Cohen gets three years in prison. Michael Cohen Sentenced To Three Years In Prison
He seems to at least have some self-awareness of how he got into this mess (unless it’s all a cynical sympathy ploy):
Prisoner’s dilemma played perfectly:
Flynn, flipped early, no sentence.
Cohen, flipped in the middle, 3 years.
Manafort, never flipped, will die in prison.
I’ve reached the conclusion that saying whether Trump does or doesn’t believe a statement he makes is actually a meaningless concept.
When most of us say something we view it as an attempt to convey information. If we are conveying information that we believe conforms with reality we are being 'Truthful" and if we convey information that we don’t believe conforms with reality we are lying.
Trump, it seems to me, views statements more in terms to the effect they will have. There are “good” statements that reflect well on him and there are “bad” statements that reflect poorly on him. To his mind it doesn’t make any more sense to talk about a statement being true or false than it does to talk about the Truth of Falsity of putting an X in the center square in Tic-Tac-Toe. When he says such and so bad thing about him is a lie, all he’s really doing is making a move to block a “bad” statement.
Interesting perspective. I like it. I may use this point if discussions about “Individual 1” arise over Xmas.
Cohen gets 3 years is all.
Michael Cohen, in happier, crime-ier, times:
“@HillaryClinton when you go to prison for defrauding America and perjury, your room and board will be free!”
Today: $500,000 forfeiture, $50,000 fine, $1.4 million in restitution.
Sorry, Michael, you were incorrect on, oh, so many levels.
The time may seem short, but I’m pleased with two things: 1) Convicted. 2) Prison.
[Mel Brooks voice]
“Yeah, they stink on ice!”
There’s a good technical term for characterizing the kind of statements Trump makes…
It’s a good start.
Huh, I didn’t realize that the idea I made up on the spur of the moment was already an established theory that predated Trump. On the one hand its nice to know that some people actually think my idea is credible :), on the other had it provides yet more proof that any smart thought I have someone has already thought of. 
NBC News is reporting:
(Emphasis mine, JT)
The SDNY reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI (the publisher of The National Enquirer), in which AMI admits to paying one of Trump’s sexual partners (MacDougal I think) $150,000 for her story with the intent of keeping it quiet. AMI got off without prosecution for, among other reasons, providing “substantial and important assistance” to the SDNY’s investigation.
IANAL, but this would seem to be a decent size campaign finance issue, that AMI gets off the hook for, presumably because they rolled on someone higher up the corruption chain. Now, who might that be? Hmmm.
You know, a simple, private transaction.
Headline: National Enquirer Folds!
Eh. It might need some work.
Love love love it!
Move along. Nothingburger to see here.
Ah, how about: “Prosecutors Roll Up National Enquirer”?
And, I think I’m stealing this from someone here, but: “Pecker Won’t Stand Up for Trump”.
Close: