Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

We now have millions of Americans who now think that it makes perfect sense if their local mayor compiles a list of big political donors from the opposite party, and immediately use his/her executive power to instruct every investigatory body under his control to investigate them. Building Dept, Fired Dept., Taxation (good luck with that one), Social services on the donor's kids......all fair game.

In fact what the Senate Republicans are about to argue this week is that it the Mayor's JOB to investigate, so when the Mayor pulls that list of big political donors, and tells his building department, for example to investigate the homes and businesses of the Mayor's political rivals? What posters here, and what Republicans in our Senate are saying is: the Mayor is SUPPOSED to do this.

The "argument" is this: well it's the Mayor's JOB to investigate things in his purview. So no problem here. If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Papers, please.

You have all lost your mother)_*#$ minds, and deserve every bit of unintended consequences that's heading your way for this line of "thinking".

...& what does that make the Steele dossier (partially FBI funded), Crossfire Hurricane & it's continuation as the Mueller probe ?

As I said in 2016 -- welcome to the criminalization of our politics. Where did you think it would lead ?

I don’t know anyone who talks about and put as much emphasis on the impact of the Stupid Dossier.... the IG even said it wasn’t THE predicate for the investigation. Your guy firing Comey is what led to the SC...not the dossier. No matter how many times you write it here. B

Nobody talked about the Stupid Dossier, other than NYT, WP, MSMBC, CNN & this forum (as LP), until it fell apart.

Our IC included it in their post-election report.
The DoJ used it for FISA warrants.
It was the roadmap for the Teump-Russia collusion investigations.
I understand why so many smart people do not want to acknowledge they they were duped.

Those papers have folks who post here. SDDS

[CU88]

Do tell us all about it, Inspector Clouseau.

Love it!

o s is pretty funny here too...

[njbill]

ggait, I agree the House should have included a bribery article. Never really heard a good explanation for why they didn’t. The fact that Trump would try to poke holes by claiming certain elements hadn’t been proven is pretty weak sauce in my view. Perhaps the House thought that what happened here was only attempted bribery since Zelensky never made the announcement about the Biden investigation. And the Constitution only mentions “bribery” not “attempted bribery.” That is really picking nits, though, I think. Bribery (even if technically only attempted) is something that is clearly understood by the common folks who certainly know it is illegal conduct.

[a fan]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

Obama hosed Carter Page

[old salt]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

I'm not surprised. You think the texting FBI lovebirds were unbiased.
What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

So other than Rudy and his two pals, nobody else was involved? Those other folks should testify and provide their contemporaneous memos.

[old salt]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

So other than Rudy and his two pals, nobody else was involved? Those other folks should testify and provide their contemporaneous memos.

SDNY is on the case. The Ukrainians & State Dept are investigating alleged surveillance of Amb Masha. Schiff will keep us informed.

[ggait]

ggait, I agree the House should have included a bribery article. Never really heard a good explanation for why they didn’t.

IIRC, Turley had some argument that the case law (maybe Bob McDonnell's case?) under 18 USC 201 would not support a conviction of Trump even though the plain text reading of 201 seems spot on to me. So I think the Dems were afraid of having their case nit-picked and bounded as if it were a criminal indictment under 201 (case law, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence rules, etc. etc. etc.).

I probably would have gone with three articles - abuse, obstruction, and bribery. With the last being common law bribery if there's adverse case law under 201. Which is very legit (since 201 wasn't enacted in 1789).

I think the Dems thought they'd avoid the lawyerly squabbling over (and being completely limited by) 201 by going with a more general non-criminal abuse article (which includes all the bribery conduct). But now (predictably) the lawyerly squabbling just moves over to whether the articles contain a crime and whether a crime is required for impeach/remove.

As you know, there's always gonna be lawyerly squabbling. Only thing that changes is what precisely is being squabbled about.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

So other than Rudy and his two pals, nobody else was involved? Those other folks should testify and provide their contemporaneous memos.

SDNY is on the case. The Ukrainians & State Dept are investigating alleged surveillance of Amb Masha. Schiff will keep us informed.

So more people than just Rudy and his pals were involved?

[a fan]

I'm not surprised. You think the texting FBI lovebirds were unbiased.

Without any hesitation whatsoever.

So now you and the rest of your fellow TrumpFans are trying to tell us is that you think Strozk and Page are the first FBI agents in the history of the FBI to have an opinion about their leaders, including the President.

I've said this before: using this line of thinking, if we find out that someone in the FBI LOVES Trump----does that mean you think that their work is biased and now fundamentally wrong?

Do you not understand how absurd this idea is? How hard would it be to find FBI agents who hated the Clintons during Starr's work? My answer to this question is: who cares? It didn't invalidate their work....and you would have been laughed at if you had brought up this ridiculous idea back then. But we're in TrumpEra now where EVERYTHING is about tinfoil and conspiracies. It's so stupid.

You hated Carter, right? Did you disobey direct orders, or not do your duty because he was your President?

Pretty sure you'd be offended if anyone so much as IMPLIED that your work was compromised because you didn't vote for Carter.

What you're saying is, half of the FBI is "doing it wrong" at any given time, depending on which party the President is from.....this is silly on its face.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.

No, just the State Dept. and DoJ in an attempt to both execute his will, and then to cover it up after the fact. And we STILL don't have all the info. because of the joint cover up of both witnesses, and documents.

[Trinity]

We can’t even learn about Jared. Now the IC is slow-walking Ukraine intel to Congress? And Lev has asked his judge that Barr be recused. Waiting for the tapes to roll.

[old salt]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

So other than Rudy and his two pals, nobody else was involved? Those other folks should testify and provide their contemporaneous memos.

SDNY is on the case. The Ukrainians & State Dept are investigating alleged surveillance of Amb Masha. Schiff will keep us informed.

So more people than just Rudy and his pals were involved?

Who knows. The FBI is still trying to locate Robert Hyde. Have you checked your back yard ?

[seacoaster]

Dersh with the spelling error:

“Tribe is trying to sensor my arguments . The headline of Tribe’s article says it all: “Trump’s lawyer shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus arguments on impeachment.”

Only the best people.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You think Obama didn't know what his FBI, IC & NSC were doing ?

You are still pretending that you don't know the difference between Obama ORDERING that Trump being investigated, and the FBI independently looking into election interference and looking into Trump's associates?

How many more times are you going to pretend you don't know the difference?

So I'm right. You DO think it is ok for the Mayor of Annapolis, a Democrat, to order all the bodies under his control----Building Department, Fire Department, Police Dept., etc.-------to investigate all the Republican City Council members and their family.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.

I don't get it. And I can't come up with any more ways to get you to understand what Trump did, and how it's different that what the FBI did under Obama.

I give up.

What Trump did is far less dangerous.
He did not unleash the FBI & our IC on political opponents.
He hired Rudy & his gang to gather oppo, instead of Fusion GPS.
Inspector Closeau is 007 compared to Stefan Halper & Azra Turk.

So other than Rudy and his two pals, nobody else was involved? Those other folks should testify and provide their contemporaneous memos.

SDNY is on the case. The Ukrainians & State Dept are investigating alleged surveillance of Amb Masha. Schiff will keep us informed.

So more people than just Rudy and his pals were involved?

Who knows. The FBI is still trying to locate Robert Hyde. Have you checked your back yard ?

Pithy.

[seacoaster]

Remember when Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed upon the Clinton procedures in advance? Remember when the Country mattered to the GOP? Remember when the oath of office, and the oath and affirmation of Senators sitting in an impeachment trial meant a little something? Party over country is the end of the first chapter of the making of our own, sorry banana republic.

A cover-up already under way, to make the Watergate scandal look like someone stealing lunch money in the second grade:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

"President Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions.

While Republicans continue to express confidence that Democrats will fail to persuade four GOP lawmakers to break ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has opposed calling any witnesses in the trial, they are readying a Plan B just in case — underscoring how uncertain they are about prevailing in a showdown over witnesses and Bolton’s possible testimony.

One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public.

To receive the testimony in a classified session, Trump’s attorneys would have to request such a step, according to one official, adding that it would probably need the approval of 51 senators.

But that proposal, discussed among some Senate Republicans in recent days, is seen as a final tool against Bolton becoming an explosive figure in the trial. First, Republicans involved in the discussions said, would come a fierce battle in the courts.

Trump’s trial begins in earnest Tuesday on the two impeachment charges: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They center on the allegation that Trump withheld military aid and a White House meeting to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, including former vice president and 2020 candidate Joe Biden. The Trump administration stonewalled the House impeachment probe, denying witnesses and documents.

In an organizing resolution released Monday and authored by McConnell and his team, the rules would allow either the president’s defense team or the House impeachment managers to subpoena witnesses if the Senate agrees, but any witnesses would first have to be deposed. “No testimony shall be admissible in the Senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses,” the resolution says.

Blocking witnesses such as Bolton — or shielding the testimony from view — could carry political risks for Republicans. Bolton has said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

“Democrats will ask, ‘Don’t the American people deserve to know the truth?’ ” said William A. Galston, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution. “On the other hand, they may well calculate that public testimony would create uncertainties that they’re willing to go to considerable lengths to avoid.”

Trump has said he would assert executive privilege if Bolton were called to testify, telling Fox News’s Laura Ingraham last week, “I think you have to for the sake of the office.”

And the White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Multiple Senate Republicans and White House officials cautioned that the strategy was not finalized and discussions were preliminary, particularly since Bolton and others might not even be called in the coming weeks if 51 senators are unable to finalize an agreement on witnesses. And so far, talks among Republicans and Democrats have stalled as they battle over who should be called.

Still, the GOP discussions are a tacit acknowledgment that even Trump’s team and political allies are finding it difficult to predict how the Senate trial will unfold, despite Republicans rallying around the president and pushing to acquit him in a speedy two-week period.

The White House argued in a legal brief filed Monday that Trump was not obstructing “when he rightly decided to defend established executive branch confidentiality interests, rooted in the separation of powers, against unauthorized efforts to rummage through executive branch files and to demand testimony from some of the president’s closest advisers.”

The deliberations also suggest that some in the president’s circle are uneasy about what Bolton might say. While some refuse to view him as a political threat and cast him as a conservative operative who wants a future in a Trump-dominated Republican Party, others predict that he could upend the president’s fourth year in office with his testimony, since he is known as a lawyer with a sharp memory for meetings and policy.

“Is this guy who’s cheering on the president’s foreign policy right now really going to break?” asked one Trump ally who is close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. “I don’t know.”

Privately and publicly, some veteran Republicans cautioned that while the White House wants to control the process, it’s not for White House officials to decide how Bolton’s testimony would be handled.

“Ultimately, McConnell will decide, and he is dealing with a very personality-based system where he has to focus on bringing a few people along. McConnell is cueing everything off of those senators,” former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in an interview. “The president being combative doesn’t mean he makes the decision.”

Top Republicans aren’t waiting around to find out. On television, Trump’s allies keep warning Democrats of “mutually assured destruction” — that if Democrats get their own witnesses, Trump’s team will call the Bidens.

“Be careful what you wish for,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News on Monday, warning that Republicans would call Hunter Biden. “Witness number one would have to be Hunter Biden. How else would we know about the corruption in Ukraine?”

Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, and Trump and his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani have promoted an unfounded theory that Joe Biden, while vice president, tried to stop a corruption investigation of the company to protect his son. Hunter Biden is no longer on Burisma’s board.

For now, if enough senators vote to call witnesses after the initial arguments by House Democratic managers and Trump’s team, McConnell is expected to ensure that those individuals are questioned in a closed-door session rather than a public setting, according to people close to the Senate GOP.

And a private session, these people said, would apply to Bolton and perhaps Hunter Biden, since Republicans would almost certainly agree to witnesses only if they could call their own. Whether Bolton’s testimony would be classified or a closed deposition remains a point of negotiation, should Republicans ever reach that point.

One Senate Republican aide noted that senators handled witnesses using closed depositions in the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton. However, during the Clinton trial, depositions were videotaped, transcripts were publicly released, and portions of the interviews were shown on televisions on the Senate floor. It is unclear how Republicans would handle closed depositions this time.

Several Senate GOP aides said Monday that McConnell, while reluctant to disclose his strategy, is making it evident to allies that he does not want a “spectacle” of witnesses and has advised the president along those lines.

Trump’s lawyers are hoping it doesn’t even get that far: White House counsel Pat Cipollone plans to argue this week that calling witnesses like Bolton would infringe on executive privilege and endanger national security, a game plan first reported by Axios. The team will also say that senators have a duty to protect confidential conversations between a president and a senior national security official, and that infringing on that privacy would have lasting repercussions.

Of course, it may not be up to the White House or Trump’s congressional allies. Ultimately, a majority of the Senate will dictate trial procedure. And a group of swing Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) — could upend those plans if they side with Democrats.

Already three of those four have indicated that they would be open to hearing from additional witnesses, which is why Trump’s defense team is considering contingency plans.

Democrats remain furious with McConnell, who has not shared details of his plans with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) or other Democratic leaders, and they worry that he is preparing to rush through an abbreviated trial."

[seacoaster]

Moscow Mitch says it's all irrelevant:

Since Trump was impeached:

1. OMB email: “Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

2. John Bolton (you know, of "drug deal" fame) volunteers to testify if subpoenaed, and his lawyer says he has new information).

3. Parnas agrees to empty his phone/hand over docus/grants interviews, and most of them corroborate or are consistent with the sworn facts already in the record.

4. GAO says Trump broke the law, and that the breach had separation of powers consequences.

The Senate GOP leadership's response to this?

1. Entertaining a motion to dismiss on grounds plainly wrong under the Constitution.

2. Considering using the intelligence classification system to block Bolton from testifying.

L'etat, c'est Trump?

[njbill]

Trump has added Republicans from the House to his impeachment team. No surprise that Gym Jordan is among them. One hopes he will have the decency to wear a jacket in the Senate. A name that is conspicuously absent: Devon Nunes.

[ggait]

And a group of swing Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) — could upend those plans if they side with Democrats.

Well that's never gonna happen. These folks will do some serious brow furrowing to signal their virtue. But they are not going to do anything to seriously upset the apple cart.

While there may be some noise and votes about the concept of witnesses, the whole game here is to keep the public from hearing from Bolton. Since that is what Trump, Mitch and Bolton want, I think that is what will happen. There's plenty of tools in the tool box even if a subpoena issues (which itself is iffy) -- court fights, exec privelege, classification, etc.

We'll hear the real story eventually though. I'd guess probably after the election (regardless of who wins).

[ggait]

From Mitt --

“I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments, as occurred in the Clinton trial. The organizing resolution released tonight includes this step, and overall, it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts."

Does that sound like a guy who's about to profile in courage?