unless you want to lead a life devoid of scientif advancement and learning, then by your reasoning, you have to cut yourself off from others. As your self principle means, you have to look after your very small community.

Is that what you really want?

Then what do you do, when you need help, from the rest of the nation, whe you have a natural disaster?

You see, every time I hear this argument about a view to help a small view, it always falls down

Its gotten to the point, the whole world needs each other

As tell me how many societies cut off from the world have actually advanced or even survived against disease?

Have you heard of the private sector?

It's amazing what they have accomplished.

And again. If you read my comments, I'm not an Anarcho Capitalist.

I'm more of a Classical Liberal like the men that founded my country and created a very small and limited government.

Dodged the questions mate

So what part of the private sector?

And how long did that limited government last until they took from others?

Limited Governement is a false argument, because those people chose outside this to take from others.

Look at how Texas is now part of the US.

Initially, Americans were invited there, by the Mexican Governement.

They then proceded to initiate a war against them later and look for friends in the US.

Show me one example of small government that has ever worked in history that has not abused the rights of others?

There is not a single example

There is a sorta famous quote by someone (can't remember, and is doesn't matter) that I will paraphrase.

"Just because we don't think the government should be doing something, doesn't mean we don't want it done"

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Have you heard of the private sector?

It's amazing what they have accomplished.

And again. If you read my comments, I'm not an Anarcho Capitalist.

I'm more of a Classical Liberal like the men that founded my country and created a very small and limited government.

Dodged the questions mate

So what part of the private sector?

And how long did that limited government last until they took from others?

Limited Governement is a false argument, because those people chose outside this to take from  others.

Look at how Texas is now part of the US.

Initially, Americans were invited there, by the Mexican Governement.

They then proceded to initiate a war against them later and look for friends in the US.

Show me one example of small government that has ever worked in history that has not abused the rights of others?

There is not a single example

I didn't dodge anything.

I stated my position.

I stated my beliefs.

You would prefer to ignore me and state my position for me.

Feel free, since that's what you're going to do anyway.

Maddog wrote:There is a sorta famous quote by someone (can't remember, and is doesn't matter) that I will paraphrase.

"Just because we don't think the government should be doing something, doesn't mean we don't want it done"

There is also countless cases in history where people stand up to tyranny

There is also countless examples where people abuse this

As the reality of human evolution is in reality forms of hierarchies. Which even your form of small governemnt is one of.

Humans have a basic need

What do you think the levels of this hierarchy of needs is?

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The general principle around libertarianism is the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) .

So people can be trusted, until they harm (aggress) others, in which case there needs to be a government to punish them, and protect the innocent. Anarcho Capitalists believe that the aggressors can be punished without a government. I don't believe that, so I'm more of a minarchist or a classic liberal.



 

Still not an answer to what I actually asked.

Yes it.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear.

People cannot always be trusted.

Is that better?

Yes, thank you. So, if people cannot always be trusted, what should be done?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Dodged the questions mate

So what part of the private sector?

And how long did that limited government last until they took from others?

Limited Governement is a false argument, because those people chose outside this to take from  others.

Look at how Texas is now part of the US.

Initially, Americans were invited there, by the Mexican Governement.

They then proceded to initiate a war against them later and look for friends in the US.

Show me one example of small government that has ever worked in history that has not abused the rights of others?

There is not a single example

I didn't dodge anything.

I stated my position.

I stated my beliefs.

You would prefer to ignore me and state my position for me.

Feel free, since that's what you're going to do anyway.  

You are still dodging the question

Stating a position, is not answering points

So at what point would your society sustain itself, without outside help with an health endemic?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes it.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear.

People cannot always be trusted.

Is that better?

Yes, thank you. So, if people cannot always be trusted, what should be done?

Not anything comprised of people.

Michael Cohen’s sworn testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday directly contradicts statements that Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon reportedly made to special counsel Robert Mueller. As reporters and legal experts noted on Twitter after a copy of Cohen’s prepared testimony was given to several news outlets, that discrepancy suggests that one of the two men is lying under oath—a felony offense.

Back in November, CNN reported that Trump told Mueller in a written statement that Roger Stone did not give him advance notice about plans by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to published stolen Democratic National Committee e-mails, which were hacked by the Russian government. Nor, he said, did he know that his son, Donald Trump Jr., had set up a meeting with a group of Russians promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Cohen, on the other hand, says in his testimony that he believes both of those claims are false, and describes how he personally witnessed Trump discussing WikiLeaks.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/if-cohen-is-telling-the-truth-trump-may-have-lied-to-mueller

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes it.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear.

People cannot always be trusted.

Is that better?

Yes, thank you. So, if people cannot always be trusted, what should be done?

Sorry, I read this wrong the first time.

Form a government that punishes people when they harm others.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Michael Cohen’s sworn testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday directly contradicts statements that Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon reportedly made to special counsel Robert Mueller. As reporters and legal experts noted on Twitter after a copy of Cohen’s prepared testimony was given to several news outlets, that discrepancy suggests that one of the two men is lying under oath—a felony offense.

Back in November, CNN reported that Trump told Mueller in a written statement that Roger Stone did not give him advance notice about plans by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange to published stolen Democratic National Committee e-mails, which were hacked by the Russian government. Nor, he said, did he know that his son, Donald Trump Jr., had set up a meeting with a group of Russians promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Cohen, on the other hand, says in his testimony that he believes both of those claims are false, and describes how he personally witnessed Trump discussing WikiLeaks.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/if-cohen-is-telling-the-truth-trump-may-have-lied-to-mueller

Was all of this about calling Trump a liar?

No shit. He lies all of the time.

Why did we have to walk around the block to get next door.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't dodge anything.

I stated my position.

I stated my beliefs.

You would prefer to ignore me and state my position for me.

Feel free, since that's what you're going to do anyway.  

You are still dodging the question

Stating a position, is not answering points

So at what point would your society sustain itself, without outside help with an health endemic?

I'm not your pupil.

I explained myself.

This is how it's going go. I'm going to state my opinion on a topic, and you can accept it or not.

But you won't continue to badger me into subjecting myself to your interrogation.

Do you understand?

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes it.

It's not the answer you wanted to hear.

People cannot always be trusted.

Is that better?

Yes, thank you. So, if people cannot always be trusted, what should be done?

Sorry, I read this wrong the first time.

Form a government that punishes people when they harm others.  

How should that government be formed?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sorry, I read this wrong the first time.

Form a government that punishes people when they harm others.  

How should  that government be formed?

I would look to the founding of ours as an excellent example. Although with a more diverse group of people reflecting society as a whole.

I believe the US constitution, followed by the original intent, is the greatest document ever written. It's strong limitations on government and placing of power in the people themselves is what makes it so great.

It's a shame no one follows it anymore.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

You are still dodging the question

Stating a position, is not answering points

So at what point would your society sustain itself, without outside help with an health endemic?

I'm not your pupil.

I explained myself.

This is how it's going go. I'm going to state my opinion on a topic, and you can accept it or not.

But you won't continue to badger me into subjecting myself to your interrogation.

Do you understand?  

Did I say you were my pupil?

Nope

You have done the most round about way of avoiding everything question I posed to you.

Would you like me to list them again?

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Y'all could just google this stuff. While I don't agree 100% with any party platform, this party's platform most closely mirrors my beliefs.

No doubt most people don't share these beliefs. It's OK.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not your pupil.

I explained myself.

This is how it's going go. I'm going to state my opinion on a topic, and you can accept it or not.

But you won't continue to badger me into subjecting myself to your interrogation.

Do you understand?  

Did I say you were my pupil?

Nope

You have done the most round about way of avoiding everything question I posed to you.

Would you like me to list them again?

You can do anything you like mate.

Maddog wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sorry, I read this wrong the first time.

Form a government that punishes people when they harm others.  

How should  that government be formed?

I would look to the founding of ours as an excellent example. Although with a more diverse group of people reflecting society as a whole.

I believe the US constitution, followed by the original intent, is the greatest document ever written. It's strong limitations on government and placing of power in the people themselves is what makes it so great.

It's a shame no one follows it anymore.  

Okay, so should the people be in charge of the government?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Did I say you were my pupil?

Nope

You have done the most round about way of avoiding everything question I posed to you.

Would you like me to list them again?

You can do anything you like mate.

I already do, whether there is big or small governement

That though shows you avoid my questions

As you have throughout

So how detached from government do you want to be?

Is the bases for small goverment "well being" for example?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You can do anything you like mate.

I already do, whether there is big or small governement

That though shows you avoid my questions

As you have throughout

So how detached from government do you want to be?

Is the bases for small goverment well being for example?

I'm done.

Have fun.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I would look to the founding of ours as an excellent example. Although with a more diverse group of people reflecting society as a whole.

I believe the US constitution, followed by the original intent, is the greatest document ever written. It's strong limitations on government and placing of power in the people themselves is what makes it so great.

It's a shame no one follows it anymore.  

Okay, so should the people  be  in charge  of the government?

Try reading the constitution.

It's laid out in pretty clear English.

Spend a little extra time on the 10th amendment too.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I already do, whether there is big or small governement

That though shows you avoid my questions

As you have throughout

So how detached from government do you want to be?

Is the bases for small goverment well being for example?

I'm done.

Have fun.

You have got to be kidding me

You the biggest propoenent of your philosophy on small governemen and then you bow out?




You are not then best placed to argue for small governement are you when challenged mate?

Even I could argue better on its principles but you bailed mate

Holy crap on a cracker

How are you going to convince anyone, when you turn tail. At the first point of view points that conflcit with yours mate?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm done.

Have fun.

You have got to be kidding me

You the biggest propoenent of your philosophy on small governemen and then you bow out?




You are not then best placed to argue for small governement are you when challenged mate?

Even I could argue better on its principles but you bailed mate

Holy crap on a cracker

How are you going to convince anyone, when you turn tail. At the first point of view points that conflcit with yours mate?

I gave you links for the information you needed.

Anyone else interested can also read those links.

I had shit to do, and I have to prioritize things.

Explaining things 5 times to you is a low priority.

https://www.lp.org/platform/

Again, for anyone interested.