Trump's Russian Collusion

[jhu72]

Heard an interesting idea from Jeh Johnson this AM. He thinks Joe Biden could help the impeachment cause and do himself some good as well. He thinks Joe should make a very public offer to the Senate to appear at the impeachment trial so long as Bolton and Mulvaney testify and are there at the same time. McConnell (Trump) will of course decline the offer and it will demonstrate again the bluff that is this whole republican BS argument about witnesses.

[foreverlax]

I want all of the information to be made public and then let the Senate acquit Trump. There is nothing to stop the Senate majority from acquitting Trump. It’s within their power and their right. What I don’t want to see is the suppression of evidence and witnesses. The witnesses and evidence may actually clear Trump and make it even easier to acquit him. Why not have documentary evidence and witnesses participate? Do we live in Haiti now?

Agreed...."why not?" is still the answered question.

[seacoaster]

This writer finds plausible evidence that An Impeachment Trial Without Witnesses Would Be Unconstitutional

"Even if McConnell, in the face of this new evidence, can prevent the defection of more than three Republican senators, a majority vote of the Senate cannot validate the unconstitutional exclusion of witnesses from an impeachment trial. If Republicans succeed in preventing House managers from calling witnesses with firsthand knowledge of relevant facts, an acquittal of the president will be unconstitutional. Given that a majority of the Supreme Court in Nixon ruled that a Senate impeachment trial is not subject to judicial review, the question remains, if the courts cannot overturn a Senate verdict, what are the legal consequences of an unconstitutional acquittal?

An answer is provided by a momentous opinion of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which is responsible for providing the president with “controlling advice” on questions of law. The relevant OLC opinion is the same one that furnished the basis for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that he was prohibited from prosecuting Trump before he left office, even if there was overwhelming evidence that the president had committed serious crimes.

The OLC opinion, written in 2000 by then–Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss, explains that the reason prohibiting the prosecution of a criminally culpable president does not violate the “important national interest in ensuring that no person—including the President—is above the law” is because “the constitutionally specified impeachment process ensures that the immunity would not place the president ‘above the law.’”

If the impeachment process conducted by the Senate is unconstitutional, the unavailability of either criminal prosecution or a legitimate impeachment trial as a means of presidential accountability, according to the OLC opinion’s own reasoning, would “subvert the important interest in maintaining ‘the rule of law.’”

An unconstitutional verdict of acquittal would present Americans with something far worse than a constitutional crisis. The nation will have blundered its way into creating an accidental autocracy governed by a president who, even if not reelected, would remain in office until January 20, 2021, beyond the reach of the rule of law."

[snip]

In sum:

"If on the day the Senate returns its verdict, history records the failure to convict the president following a trial without witnesses, that will be the day the rule of law dies in America. The courts will remain open for business. Congress will be in session. Citizens will still be able to vote. And a free press will continue to launch withering attacks on President Trump. But the American people will no longer be living in a constitutional democracy."

..

Thanks for posting this; very interesting.

[ggait]

He thinks Joe Biden could help the impeachment cause and do himself some good as well.

I think it would be a big positive if Biden (who spent decades in the Senate) actually came in to testify. He'd get huge ratings and have a national forum to use to trash Trump and his toadies. And so very unlikely that the Reps would actually bring him in -- it is just a big stupid bluff.

[njbill]

He thinks Joe Biden could help the impeachment cause and do himself some good as well.

I think it would be a big positive if Biden (who spent decades in the Senate) actually came in to testify. He'd get huge ratings and have a national forum to use to trash Trump and his toadies. And so very unlikely that the Reps would actually bring him in -- it is just a big stupid bluff.

I agree as well. Joe has been back and forth on this, which in my view is unfortunate for his candidacy. I think the truthful answers to any questions would blow the Trumpists out of the water and put to bed this Burisma nonsense. Joe’s only problem would be keeping his cool. Of course, he would be deposed first in private. Trump’s lawyers would see what he has to say and very likely would not call him to testify in the well of the Senate or on video tape.

[ggait]

Here's something I just learned.

This whole thing about the "Clinton precedent" to only decide on witnesses later is totally stupid.

First, there's only been two Senate presidential impeachment trials in history. So there's nothing about these trials that remotely approaches settled precedent.

Second, the witness decision later thing was a one-off specific to Clinton's case.

Given the slimy facts of that case, BOTH Ds and Rs were hoping that they could through the proceedings without having the well of the Senate turn into a nationally televised talk about sex. So they put the witness decision off, and then grudgingly allowed very limited/controlled testimony (replays of portions of taped depositions) to minimize the embarassment.

Only a partisan operator like Mitch could make that one-off accommodation into a bedrock principle of our Republic.

[ggait]

I think the truthful answers to any questions would blow the Trumpists out of the water and put to bed this Burisma nonsense.

Joe could stand in the Senate chamber for like two hours and say "I'm here and testifying. So where's Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, Parnas and Giuliani? And, most of all, where's fraidy cat Trump?"

Ratings gold.

[Trinity]

I put nothing past the Jeffrey Epstein legal eagles Starr and Dershowitz. Shame is not an issue.

[njbill]

A major driver at the time was that Monica was only 25 years old. It was thought that it would be very unfair to her, not to mention unseemly, if she were to be forced to testify about sexual acts in front of the Senate and a national TV audience.

[njbill]

Here's something I just learned.

This whole thing about the "Clinton precedent" to only decide on witnesses later is totally stupid.

First, there's only been two Senate presidential impeachment trials in history. So there's nothing about these trials that remotely approaches settled precedent.

Second, the witness decision later thing was a one-off specific to Clinton's case.

Given the slimy facts of that case, BOTH Ds and Rs were hoping that they could through the proceedings without having the well of the Senate turn into a nationally televised talk about sex. So they put the witness decision off, and then grudgingly allowed very limited/controlled testimony (replays of portions of taped depositions) to minimize the embarassment.

Only a partisan operator like Mitch could make that one-off accommodation into a bedrock principle of our Republic.

Schiff made this point, and actually made it quite well, but it may have been lost in all of the hours and hours and hours of argument.

[jhu72]

He thinks Joe Biden could help the impeachment cause and do himself some good as well.

I think it would be a big positive if Biden (who spent decades in the Senate) actually came in to testify. He'd get huge ratings and have a national forum to use to trash Trump and his toadies. And so very unlikely that the Reps would actually bring him in -- it is just a big stupid bluff.

I agree as well. Joe has been back and forth on this, which in my view is unfortunate for his candidacy. I think the truthful answers to any questions would blow the Trumpists out of the water and put to bed this Burisma nonsense. Joe’s only problem would be keeping his cool. Of course, he would be deposed first in private. Trump’s lawyers would see what he has to say and very likely would not call him to testify in the well of the Senate or on video tape.

Actually I would refuse to be deposed. I am giving you 4 hours in the afternoon, split 2 and 2. Ask away. If the republicans are so certain they have a case, they don't need deposition.

[old salt]

Bingo. Coming attractions. Stay tuned. Some names for the witness list.
Let's slice open the fetid Ukrainian carcass & examine ALL the entrails. :

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... stleblower

...Ms. Jaresko, are you aware of Ukrainian parliamentarian Bielkova April 12, meetings with Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the Obama and National Security Council?”

Jaresko said she was not aware of any meetings between them. According to Jaresko, she became the executive director of the Financial Oversight and Management Board of Puerto Rico by being recruited by the members of the board “based on her experience as minister of finance in both the fiscal area and the debt restructuring that I did in Ukraine.”

The day she became finance minister, she was granted Ukrainian citizenship and lived in Ukraine from her initial posting in the U.S. State Department as the economics officer in 1992 until she left and took her current post in 2017.

Gohmert told the Washington Examiner, “Specifically, I asked about an April 12, 2016, meeting between Ukrainian parliamentarian Olga Bielkova and Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the National Security Council, in which energy issues were discussed. I thought it was prudent to ask Ms. Jaresko on the record and under oath about this meeting, since the time frame and subject align with the concerning reports of Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.”

The congressman added: “She said she had no knowledge of this meeting. Ms. Jaresko has previously said of Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine: ‘Joe’s role was unique and valuable and will be very hard to duplicate.’ If that is true, then the significance of a meeting like this one cannot be understated.”

Schoen arranged Washington meetings for Bielkova on behalf of Pinchuk. These included the one with Ciaramella and his then-boss Zentos, now political and economic chief at the U.S. Embassy in Tblisi.

Schoen, a Democratic operative who began foreign lobbying work for Pinchuk for $40,000 per month beginning in 2000, arranged April 2016 meetings for Bielkova with national security professionals, including Ciaramella, at the behest of Pinchuk. Schoen’s filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act stated he didn’t attend these meetings personally and that the topic of the meetings was “the Ukrainian progress in energy reform during the past year and what steps must be done in the future to increase energy independence.”

In 2004, Schoen introduced Pinchuk to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bielkova met with Ciaramella and his colleague, Liz Zentos, then the director for Eastern Europe on the National Security Council, on April 12, 2016, at Le Pain Quotidien, on 17th Street N.W., a block from the White House. The same day, Bielkova also met with State Department official Michael Kimmage and, separately, with Kramer of the McCain Institute. Kramer figures prominently in the Trump-Russia saga — he met with Steele in December 2016 at Heathrow Airport to obtain a copy of the British ex-spy’s unverified dossier and provided information from it to over a dozen journalists after the presidential election.

Pinchuk, the powerful Ukrainian oligarch and billionaire whom Schoen works for, is the founder of Interpipe Group, one of Ukraine’s largest steel producers, EastOne Group, a large London-based international investment firm, and StarLightMedia, Ukraine’s largest broadcasting conglomerate. Pinchuk’s father-in-law is Leonid Kuchma, the Ukrainian president from the mid-1990s through the mid-2000s. Kuchma was widely seen as corrupt, and he controversially privatized and sold a state-run steel factory to Pinchuk in what was considered by some as a sweetheart deal. Pinchuk was a member of Ukraine’s parliament at about the same time and has continued to use his money and connections to remain active in politics in Ukraine and abroad.

He secretly provided $4 million for a 2012 report carried out by former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig and his law firm, written at the behest of the Kremlin-linked government in Ukraine about the country’s controversial prosecution of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who was tried under President Viktor Yanukovych, a close ally of Paul Manafort. Schoen testified in the trial this summer, and Craig was found not guilty of misleading investigators about his actions in Ukraine this September.

Pinchuk was the founder of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Ukraine’s largest philanthropic group, which, among other donations, gave an estimated $10 million to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons have traveled on Pinchuk’s private plane, and Pinchuk attended former President Bill Clinton’s 65th birthday party in Los Angeles in 2011. Pinchuk’s foundation also donated $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in 2015 for Trump to appear by video at a Kyiv conference.

State Dept emails expose what Obama admin (& NYT) knew about Bidens and Burisma & the current Whistleblower's involvement.
More names for the defense's witness list.

[a fan]

I'm saying it's BS that we're responsible for their security.

Your Republican led Congress disagrees completely. So does Trump, who has now signed off on Three fat security checks.

In short: you're wrong.

[old salt]

I'm saying it's BS that we're responsible for their security.

Your Republican led Congress disagrees completely. So does Trump, who has now signed off on Three fat security checks.

In short: you're wrong.

I'm wrong ? I'm asserting that it's BS that the US is responsible for Ukraine's security because we were one of the nations who convinced them to give up nucs 25 years ago.

You keep saying 3 checks. I think it was just 2 that contained lethal military aid.

Sure, the neocons & (R) Senate war hawks have always been for it, but they were a minority that couldn't get lethal military aid authorized. Obama wasn't for it & neither were the sore loser (D)'s until they went from Resetters to Russophobes, as an excuse for bungling away the 2016 election. It became a way to propel Russiagate & became a collusion litmus test for Trump, who went along to get the rest of his DoD budget funded.

As soon as Mueller imploded, Trump started looking for a way to get out of it, but the FY2019 $$$ was already locked in, except for the anti-corruption condition. Trump tried to exploit it for political benefit but it also dovetailed with his clearly stated aversion to aid to corrupt s-hole countries.

[Kismet]

Perhaps you'd like to explain why DOPUS did not have issues with corruption in Ukraine and sending aid for the preceding two fiscal years when Joe Biden was not yet running.

[a fan]

I'm wrong ? I'm asserting that it's BS that the US is responsible for Ukraine's security because we were one of the nations who convinced them to give up nucs 25 years ago.

And I think it's BS that we're responsible for Saudi Arabia's security. How's that position working out for me? It's not....the money and troops keeps flowing there.

You keep saying 3 checks. I think it was just 2 that contained lethal military aid.

Obama cut annual checks, too. So did Bush and Clinton. We send checks to them every year. Trump and his Congress will send another one this year.

If we're not responsible, why are we sending them money?

[old salt]

Perhaps you'd like to explain why DOPUS did not have issues with corruption in Ukraine and sending aid for the preceding two fiscal years when Joe Biden was not yet running.

I just did, Keyboard Quickdraw :

I'm saying it's BS that we're responsible for their security.

Your Republican led Congress disagrees completely. So does Trump, who has now signed off on Three fat security checks.

In short: you're wrong.

I'm wrong ? I'm asserting that it's BS that the US is responsible for Ukraine's security because we were one of the nations who convinced them to give up nucs 25 years ago.

You keep saying 3 checks. I think it was just 2 that contained lethal military aid.

Sure, the neocons & (R) Senate war hawks have always been for it, but they were a minority that couldn't get lethal military aid authorized. Obama wasn't for it & neither were the sore loser (D)'s until they went from Resetters to Russophobes, as an excuse for bungling away the 2016 election. It became a way to propel Russiagate & became a collusion litmus test for Trump, who went along to get the rest of his DoD budget funded.

As soon as Mueller imploded, Trump started looking for a way to get out of it, but the FY2019 $$$ was already locked in, except for the anti-corruption condition. Trump tried to exploit it for political benefit but it also dovetailed with his clearly stated aversion to aid to corrupt s-hole countries.

[Peter Brown]

Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, the Left's penultimate heroes, last night said "no one should be in politics who can not sit for 8 hours..." and hear the Impeachment monotony (see Kismet's timeline to appreciate how dreadful this clown car act looks like!).

Does that include Jerry Nadler and RBG!??! Nadler isn't allowed to talk by Schiff because he nods off every few seconds. RBG's clerks write her opinions at the direction of the DNC because she sleeps 23 hours a day now. Worse than my dog!

What are we to make of this?!

[RedFromMI]

Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, the Left's penultimate heroes, last night said "no one should be in politics who can not sit for 8 hours..." and hear the Impeachment monotony (see Kismet's timeline to appreciate how dreadful this clown car act looks like!).

Does that include Jerry Nadler and RBG!??! Nadler isn't allowed to talk by Schiff because he nods off every few seconds. RBG's clerks write her opinions at the direction of the DNC because she sleeps 23 hours a day now. Worse than my dog!

What are we to make of this?!

That you are full of it. RBG is actually known for existing on little sleep at times.

[old salt]

I'm wrong ? I'm asserting that it's BS that the US is responsible for Ukraine's security because we were one of the nations who convinced them to give up nucs 25 years ago.

And I think it's BS that we're responsible for Saudi Arabia's security. How's that position working out for me? It's not....the money and troops keeps flowing there.

You keep saying 3 checks. I think it was just 2 that contained lethal military aid.

Obama cut annual checks, too. So did Bush and Clinton. We send checks to them every year. Trump and his Congress will send another one this year.

If we're not responsible, why are we sending them money?

This article provides a good explanation & debunks Schiff's lies about the damage done to the Ukrainian war effort by the short delay in aid.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/19/ ... o-ukraine/