@cloudsurf - Thanks. I found it. Seems to be a historical estimation study done by Simonton (it seems he has done this more than once). I have no way of credibly assessing his method, but the fact that none of the presidents involved (even the modern ones) seems to have actually taken an IQ test makes me take this with a huge grain of salt.
@sambuca
"Even if that was true, Nancy Pelosi preached today that the wall is immoral."
Well, that's what happens with power shifts. He played hardball thinking he had the upper hand, and now he doesn't have leverage and they are playing hardball back. The Democrats aren't even going to entertain pretending the money is for the wall anymore. They are still talking $1.6 billion for border security and such, because border security is important. They just won't even give him the fig-leaf of saying it is for "The Wall".
"Tell that to all these countries"
What do barriers in other countries have to do with jailmon's statement? He said Trump's wall is a political stunt. That other people have built barriers (not always walls) doesn't really have anything to do with that.
"And what would those felonies be?"
Campaign Finance violations. The two Cohen pled to, in which he says (and the SDNY agrees) those crimes were done "in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1" (Trump). You may think campaign finance crimes are bullshit crimes if you want, but they are felonies and Trump is now named as participating in them.
No, he has not been indicted or found guilty. Feel free to hang your hat on that.
"It's not illegal to talk and do business with the Russians."
You are 100% correct. Which is why if they hadn't lied about it constantly, no one would suspect them of anything. "Talking to Russians" isn't a problem. "Quid pro quo" would be.
I do have to withdraw the RICO analogy. Someone who understands racketeering law far better than I do has explained how it is a bad analogy to what's going on. (The standards for RICO are very odd and very specific, so it isn't helpful.) Conspiracy is still a valid term, but RICO isn't. Mea culpa. But the core idea of rolling up lower level people so that the evidence for the higher level ones is all accounted for still seems to explain the strategy. The fact that Mueller hasn't put a dagger in Trump doesn't mean he doesn't have a dagger. I honestly don't know if he does. (Anyone who says they know a lot about what is going on in the Mueller probe is lying to you.) The Russians could well have interfered all over the place without Trump or his campaign doing anything specifically illegal. That's still worth knowing. (I mean, Mueller has already indicted Russians for things they have done.)
"Cohen isn't exactly a reliable witness. If he cooperated and gave so much valuable intel on the Trump campaign, why are they asking for such an extreme sentence. That would suggest that the Special Counsel is even underwhelmed with Cohen's statements and his reliability as a witness."
Mueller didn't ask for an extreme sentence. Just the opposite. He said that due to the cooperation Cohen gave about Trump, the crimes he confessed to for Mueller (the lying in Congress part) should not result in any additional jail time for his other crimes. It is the SDNY that asked for significant jailtime. (Which means probably 3 years, maybe 4, I expect.) They said while he may have cooperated with Mueller about Trump, he didn't cooperate well with them about his own crimes.
But of course, none of this is based on "Cohen says". As is pointed out repeatedly in the filing, these are things Cohen says in his guilty plea that the government says is supported by other evidence which they will show to the judge as needed. You don't take proven liars like Cohen and Manafort at their word.
