Skip to main content
BoomMag: Readers and Fans
Advertise With Us

WLT Report WLT Report

Advertise With Us
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Michael Cohen Planning To Flee USA: “Working On New Passport With Different Name If Trump Wins!”

This is insane….

And is it even legal?

Watch this stunning clip in his own words where Michael Cohen tells MSNBC that he will flee the country if President Trump wins in November — even making plans to get a foreign passport under a completely different name.

Even MSNBC appears stunned:

From Collin Rugg:

NEW: Michael Cohen says he is changing his name & leaving the country if Trump is elected, says he doesn’t know what he will do about his family.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace thought it was a good idea because Cohen “has been right about everything.”

“I’m already working on a foreign passport with a completely different name. I don’t know how it’s going to work as far as dealing with my wife and my children.”

“I certainly don’t want them moving to where I’m looking to go.”

More video here:

Here are more details, from The Independent:

Donald Trump’s former lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen has revealed he is working on getting a foreign passport and a totally new name as a back-up in case the former president soars to victory in November.

Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, testified against the former president during his hush money criminal trial back in May.

The disbarred lawyer’s testimony contributed to Trump being convicted on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records over $130,000 hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels – through Cohen – in order to cover up an alleged affair. Trump continues to deny his involvement with the payments and that the affair took place.

Now, Cohen believes that he would be at the top of Trump’s retribution list if he defeats Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

As a result, the former fixer revealed on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House on Tuesday that he will likely flee the country if a second Trump term does materialise, saying he is already “working on a foreign passport” under an assumed name.

Michael Cohen said he will have ‘no choice’ but to flee the country if Trump is re-elected president (MSNBC/YouTube)
“I’m out of here,” he told host Nicolle Wallace. “I’m already working on a foreign passport with a completely different name.”

Cohen added: “I don’t know how it’s going to work as far as dealing with my wife and my children. I certainly don’t want them moving to where I’m looking to go.”

When Wallace probed once more whether he’d leave the country, Cohen confirmed: “I have no choice.”

Cohen did not reveal where he plans to move.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly attempted to use his presidential powers to investigate or punish those he considered enemies – from former FBI Director James Comey to his 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Following his stint in jail, Cohen was asked to sign a document that would bar him from publishing his tell-all memoir about his time working with Trump in 2020. He refused and was sent back to prison.

A federal judge then ruled that his “confinement to jail is [a] retaliatory” effort from the government and ordered his release.

Now, Cohen has warned that senior executives in the liberal media are also likely unsafe – including MSNBC’s president Rashida Jones and Wallace herself.

You almost have to wonder if it’s more about avoiding this? 👇

BREAKING: Lawmakers Pushing Constitutional Amendment For a “Mass Casualty Event” In Case Most Of Congress Is Knocked Out!

BREAKING: Lawmakers Pushing Constitutional Amendment For a “Mass Casualty Event” In Case Most Of Congress Is Knocked Out!

NOTHING CAN STOP WHAT IS COMING?

ADVERTISEMENT

Oh my...

Yesterday we had President Trump literally buying his popcorn....and today we have Congress creating a contingent plan in case half of Congress suddenly gets wiped out!

Gee, what could cause something like that?

We'll get to that in a moment, first the headlines....

Politico has more details about the urgency of passing a new Constitutional Amendment:

Over the past 15 years, members of Congress have survived two near-deadly shootings, a train crash with dozens of them on board, and a Capitol riot that had hundreds of lawmakers fearing for their lives.

Despite those incidents, the institution is wholly unprepared for a catastrophic event that kills or incapacitates multiple members — even if that hypothetical tragedy results in a major power shift: changing which party holds the majority in the House or Senate.

Members of Congress themselves have proposed a host of solutions to the havoc a mass casualty could wreak. Those propositions range from a constitutional amendment allowing members to designate their own successors to simple rule changes to prevent violence from shifting party power. But a POLITICO review shows that both Republican and Democratic leaders, including chairs of key committees, have failed to significantly advance any of the ideas proposed since a mass shooting at a GOP baseball practice in 2017. That’s largely based on a reluctance to acknowledge the issue and a general resistance in Congress to changing rules.

That strikes many members as foolhardy.

“The number of rounds in one pistol clip can change the balance of power of the House or the Senate,” said former Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who took up the issue after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when a hijacked plane came within 20 minutes of crashing into the Capitol.

Lawmakers and their staff face real threats of political violence every day. Capitol Police opened 8,008 cases to assess threats against lawmakers in 2023, a 100 percent increase from 2017. The two assassination attempts against former President Donald Trump are blaring reminders of the ever-present dangers for public officials.

The lack of a plan to respond to a mass casualty is particularly acute in the House: It has no mechanism to quickly fill unexpected vacancies, even on a temporary basis. Instead, a special election must be held to replace a member. That can take months.

In the meantime, the House would have to operate shorthanded — perhaps extremely shorthanded. But doing so could leave a vast swath of the country unrepresented, meaning any action that Congress takes would be vulnerable to a court challenge.

In practice, this could mean putting the full power of the chamber in the hands of members who, for example, boycott a State of the Union address or speech from a foreign dignitary only to see their colleagues who attend killed in a terrorist attack. Events like party conventions, caucus retreats and international member trips are also known potential targets.

And there’s another worry: What if the slim congressional margins create an incentive for an act of political violence explicitly designed to shift control from one party to the other?

“Part of the problem right now is someone with bad intentions could flip a majority for four months. And that’s horrifying,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), referring to how long it might take to fill vacancies through special elections, rather than immediate appointments. “And our reaction can’t be, ‘Well, that’ll never happen.’ Or, ‘Well, we’ll deal with that when the time comes.’ Because once the time comes, it’s too late.”

‘THE ANGEL OF DEATH’

Following multiple potentially deadly crises, House leaders in both parties have deprioritized or ignored the issue. No speaker since 9/11 — including Mike Johnson and his two predecessors, Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi — has put their political heft behind proposals to prepare the legislature for a catastrophe.

And without such high-level support, plans to prepare Congress for a mass casualty event have fallen victim to jurisdictional scuffles and lawmaker bickering.

Right now, the main idea to address the issue is a constitutional amendment that would require members of the House to submit a list of at least five possible successors to be tapped in the event of their death. If any member dies in office, the state’s governor would select an individual from the list to serve on a temporary basis until officials hold a special election for a permanent replacement.

That proposal is being pushed by Kilmer and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), who say it would remove an incentive for political violence and preserve the legitimacy of Congress in a crisis. Wenstrup was on the baseball field in Virginia in 2017 when a gunman took aim at Republicans. He used his military and medical training to treat then-GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) until paramedics arrived.

“There were 136 rounds fired that morning, and he had names of Republicans and descriptions in his pocket,” Wenstrup said. “The idea is for us to have a situation in place where no one can get away with doing that as far as changing the balance of power.”

“I worry that my friends and the Democratic caucus think I’m the angel of death,” Kilmer said, “because we’d be on a bus to a retreat, and I’ll be like, ‘does anyone know what happens if we die? Or if something happens to the bus?’ And they’re like ‘Kilmer? Enough already.’”

A HIGH BAR

Of course, approving a constitutional amendment would be incredibly difficult: It requires two-thirds support of each congressional chamber and then ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures.

But there is a precedent for it. The 17th Amendment, enacted over a century ago, created a succession plan for Senate vacancies that empowered 45 states to allow the governor to temporarily appoint a replacement until an election is held. Five states still don’t allow appointments and require a special election.

The House could try other avenues if a constitutional amendment isn’t possible. Some members have mulled changes to House rules designed to prevent a mass casualty from switching control of the chamber to the opposite party mid-session. Another idea would be to impose strict mandates on states to hold swift special elections after a mass vacancy.

But advocates warn against such a piecemeal approach. Some in the chamber view the changes made after 9/11 as simply providing the veneer of solving the problem.

As it stands now, the House can only fill its vacancies only by special election, which take an average of 136 days to conduct. If a crisis occurred, Congress’ role as a check on the executive branch could be severely diminished precisely when the federal government potentially needs to act.

Here is my friend Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, explaining more:

ADVERTISEMENT

So....now the real question....is this to protect against something like a nuke?

Or....is it because NCSWIC?

Are they preparing for mass ARRESTS (not mass casualty)?

Whoa whoa whoa…

Lawmakers want to make a constitutional amendment that would allow them to replace members of congress under the guise of a “mass casualty event”?

Mass casualties = Mass Arrests?
They know what’s coming…

• Pushing it:
Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.)
Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio)
William Timmons (R-S.C.)
Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.)

Mario Nawfal had the following:

🚨🇺🇸CONGRESS' DOOMSDAY PLAN: REPS PUSH AMENDMENT TO COUNTER MASS ATTACK CHAOS

A bipartisan group of House members is proposing a constitutional amendment to rapidly replace representatives in the event of a mass casualty attack on Congress.

Representatives Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), William Timmons (R-S.C.), and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) are spearheading this effort.

The proposal would require each representative to submit a list of potential replacements to their state governor.

If a representative dies, the governor would appoint a replacement within 10 days.

This measure aims to ensure continued representation and discourage violence intended to shift the balance of power in Congress.

Rep. Kilmer:

"We've seen a 300 percent increase in threats against members over the last seven years."

However, the amendment faces significant hurdles, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Critics also point out potential challenges in implementation, particularly regarding states' ability to hold rapid special elections.

Despite these obstacles, proponents argue that the growing threat of political violence necessitates such precautions to safeguard the continuity of government.

What do you think?


, , ,

 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

log in

Forgot password?

reset password

Back to
log in
Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
We invite you to become a WLT Report insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.