Cohen's testimony

In light of Cohen's public testimony, is there any room  for conspiracy theorists to pretend they aren't nutty?

French's analysis:

Comments

  • So the guy who was convicted for lying to Congress goes in front of Congress to lie some more and gets himself referred to the DOJ for lying to Congress.

    Glad I went long on popcorn futures.


    I can’t wait to see what Socialist Barbie says today.
  • I listened to a couple of the final hours on NPR and was blessed to catch AOC, Tlaib and some others.  It seemed clear to me that Democrats are building a reality (true or not) to broaden this investigation and stretch it out for months to come.  I assume they will wait until the next election cycle is in full swing to push for impeachment.  I know this sort of thing is red meat (or tofu as it were) for the dem base but I'll be curious to see how it works with the broader population.

    I also noted the lawyer for Cohen is Lanny Davis, long time friend and legal support for the Clinton family.  

  • edited March 1
    Cummings is suggesting that he will call Ivanka, Jr and anyone else mentioned by Cohen.

    Interesting time to be a democrat.  Veteran officeholders may see the danger in the craziness that true believers push, but the true believers can't see that it is odious to describe a president as a Mother F or tell people that they can't have meat because cows fart.  The unpleasant looking girl from Michigan probably genuinely believes that it is clever to describe a republican of color as a prop.
  • edited March 1
    I love these loons!
  • edited March 1
    Iihan Omar on Venezuela & not recognizing Juan Guaido as interim Pres:

    “What we should be involved in is having diplomatic conversations and bringing people to the table and being a partner in facilitating that. But we are threatening, we are threatening intervention. We’re sending humanitarian aid that is in the guise of, you know, eventually invading this country and the people of the country don’t want us there,”


    Edit: Dick Durbin on Juan Gaido:

    When I met Juan Guaidó, it was in secret in Caracas. Now, his love of the Venezuelan people finally puts his country on the path to democratic rule.



  • On the first point French discusses, he amazingly fails to point out that Cohen's attack is predicated on it being outrageous that in July, Stone discussed with Trump the fact that Wikileaks was going to publish DNC emails... a full month AFTER Wikileaks published an article in June saying they intended to do that very thing. And that at that point in July, everyone paying attention already knew it was coming. And if it was wrong for Stone to try to find out what was in the leaks in July, there's a shitload of journalists who were trying to do that very thing that would also need to go to jail.
  • edited March 1
    Qwinn said:

    On the first point French discusses, he amazingly fails to point out that Cohen's attack is predicated on it being outrageous that in July, Stone discussed with Trump the fact that Wikileaks was going to publish DNC emails... a full month AFTER Wikileaks published an article in June saying they intended to do that very thing. And that at that point in July, everyone paying attention already knew it was coming. And if it was wrong for Stone to try to find out what was in the leaks in July, there's a shitload of journalists who were trying to do that very thing that would also need to go to jail.

    I don't think it is French's thesis that Stone's discussion with Trump was or wasn't an outrage, but that it can't be a crime.

    French is part of the crowd at NR who are not never-Trumpers but also don't go full Sean Hannity.  His article isn't a defense of DJT, just an assessment of weakness of the democrat conspiracy theory.

    The craziness gets deep enough that a lot of the more mundane stuff is overlooked.  For instance, it is often stated that if a payment of DJT to an "escort" is made with intent to influence his election, then it is a campaign finance violation, but if he has a history of these payments, then it's just business as usual and not a violation.  Yet, if paying someone to make yourself look better to voters is the test, then any candidate who pays his utility bills during the election violates campaign finance laws.  It's a stretched application of a dubious law.
  • It’s a stupid law.

    EVERYTHING a candidate does during the campaign is intended to make him look better to the voters.

    If the underlying act is legal then it should not be an issue.
  • MC Escher said:

    So the guy who was convicted for lying to Congress...

    ...in the employ of the man you thought was qualified to be President.
  • Sorry Matt, but:

    "French is part of the crowd at NR who are not never-Trumpers but also don't go full Sean Hannity."

    That'd be a fair description of, say, Andrew McCarthy.  But French is as psychotically NeverTrump as anyone can be:

    "I have to laugh when people accuse me of opposing Trump because it
    somehow makes me rich, or because I’m currying favors with guests at the
    “elite” cocktail parties that I never actually attend. I oppose Trump
    not just because he’s an ignorant demagogue and a naked political
    opportunist, but also because bigotry and intimidation cling to his
    campaign. Every campaign attracts its share of fools, cranks, and
    crazies. But Trump’s candidacy has weaponized them. Every harassing
    tweet and every violent threat is like a voice whispering in my ear,
    telling me to do all that I can to oppose a movement that breeds and
    exploits such reckless hate."

    FFS.

    I gave up my NR subscription over their awful behavior these last 2 years.  Goldberg was one of my favorite reads for a decade.  His behavior of late has been utterly contemptible.
  • vwtool said:

    MC Escher said:

    So the guy who was convicted for lying to Congress...

    ...in the employ of the man you thought was qualified to be President.
    What’s your point?

  • Qwinn said:

    But French is as psychotically NeverTrump as anyone can be:

    "I oppose Trump
    not just because he’s an ignorant demagogue and a naked political
    opportunist, but also because bigotry and intimidation cling to his
    campaign.




    I think he meant that in a good way.

  • Qwinn said:


    I gave up my NR subscription over their awful behavior these last 2 years.  Goldberg was one of my favorite reads for a decade.  His behavior of late has been utterly contemptible.

    The straw that broke my camel's back was the way they treated John Derbyshire.  A couple years later, Kevin Williamson gets treated by the Atlantic the say way they treated Derbyshire, and NRO complained about it.  When Takimag picked up Derbyshire was when I started reading Takimag more often than NRO.  Takimag still has a sense of humor too.
  • John Derbyshire and James Taranto are the only two columnists I’ve ever engaged in a public one on one dialog with. They’re my BFFs.
  • edited March 2
    I like Derbyshire, and Taranto is awesome.  Grats on some quality namedropping there.

    "I think he meant that in a good way."

    I get that you're joking, but seriously ... that wasn't even close to the worst he's written.
  • The worst thing NR did, and by NR I mean WFB himself, was done to Joseph Sobran.
    Qwinn said:

    I like Derbyshire, and Taranto is awesome.  Grats on some quality namedropping there.

    "I think he meant that in a good way."

    I get that you're joking, but seriously ... that wasn't even close to the worst he's written.


    Taranto earned my jealousy for having written that Thomas Friedman is a "human shaped random word generator".

    Is it French's recent writing that you find so objectionable? There is a trajectory to non-pathological reservations about DJT. It reflects path of Peter Kirsanow and Rich Lowry and quite a few other people who were politically conservative before Reagan made extra-cool. Before DJT was elected, I expected him to be something of a disaster; not a Hilary sized disaster, but a pretty big one. He ridiculed Rand Paul's hair cut at a debate. I expected him to be mercurial and disloyal to the ideas on which he ran, and to eventually become an ally of congressional dems. I was wrong about him. He has done much to allay fears that he is his tv personality. I still think this tariff business is playing with fire, but he hasn't burned anything down yet.

    One of the best things abut DJT is who hates him. There are some repubs who can't stop complaining about DJT (Bill Kristol springs to mind), but most have concluded that he is doing a fine job generally and quite a good job in dealing with dems.

    I don't read lots of David French, but I think that's about where he is.
Sign In or Register to comment.