Trump's Russian Collusion

[Trinity]

I wanted Michael Madsen. But noooo. Royalties? Are you high? There is never a profit. Ever. Last time I looked I owed (79 million.)

When the number is in parentheses, it’s bad for the writer. We edged a truly fine foreign movie, Enemy at The Gate. Matt Lauer scoffed at it....

[ggait]

In the meantime, I will not abandon my current CinC, nor stop questioning every accusation, examining the evidence & considering the motives & tactics of his accusers. ...& hoping for good things for the USA in the interim.

Seems pretty one sided.

Normal and fair people would question the motives, tactics and evidence coming from all sides. All the folks in Congress are duly elected too.

And if you do that, you just have to conclude Trump is guilty AF of felony bribery. Can't be charged for now per OLC opinion, but he's guilty.

[old salt]

I wanted Michael Madsen. But noooo. Royalties? Are you high? There is never a profit. Ever. Last time I looked I owed (79 million.)

When the number is in parentheses, it’s bad for the writer. We edged a truly fine foreign movie, Enemy at The Gate. Matt Lauer scoffed at it....

Madsen would have been perfect as Orin.
He was great as Mr Blonde & the perfect Virgin Earp.
I'll watch for Eva Mendes.

Enemy at the Gates was good, but too Russian for my taste.

[old salt]

In the meantime, I will not abandon my current CinC, nor stop questioning every accusation, examining the evidence & considering the motives & tactics of his accusers. ...& hoping for good things for the USA in the interim.

Seems pretty one sided.

Normal and fair people would question the motives, tactics and evidence coming from all sides. All the folks in Congress are duly elected too.

And if you do that, you just have to conclude Trump is guilty AF of felony bribery. Can't be charged for now per OLC opinion, but he's guilty.

OLC opinion doesn't matter. The Senate's the Jury. They answer to their voters at home. Make the case & let the chips fall where they may.

[Trinity]

Eight votes for the original Dakota territories. Two for California. Seems a fair way to decide if the president is a criminal.

[old salt]

Jury selection isn't always balanced.
In this case, just need 67 of 100. Not 12 of 12.
...or just 20 of 53 (R)'s.

[Peter Brown]

Eight votes for the original Dakota territories. Two for California. Seems a fair way to decide if the president is a criminal.

Trinity will be really upset to hear what OJ's jury looked like.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Eight votes for the original Dakota territories. Two for California. Seems a fair way to decide if the president is a criminal.

Trinity will be really upset to hear what OJ's jury looked like.

Exactly. OJ didn’t do anything wrong.

[Trinity]

Adam Schiff is just mad Hillary lost.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Adam Schiff is just mad Hillary lost.

He can’t get over it.

[seacoaster]

You just have to take off those special Lindsay Graham Senate goggles and put on your Lindsay Graham House Member glasses. Neal Katyal in the [Failing] Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/opin ... e=Homepage

"The public impeachment hearings this week will be at least as important for what is not said as for what is. Congress will no doubt focus a lot on President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and his secret plan to get that government to announce a public investigation of the man he considered his chief political rival, Joe Biden.

But think about what the president is trying to hide in the hearings. He has been blocking government officials from testifying before Congress, invoking specious claims of constitutional privilege. And while the Ukraine allegations have rightly captured the attention of Congress and much of the public, Mr. Trump’s effort to hinder the House investigation of him is at least as great a threat to the rule of law. It strikes at the heart of American democracy — and it is itself the essence of an impeachable offense.

President Trump has categorically refused to cooperate with the impeachment investigation. He has declined to turn over documents related to the inquiry and has instructed all members of his administration not to testify before Congress. Every member of the executive branch who has gone to tell the truth to the House impeachment investigators — like Marie Yovanovich and Alexander Vindman (and maybe Gordon Sondland, too, at least the second time around) — has done so in defiance of the president’s instructions. President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has refused to testify. Secretary of Defense Mike Esper, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, have ignored congressional subpoenas related to the investigation.

Mr. Trump’s stonewalling is a grave problem because it means there is no way to police executive branch wrongdoing. The attorney general, William Barr, has said a sitting president cannot be indicted. The president’s lawyers have gone so far as to say, in light of that principle, that he cannot even be criminally investigated. But every serious scholar who adheres to the view that a sitting president cannot be indicted combines that view with the belief that the impeachment process is the way to deal with a lawless president. Indeed, the very Justice Department opinions that Mr. Barr relied on to “clear” the president say exactly that. Otherwise a president could engage in extreme wrongdoing, and the American people would have no remedy.

But for impeachment to have meaning in our constitutional system, there must be a way for Congress to ferret out the facts. Presidents don’t engage in open wrongdoing. They try to hide it — as Mr. Trump did here by using a shadow foreign policy channel led by Mr. Giuliani and making a secret phone call whose details were hustled by White House staff onto a highly classified server. We saw the damning memo of the phone call, with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, only because of a complaint by a whistle-blower.

The president now claims that, despite the call memo and other evidence, he never intended to do anything wrong. But the only way to test that claim is to permit witnesses to testify about what the president said at the time, and what he knew and asked about.

To take one obvious example, John Bolton, his former national security adviser, has said that he “was personally involved in” many “relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.” What kind of system would permit an impeachment investigation to proceed without hearing what Mr. Bolton has to say because the target of the inquiry orders his silence? How could a system that allows the subject of an investigation to block all the witnesses from testifying be consistent with the rule of law?

Just think about President Richard Nixon. He, too, tried to block White House officials from testifying in Congress. “Under the doctrine of separation of powers,” Nixon declared on March 12, 1973, “the manner in which the president personally exercises his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by another branch of government.”

But the Senate Select Watergate Committee held firm and insisted on the witnesses appearing, going so far as to say it would jail any witness who invoked executive privilege. That led Nixon to throw in the towel, saying he would not invoke privilege and would let the aides testify.

“Executive privilege,” Nixon declared, “will not be invoked as to any testimony concerning possible criminal conduct, or discussions of possible criminal conduct, in the matters presently under investigation, including the Watergate affair and the alleged cover-up.”

Witnesses have to be able to tell the truth to Congress. We are hearing what we are hearing only because brave government officials, including people in Mr. Trump’s White House, have defied the president’s orders. But what we don’t know is at least as important as what we do know.

The stonewalling is particularly pernicious here because Mr. Trump’s party controls the Senate. It would be one thing if the Senate had 67 Democrats, and the president could claim, cynically or not, that impeachment was some sort of political coup. But why is the president afraid of letting his own White House officials tell the truth in a process ultimately controlled by Senate Republicans?

The bottom line is that President Trump is out-Nixoning Nixon. And while the Ukraine allegations will take center stage in the coming days, the actors offstage are at least as important as the ones on it. The American people deserve answers. Any claim by the president to hide the truth is itself a grave wrong and an impeachable offense."

[njbill]

I wish the press and commentators would stop referring to Rudy Giuliani as Trump’s lawyer. He isn’t. At least there is little or no evidence of that. He is an agent provocateur for purposes of stirring up foreign dirt. He is a political/damage control consultant. He is a campaign dirty trickster now that Stone is sidelined.

But what legal matter is he advising Trump about? In order for communications between Rudy and Trump to be privileged, among other things, they must be for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice about a matter as to which the lawyer has been engaged to provide legal representation.

None of the matters in Rudy’s “portfolio” would seem to qualify. In theory, he could be providing legal advice, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. He is not on Trump’s impeachment legal team, for example. He is not involved in the tax return cases.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I wish the press and commentators would stop referring to Rudy Giuliani as Trump’s lawyer. He isn’t. At least there is little or no evidence of that. He is an agent provocateur for purposes of stirring up foreign dirt. He is a political/damage control consultant. He is a campaign dirty trickster now that Stone is sidelined.

But what legal matter is he advising Trump about? In order for communications between Rudy and Trump to be privileged, among other things, they must be for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice about a matter as to which the lawyer has been engaged to provide legal representation.

None of the matters in Rudy’s “portfolio” would seem to qualify. In theory, he could be providing legal advice, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. He is not on Trump’s impeachment legal team, for example. He is not involved in the tax return cases.

He is an agent provocateur. I had not considered that.

[MDlaxfan76]

It wasn’t really Russia, says Salty.

Why aren’t we surprised?

Stop it. I didn't say that & you know it.
Russian meddling. Ukrainian meddling.
Independent variables.
You're only curious about one.

I see.
So now the argument is that BOTH Russia and Ukraine "meddled"???
You better tell VSG and Vlad.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Sorry. I'm not willing to write off the USA just because Trump is the President..."

Forgive me, but this is an astonishingly obtuse thing to say on the plain and unambiguous facts in front of us. The USA is functionally the structure and functions of the Constitution. You're willingness to just let Trump's conduct pass is, in practice, writing off the USA. Do you not get the asymmetry of what you do and say? Oath much? At all, anymore?

Trump is the President until he is removed from office.
Regarding my oath, if he gave me a lawful order, it would be my duty to carry it out.
There are two Constitutional processes to remove Trump from office.
If enough US citizens share your view, he will be removed by one of them.
If he is removed, it will reflect the will of my fellow citizens expressed at the ballot box or via their Congressional representatives.
I will respect their decision, one way or the other.
Until he leaves office, I want the government to function & President Trump to succeed, because that means the US is succeeding.
Do you suggest I send back my retired pay & social security, in protest ?

Salty, are you still serving in the military?
If not, I'd like to understand what 'orders' the POTUS could give you that would be your "duty to carry out".

The second element I bolded is exactly how fouled up Trumpists and their ilk are about how our system works.
No, any particular President's 'success' does not "mean the US is succeeding".
The US is made up of far more than any President, much less the Executive branch or even the 3 co-equal branches of government.

A President's 'success' politically is fleeting, all the more so if "succeed" means destroying Constitutional norms, expectations, balance of power, etc.
Likewise, would be if "succeed" is due to foreign interference by adversaries in our democratic processes.

Of course, we do "want the government to function"...but to what ends?

[MDlaxfan76]

In the meantime, I will not abandon my current CinC, nor stop questioning every accusation, examining the evidence & considering the motives & tactics of his accusers. ...& hoping for good things for the USA in the interim.

Seems pretty one sided.

Normal and fair people would question the motives, tactics and evidence coming from all sides. All the folks in Congress are duly elected too.

And if you do that, you just have to conclude Trump is guilty AF of felony bribery. Can't be charged for now per OLC opinion, but he's guilty.

OLC opinion doesn't matter. The Senate's the Jury. They answer to their voters at home. Make the case & let the chips fall where they may.

History will be the jury.

[Brooklyn]

this illustrates the deal quite well:

[Peter Brown]

Schiff.jpg (142.63 KiB) Viewed 1583 times

[ToastDunk]

You just have to take off those special Lindsay Graham Senate goggles and put on your Lindsay Graham House Member glasses. Neal Katyal in the [Failing] Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/opin ... e=Homepage

"...But why is the president afraid of letting his own White House officials tell the truth in a process ultimately controlled by Senate Republicans?..."

Exactly.

[ToastDunk]

"Sorry. I'm not willing to write off the USA just because Trump is the President..."

Forgive me, but this is an astonishingly obtuse thing to say on the plain and unambiguous facts in front of us. The USA is functionally the structure and functions of the Constitution. You're willingness to just let Trump's conduct pass is, in practice, writing off the USA. Do you not get the asymmetry of what you do and say? Oath much? At all, anymore?

Trump is the President until he is removed from office.
Regarding my oath, if he gave me a lawful order, it would be my duty to carry it out.
There are two Constitutional processes to remove Trump from office.
If enough US citizens share your view, he will be removed by one of them.
If he is removed, it will reflect the will of my fellow citizens expressed at the ballot box or via their Congressional representatives.
I will respect their decision, one way or the other.
Until he leaves office, I want the government to function & President Trump to succeed, because that means the US is succeeding.
Do you suggest I send back my retired pay & social security, in protest ?

Salty, are you still serving in the military?
If not, I'd like to understand what 'orders' the POTUS could give you that would be your "duty to carry out".

The second element I bolded is exactly how fouled up Trumpists and their ilk are about how our system works.
No, any particular President's 'success' does not "mean the US is succeeding".
The US is made up of far more than any President, much less the Executive branch or even the 3 co-equal branches of government.

A President's 'success' politically is fleeting, all the more so if "succeed" means destroying Constitutional norms, expectations, balance of power, etc.
Likewise, would be if "succeed" is due to foreign interference by adversaries in our democratic processes.

Of course, we do "want the government to function"...but to what ends?

An example of success?

E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations, overriding protests from scientists and physicians who say the new rule would undermine the scientific underpinnings of government policymaking.