Michael Cohen suggests Trump’s mounting legal fees make him ‘thoroughly compromised’: ‘He is for sale’

Michael Cohen — who long served as former President Trump’s personal lawyer and fixer — warned Sunday of the potential risk of sending Trump back to the White House with mounting legal fees and financial liabilities.

“We need to be very careful about him as a potential president because he is for sale,” Cohen, now an outspoken critic of the former president, said in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

“He needs to figure out where he is going to raise $500-plus million over a short period of time,” Cohen continued.

DAMunzy,

Why are we listening to Cohen? There were plenty of credible witnesses.

Chocrates,

He is a key witness in one of the trials, and his credibility is going to be a big issue.

Not sure why journalists care, but prosecutors need to figure out how to make him credible.

Media is just looking for eyes

Xerxos,

He always was for sale - he is just getting cheaper.

phoenixz,

You mean that there is yet another reason why he’s for sale. Throw it on the pile, I’d say.

Red_October,

Yeah, yeah that’s what makes him compromised. Not all the other things. Not the rampant greed, not the corruption, not the pee pee tape, just the legal fees.

johannesvanderwhales,

I’m not really sure why people consider Michael Cohen an authority on anything. He was an unethical lawyer who got disbarred. He is definitely not an unbiased source about anything to do with Trump since he obviously has a personal vendetta after being thrown under the bus. While I don’t disagree that the headline is true, I don’t think attaching Michael Cohen’s name to it makes the argument stronger.

DAMunzy,

Thanks! You just said everything I wanted to but ran out of energy to type. Cohen is a sack of shit.

Dkarma,

Because he was trumps attorney and basically an inside man for what, decades? But yeah you’re right it’s not like his testimony literally brought down Trump’s business in NY.

Oh wait… actually it did.

OldWoodFrame,

He has properties he can sell or mortgage. He’s not like broke. He’s for sale because he cares more about money than loyalty and duty to his country, that hasn’t changed from his first term. It’s not about the fines.

Dkarma,

You think he owns all the properties with the trump name on them??? You think even if they’re in his name that aren’t all underwater due to the mortgages/ loans??

Interesting.

OldWoodFrame,

He licensed out his name to be used, so no he doesn’t own “all” the properties with his name on them, but he owns “some” yes. And it’s real estate, it has value.

The guy sucks and lies all the time, he is probably poorer than he says. That doesn’t mean he has no money. And the asset he owns a lot of (real estate) has appreciated in value a good amount over the last 10 years, it wouldn’t be “underwater” unless both the value went down and the loan didn’t get paid off by as much.

Dkarma,

Haha dude ur under water any time what you owe is more than the property is worth. If you think Trump isn’t leveraged to the tits I’ve got a bridge for ya.

For the stuff he owns and there aren’t more creditors than value then maybe there’s something but that’s doubtful imo.

CharlesDarwin,
@CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world avatar

And he was compromised before. What does everyone think Russia was all about, anyway?

postmateDumbass,

Russia has MAGA by the wallet.

China’s money is also in play, they are just more discreet about it.

PanoptiDon,

This is exactly the type of thing that will cost you your security clearance, for a good reason.

Mamertine,

So few people in the Trump Whitehouse could pass a background check. The solution was to suspend background checks. Clearance was just given out.

emptiestplace,

Clearance, Clarance.

PanoptiDon,

washingtonpost.com/…/trump-presidency-classified-…

Treczoks, (edited )

Trump was never “not for sale”. He sold a list of American agents to Putin. What worse could he get?

EDIT: I agree, he could still get a lot worse.

prole,

So much fucking worse… There are case studies in recent history if you’re actually curious.

FiremanEdsRevenge,

As the old adage goes, it can ALWAYS get worse.

cashews_best_nut,

D:Ream would disagree.

nova_ad_vitum,

After Kashoggi was killed he literally did a press conference and among his rambling was the implication that he wouldn’t act against the Saudis because they rent a lot of his properties. He’s openly for sale and his moronic base doesn’t care.

RattlerSix,

I would be fine never hearing from Michael Cohen ever again. Same goes for Mary Trump. They get headlines just by commenting the obvious on trump’s headlines

prole,

Michael Cohen has unique insight into the mind and actions of this lunatic. I will take a look at what he has to say every time (even if I do take it with a grain of salt).

RattlerSix,

I get that, I used to listen to his podcast but I don’t feel like he or Mary Trump ever say anything that isn’t already obvious. Aa

btaf45,

That would be fine if and only if we never hear from Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump ever again.

BeerMedic,

I hate Cheeto chimp. However, he is not “convicted”. It was a civil trial. Not a criminal trial.

PeckerBrown,

Finally figured that out, did we?

kmartburrito,

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

knobbysideup,
@knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works avatar

That is why background investigations for security clearances go deep into that stuff. Can’t be cleared? Shouldn’t hold office.

MsPenguinette,

Unfortunately the president gets security clearance inherently with the position. It’s kind of like asking the King/Queen to get a drivers license when those are issued “at their pleasure”.

gregorum,

Wasn’t Queen Elizabeth II famous for never having gotten a drivers license and refusing to get one? Iirc, she skated by by only ever driving in private roads.

deadbeef79000,

I believe that she’d essentially be giving herself a license (and passport).

Also, for a person who is always driven or flown somewhere by very special people,who would need one?

gregorum,

a driver license and passport are different.

also, she didn’t need a driver license because she never drove herself except during her military service or on her own properties when/where a license wasn’t required. otherwise, she was always driven.

Tangent5280,

I’m thinking if she’s ever asked for a passport she would’ve just taken a napkin, sneezed into it and consecrated it as a valid license “by direct decree of the queen”

HikingVet,

From her Wikipedia article

She trained as a driver and mechanic and was given the rank of honorary junior commander (female equivalent of captain at the time) five months later.[34]

gregorum,

yes, she did do that.

I was referring to her ever getting a civilian driver license, which I believe she famously refused to do. Of course it never mattered because she never drove herself on public roads.

SpaceCowboy,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

She never had a passport, not sure about the driver’s license.

knobbysideup,
@knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works avatar

Before being president, you are a citizen. If you can’t be cleared, you shouldn’t be eligible to run.

bamboo,

We’re already having a hard time stopping an insurrectionist from running for president.

ApathyTree,
@ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Disappointingly not wrong.

DreamlandLividity,

So you want CIA, NSA and the other intelligence agencies to have a full on veto power ower who can be president?

As a reminder, its not that long since being gay/trans would disqalify you from getting clearence because “it made you vulnerable to blackmail”.

uis,

So you want CIA, NSA and the other intelligence agencies to have a full on veto power ower who can be president?

FSB seems to have. GRU too.

prole,

Legitimate question: could Jared Kushner be able to run then? He was denied clearance several times after Trump was initially elected in 2016… Anyone want to chime in to remind everyone what happened there?

bamboo,

and then Covid happened…

prole,

Yes it did…

But back to the question: anyone remember what happened specifically with Jared Kushner’s security clearance after it was denied over and over and over by the US Intelligence Community?

Ah fuck it, I’ll just spoil it myself: Trump was able to override it and give him the clearance anyway! Yay checks and balances!

DreamlandLividity,

Presidents and politicians in general misusing their power is always an issue. That being said, there is nothing wrong with an elected representative of the people (president) overriding an unelected official who is his employee. At least presidents are accountable to the people in theory.

prole,

Then why even have a vetting process? In what world would anyone (including Democrats) be ok if Biden or Obama did anything close to this… I mean truly, go read the full story of just how many times Kushner was denied clearance and for what reasons. It’s a fucking travesty, and defending it should embarrass you.

Also, we’re not talking about just any job, we are talking about trusting this person with the highest level of secrets and sensitive information you can have access to. You don’t just rubber stamp your skeezy son in law into the highest levels of security clearance, and ignore the decisions of the actual people who’s literal career it is to make sure only certain people receive that access. Literally any other person on the planet wouldn’t even have had a second chance, let alone like fucking 8.

I don’t think you understand that the president isn’t a king. This country was meant to have checks and balances to protect us from this kind of thing, but turns out all of that shit was based on the honors system. Oops.

DreamlandLividity,

Please try to re-read what I wrote. I am by no means defending issuing a clearence to Jared. I am saying the president is given this power by law, and in my opinion for a good reason.

Therefore Trump should definitly be held accountable by voters (as in no self-aware being should vote for him), but it is not a legal issue. What he did is (and should remain) legal.

captain_aggravated,
@captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

Similar to the issue of medical disqualification. Theoretically the parties themselves are supposed to vet these candidates, except the parties themselves have alzheimers and their party platforms are insanity themselves.

I wonder how many of our elected officials could pass the psychological portions of an aviation medical exam. How many of them are too crazy to fly a Cessna by themselves but just can’t be removed from Congress.

halferect,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In,

    Multiple choice quiz

    prole,

    Just like how Jared Kushner couldn’t be cleared, right? Like 20 fucking times? Until Trump literally, personally overrode that and he got it anyway?

    That shit only works for us plebs.

    Sanctus,
    @Sanctus@lemmy.world avatar

    Always has been

    billiam0202,

    “He is for sale.”

    Dude was for sale before, too.

    ohlaph,

    All con men are for sale.

    EvilBit,

    Yes, but if this hurts his “successful businessman” image (just threw up in my mouth a little), then I’ll take it.

    gregorum,

    It hurt it before, too, though.

    billiam0202,

    It won’t though. The people who would give him money haven’t yet stopped to wonder why a “billionaire” needs them to pay for his campaigns and legal defenses.

    cowvin,

    This drives me nuts. Why do his moronic cult followers keep giving him money? He's a "billionaire." LOL

    hydroptic, (edited )

    Conservatives (or right-wing authoritarians more exactly) have a tendency to… well, have lower general intelligence – this is why they’re so easy to con and will fall for obviously ridiculous bullshit like Q or flat earth etc. There’s actually been a ton of studies into this, here’s a few as an example (in a spoiler block so they don’t make the comment a huge wall of text):

    Sources- Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact> Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. - Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: a five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents> We report longitudinal data in which we assessed the relationships between intelligence and support for two constructs that shape ideological frameworks, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). Participants (N = 375) were assessed in Grade 7 and again in Grade 12. Verbal and numerical ability were assessed when students entered high school in Grade 7. RWA and SDO were assessed before school graduation in Grade 12. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of personality and religious values in Grade 12, RWA was predicted by low g (β = -.16) and low verbal intelligence (β = -.18). SDO was predicted by low verbal intelligence only (β = -.13). These results are discussed with reference to the role of verbal intelligence in predicting support for such ideological frameworks and some comments are offered regarding the cognitive distinctions between RWA and SDO. - Conservatism and cognitive ability> Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States’ universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores. - Does Lower Cognitive Ability Predict Greater Prejudice?> [T]here exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitude. […] > > Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.> > Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).* Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton> With Donald Trump the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee for the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, speculations of why Trump resonates with many Americans are widespread-as are suppositionsof whether, independent of party identification, people might vote for Hillary Clinton. The present study, using a sample of American adults (n=406), investigated whether two ideological beliefs, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) uniquely predicted Trump supportand voting intentions for Clinton. Cognitive ability as a predictor of RWA and SDO was also tested. Path analyses, controlling for political party identification,revealed that higher RWA and SDO uniquely predicted more favorable attitudes of Trump, greater intentions to vote for Trump, and lower intentions to vote for Clinton. Lower cognitive ability predicted greater RWA and SDO and indirectly predicted more favorable Trump attitudes, greater intentions to vote for Trump and lower intentionsto vote for Clinton. - Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism> In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.

    CharlesDarwin,
    @CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world avatar

    These are the same dipshits that think this disgusting rapist and serial philanderer is sent by Jaysus himself.

    Logic is not their strong suit. And they don’t own a moral compass.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • everett
  • cisconetworking
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • cubers
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •