Home2020 Elections2/26 Other Progressive News Roundup and Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of


Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, is planning on portraying his onetime client in starkly negative terms when he testifies Wednesday before a House committee, and on describing what he says was Mr. Trump’s use of racist language, lies about his wealth and possible criminal conduct.

Mr. Cohen’s plans were laid out in broad strokes by a person familiar with what he intends to say in his testimony. And they indicate that Mr. Cohen will use documents and his personal experiences to support his statements.

Among the most explosive and potentially damning aspects of Mr. Cohen’s testimony will be providing evidence of potential criminal conduct since Mr. Trump became president, according to the person familiar with the plans.

That potential conduct stems from reimbursements that were made to Mr. Cohen in 2017 for hush money payments that he made to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic film actress. In October 2016, during the height of the presidential campaign, Mr. Cohen paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about her claims of a previous affair with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Cohen will describe in what was called “granular detail” the plan to pay Ms. Daniels, which he will say was initiated by Mr. Trump, the person familiar with the testimony plans said. Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty to a federal campaign finance-related charge in connection with that payment. Prosecutors have implicated Mr. Trump, identifying him as “Individual 1,” in connection with that charge in documents filed in the case.

He will also discuss how long Mr. Trump continued to ask about plans for a Trump Tower project in Moscow after the Iowa caucuses had taken place in February 2016. Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty last November to lying to Congress in testimony in 2017 about the duration of time over which the Moscow project discussions took place.

The person briefed on Mr. Cohen’s plans said he is planning to bring documents that will illustrate his claims. The person familiar with the plans indicated that Mr. Cohen will present other documents beyond the financial statements, but the person did not specify what those might be. The documents will be shared in a way for the viewing public to see them, the person said.

He is prepared to describe Mr. Trump making racist statements, as well as lying or cheating in business. Last fall, Mr. Cohen told Vanity Fair that Mr. Trump frequently used racist language, telling the magazine that his former boss said during the 2016 campaign that “black people are too stupid to vote for me.”

He will also describe the president inflating or devaluing his net worth, referring to a financial statement of Mr. Trump’s that Mr. Cohen has in his possession, the person said. Those financial statements cannot be independently verified without Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which he has never made public, the person said.


What kind of animal is that, jcb? The ear markings are unique! 🙂


T and R, Benny!!


Not sure. Possibly some type of African antelope?


Looks like a young female impala to me.


Maybe we will get closer to the truth of why Trump won’t disclose his taxes…such as he is not a billionaire after all. Sure he has a lot of properties, but they all seem to be tied up in debt. Banks won’t lend him any more money (Trump kids say that is because of “presidential harassment.” ha! Is the truth closer to the fact that he doesn’t have enough equity?

Is the real reason Trump goes after Bezos is because Bezos actually IS a billionaire? Pure jealousy?

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s episode of the Destitute and Racist.


Article is correct but somehow fails to mention Bernie


And one troubling sign is the dangerous new orthodoxy that seems to be hardening in Washington, in which Democrats are forbidden from criticizing other Democrats to avoid empowering Trump ahead of the election. It’s fine to debate policy, this thinking goes, but it’s not OK to criticize governing records, question priorities or impugn motivations. Any hint of intra-party infighting, it’s argued, would only weaken the eventual 2020 nominee.

Jared Bernstein, who served as chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, made the case succinctly in The Washington Post last week: Since Democrats are really all on the same page about everything important, they should stick to arguments over policy solutions. Voters will eventually decide whether they prefer “incrementalism” or “leapfrogging,” but on everything serious ― health care, climate, jobs and taxes ― Bernstein claimed that “you would need a high-powered electron microscope to see the difference among the Democrats.”

Somebody should get Bernstein to an eye doctor. The differences between former Maryland Rep. John Delaney’s agenda and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s platform are stark and obvious. But even if Bernstein were right about Democratic policy uniformity, he has the 2020 dynamic all wrong. The most critical issues facing 2020 voters aren’t really about dialing in the right policy solutions; they’re fundamental questions about power and accountability in American democracy.

Given Trump’s weakness, the only way Democrats are going to lose in 2020 is by failing to nominate a credible change agent. The key word there is “credible,” and the way candidates establish credibility with voters is by developing a governing record. The stuff Democratic candidates have actually done when they’ve had the opportunity to exercise power matters at least as much as what they promise in their white papers. It’s not just fair game to attack their records; it’s an essential part of the vetting process.




Feinstein is not a climate villain on par with Trump. She has a 90 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters, while Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris agreement and his EPA is methodically attempting to undo everything it accomplished under President Barack Obama. But the California senator is the bigger threat to the left’s goal of slowing climate change before it’s too late.

What’s the alternative, then? Feinstein’s counterproposal would do little to make a difference. It seeks to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050—an acceptable goal, albeit 20 years later than the Green New Deal’s. But to achieve this, Feinstein’s resolution only proposes three things: re-implementing myriad Obama-era climate regulations, re-joining the Paris agreement, and implementing a national price on carbon. “It’s not that these things are wrong,” environmental activist Bill McKibben wrote in The New Yorker over the weekend. “It’s that they are insufficient, impossibly so.”

The problem with Democrats like Feinstein is that they make a big show of calling for action climate change. And yet, their solutions prove they don’t grasp that climate change is, as Dave Roberts put it for Vox, “a fucking emergency.” They don’t grasp, as David Wallace-Wells writes in his new book, The Uninhabitable Earth, that 2 degrees Celsius means “tens of millions of climate refugees, perhaps many more, fleeing droughts, flooding and extreme heat, and the possibility of multiple climate-driven natural disasters striking simultaneously.”


What’s the alternative, then?

Primary her.




Now I want jelly beans with my MFA.

He sounds good so far. I am not particularly happy about one electoral season melding into the next with virtually no breather, but we are in a hurry for change. There are so very many people to primary (Ds) and to challenge (Rs) and two years does tend to go faster than it used to (of course, that could just be age).


Over a foot of snow yesterday at my home. Trees down in the road. Safe and sound here. Thanks to all you who put up the posts. And commenters! :0)


I enjoy Michael, although his tweets seem more alive and concise, maybe, then this article. And as much as I don’t like criticism of Bernie, I do think it’s necessary, at times. It looks like the ruckus we raised may have helped him be more authentic in the Townhall, which is always a plus for Bernie.


These are not red flags for me. They are signs of a savvy politician.
1. The upper echelon of his 2016 campaign was too white and too male for a 2020 run
2. Calling for civility is a good move. Stop fighting 2016 all over. Clinton is not running.
3. It’s not equivocating, Its actually pretty clear. Bernie has no use for Maduro, but the US should not be involved in regime change there. Same with Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Brazil, etc. etc. etc

Really now?

The harsh reality: idiot millennial advisers increasingly surround Bernie.

Also it appears that Bernie’s campaign rollout with all these red flags has been a success. The latest Morning Consult poll has him taking a big jump.


I’m glad, though, that for those of us who are concerned, we let him know. He dropped the wanting to get aid in, for instance, and asked why we weren’t going into Saudi Arabia.

It’s all good.


I generally agree with you jcitybone, but Bernie did equivocate on Venezuela (as he somewhat did on Palestine). Paying lip service to the lies of the imperialists normalizes their narrative (that Maduro was not fairly elected, that he’s an unpopular dictator, etc).


In a collegiate debate on regime change, not liking Maduro yet still denouncing regime change would make for a stronger argument than either defending him or being neutral would.

I have been wondering if Bernie’s call for “free and fair” elections like he made last night is a sign that he is pretty sure Maduro would win even with an election that is monitored by the entities that usually do it (Carter Center, etc. that declined to monitor in 2018)? That would certainly put a kink in US oil corporations’ plans.

Skip to toolbar