Trump's Russian Collusion

[runrussellrun]

Where is Bolton now? Sondlund threw Bolton under the bus as well. I would think this pokes Bolton in the ass to want to testify.

Bolton is re-applying for his Communist Party membership. Or is that Clapper? Or Ollie North? Or Brennan? Or .......

[Typical Lax Dad]

The defense is now that Sondland never heard directly from Trump on quid pro quo.

So that makes Sondland Willie Cici.

Cici tells the FBI that Michael killed McCluskey and Sollozzo and also ordered many other murders. But Cici can't implicate Michael because the Corleones always used buffers. So Cici never received orders directly from Michael. Recall that Michael Cohen has previously testified that this is how Trump operated.

And that makes Rudy the capo a la Frank Pentangelli. I'd pay money to watch Rudy testify about this.

Life imitates art.

Rudy is too stupid to be Tom Hagen

[Kismet]

The defense is now that Sondland never heard directly from Trump on quid pro quo.

So that makes Sondland Willie Cici.

Cici tells the FBI that Michael killed McCluskey and Sollozzo and also ordered many other murders. But Cici can't implicate Michael because the Corleones always used buffers. So Cici never received orders directly from Michael. Recall that Michael Cohen has previously testified that this is how Trump operated.

And that makes Rudy the capo a la Frank Pentangelli. I'd pay money to watch Rudy testify about this.

Life imitates art.

I believe it is Willie CICCI

..and whaddya know



Francis Coppola could be calling him for a screen test.

[kramerica.inc]

Fredo interviewing Guilliani...

[jhu72]

Ken Starr comments reported.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... mpeachment

https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/8797 ... imony-over

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... shell-days

[ggait]

Ken Starr comments reported.

Starr's comments are being badly mis-reported. Starr is only stating Schiff's position. Starr is definitely not saying that he thinks the case is proven:

"There will be articles of impeachment, I think we've known that ... It's over ... This is [Schiff's] position, "we now know that the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery" ... Articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up."

All Starr is pointing to is Schiff's opening questions where he basically walks Sondland through the federal bribery statute 12 USC section 201 -- "public official", "official act", "something of value" etc. etc.

[jhu72]

Ken Starr comments reported.

Starr's comments are being badly mis-reported. Starr is only stating Schiff's position. Starr is definitely not saying that he thinks the case is proven:

"There will be articles of impeachment, I think we've known that ... It's over ... This is [Schiff's] position, "we now know that the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery" ... Articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up."

All Starr is pointing to is Schiff's opening questions where he basically walks Sondland through the federal bribery statute 12 USC section 201 -- "public official", "official act", "something of value" etc. etc.

There is some difference in the reporting - see three sources above.

[seacoaster]

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

This was his testimony. He repeatedly testified that Zelensky was required to make a "a public announcement" that he was investigating the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden before there would be a White House meeting and the aid was released. I now think Bandito is Kevin McCarthy.

[foreverlax]

Sondald said he did not believe at the time that Giuliani’s involvement was improper in part because he did not understand that the pressure for an investigation into Burisma meant an investigation into the Bidens. However, Sondland said he did believe that Giuliani’s exertion of pressure on Kyiv constituted a quid pro quo.

“Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky,” Sondland’s statement says. “Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gordon-so ... g?ref=home

[youthathletics]

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

This was his testimony. He repeatedly testified that Zelensky was required to make a "a public announcement" that he was investigating the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden before there would be a White House meeting and the aid was released. I now think Bandito is Kevin McCarthy.

The why does this differ? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5GGYN_nrVl/

[foreverlax]

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

This was his testimony. He repeatedly testified that Zelensky was required to make a "a public announcement" that he was investigating the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden before there would be a White House meeting and the aid was released. I now think Bandito is Kevin McCarthy.

The why does this differ? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5GGYN_nrVl/

A. I really struggle with Trump using the phrase "quid pro quo"...and yet he did coin the phrase "grease the wheel"

B. You don't actually have to say the words....Trump speaks in word salad, we have been told to follow his actions, not his words.

C. Everyone knew that Trump was holding up (a) money and (b) a meeting in the WH, until Ukraine said the words Trump wanted said..about the Bidens and 2016.

D. Trump didn't care about Ukraine corruption beyond Burisma, which is obvious.

[RedFromMI]

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

This was his testimony. He repeatedly testified that Zelensky was required to make a "a public announcement" that he was investigating the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden before there would be a White House meeting and the aid was released. I now think Bandito is Kevin McCarthy.

The why does this differ? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5GGYN_nrVl/

Because the President said "No quid pro quo" the day after he found out the WB report would be released. Shutting the barn door after the horses got out...

[holmes435]

D. Trump didn't care about Ukraine corruption beyond Burisma, which is obvious.

Trump didn't care whether Burisma was clean as a whistle or corrupt, he just wanted a soundbite of an investigation.

He's been doing it for at least a decade in various ways from the Birther stuff on down. He knows his base will eat it up hook, line and sinker without any evidence and then run with it.

Heck, we already have people on here calling for an investigation.

[old salt]

Agreed. I did hear on a couple talk radio shows when other retired officers called in that they thought it was smug for him to correct Nunes.

Officious

No better time or place for the Lt. Col. to be smug than while being badgered by the offensive and smug Nunes. That's Lt. Col. to you, schidthead. Bet those retired officers who called in wear MAGA hats too.

Am curious about this, OS, what part of this definition applies to the Lt. Col.?

Vocabulary.com DictionaryAdvanced Search List Builder Random Word
officious
Though officious sounds like official, it means being annoyingly eager to do more than is required. "The officious lunch lady made everyone's food choices her business, and made nasty comments when students chose cookies over carrots."

Officious is a tricky word as it seems like it might mean something like office or official. Instead, it is a word to describe someone that acts more official than they actually are. People who are officious are busybodies. They want to make their opinions known and followed, despite not having any kind of real power.

Is it the acting more official than he actually is, or the not having any kind of real power part?

He didn't need to remind anyone of his rank or his service.I think this was a matter of pride, not a reminder of rank or service. Hear what he says here when questioned about why he'd wear his uniform (which I find to be perfectly appropriate).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDcm7Dr7i0Y
Further, Stewart's commenting on it not being the uniform of the day (no comment on Jordan's though) is completely inappropriate. While I believe he wears civilian clothes in his day to day job, this is a formal hearing which warrants his dress blues, IMO. It's not that complicated, his hostile interrogators just wanted to make an issue of it. He had plenty of Congressional show ponies doing it on his behalf.Yes, he also has plenty of Congressional show ponies, as well as CiC, who will down play his service and let us all know what a flunkie he is. Good time to sit in front of them with his Combat Infantry Badge and Purple Heart on.
I know he was probably coached to do it that way, but he laid it on really thick with his family bio & playing to the gallery.Yup, a little thick, but aren't they all playing to the gallery?
I was taken aback at the way he snapped back at Nunes. If you look at his expression, it looked like he knew he screwed up.Yup, he looked a little nervous but I don't think he thought he screwed up, I think he was waiting for the opportunity to jump on the arrogant Nunes and he took advantage the opening he gave him.
It was amusing hearing him read his fitness report submitted by the PHD he worked for. Poor form. It had all the right buzzwords that he gave her on his brag sheet, but it didn't get him promoted. TMI. His boss Morrison dropped a safe on him. He should have let his record speak for itself & let the fawning Congresspeople draw out the positive stuff via their questions. He has a solid record.Yup. He's obviously in the tank for the Ukrainians -- not surprising, nor unreasonable, given his personal & professional history. It's become personal for him. In terms of the interagency process, he seems more advocate than honest broker. Even if it was a joke, the fact that a senior Ukrainian govt official 3 times offered him a job as their Defense Minister indicates an inappropriate level of familiarity.Not buying this, it wasn't intended as a joke it was intended as a smear and a challange of the man's integrity and commitment to country and duty. This was a seed planted to create doubt (or you could call it a cheap shot ot low blow). I hope his confidence in the new & improved Ukraine 4.0 proves to be merited.Me too. We (& the EUros) have poured a lot of money down that sink hole since the Orange Revolution, without much to show for it.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that the job offer(s) from the Ukrainian official were made in jest.
Even if that was the case, it indicates a very close personal relationship -- something which can make it hard to confront an ally on difficult issues & calls into question his objectivity. Again, something that's understandable, given his personal & professional history.

[LandM]

Forever,
I have 11 years in a uniform.......if I want to call a spade, I will, I have earned it. I keep saying to the gang of 8 now out here - go do it and I hope you and others enjoy the experience of wrong headed diplomats and ambassadors telling folks what should or could happen - read a little on the Vietnam War and the real reason we got involved there - some smart diplomat kept saying dominoes. 50 years later, it did NOT happen.

This whole thing whether you and your other 7 buddies like it is a he said she said. And to answer what will be your final question, I have zero, nada faith in a Lt Colonel telling the truth in this matter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Agreed. I did hear on a couple talk radio shows when other retired officers called in that they thought it was smug for him to correct Nunes.

Officious

No better time or place for the Lt. Col. to be smug than while being badgered by the offensive and smug Nunes. That's Lt. Col. to you, schidthead. Bet those retired officers who called in wear MAGA hats too.

Am curious about this, OS, what part of this definition applies to the Lt. Col.?

Vocabulary.com DictionaryAdvanced Search List Builder Random Word
officious
Though officious sounds like official, it means being annoyingly eager to do more than is required. "The officious lunch lady made everyone's food choices her business, and made nasty comments when students chose cookies over carrots."

Officious is a tricky word as it seems like it might mean something like office or official. Instead, it is a word to describe someone that acts more official than they actually are. People who are officious are busybodies. They want to make their opinions known and followed, despite not having any kind of real power.

Is it the acting more official than he actually is, or the not having any kind of real power part?

He didn't need to remind anyone of his rank or his service.I think this was a matter of pride, not a reminder of rank or service. Hear what he says here when questioned about why he'd wear his uniform (which I find to be perfectly appropriate).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDcm7Dr7i0Y
Further, Stewart's commenting on it not being the uniform of the day (no comment on Jordan's though) is completely inappropriate. While I believe he wears civilian clothes in his day to day job, this is a formal hearing which warrants his dress blues, IMO. It's not that complicated, his hostile interrogators just wanted to make an issue of it. He had plenty of Congressional show ponies doing it on his behalf.Yes, he also has plenty of Congressional show ponies, as well as CiC, who will down play his service and let us all know what a flunkie he is. Good time to sit in front of them with his Combat Infantry Badge and Purple Heart on.
I know he was probably coached to do it that way, but he laid it on really thick with his family bio & playing to the gallery.Yup, a little thick, but aren't they all playing to the gallery?
I was taken aback at the way he snapped back at Nunes. If you look at his expression, it looked like he knew he screwed up.Yup, he looked a little nervous but I don't think he thought he screwed up, I think he was waiting for the opportunity to jump on the arrogant Nunes and he took advantage the opening he gave him.
It was amusing hearing him read his fitness report submitted by the PHD he worked for. Poor form. It had all the right buzzwords that he gave her on his brag sheet, but it didn't get him promoted. TMI. His boss Morrison dropped a safe on him. He should have let his record speak for itself & let the fawning Congresspeople draw out the positive stuff via their questions. He has a solid record.Yup. He's obviously in the tank for the Ukrainians -- not surprising, nor unreasonable, given his personal & professional history. It's become personal for him. In terms of the interagency process, he seems more advocate than honest broker. Even if it was a joke, the fact that a senior Ukrainian govt official 3 times offered him a job as their Defense Minister indicates an inappropriate level of familiarity.Not buying this, it wasn't intended as a joke it was intended as a smear and a challange of the man's integrity and commitment to country and duty. This was a seed planted to create doubt (or you could call it a cheap shot ot low blow). I hope his confidence in the new & improved Ukraine 4.0 proves to be merited.Me too. We (& the EUros) have poured a lot of money down that sink hole since the Orange Revolution, without much to show for it.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that the job offer(s) from the Ukrainian official were made in jest.
Even if that was the case, it indicates a very close personal relationship -- something which can make it hard to confront an ally on difficult issues & calls into question his objectivity. Again, something that's understandable, given his personal & professional history.

[seacoaster]

Sondland: "Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes."

This was his testimony. He repeatedly testified that Zelensky was required to make a "a public announcement" that he was investigating the 2016 election and Burisma/Biden before there would be a White House meeting and the aid was released. I now think Bandito is Kevin McCarthy.

The why does this differ? https://www.instagram.com/p/B5GGYN_nrVl/

Because he bumbled, because he sometimes spoke in connection with a specific call or conversation. I listened to Goldman's entire examination of him. He repeatedly confirmed that the WH meeting and the aid were on ice until President Z made the public statement.

[old salt]

No, to none , opinions.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-wi ... ainian-aid


Congress is looking into fixing this......like .....now....right?

Is that more than $40 million?

you tell me

No mention of javelins ????????

or....maybe details are known by moi......

You mean these? https://newrepublic.com/article/155255/ ... ne-scandal

more proof that you don't even read, or watch, your own links

But the cretinous foreign policy practiced by the Trump administration at least helps to remind taxpayers of the way in which American foreign weapons sales have reordered presidential priorities, from the War of 1812 to Franklin Roosevelt’s “arsenal of democracy” to the Cold War and today. The Ukraine Javelin affair reflects a sad truth about American foreign policy in general, and the last half-century in particular: Strip away the soaring rhetoric of freedom and liberty, and the U.S. government is the world’s most heavily-armed protection racket—and by embracing foreign military sales, it’s exporting Trump’s fabled “American carnage” abroad.

it's as if the author was paraphrasing my thoughts........

If trump was trying to shake down the Ukrainians, he'd insist they buy Abrams tanks rather than Javelins.

Javelins are a very cost effective equalizer if confronting attacking Russian tanks & armored fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers.

[ggait]

There is some difference in the reporting - see three sources above.

FWIW, Starr just on Fox says that the record is very muddy, unclear and subject to interpretation. And that for impeachment the record should be much more clear.

So still a weasel.

[Kismet]

Then there's this today from former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov - not exactly your run of the mill nutjob but an expert on Vlad methodology from personal experience

"Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
Biden announced his candidacy on April 25th. The very next week, Trump spoke with Putin on the phone for a long time and Giuliani's activities in Ukraine expanded from the Ukraine/Hillary conspiracy BS to the corrupt Bidens BS. Amazing coincidence!"