Trump's Russian Collusion

[ggait]

Predictably, WH now going into stonewall/4 corners mode. Seems like the Dems, though, can access enough witnesses to keep the story going.

We are going to hear from former Amb. Yovanovitch and WB #2. With so many involved in this, we could see others turn WB or quit (like Volker) in order to free up their testimony. You also have John Bolton floating out there beyond the reach of the WH counsel office.

[MDlaxfan76]

He talked directly to Trump between the incriminating Bill Taylor texts. He’s got nothing officially to do with Ukraine. He was likely going to tell the truth. He flew back from Brussels to do it. White House made the decision this morning to stifle him. Schiff wants his personal phone.

Sondlund is acting like a guy that knows he has a problem and wants to get right with Jesus. He is not going to go down for Orange Duce. We will see how he reacts to a subpoena.

If he has any brains he's lawyered up and they're telling him that he ultimately won't survive this out of jail unless he tells the truth, willingly.

It doesn't look (from afar) like he's some sort of true believer in Trumpism, so he would most likely need to resign his post in order to be free of Pompeo's (Trump's) order.

That said, if he's in on Rudy's crew trying to personally profit, a ring leader of such, rather than a naive facilitator of contacts and messages from above, then he might just clam up altogether.

[jhu72]

He talked directly to Trump between the incriminating Bill Taylor texts. He’s got nothing officially to do with Ukraine. He was likely going to tell the truth. He flew back from Brussels to do it. White House made the decision this morning to stifle him. Schiff wants his personal phone.

Sondlund is acting like a guy that knows he has a problem and wants to get right with Jesus. He is not going to go down for Orange Duce. We will see how he reacts to a subpoena.

If he has any brains he's lawyered up and they're telling him that he ultimately won't survive this out of jail unless he tells the truth, willingly.

It doesn't look (from afar) like he's some sort of true believer in Trumpism, so he would most likely need to resign his post in order to be free of Pompeo's (Trump's) order.

That said, if he's in on Rudy's crew trying to personally profit, a ring leader of such, rather than a naive facilitator of contacts and messages from above, then he might just clam up altogether.

I'll be surprised if he clams up.

[3rdPersonPlural]

[Peter Brown]

Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

[a fan]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

[Peter Brown]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

Even a dime-store lawyer could stick the argument that what Trump asked was to find out what went on in 2016 (not a problem), not to help him in 2020 (which would be a problem, and which appears to be the narrative). It's hard to know that, based on the media's reporting.

Asking the Ukrainian Pres to look into 2016 strikes me as 'meh'.

[ggait]

Sondland's lawyer says he wanted to testify and traveled from Europe to appear today.

Reports are that he turned over his personal phone* to the State Dept which contained emails, texts and WhatsApp messages. And that the State Dept left a voicemail for the lawyer at 12:30 am informing that they were blocking his testimony.

That presumably was done because Sondland had great information tending to exculpate Trump.

*Free spot on the GOP bingo card -- What about Hillary's private server and emails???

[a fan]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

Even a dime-store lawyer could stick the argument that what Trump asked was to find out what went on in 2016 (not a problem), not to help him in 2020 (which would be a problem, and which appears to be the narrative). It's hard to know that, based on the media's reporting.

Asking the Ukrainian Pres to look into 2016 strikes me as 'meh'.

Sorry mate, that's not what Trump said.

Trump TOLD US----on live TV----that he asked the Ukrainian President to look into Biden and his son. Full stop. And Giuliani said the same thing.

You can't spin that.

If that doesn't bother you, fine. But that means political enemies are fair game for the next President and our Intel community, including the Attorney General.

You want that?

[jhu72]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

Even a dime-store lawyer could stick the argument that what Trump asked was to find out what went on in 2016 (not a problem), not to help him in 2020 (which would be a problem, and which appears to be the narrative). It's hard to know that, based on the media's reporting.

Asking the Ukrainian Pres to look into 2016 strikes me as 'meh'.

… and yet you KNOW IT.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

Even a dime-store lawyer could stick the argument that what Trump asked was to find out what went on in 2016 (not a problem), not to help him in 2020 (which would be a problem, and which appears to be the narrative). It's hard to know that, based on the media's reporting.

Asking the Ukrainian Pres to look into 2016 strikes me as 'meh'.

Joe and Hunter Biden were running for office in 2016?

[Peter Brown]

I get your point, but Trump, and his brilliant lawyer, already copped to the main charge being levied. He admitted to asking a foreign leader to look into a political rival.

The only question is: do Republican voters and Mitch McConnell care? Pre-Trump era? This would have led to impeachment in a New York minute.

And rightfully so. Again: if we don't impeach Trump for this, we're green lighting this activity. A President can use our intel assets to go after Senators, Congressmen----anyone who is perceived to be on "the other side".

That sound like something we should condone?

Even a dime-store lawyer could stick the argument that what Trump asked was to find out what went on in 2016 (not a problem), not to help him in 2020 (which would be a problem, and which appears to be the narrative). It's hard to know that, based on the media's reporting.

Asking the Ukrainian Pres to look into 2016 strikes me as 'meh'.

Sorry mate, that's not what Trump said.

Trump TOLD US----on live TV----that he asked the Ukrainian President to look into Biden and his son. Full stop. And Giuliani said the same thing.

You can't spin that.

If that doesn't bother you, fine. But that means political enemies are fair game for the next President and our Intel community, including the Attorney General.

You want that?

My admittedly disinterested observation is people hear what they want to hear, and I think you and others are hearing things here that are not there. Here is the whole transcript:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics ... index.html

You can easily get that Trump is a gangster, or simply a guy relating gossip and wants to know if it's true.

And if you want to buy the line that this is impeachable, that too is fine. I don't believe it's even close.

Btw, Obama used the IRS to target Tea Party groups among a few other matters. They are all bad actors here.

[ggait]

Btw, Obama used the IRS to target Tea Party groups among a few other matters. They are all bad actors here.

Dry hole. From Wikipedia below. GOP had control of Congress from 2011-2017. They could have investigated and impeached whoever they wanted.
But didn't do that.

But what about Obama's tan suit? There's no defense for that!!


In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

[seacoaster]

Sondland's lawyer says he wanted to testify and traveled from Europe to appear today.

Reports are that he turned over his personal phone* to the State Dept which contained emails, texts and WhatsApp messages. And that the State Dept left a voicemail for the lawyer at 12:30 am informing that they were blocking his testimony.

That presumably was done because Sondland had great information tending to exculpate Trump.

*Free spot on the GOP bingo card -- What about Hillary's private server and emails???

Good one!! "Yeah, we are just gathering up all our exculpatory evidence to spring on 'The American People' when we are ready!!!"

Also, anyone else think this effort -- to impede the testimony of and discovery from a participant in the controversy with real time knowledge of the facts -- kind of feels like...obstruction? Or is that a process crime we don't care about any more?

[old salt]

Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Btw, Obama used the IRS to target Tea Party groups among a few other matters. They are all bad actors here.

Dry hole. From Wikipedia below. GOP had control of Congress from 2011-2017. They could have investigated and impeached whoever they wanted.
But didn't do that.

But what about Obama's tan suit? There's no defense for that!!


In January 2014, James Comey, who at the time was the FBI director, told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.

In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

So its up to the public to decide? What system of government or legal system is that?

[foreverlax]

Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

He asked China to investigate Biden. Not a word...all good.

Except it really isn't.

[CU88]

Reading some of these posts reminds me of a team that assumes a victory before the game is played.

It's wiser to perhaps be somewhat cynical about most media reports. Presupposing 'this guy' or 'that guy' is guilty of a crime based on media reporting via Democrat politician whispers will ultimately prove your undoing, assuming you do not go back and delete your posts.

I don't know the facts of this ambassador, nor does anyone here. If you had the facts, you'd be the guy's lawyer, who would tell him to not say a word to anyone including his wife about such sensitive matters. You know who else does not have the facts (but all the motivation in the world to keep the story hot): reporters.

You may want to slow your roll.

They don't understand. This "quid pro quo" charge resonates with much of the public as little as the Mueller obstruction of justice charge does.

Hundreds of legal talking heads & politicians, dancing on the head of a pin.

So why not taking it away from "the media" and go in front of Congress and tell the facts/truth on CSPAN?

[njbill]

But what about Obama's tan suit?

Last night on Colbert Susan Rice said she had to twice — TWICE — point out to Obama that he was not wearing a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day (he went back upstairs to get a green one). Oh, the horror.

Obama should have been impeached for: (1) wearing a tan suit; (2) putting his feet on the desk in the Oval Office; (3) failing to wear a green tie on St. Patrick’s Day; and (4) sneaking smokes in the White House.