Trump's Russian Collusion

[3rdPersonPlural]

[Trinity]

Trump should testify. He’s a street fighter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

He is doing it because Rachel Maddow will spin it the wrong way.

[njbill]

Yes he should. After all, he knows all the best words.

[Trinity]

Moscow Mitch will turn Congress into a food court.

[3rdPersonPlural]

Trump should testify. He’s a street fighter.

There's a standoff I'd grab a bowl of popcorn to watch!!

With all the tweeting DJT is doing on the topic, what Republican would feel comfortable voting against letting DJT measure up to Billy Clinton and testifying in his own defense?

But everyone knows that DJT would jam his foot into his mouth and chew on it within 5 minutes of the questioning getting underway. Everyone but DJT, that is.....

[Peter Brown]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor? (and if you say 'yes, I have nothing to hide'...god help you when you learn what prosecutors are really after; hint: it's not justice)

[Peter Brown]

Nancy Cordes (a CBS reporter) has learned that a Trump confidante reportedly told Republican Senators that “a vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” Not much meat on these bones (yet), but I want to see a show of hands of those who believe this story is Fake News.

Same news organization that employed Dan Rather?

[Trinity]

Trump on Soleimani: "We took him out."

Trump directing his “team” on al-Baghdadi and other ISIS terrorist: “Take them out.”

What Trump claims he said about Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11: “You have to take him out.”

Trump on Yovanovitch: “Take her out.”

Polly Sigh

[calourie]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor? (and if you say 'yes, I have nothing to hide'...god help you when you learn what prosecutors are really after; hint: it's not justice)

In my world innocent people are happy to have their story told. Both Ds and Rs have plenty of prosecutors in the senate to make the points either side is trying to make. You think the Rs in the senate would rule against Trump without convincing proof ? Sounds like a PB might be visiting "crazyworld".

[ggait]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor?

FYI, Bill and Hill both agreed to testify to special prosecutors and to congressional investigators.

In contrast, Trump can only muster the courage to flame on twitter or during chopper time. He's afraid to testify under oath himself, and he's also afraid to let his guys do it either.

Even Nixon allowed that -- John Dean was Nixon's WH counsel after all.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor? (and if you say 'yes, I have nothing to hide'...god help you when you learn what prosecutors are really after; hint: it's not justice)

In my world innocent people are happy to have their story told. Both Ds and Rs have plenty of prosecutors in the senate to make the points either side is trying to make. You think the Rs in the senate would rule against Trump without convincing proof ? Sounds like a PB might be visiting "crazyworld".

Trump won’t testify or allow anyone in the executive branch testify because he is afraid that the Republican majority is out to get him.

[seacoaster]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor?

FYI, Bill and Hill both agreed to testify to special prosecutors and to congressional investigators.

In contrast, Trump can only muster the courage to flame on twitter or during chopper time. He's afraid to testify under oath himself, and he's also afraid to let his guys do it either.

Even Nixon allowed that -- John Dean was Nixon's WH counsel after all.

Jesus Joseph, Gary is just eating your lunch today Pete. Stay dumb.

[Peter Brown]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor?

FYI, Bill and Hill both agreed to testify to special prosecutors and to congressional investigators.

In contrast, Trump can only muster the courage to flame on twitter or during chopper time. He's afraid to testify under oath himself, and he's also afraid to let his guys do it either.

Even Nixon allowed that -- John Dean was Nixon's WH counsel after all.

Jesus Joseph, Gary is just eating your lunch today Pete. Stay dumb.

Hillary wasn’t indicted after being questioned by Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok! Say it ain’t so! I thought cops were impartial?!

Here’s some free advice: ‘cops’ aren’t your friends, even if you’re Mother frigging Teresa. If they ask you the weather, tell them you first want to speak to a lawyer. A 302 is simply a green light to abuse. Unless your wife is running for Conngress and the person you’re interviewing is the presumptive POTUS from the same party.

Also, my history is a little hazy. So help clear up this open item. Nixon and Dean spoke to prosecutors...how’d that turn out for them?

I’m still eating.

[njbill]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

[a fan]

Would you volunteer to speak with a prosecutor?

FYI, Bill and Hill both agreed to testify to special prosecutors and to congressional investigators.

In contrast, Trump can only muster the courage to flame on twitter or during chopper time. He's afraid to testify under oath himself, and he's also afraid to let his guys do it either.

Even Nixon allowed that -- John Dean was Nixon's WH counsel after all.

Jesus Joseph, Gary is just eating your lunch today Pete. Stay dumb.

Hillary wasn’t indicted after being questioned by Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok! Say it ain’t so! I thought cops were impartial?!

Here’s some free advice: ‘cops’ aren’t your friends, even if you’re Mother frigging Teresa. If they ask you the weather, tell them you first want to speak to a lawyer. A 302 is simply a green light to abuse. Unless your wife is running for Conngress and the person you’re interviewing is the presumptive POTUS from the same party.

Also, my history is a little hazy. So help clear up this open item. Nixon and Dean spoke to prosecutors...how’d that turn out for them?

I’m still eating.

You don't get it, fellas. Pete thinks the goal here is for Trump to get away with it. He doesn't actually want Americans to hear what Trump did.

Quite the worldview you have Pete. First you tell us that it would be a swell idea for America to default on our debts.

And now you're advising our leaders not to testify to American citizens in public because if our leaders testify, Americans might figure out they've been doing bad things.

That about the sum of it, Pete? And you think the government is the problem here, and not your backasswards set of "morals". Got it.

Impressive set of values you've got at your disposal.

[old salt]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

I'm hoping for Schiff as SecDef. That way we can fight the Rooskies over there (with the Ukrainians), so we don't have to fight them over here.

[ggait]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

One thing I've been wondering about is how the release of prior administration information works when a new administration comes in.

I'd assume the new president can make his own decisions on material that was classified or redacted for national security purposes. So a lot of stuff that Trump has buried could start to flow out shortly after inauguration day.

But I believe there's an undecided issue about whether a prior administration can continue to claim exec privilege even after leaving office. Trump presumably would want to continue the stonewall (if at all possible) even after he's gone. But I wonder who pays for that (not cheap) litigation? Trump is too cheap to pay for it himself. Could Trump tap unused campaign funds for that? I can't see USDOJ taking up Trump's cause.

And would the info start to flow if prosecutors are still considering charging Trump or others?

While it will all come out eventually, I wonder how quickly that might happen. Could take a while.

[DocBarrister]

Trump on Soleimani: "We took him out."

Trump directing his “team” on al-Baghdadi and other ISIS terrorist: “Take them out.”

What Trump claims he said about Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11: “You have to take him out.”

Trump on Yovanovitch: “Take her out.”

Polly Sigh

Trump denied knowing Lev Parnas.

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump was proven to be a lying piece of trash, AGAIN.

Turns out, he had a dinner in April 2018 with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Parnas is heard talking to Trump about Ambassador Marie Yovanovich. And disturbingly, Trump issues an order to fire Amb. Yovanovich in front of Giuliani’s two (now indicted) thugs.

It’s all on tape!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recordi ... wopack_hed

It’s long past time to remove our thug president.

DocBarrister

[holmes435]

How would you like to be a fly on the wall when The Donald hears the Dem Prez elect say he/she is appointing Adam Schiff to be Attorney General, announcing “I’ll let the AG decide whether to bring charges against Trump.”

One thing I've been wondering about is how the release of prior administration information works when a new administration comes in.

I'd assume the new president can make his own decisions on material that was classified or redacted for national security purposes. So a lot of stuff that Trump has buried could start to flow out shortly after inauguration day.

But I believe there's an undecided issue about whether a prior administration can continue to claim exec privilege even after leaving office. Trump presumably would want to continue the stonewall (if at all possible) even after he's gone. But I wonder who pays for that (not cheap) litigation? Trump is too cheap to pay for it himself. Could Trump tap unused campaign funds for that? I can't see USDOJ taking up Trump's cause.

And would the info start to flow if prosecutors are still considering charging Trump or others?

While it will all come out eventually, I wonder how quickly that might happen. Could take a while.

The president can legally leak any classified intel to anyone at any point, no matter how dangerous. The president can leak it to anyone in the world, no matter if they are enemies or not. So 100% of everything Trump classified can be immediately released on inauguration day if the new president wants to.

Once the president leaves office, there is no longer any executive privilege as they are not the executive. This will most likely find its way to court, mostly about witnesses testifying. It seems like we all know the right answer to this challenge, but that is not so sure with today's court makeup.

The sticky part will be what info Trump & Co. wipe from government servers and instead take with them (or kept on the private accounts and servers they constantly use). What they take with them will be much harder to obtain technically (and legally) than what was left on government servers and accounts.

Trump is very old. He doesn't need a lot of funds to tie up the courts for the few years he has after the presidency, or to give him time to get out of dodge. I would be very surprised if he is worried at all what his kids and associates would have to deal with after that.