Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

I guess I did.

Where did that turn of phrase come from? Do you know?

Was I using a Soviet anachronism?

Yes. You were. Think the opposite of tOSU.
The Ukraine was first just a region, then a province of Imperial Russia, then a Soviet Republic.
Since the USSR blew up, you must drop the the & refer to the nation of Ukraine.
Since the USSR still existed in your formative years, you were subtly programmed to use the Ukraine in history classes.
If you were a still a Georgetown undergrad, Prof Masha would correct you if you used the Ukraine.

[seacoaster]

NJBill wrote: "Regardless of how much or how little intel Goldman is able to gather about what Sondland may say on Wednesday, I still think he needs to be very, very careful with him. It’s just not clear where his loyalties lie at the moment. Is he still in the Trump camp, now in the never Trump camp, or somewhere in between? If Goldman is able to have substantive communications with Sondland’s counsel, he may get some intelligence on where Sondland’s head is at."

Oh yeah, agreed. As ggait says, pretty high drama on the way.

[SCLaxAttack]

Oh yeah, agreed. As ggait says, pretty high drama on the way.

I’m pretty sure I already know the answer but I’m going to ask anyway. While a fairly uninterested teenager at the time of the Watergate hearings, I still managed to watch what seems now like a pretty good amount of them. I recall them as much more of an attempt to get at the truth provided by each witness and not as a moment in which each legislator could express their foregone conclusion. Is this memory right, or wrong?

Edit - I guess I’m really asking where are Sam and Howard when you need them?

[seacoaster]

Oh yeah, agreed. As ggait says, pretty high drama on the way.

I’m pretty sure I already know the answer but I’m going to ask anyway. While a fairly uninterested teenager at the time of the Watergate hearings, I still managed to watch what seems now like a pretty good amount of them. I recall them as much more of an attempt to get at the truth provided by each witness and not as a moment in which each legislator could express their foregone conclusion. Is this memory right, or wrong?

Edit - I guess I’m really asking where are Sam and Howard when you need them?

My recollection is pretty dim; I was only 13-14 at the time. My older brothers -- 23 and 19 at the time -- watched and talked about the hearings non-stop. And my best recollections are of Sam Ervin's committee, which seemed to pretty soberly try to unearth the details of the break-in, cover up, and Nixon's knowledge of the events as a whole. I know I went to a hockey camp the summer of 1973, and don't recall anyone there talking about HR Haldeman....

https://newrepublic.com/article/89576/w ... -committee

Edit: Yeah man. There is certainly no Howard in the House, or the Senate today.

[seacoaster]

Let me say this too about the Watergate and Ukraine Aid investigations. The Nixon WH did not stonewall in the nearly complete manner in whch the Trump WH has refused to deliver up any documents, call logs, tapes of the actual calls, etc. The House Judiciary Committee and Senate Select Committee on Watergate appeared to have more insight into the facts.

The stonewall here is important not to forget; it fetters the ability to get at the truth of the events. And the negative inference from the stonewall is hard not to draw (OK, for me anyway).

What did Nixon know and when did he know it? If you zero in a bit, I think we all see the same sort of question circling Trump, as witnesses only have partial knowledge. Morrison, the guy who replaced Fiona Hill, seems to have testified in a way that suggests that everyone on the legitimate policy side of the NSC -- Bolton, Morrison, Hill before him, etc. -- was looking at Sondland and Giuliani and wondering, "What the heck?" Were Sondland's actions directed explicitly by the President? Morrison seems to say, "well, you'll have to ask Gordo." In the absence of compliance by the Executive Branch to information requests via subpoena, etc., Sondland is the current version of the Nixon Tapes.

[ABV 8.3%]

Let me say this too about the Watergate and Ukraine Aid investigations. The Nixon WH did not stonewall in the nearly complete manner in whch the Trump WH has refused to deliver up any documents, call logs, tapes of the actual calls, etc. The House Judiciary Committee and Senate Select Committee on Watergate appeared to have more insight into the facts.

Watergate started with a real , good ole fashioned crime. Because all our foreign aid gets handed out like Halloween candy....no strings attached. NONE WHATSO EVAH.

The stonewall here is important not to forget; it fetters the ability to get at the truth of the events. And the negative inference from the stonewall is hard not to draw (OK, for me anyway).

Maybe they should wait for more evidence ?????

What did Nixon know and when did he know it? If you zero in a bit, I think we all see the same sort of question circling Trump, as witnesses only have partial knowledge. Morrison, the guy who replaced Fiona Hill, seems to have testified in a way that suggests that everyone on the legitimate policy side of the NSC -- Bolton, Morrison, Hill before him, etc. -- was looking at Sondland and Giuliani and wondering, "What the heck?" Were Sondland's actions directed explicitly by the President? Morrison seems to say, "well, you'll have to ask Gordo." In the absence of compliance by the Executive Branch to information requests via subpoena, etc., Sondland is the current version of the Nixon Tapes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Such BS, fatty.

The foreign aid does often have specific conditionality.
The specific conditionality is spelled out clearly and requires formal certification of having been met by the appropriate certifying groups.

That was done in this case, and the certification was done properly.

But the President and his cronies corruptly overruled the release.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Let me say this too about the Watergate and Ukraine Aid investigations. The Nixon WH did not stonewall in the nearly complete manner in whch the Trump WH has refused to deliver up any documents, call logs, tapes of the actual calls, etc. The House Judiciary Committee and Senate Select Committee on Watergate appeared to have more insight into the facts.

Watergate started with a real , good ole fashioned crime. Because all our foreign aid gets handed out like Halloween candy....no strings attached. NONE WHATSO EVAH.

The stonewall here is important not to forget; it fetters the ability to get at the truth of the events. And the negative inference from the stonewall is hard not to draw (OK, for me anyway).

Maybe they should wait for more evidence ?????

What did Nixon know and when did he know it? If you zero in a bit, I think we all see the same sort of question circling Trump, as witnesses only have partial knowledge. Morrison, the guy who replaced Fiona Hill, seems to have testified in a way that suggests that everyone on the legitimate policy side of the NSC -- Bolton, Morrison, Hill before him, etc. -- was looking at Sondland and Giuliani and wondering, "What the heck?" Were Sondland's actions directed explicitly by the President? Morrison seems to say, "well, you'll have to ask Gordo." In the absence of compliance by the Executive Branch to information requests via subpoena, etc., Sondland is the current version of the Nixon Tapes.

Keep cheering for the guy you don't like.

[ABV 8.3%]

I'm cheering for the guy like most of us cheered against Dr. Beeper and "fresca" Smales. .......keep on exposing the corruption, even while exposing ( ) that, you, yourself (tRump) is corrupt.

Yup....# 1 cheer leader for tRump in the corruption china shop.......you and your's aren't because it reveals much.

Lizzie still screaming about Wells Fargo CEO's being locked up..........but certainly not lifting a finger for the "lil" people that rot in jail , or fired, for doing their jobs.

My Darian CT friend finally left Wells..........she said the stench of the place IS........

[MDlaxfan76]

It's fascinating to see the brain rotting effect of Qanon, OANN, Fox...over time.
Or is this chicken and egg, brain rot first, hate-government, anti-science conspiracy theories second?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'm cheering for the guy like most of us cheered against Dr. Beeper and "fresca" Smales. .......keep on exposing the corruption, even while exposing ( ) that, you, yourself (tRump) is corrupt.

Yup....# 1 cheer leader for tRump in the corruption china shop.......you and your's aren't because it reveals much.

Lizzie still screaming about Wells Fargo CEO's being locked up..........but certainly not lifting a finger for the "lil" people that rot in jail , or fired, for doing their jobs.

My Darian CT friend finally left Wells..........she said the stench of the place IS........

Yeah....I get you some Pom Poms.

[cradleandshoot]

I'm cheering for the guy like most of us cheered against Dr. Beeper and "fresca" Smales. .......keep on exposing the corruption, even while exposing ( ) that, you, yourself (tRump) is corrupt.

Yup....# 1 cheer leader for tRump in the corruption china shop.......you and your's aren't because it reveals much.

Lizzie still screaming about Wells Fargo CEO's being locked up..........but certainly not lifting a finger for the "lil" people that rot in jail , or fired, for doing their jobs.

My Darian CT friend finally left Wells..........she said the stench of the place IS........

Can you include a decorder ring in one of your posts... please. I know there is a point somewhere in there. I just can't find it. I love what you have to say when I can comprehend it.

[ggait]

Maybe they should wait for more evidence ?????

The effect of the stonewall is pervasive and pernicious.

For example, reports are that Gordo had extensive WhatsApp communications with his Uke counterparts. Gordo turned over his device to SOS so all those messages currently sit in secret in the hands of the Administration. I'd imagine Gordo's upcoming testimony would be HUGELY different if those messages were publicly available. But they likely never will see the light of day. It is like trying to impeach Nixon without getting John Dean to testify and without the tapes being handed over.

So what are the Dems to do?

If you say let the voters decide this, it is pretty Bravo Sierra to make the voters decide without this Uke information being available.

Or is the thought that the Dems should slug it out in court (where they have close to a 100% chance of winning fyi) and then begin impeachment against a newly re-elected Trump in 2021? In such event, we all know for sure that 100% of the Banana Republicans would cry foul -- What the heck Dems, we just had an election!!!! Of course, if you want to play it straight Reps, Billy Barr could/should appoint another special prosecutor of his choice (and then recuse himself of course) to handle this matter. Yeah like that would ever happen.

Trump 100% deserves to be inquired right now -- his actions are the sole cause for this. And it is a complete disgrace that the Dems have to do it in the face of a mountain of witnesses and documents that have been walled off from view for no valid reason. The most disgusting thing in this whole affair is that scree from the WH counsel that, in effect, says "go fork yourself Congress, go fork the Constitution, and fork the horse you came in on" repeatedly over its nine pages. Mr. Cippolone will have earned the shreaded reputation he will carry for all of his post Trumpster days.

Honestly, the Reps here are acting like complete law-breaking rat-forkers at every turn, while (via the assistance of their FNC propogandists) accusing the Dems of playing dirty pool. They didn't have a vote!! Adam Schiff did a parody!! Sheesh!

[seacoaster]

Maybe they should wait for more evidence ?????

The effect of the stonewall is pervasive and pernicious.

For example, reports are that Gordo had extensive WhatsApp communications with his Uke counterparts. Gordo turned over his device to SOS so all those messages currently sit in secret in the hands of the Administration. I'd imagine Gordo's upcoming testimony would be HUGELY different if those messages were publicly available. But they likely never will see the light of day. It is like trying to impeach Nixon without getting John Dean to testify and without the tapes being handed over.

So what are the Dems to do?

If you say let the voters decide this, it is pretty Bravo Sierra to make the voters decide without this Uke information being available.

Or is the thought that the Dems should slug it out in court (where they have close to a 100% chance of winning fyi) and then begin impeachment against a newly re-elected Trump in 2021? In such event, we all know for sure that 100% of the Banana Republicans would cry foul -- What the heck Dems, we just had an election!!!! Of course, if you want to play it straight Reps, Billy Barr could/should appoint another special prosecutor of his choice (and then recuse himself of course) to handle this matter. Yeah like that would ever happen.

Trump 100% deserves to be inquired right now -- his actions are the sole cause for this. And it is a complete disgrace that the Dems have to do it in the face of a mountain of witnesses and documents that have been walled off from view for no valid reason. The most disgusting thing in this whole affair is that scree from the WH counsel that, in effect, says "go fork yourself Congress, go fork the Constitution, and fork the horse you came in on" repeatedly over its nine pages. Mr. Cippolone will have earned the shreaded reputation he will carry for all of his post Trumpster days.

Great post; if only people will read it and understand the implications of the stonewall to our system of government.

[cradleandshoot]

Maybe they should wait for more evidence ?????

The effect of the stonewall is pervasive and pernicious.

For example, reports are that Gordo had extensive WhatsApp communications with his Uke counterparts. Gordo turned over his device to SOS so all those messages currently sit in secret in the hands of the Administration. I'd imagine Gordo's upcoming testimony would be HUGELY different if those messages were publicly available. But they likely never will see the light of day. It is like trying to impeach Nixon without getting John Dean to testify and without the tapes being handed over.

So what are the Dems to do?

If you say let the voters decide this, it is pretty Bravo Sierra to make the voters decide without this Uke information being available.

Or is the thought that the Dems should slug it out in court (where they have close to a 100% chance of winning fyi) and then begin impeachment against a newly re-elected Trump in 2021? In such event, we all know for sure that 100% of the Banana Republicans would cry foul -- What the heck Dems, we just had an election!!!! Of course, if you want to play it straight Reps, Billy Barr could/should appoint another special prosecutor of his choice (and then recuse himself of course) to handle this matter. Yeah like that would ever happen.

Trump 100% deserves to be inquired right now -- his actions are the sole cause for this. And it is a complete disgrace that the Dems have to do it in the face of a mountain of witnesses and documents that have been walled off from view for no valid reason. The most disgusting thing in this whole affair is that scree from the WH counsel that, in effect, says "go fork yourself Congress, go fork the Constitution, and fork the horse you came in on" repeatedly over its nine pages. Mr. Cippolone will have earned the shreaded reputation he will carry for all of his post Trumpster days.

Great post; if only people will read it and understand the implications of the stonewall to our system of government.

https://www.newsweek.com/elise-stefanik ... ng-1472214 Is this almost another form of stonewalling? The forehead sure felt uncomfortable when he heard what she had to say.

[seacoaster]

Assuming your question is serious: I think Schiff has been a little heavy-handed at times (from the times I've seen), but I think it is from an effort to not allow the thing to become a conspiracy-theory circus. But it is a far cry from stonewalling in a general sense (the GOP has its own counsel to prepare an examination and inquire with each of the witnesses, and then time for the members of Congress) and, specifically, compared to the manner in which the WH has asserted a blanket absolute immunity to the inquiry's document and witness production requests/demands. Schiff's management of the process really cannot compare to the blanket refusal of the WH, not even close.

[MDlaxfan76]

Assuming your question is serious: I think Schiff has been a little heavy-handed at times (from the times I've seen), but I think it is from an effort to not allow the thing to become a conspiracy-theory circus. But it is a far cry from stonewalling in a general sense (the GOP has its own counsel to prepare an examination and inquire with each of the witnesses, and then time for the members of Congress) and, specifically, compared to the manner in which the WH has asserted a blanket absolute immunity to the inquiry's document and witness production requests/demands. Schiff's management of the process really cannot compare to the blanket refusal of the WH, not even close.

Interesting, I found Schiff to be quite clear that the GOP had ample opportunity, within the rules, to ask questions, make statements, etc, as long as it was not a threat to the WB identity.

Nunes and Stefanik got exactly what they expected and wanted when they tried to break the rules and rhythm of the hearing and were shut down firmly.

Schiff did it calmly, but firmly. And I would expect him to continue to do so.

It's not as if Stefanik didn't have an opportunity to speak in turn.

Quite agree that the stonewalling by the WH is quite appalling and dangerous.

[cradleandshoot]

Assuming your question is serious: I think Schiff has been a little heavy-handed at times (from the times I've seen), but I think it is from an effort to not allow the thing to become a conspiracy-theory circus. But it is a far cry from stonewalling in a general sense (the GOP has its own counsel to prepare an examination and inquire with each of the witnesses, and then time for the members of Congress) and, specifically, compared to the manner in which the WH has asserted a blanket absolute immunity to the inquiry's document and witness production requests/demands. Schiff's management of the process really cannot compare to the blanket refusal of the WH, not even close.

Does the forehead have any pictures of the naked Trump?

[seacoaster]

Assuming your question is serious: I think Schiff has been a little heavy-handed at times (from the times I've seen), but I think it is from an effort to not allow the thing to become a conspiracy-theory circus. But it is a far cry from stonewalling in a general sense (the GOP has its own counsel to prepare an examination and inquire with each of the witnesses, and then time for the members of Congress) and, specifically, compared to the manner in which the WH has asserted a blanket absolute immunity to the inquiry's document and witness production requests/demands. Schiff's management of the process really cannot compare to the blanket refusal of the WH, not even close.

Does the forehead have any pictures of the naked Trump?

Sorry, I answered assuming you had a real question, not your usual pretend "pox on both houses, while propping up the Right" silliness. My mistake, thinking we were having a real discussion.

The forehead? A five term Congressman and former federal prosecutor, Stanford, Harvard Law School. I'll bet he'd be really upset knowing the Grumpy Gardener has a nickname for him.

[cradleandshoot]

Assuming your question is serious: I think Schiff has been a little heavy-handed at times (from the times I've seen), but I think it is from an effort to not allow the thing to become a conspiracy-theory circus. But it is a far cry from stonewalling in a general sense (the GOP has its own counsel to prepare an examination and inquire with each of the witnesses, and then time for the members of Congress) and, specifically, compared to the manner in which the WH has asserted a blanket absolute immunity to the inquiry's document and witness production requests/demands. Schiff's management of the process really cannot compare to the blanket refusal of the WH, not even close.

Does the forehead have any pictures of the naked Trump?

Sorry, I answered assuming you had a real question, not your usual pretend "pox on both houses, while propping up the Right" silliness. My mistake, thinking we were having a real discussion.

The forehead? A five term Congressman and former federal prosecutor, Stanford, Harvard Law School. I'll bet he'd be really upset knowing the Grumpy Gardener has a nickname for him.

Was that the 5 term Congressman and former federal prosecutor, Stanford, Harvard Law that was pissing his pants while trying to find those pictures of the naked Trump? Your mistake was placing the forehead on a pedestal and bowing down before him as your salvation to impeach the naked Trump. Welcome to Realville Schiff is a member of the same group of dirtbags you detest so much. Would you like to see those pictures of the naked Trump? I love having the conversation. None of these players are above being criticized. Schiff included.