Posted on 02/27/2019 7:52:58 AM PST by EinNYC
He made a deal with Mueller. That is not hard to see. This is how he gets a lighter sentence.
On that opening vote..why were the Repubs so outnumbered???
Cohen is the D.C. version of Jessie Smollet.
Wow... These Democrat stooges are going to regret the day they ever decided to bring this liar to testify.
Even when the president is a democrat ie Obama, democrats do not cooperate with the republicans.
Democrats have shut off all cooperation with republicans.
On whose side???
Michael Cohen is a sexy pit bull terrier with a fantastic smile, according to a Twitter account that it turns out was started at the instruction of one Michael Cohen.
Poor guy don’t know what truth is, he should say “I am a convicted lier, don’t know the truth if it slapped me in the face, can I go home now?” (sarcasm)
NorDUH O'Donnell flew her CBS This Morning crew to D.C. to provide an in person report when Cohen provided the evidence to bring Trump down....did he provide that yet because NorDUH's waiting.
He is coming across as a total idiot, it’s as if the Dems called Jussie Smollet to testify about providing honest answers to hoaxes.
Yes, and he's going there soon. May 6. His sentence was delayed so that he could come testify to Congress.
Yesterday's was behind closed doors, but his opening statement was released. Today's is being televised. Different committee. Yesterday was House Intel committee, today is Govt. Oversight committee. Tomorrow is a third day, also closed door.
He’s gonna be the “Belle of the Ball”
Assuming it passes that will put the trial in the Senate right when Trump needs to begin his 2020 re-election campaign, in early 2020.
This is a well orchestrated political circus.
Oh okay thanks. I thought they were all going to be closed door testimonies. What he has to say does not interest me, because he is a lying loser.
And so what? Being a racist is an impeachable crime?
Just so you know, another worthless, lying scum on this thread is Jack Black. He feels it’s important to make sure people know that Jews should not be included in the white people club.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3728216/posts?page=86#86
And here is the link to the second one as Jack Black provides a correction to someone he thought incorrectly labeled a Jew as white.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3727511/posts?page=38#38
You have a stronger stomach than I do. I tried watching the hearings but these days I get such a violent visceral reaction to hearing the lying, hypocritical Democrat scumbag so-called legislators prattle on that I just can’t take it anymore and changed the channel.
That's why the Q threads and the people who support them are an ongoing problem for FR. Because the pathology of how people act there (encouraged by a few ring-leaders) doesn't stay limited to there, it spreads.
Although, slowly, it does seem to be fixing the problem.
I have a problem with people claiming to be something they are not, whether that is Native American, or black, or a Vietnam veteran. And it's especially obnoxious when they use their status to LARP and lecture the group they are pretending to belong to. Like "anti-racism activist" Tim Wise, for instance.
This has nothing to do with 17th letter stuff, I’m not bringing that up here. This is your racism on display. Your sorry, anti-Semitic self simply doesn’t belong on FR. You’re an exposed liar and racist who is just as disingenuous as Michael Cohen.
“I have a problem with people claiming to be something they are not, whether that is Native American, or black, or a Vietnam veteran.”
But you weren’t talking about these groups. You are making sure we understand that Jews aren’t white. Just like the white supremacists.
Instead, here you are, dragging the discussion onto a totally unrelated thread. So, yes, you are cyber-stalking me on FR.
And, that's the problem. While you would like this not to be all about Q, it is. Because the Q supporters are starting to treat all of Free Republic like you own it, and you can decide what views are OK to hold, and which are not. And attack people repeatedly with name calling to force them off of the thread or the platform.
You guys are good at that, lots and lots of people have been pushed off the Q-threads by your tactics. And some even out of Free Republic.
As for the issue at hand, it's an interesting one that is discussed (in a civil fashion) in a lot of very reasonable places. (I previously provided links to some, here they are again).
The Atlantic Magazine ran a full length story on this quesiton title simply "Are Jews White?". The author of the article, Emma Green, does a pretty good job of dealing with what is an interesting subject. It's mostly written from a cultural perspective.
Slate Magazine had a recent article on it from an American legal point of view. Interestingly it had the same simple title as the Atlantic article: Are Jews White?. A Jewish man applied for a coaching position, and was turned down. He sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The judge ruled last month that Bonadona had been discriminated against because of his Jewish lineage, deciding that he was part of a protected “race” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Forward Magazine, which is a self-described Jewish magazine (motto: Jewish. Fearless. Since 1897) also had a recent article on this topic: Are Jews White? American History Says It’s Complicated
And finally from the Temple Beth Shalom newsletter (in Hamden, CT) as published on their website, comes this article: Ashkenazi Jews are not white. The author, a Jewish man who lives in Israel and is addressing his article to "his American brothers" cites legal, cultural and biological history to support his views.
By the way, I'm not cherry-picking these articles, they are all on the first page of Google results for the topic.
But, really, you aren't interested in discussing things, no, not even a complicated issue that there is a lot of current discussion about, and which Jews themselves have differing opinions on.
That's so Old School Free Republic. New School FR style (as developed on the Q-threads) is to bash, name call, maybe make up some new derogatory nick-names for someone who disagrees with you and follow them around Free Republic throwing your accusations out on totally unrelated threads.
Because you know the absolute answer to this questions, and pretty much all others (no doubt based on your "decoding of 8chan posts") and you are damn well going to enforce it.
I am not sure how else to stand up to FreeQ bullying except to keep pointing it out, wherever and whenever it occurs. Especially off-thread.
Why not try engaging on this issues at hand, instead of these ad-hominems? My posting on the FreeQ thread was simply linking some stories about John Podesta being interviewed yesterday. Not controversial, not denigrating anyone's sacred cows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.