This is such a good thing to hear. Finally, these two idiots are going to have to pay the piper fortheirstupidity.
Via The Detroit News, which is, by the way; A Conservative/Libertarian leaning newspaper here in Detroit. (For the out of state people that read here.)
Lansing — Attorney General Bill Schuette said Friday warrants have been issued for the arrest of former state Reps. Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat for felony charges of misconduct in office related to their failed attempts to cover up an extramarital affair that rocked the Capitol last summer.
If convicted on all counts, Courer would face a maximum of 30 years in prison. If found guilty, Gamrat could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
The charges for these two turkeys are as follows:
The accused: former state Reps. Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat
Courser, a Lapeer-area Republican, will face four felony charges, Schuette said. They include:
■ A perjury charge for lying under oath while testifying before a special House committee about letting an aide forge his signature on a bill he wanted to file before other representatives could.
“Only legislators sign legislative proposals,” said Schuette, a former state senator.
■ Three counts of misconduct in office for allegedly lying to the House Business Office, which investigated the two lawmakers; instructing his staff to forge his signature on bills and asking House aide Ben Graham to send a fake email to Republicans across the state, which Graham refused to do.
Gamrat, R-Plainwell, will be charged with two counts of misconduct in office, punishable by up to five years in prison or a $10,000 fine for each charge, Schuette said.
Gamrat’s misconduct charges are for giving false information to the House Business Office and instructing a staff member to forge her signature to speed up the filing of draft legislation, Schuette said.
And that is not all:
Courser and Gamrat face other legal troubles.
Schuette said he will refer to Secretary of State Ruth Johnson “potential evidence of campaign finance violations involving doing political work on state time.”
The House’s expulsion charges included the use of House employees by Courser and Gamrat of House for political tasks.
Schuette also said he will notify the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission of the charges against Courser, a Lapeer attorney.
“They will potentially review the status of his law license as this case proceeds through the judicial system,” the attorney general said.
Some might say that this is nothing more than a political set up. I call B.S.; the guy was having an affair with this woman and he tried to use his office to cover it up. Now, he is going have to face the music and that could not be a better thing to happen. The Republicans have always been painted by the liberal left, as dishonest, corrupt people. Well, now that little narrative is going to be challenged by this right here.
May these two get the maximum punishment allowed by law. They used the Tea Party Movement and rode the wave all the way to the statehouse here in Michigan and then, to beat all; they got there and became drunk with power and began an affair. Then, on top of that, they tried to cover it up. Sorry, that does not wash with me. Let them pay for their crimes.
As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.
After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.
Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.
“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.
The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.
I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.
Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.
But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.
“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.
Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.
The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.
“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”
He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:
Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.
Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”
Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”
As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.
Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job. You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.
This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.
He also just secured the female evangelical female vote too.
AMES, Iowa — Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses.“Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?” Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her side at a rally at Iowa State University. “Are you ready to stump for Trump? I’m here to support the next president of the United States — Donald Trump.”Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Trump in state polls.The endorsement came as Mr. Trump was bearing down in the state, holding multiple campaign events and raising expectations about his performance in the nation’s first nominating contest.As Mrs. Palin announced her backing, Mr. Trump stood wearing a satisfied smile as she scolded mainstream Republicans as sellouts and praised how Mr. Trump had shaken up the party. “He’s been going rogue left and right,” Mrs. Palin said of Mr. Trump, using one of her signature phrases. “That’s why he’s doing so well. He’s been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system.” – Source: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa – The New York Times
The video:
https://youtu.be/Tif6xm4_ysA?t=58m51s
The question that many are asking is, why did she pick Trump over Cruz? Actually, there are two reasons; one is that Cruz might have seriously pissed off Palin by basically insulting her. The other reason basically is because Ted Cruz’s wife works for or did work for one of the biggest banks, that was involved with the huge meltdown in 2008 and got a bailout from it. She also is or was, depending on whom you believe; a member of the council on foreign relations, which is huge minus among the Conservative base —- especially the Ted Party base.
Reaction has been predictable among the left. The reaction among the right is varied; some are happy, some, not so much. Personally, I think that this endorsement will be just another feather in Donald Trump’s hat; I just hope that Trump does not squander this chance. For the drive-by crowd, I am neither a supporter or against Donald Trump; I view all politicians with a good dose of skepticism.
I would recommend Trump not to use her too much to stump for his campaign, because there are a good number of people, who see Palin as a blithering idiot and that would work against him. An endorsement is fine, a campaign attack dog would be a disaster. So, keep Palin at a distance. I just hope Trump does not pick her to his Vice President; that would be huge mistake. I mean, anything is better than Hillary. But, with Palin in the VP slot, Trump would not get elected in the general election at all. I might be wrong about that, but I really doubt it.
Either way, I will be following this a bit more closely, as this primary race just got a bit more interesting now.
“It’s in the book that he’s got a pathological temper,” Trump told “Erin Burnett OutFront,” speaking about Carson’s autobiography. “That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that … as an example: child molesting. You don’t cure these people. You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that.”
In his 1990 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” Carson attributes violent behavior in his youth to his “disease,” a “pathological temper” that the Republican presidential hopeful said caused him to strike one friend with a rock and attempt to stab another. In subsequent accounts of his violent youth, Carson said he once attempted to attack his mother with a hammer.
“I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book,” Trump told Erin Burnett. “You know, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological — and he says that in the book, I don’t say that — and again, I’m not saying anything, I’m not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he’s pathological, somebody said he has pathological disease.”
At first, the audience was quick to laugh at Trump’s sharp insults and applaud his calls to better care for veterans, replace the Affordable Care Act and construct a wall along the Mexican border. But as the speech dragged on, the applause came less often and grew softer. As Trump attacked Carson using deeply personal language, the audience grew quiet, a few shaking their heads. A man sitting in the back of the auditorium loudly gasped. …
He scoffed at those who have accused him of not understanding foreign policy, saying he knows more about Islamic State terrorists “than the generals do.” He took credit for predicting the threat of Osama bin Laden and being right on the “anchor baby situation,” a position he says “these great geniuses from Harvard Law School” now back. He uttered the word “crap” at least three times, and promised to “bomb the s—” out of oil fields benefiting terrorists. He signed a book for a guy in the audience and then tossed it back at him with a flip: “Here you go, baby. I love you.”
Trump called Republican rival Carly Fiorina “Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is,” accused Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton of playing the “woman’s card” and said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is “weak like a baby.” He then devoted more than 10 minutes angrily attacking his chief rival, Ben Carson, saying the retired doctor has a “pathological disease” with no cure, similar to being a child molester.
“If I did the stuff he said he did, I wouldn’t be here right now. It would have been over. It would have been over. It would have been totally over,” Trump said. “And that’s who’s in second place. And I don’t get it.”
Two points. First, “pathological” does not mean “incurable,” and anyway Carson uses the term as a descriptor, not a medical diagnosis. Second, there is a vast difference between having a violent temper in one’s youth, and molesting children. This is mud-slinging of the most virulent and dishonest manner.
I am thinking that you are going to see a huge — oh, sorry, “Yuge” — drop in the polls for Trump. This is not politicking, this is slander and utter dishonesty and I really think that the America voters are going to make that clear come the first primary vote.
I have to like Carly Fiorina’s Response:
Donald, sorry, I've got to interrupt again. You would know something about pathological. How was that meeting with…
Ben Carson has taken a narrow lead nationally in the Republican presidential campaign, dislodging Donald J. Trump from the top spot for the first time in months, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey released on Tuesday.
Mr. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, is the choice of 26 percent of Republican primary voters, the poll found, while Mr. Trump now wins support from 22 percent, although the difference lies within the margin of sampling error.
The survey is the first time that Mr. Trump has not led all candidates since The Times and CBS News began measuring presidential preferences at the end of July.
Here’s the video of Donald Trump taking his underhanded swipe at Ben Carson’s religion:
You see, people see this sort of stuff; the back and forth with the Bushes, the slamming of Ben Carson’s religious beliefs and they start to think, “since when did this become a religious contest?” Which political elections are not supposed to be about that at all. Donald Trump also comes off as a bit of a jerk to most people when he does this.
For the record, Ben Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, which I as a Baptist do disagree with their theology, very much so. However, I do not believe that Ben Carson’s religious beliefs should be a litmus test to be President of the United States and I do not believe that this sort of idiotic slamming of someone’s religious beliefs should be a part of this Presidential race at all.
Not to mention that Donald Trump insulted Iowa voters, I mean, can you get any more stupid than that? The funny part is that, to cover his own backside, he blamed a staffer for the insult. How childish can you get?
It is a bit early in this primary cycle; but, I have to say, I am beginning to believe that Donald Trump has used up his star power and that it is going to start hurting him, and not help him. At first, when Donald Trump came on the scene, I supported him. However, it is becoming clearer to me, that Trump is simply in this race to make a name for himself and that he really does not care about winning the Presidency. My support of him has basically dried up and I hope he shortly does the honorable thing and drops out of this race. He has turned a serious race into a clown show and it has done more to hurt the Conservative cause than anyone else in this race could ever do.
My advice to Iowa primary voters, give this joke of a Presidential Candidate a one way ticket back to his plush office in Manhattan and vote for someone who is actually serious about being the next President of the United States of America.
WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, under intense pressure from conservatives in his party, announced on Friday that he would resign one of the most powerful positions in government and give up his House seat at the end of October, as Congress moved to avert a government shutdown.
Mr. Boehner, who was first elected to Congress in 1990, made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans on Friday morning.
The Ohio representative struggled from almost the moment he took the speaker’s gavel in 2011 to manage the challenges of divided government and to hold together his fractious and increasingly conservative Republican members.
Most recently, Mr. Boehner, 65, was trying to craft a solution to keep the government open through the rest of the year, but was under pressure from a growing base of conservatives who told him that they would not vote for a bill that did not defund Planned Parenthood.
Mr. Boehner’s stunning announcement lessens the chance of a government shutdown next week as Republican leaders in Congress will push for a short-term funding measure to keep the government operating and the speaker will no longer be deterred by those who threatened his job.
There are some that are saying that this could cause a problem for the GOP and it could be a win for the Dems. However, I disagree with that, the Dems are so unpopular now with Americans, especially middle America that I believe that this will only strengthen the GOP’s base and appeal.
Either way, this will be a shift from the establishment running the house to a conservative. Look for more impasse with the President till he leaves office. This might lead to Government shutdowns and other such stuff.
WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement:
“My mission every day is to fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. Over the last five years, our majority has advanced conservative reforms that will help our children and their children. I am proud of what we have accomplished.
“The first job of any Speaker is to protect this institution that we all love. It was my plan to only serve as Speaker until the end of last year, but I stayed on to provide continuity to the Republican Conference and the House. It is my view, however, that prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. To that end, I will resign the Speakership and my seat in Congress on October 30.
“Today, my heart is full with gratitude for my family, my colleagues, and the people of Ohio’s Eighth District. God bless this great country that has given me – the son of a bar owner from Cincinnati – the chance to serve.”
The comments over on that site are for the ages. The old school of politics and political operation is over. This is a new era and Boehner just could not exist in it. The days of the Republican ruling class are over; which is, in a way, a good thing for America. The establishment is going to have to either get in line or get out of the way.
Imagine waking up to the news that a Quaker county sheriff is denying concealed carry permits to citizens because of his religious objection to violence; or, a Muslim DMV supervisor in Dearborn, Michigan has ordered his staff to refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women out of a religious objection to women behind the wheel. These are among the realities that await should we make Kim Davis, the embattled County Clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky, an archetype for “religious freedom” in America.
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in which he outlined a concept for the First Amendment’s application as it relates to religion. According to Jefferson, the Amendment creates a “wall of separation between Church & State,” to which “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” While Jefferson’s concept of a wall separating the Church and State has been used in a modern context by the Left to justify its radical purge of any and all religious artifacts from the public sector — particularly those of Christianity – Jefferson rather was simply warning about the power of government, compelled by a dominant sect of religion, to corrupt and oppress religious liberty of allworshipers.
As an elected government official and public employee, Davis took an oath to uphold the law, and cannot properly use her power as an elected official to deny marriage licenses to couples found by the Supreme Court of the United States to be entitled to receive those licenses. This is not a question of whether or not we agree with that Supreme Court ruling; it most definitely is a question of whether we are – as Chief Justice John Marshall noted in his seminal, 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison – a “nation of laws, not of men.
[…]
The virulent reaction of the Left to this controversy, and laws such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, leaves little doubt about the Left’s “respect” for religious freedom, and highlight the need protect it from further erosion. Yet, as the Davis controversy also illustrates, protecting religious freedom is not as black and white as the media and the political rhetoric make it out to be. It requires a far more thoughtful approach to articulating its fundamental importance in our society than rushing to make every perceived injustice the focal point of such a debate.
Using the wrong examples to make our case for religious freedom only further ingrains the disrespect for religious freedom and the rule of law so desperately needed in the public and the private sectors; and encourages use of the “Wall-of-Separation” phrase as a bludgeon against religion, rather than a protector of it.
It is regrettable that Kim Davis was jailed, and as former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s lawless “gay marriage” protest shows, clearly the Left does not hold itself to the same standards as it does with Davis. However, what is happening to Davis is not about the sincerity of her religious beliefs, or even the morality of gay marriage. Placing her on a pedestal will likely come back to haunt her supporters.
And perhaps those who find a government for which they work so morally repugnant as does Kim Davis, would better serve the public they have sworn to serve, from outside rather than inside.
He is absolutely correct about that; we are a constitutional Republic, not a Christian Theocracy. Kim Davis took an oath to uphold the law and if she cannot do that, as a result of her religious convictions, then she should resign. This is why I have avoided writing about this case, because she and her supporters are making a religious argument over a secular issue. What she is actually doing is violating the First Amendment and she should be charged for doing so.
The sick part is that, naturally, the Republican Party will sing in unison in support for this so-called “Christian Zealot” and screw our chances for a victory in 2016. 🙁
One more thing: In the unlikely event that Trump does sweep to the presidency, I think some historians will begin reconsidering what the Reagan revolution was really about. Was it a conservative revolt against the Great Society, Nixonian welfare-state management, and Carter-era exhaustion with liberalism, or was it more a response to the sense of national renewal that Reagan projected, above and beyond ideology? Reagan, unlike Trump, was a true conservative and wanted to limit government accordingly, but they both stood for American power in different ways. Maybe it was that sense of power, of overhauling a failed governing class, that drew Republicans and centrist Democrats to Reagan first and foremost, with Reagan’s conservatism more of an experiment voters were happy to go along with so long as the economy was booming and the Soviets were back on their heels. If you look at Reagan that way, with ideology a component of his appeal but not the catalytic component, you can sort of see a line between him and Trump
He’s right about that; and too, Reagan was the great communicator. Reagan also was a very kind-hearted person and would win you over with his charm. He was a statesman, and of the greatest generation and era ever, one that has sadly passed into the annals of history.
Now, Donald Trump? He is a totally different horse of a total different color and breed. Basically, he’s a bare knuckles, tell it like it is, shoot from the hip, tough guy New Yorker, with a really, really, good education and business savvy. Because of this, he tends to be very, very very, blunt. This works in the business world, where such things are seen as powerful, groundbreaking and decisive; but in the political world, especially in the Conservative political world, he has those people running around with their hair on fire, losing their minds! Mainly because today, political correctness and a slight amount of couth are the standard these days. Donald Trump has none of this; and the grassroots love it to death! The GOP establishment? Not so much.
By the way, the establishment hated Reagan too; but they had to accept him. Especially after the “I’m paying for this microphone!” incident. Funny that “AllahPundit” seems to have forgotten that one and the fact that basically the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world basically was what propelled Reagan into the White House. But, he’s an idiot atheist, so one should expect that.
Bill Hyers, a senior strategist in the Martin O’Malley presidential campaign, is calling the new Democratic debate schedule “less democratic.”
“By inserting themselves into the debate process, the DNC has ironically made it less democratic. The schedule they have proposed does not give voters—nationally, and especially in early states—ample opportunity to hear from the Democratic candidates for President. If anything, it seems geared toward limiting debate and facilitating a coronation, not promoting a robust debate and primary process,” Hyers writes.
“Rather than giving the appearance of rigging the process and cutting off debate, the DNC should take themselves out of the process. They should let individual and truly independent news, political, and community organizations create their own debates and allow the Democratic candidates for President to participate. There is a long, proud tradition of voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire getting to hear early and often from candidates for President—the DNC schedule kills that tradition, and we shouldn’t stand for it.”
The Democrats have only six debates scheduled.
There is a reason for this; and I have to explain this one a bit. There are two factions in the Democratic Party, as in the Republican Party. There is the grassroots left, which is made of the normal people, who actually vote and are involved with progressive politics on the ground and the other faction —- the establishment or corporate left.
Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate, she is seen as the electable one for the Democratic Party. She has money, funding and name recognition. Needless to say, the Party will be totally behind her. For the record, Barack Obama was seen as a grassroots candidate, when he was running. However, as time went on, it was very clear to many on the left; that he was just another establishment type.
Bernie Sanders however, is a grassroots progressive, he is not a part of the corporate left or establishment left. Bernie Sanders has tapped into the grassroots left, who feel that the Democratic Party establishment has sold them out. Donald Trump is doing the same very thing in the Republican Party with the conservative grassroots.
Martin O’Malley has a point and a very good one. However, if you think that the Democratic Party is going to stand by and risk loosing an election to some no-name candidate or some grassroots candidate, you are very highly mistaken. The Democrats have much to lose in the election. They already know that they are going to take hits in some red states; so, they are going to do everything they can to put forward the best candidate for the general election. The Democrats learned their lessons from 1968 and they are not about to implode again like they did then.
Bernie Sanders will not make it to the general election, I can assure you of that. The gatekeepers in that party will see to that; you watch and see. Neither will Donald Trump, as the GOP has too much to lose; they screwed it up last time, they will not do it again.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
