Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

Schumer’s comments, yes.

I saw the clown guy on twitter and decided to stick to my policy......I don’t traffic in tripe.

[kramerica.inc]

Don’t be scared. It’s a c-span clip.

Watch this one from pbs news hour. Or just Schumer at 2:05:



Anxiously await your next dodge!

[Trinity]

Former Chief of Staff John Kelly tells Tampa Bay Herald-Tribune he wants witnesses and documents. President Hunter Biden is sooo screwed.

[jhu72]

Seems as thought the news media doesn't believe Moscow Mitch. Think he is sand bagging on the calling witnesses vote. There are at least 3 republican Senators who Trump has no control over. Then you have Collins and Gardner, who I don't think have any chance of being re-elected no matter what they do. Then a handful of others who are vulnerable. Just have to wait and see. I really don't think it matters whether Bolton is called or not, his story will come out. I think the dems are better off not having witnesses than just Bolton. Republicans not voting for witnesses is worth gold in November. If the vote is for Bolton and Mulvaney and Pompeo et. al., then it is probably a different story.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don’t be scared. It’s a c-span clip.

Watch this one from pbs news hour. Or just Schumer at 2:05:



Anxiously await your next dodge!

Thanks. I just don’t frequent twitter. Only for lacrosse and a couple of other things. I will take a look. As for Schumer, would not be the first politician to make contradictory statements. Do you want to see witnesses testimony and documentary evidence? I do. I am in favor of witnesses and document evidence and I am 75% acquit and 25% remove. The senate has the power to acquit. I don’t want the POTUS and congressional politicians to withhold evidence from the People. Seems Un-American but that’s me. We should have a poll here on fanlax. Not sure the sample size would be large enough to be valid.

[foreverlax]

Don’t be scared. It’s a c-span clip.

Watch this one from pbs news hour. Or just Schumer at 2:05:



Anxiously await your next dodge!

Thanks. I just don’t frequent twitter. Only for lacrosse and a couple of other things. I will take a look. As for Schumer, would not be the first politician to make contradictory statements. Do you want to see witnesses testimony and documentary evidence? I do. I am in favor of witnesses and document evidence and I am 75% acquit and 25% remove. The senate has the power to acquit. I don’t want the POTUS and congressional politicians to withhold evidence from the People. Seems Un-American but that’s me. We should have a poll here on fanlax. Not sure the sample size would be large enough to be valid.

Agreed.

Same view I had with HRC...do your investigation, get all the facts out, determine if a crime has been committed, and if there is enough evidence, go to court.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don’t be scared. It’s a c-span clip.

Watch this one from pbs news hour. Or just Schumer at 2:05:



Anxiously await your next dodge!

Thanks. I just don’t frequent twitter. Only for lacrosse and a couple of other things. I will take a look. As for Schumer, would not be the first politician to make contradictory statements. Do you want to see witnesses testimony and documentary evidence? I do. I am in favor of witnesses and document evidence and I am 75% acquit and 25% remove. The senate has the power to acquit. I don’t want the POTUS and congressional politicians to withhold evidence from the People. Seems Un-American but that’s me. We should have a poll here on fanlax. Not sure the sample size would be large enough to be valid.

Agreed.

Same view I had with HRC...do your investigation, get all the facts out, determine if a crime has been committed, and if there is enough evidence, go to court.

I'm with the 75% calling for witnesses and documents and with the 51% who say they're ready to remove, not acquit.

But as acquittal is a foregone political reality, all the more important for the truth to be known as fulsomely as possible.

That's best done under oath, but if McConnell succeeds in preventing documents and testimony from relevant witnesses, it will ultimately come out anyway. The only question is whether it will before November. Bolton's 'testimony' yes, but I think there's a bunch more beyond his direct knowledge.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don’t be scared. It’s a c-span clip.

Watch this one from pbs news hour. Or just Schumer at 2:05:



Anxiously await your next dodge!

Took a look. You think Clinton should have been impeached for saying he didn’t have sex with Lewinsky? So what do you think of Impeaching Trump? He was already found to have broken the law for withholding funds.

[Brooklyn]

your witness ...

[seacoaster]

In a tweet this AM, the President excoriates Bolton and suggests, at the end of the little rant, that his book is "All Classified National Security." Interesting, right?

[MDlaxfan76]

In a tweet this AM, the President excoriates Bolton and suggests, at the end of the little rant, that his book is "All Classified National Security." Interesting, right?

Apparently the President has now been briefed on what's in the book...probably using visual aids, but briefed.
Panicked.

[Typical Lax Dad]

In a tweet this AM, the President excoriates Bolton and suggests, at the end of the little rant, that his book is "All Classified National Security." Interesting, right?

Apparently the President has now been briefed on what's in the book...probably using visual aids, but briefed.
Panicked.

It is time to go after the leakers. Someone leaked a whole book.

[njbill]

If I ever write a book, I want John Bolton’s agent.

[seacoaster]

In a tweet this AM, the President excoriates Bolton and suggests, at the end of the little rant, that his book is "All Classified National Security." Interesting, right?

Apparently the President has now been briefed on what's in the book...probably using visual aids, but briefed.
Panicked.

RIght. Big pictures and a large order of fries. But not quite panicked enough to miss using the classification system to stifle disclosure to congressional -- you know, co-equal branch of government, blah, blah, blah -- oversight.

[seacoaster]

Good article:

https://www.justsecurity.org/68154/less ... peachment/

"“Obituaries reflect what the present thinks of the past,” wrote journalism professor Kathleen McElroy.

What will the future think of President Donald Trump and two historic votes senators must take on his impeachment? The obituaries of the Republicans who voted in favor and against the articles of impeachment for President Richard Nixon could provide some insight. How these GOP members of Congress voted in 1974 featured prominently in all of their obituaries.

It’s fair to say that when it comes to the impeachment of Trump, two votes in his Senate trial will long be remembered.

The first vote will come soon when senators decide whether to call the star witness, John Bolton, who has agreed to testify if they do. “In a courtroom, by contrast, jurors would not be allowed to deliver a verdict without hearing witnesses,” wrote the leading legal ethics expert, Stephen Gillers in discussing the Senate’s upcoming decision. Indeed, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to bar witnesses. Every Senate impeachment trial in American history has heard from witnesses. As Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in 1999 at the close of the Clinton impeachment,

“I strongly supported efforts to allow both the House managers and the White House lawyers to call whatever live witnesses they deemed necessary to make their case. I favored a full and complete trial, believing that it was more important to insure fairness to both sides than it was to get the trial over by some arbitrary date. This was in keeping with normal procedures in all previous impeachment trials. It also seemed to me to be essential to fundamental fairness and a full airing of the facts and issues in dispute. A hundred years from now, no one will care whether the trial lasted two weeks or six months. They will care, we must hope, about the extent to which justice was done.”

Since the revelations in Bolton’s book manuscript have come to light, an overwhelming majority of the American public wants the Senate to call Bolton. It seems clear that history will understand full well “the extent to which justice was done” by senators who vote not to hear from him.

The second vote will be on whether to convict and remove the president from office. How will historians write about this momentous decision? That also seems clear. Over 2,000 historians signed onto a statement saying:

“President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine.”

The statement goes on to say, “It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.”

As House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) remarked on the floor of the Senate last week, “We can do a lifetime’s work, draft the most wonderful legislation, help our constituents and yet we may be remembered for none of that, but for a single decision, we may be remembered, affecting the course of our country.” He said these words after reflecting on the courage of the late Republican CongressmanThomas Railsback, who worked with a small bipartisan group in the House in 1974 to vote to impeach Nixon. Schiff highlighted Railsback as the congressman had passed away on Jan. 23, the eve of the Trump impeachment trial. The headline for his obituary in the Associated Press read, “Thomas Railsback, congressman who broke with GOP to back Nixon impeachment, dies.”

And so it has been for every obituary of every Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who voted in 1974 for or against the Nixon articles of impeachment. If the reference is not made in the obituary’s headline, it still appears as a central point in the narrative of their lives as that single decision affected the course of history.

Here’s what we found when researching these obituaries.

In that summer of 1974, seven Republicans joined the Democrats to vote for at least one article of impeachment, including Toni Railsback (Ill.), Hamilton Fish Jr. (N.Y.), Lawrence J. Hogan (Md.), M. Caldwell Butler (Va.), William S. Cohen (Maine), Harold V. Froehlich (Wis.), and Robert McClory (Ill.)

Ten Republicans voted against all three articles of impeachment: Edward Hutchinson (Mich.), David Dennis (Ind.), Delbert Latta (Ohio), Trent Lott (Miss.), Joseph Maraziti (N.J.), Wiley Mayne (Iowa), Carlos Moorhead (Calif.), Charles Sandman (N.J.), Henry Smith (N.Y.), and Charles Wiggins (Calif.).

Regardless of whether the congressmen voted for or against the articles of impeachment, their legacies were largely defined by this one moment. So much so that newspapers titled their obituaries with reference to this vote:

“Former Rep. Joseph Maraziti, 78, Defender of Nixon on Watergate”

“Wiley Mayne; House GOP Member Who Voted Not to Impeach Nixon”

“Sandman, Nixon Supporter, Dies”

“Lawrence J. Hogan Sr., Md. Republican Who Called for Nixon’s impeachment, Dies at 88”

“M. Caldwell Butler, a Key Vote Against Nixon, Dies at 89”

“R. McClory; Backed Nixon’s Impeachment”

“Thomas Railsback, Congressman Who Broke with GOP to Back Nixon Impeachment, Dies.”

“Charles Wiggins, 72, Dies; Led Nixon’s Defense in Hearings”

[ardilla secreta]

https://images.app.goo.gl/WYmHFDHbLcWtzcp59

John Bolton’s new book. ITS A COOKBOOK!

[Trinity]

Bolton is Banned in Boston? Now we’re talking Godfather numbers. The movie deal will be massive.

[ggait]

If I ever write a book, I want John Bolton’s agent.

Bolton and his reps are absolutely playing this situation like a Stradivarius.

My guess is that Bolton is never called by the Senate. And even if called, we won't hear from him -- exec privelege, classified info, and any other speed bumps DOJ and the WH counsel can throw in the way.

Which then reserves the big reveal of Bolton's evidence (whatever it is) for when Bolton's book comes out. Which is great for sales. And which also lets Bolton tell his story exactly how he wants to tell it. Rather than having to respond to questions that he does not control.

So well played.

[Trinity]

Pee Wee Herman just signed up to play Jared.

[seacoaster]

This was Dershowitz's astounding argument today:

"“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. . . .

“The house managers . . . never allege that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million-dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’

“That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest.

“But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”

Wow. So, if I earnestly believe (and of course there is no way for you to assess my, umm, earnestness without, say, having me and others testify) that my reelection is in the public's interest, I can solicit assistance from a foreign government to help me get reelected by, for example, withholding aid until you announce something dirty about my political opponent. W.T.F.? The Trump attorneys, and an apparently complicit Senate GOP, are murdering the basic boundaries of the rule of law here in this country. For Donald Trump. It really is a most remarkable thing.