Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

Ah, I've offended you again. Boy. You're really bothered by politically incorrect stuff, aren't you?

No problem. Consider this your safe space. I won't offend you again.

[jhu72]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

Turley sure didn't feel that way in 1998. His argument at that time was exactly the same as the democrats today. If it goes unchallenged you might as well allow the conduct of all presidents. It is total nonsense that this is some sore loser BS you keep trying to sell.

In 1998 Starr had tape of Clinton suborning perjury & witness tampering.
The SP law required him to report to Congress.

Irrelevant. In 98 Turley was acting in exactly the same role as today -- outside constitutional legal expert; a witness before the House. The only thing that has changed was the (d) <--> (r) transformation and of course, Turley's opinion. Of course today Turley did rationalize.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Are you one of the Trump supporters who thinks Trump is a better president than Lincoln?

Are you one of those TDS Loons who thinks Bill Clinton isn’t a rapist and pedophile? Did you have a tingle up your leg when Obama was elected?

Are you one of those DemonKKKrats who doesn’t know that the DemonKKKrats are the party of slavery, racism, the KKK, Nazism and socialism? You suffer greatly from TDS. You better find your safe space. Trump is your President and your Daddy. Suck it.

@HouseDemocrats have thrown every accusation at @POTUS @realdonaldtrump they can conjure:

— Russian collusion
— Obstruction of justice
— Quid pro quo
— Bribery
— Witness intimidation
— High crimes and misdemeanors
— Violating the emolument’s clause

All false...what's next?

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles ... awsuit.pdf

Stop posting fake news. You and your kind is why Trump won and will win again. Better get ready

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles ... awsuit.pdf

[Bandito]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

Ah, I've offended you again. Boy. You're really bothered by politically incorrect stuff, aren't you?

No problem. Consider this your safe space. I won't offend you again.

You’re so far gone idk what’s gonna happen to you when Trump wins again. Maybe all your sissy cuck friends on here will get together and have a protest and cry. Actually I think you all did that in 2016 hahahahaha

[jhu72]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

From my vantage, you clearly suffer from TWiMD. Alas the bad news is, it's fatal and incurable. You most likely have less than a year to live.

[Bandito]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

From my vantage, you clearly suffer from TWiMD. Alas the bad news is, it's fatal and incurable. You most likely have less than a year to live.

Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!

[jhu72]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

From my vantage, you clearly suffer from TWiMD. Alas the bad news is, it's fatal and incurable. You most likely have less than a year to live.

Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!

I don't think there is anything medicine can do for you. It's sort of like HIV when it was first discovered.

[a fan]

You’re so far gone idk what’s gonna happen to you when Trump wins again.

Simple. I'm going to enjoy even more massive tax breaks from four years of Trump. Meanwhile, dumb-as-a-tree-stump Trump voters won't be able to put food on the table, or afford even one trip to the doctor because Trump didn't bother fixing Obamacare.

And then laugh as they all have to move to liberal cities to find a job that pays more than $15 an hour, or actually has a functioning hospital that doesn't depend on taking money from taxpayers who live in cities.

Can't wait. How about you?

[Bandito]

Karlan’s cheap shot invoking Baron Trump’s name just lost them any shred of hope that they’re going to win this impeachment battle in the court of public opinion.

Oh no, we offended the PC liberal snowflake!

Seek help. You suffer greatly from TDS. You’re really bad at this.

From my vantage, you clearly suffer from TWiMD. Alas the bad news is, it's fatal and incurable. You most likely have less than a year to live.

Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!

I don't think there is anything medicine can do for you. It's sort of like HIV when it was first discovered.

Gotcha. Well your butt buddy must get around!

[a fan]

Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!

You think we don't have State owned and operated hospitals! How cute! You're just adorable, aren't you?

University of Maryland Hospitals doesn't ring a bell anywhere? University of Michigan Hospitals?

Who owns and operates those? The government? Or some guy named "Steve"?


Poor Bandito. You should ask Trumpy. He'll give you the straight answer here.

[Brooklyn]

Thank God we don’t have socialist medicine or is only have a few hours left!

Corporate welfare queens and other businesses are beneficiaries of socialist medicine:

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-ded ... 22349.html

The costs incurred by your business, to provide employees with benefits, such as retirement plans, life and disability insurance, business-related travel expenses, educational assistance and employee medical plans, are all regarded as tax deductible business expenses. An employer may deduct the costs of employee health insurance, on a pre-tax or post-tax basis, depending on the type of medical plan provided.

[njbill]

We have a different view on the correct strategy, but I'll take another crack at this. My comments are in red, below.

But I agree, the Dems should slow down and just keep racking up the indictments and victories in court.
Bang the drum of obstruction over and over and over, force the documents out into the open, force these miserable blowhards to testify under oath.
If it takes time, it takes time. Grind it out. Impeachment is part political and part legal. If it were entirely legal, I would agree 100% with this approach. Take the time necessary to gather all of the relevant documents and testimony even if you have to wait months (or more) for Supreme Court rulings. But I think this approach has problems politically due to the time constraints. Until the Ukraine call, Pelosi was in the grind-it-out camp. But she changed her position after the call summary was released. I think she did so, in part, to head off a revolt from part of her caucus, but mainly because the call changed her view of the best way to proceed. Her no. 1 goal is to get Trump out of office. Until the call, she thought an impeachment by the House followed by an acquittal in the Senate would redound to Trump's benefit in 2020. After the call, she evidently concluded impeachment (even with Senate acquittal) would help the Dems beat Trump. (I think she is right, but we shall see.) If she followed the grind-it-out approach, there are no guarantees as to when the S.Ct. would rule or what evidence would be uncovered. (This evidence is largely controlled by Trump. I was always nervous about having to rely on key evidence controlled by my adversary.) And impeachment would almost certainly be stalled for months, maybe many months. She does not want to take attention away from the Democratic primaries, which assuredly would happen if impeachment were to drag on into the summer or fall of 2020. Also, I suspect she thinks (I agree) voter support for impeachment would deteriorate if there were to be a House vote and Senate trial mere months, or less, from the election.

Of course, you may just switch to criticizing the Dems for doing an impeachment during an election year (as if there's some sort of actual prohibition to enforcing the law in an election year), but that's fine, enforce the subpoenas. I don't have a problem, per se, with doing an impeachment during an election year, but I figure Pelosi's political judgment is better than mine. I also agree about the subpoenas. Enforce away, though the House's position in court may be weakened if impeachment has already concluded.

Unfortunately, I think the Dems are going to follow the (poor IMO) advice that they need to get it over with fast and get onto the election. I think that actually does a disservice to the rule of law.I hear you, and don't necessarily disagree, but while it may do a disservice to the rule of law, it may be the correct approach, politically.

But maybe one of our legal eagles can suggest why I may be missing something.
Is it that the Dems will indeed grind out subpoenas even after the impeachment is out of the House?
If so, why are they waiting on subpoenaing Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc? I have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims. The judge who issued the recent McGahn ruling said her decision did not address any privilege issues. I think you probably would need a second round of litigation to test any privilege claims. The second round could well extend past the 2020 election. My view is that if the McGahn ruling is upheld on appeal (including any appeal to the Supreme Court), the decision will only be helpful to the Dems during a second Trump term if he wins reelection and the Dems control either the House or the Senate (or both).
Why not land those on their desks now?

[old salt]

I have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims.

I get that same feeling about Bolton. ...name, rank & serial number. Preserve his conservative & (R) bona fides.

[old salt]

In BBC's reporting about Rudy's OAN documentary series with former Ukrainian Prosecutors, they're reviewing Rudy's phone logs, published in Schiff's impeachment report.

How does Schiff get access to private citizens phone records ? He's not law enforcement. Anti-authoritarians should be concerned.

[Trinity]

Congressional subpoena.

[Kismet]

Yep. OS should do a little basic civics research - The Government (either Congress or any Federal agency) can issue an administrative subpoena
without seeking approval from a judge - both Republican and Democrats having been doing this for YEARS - I don't recall you objecting or expressing concern before this when this power was utilized especially by GOP? I guess Congress can now be added to the "Deep State", too?

"An administrative subpoena is a compulsory request for documents — such as phone, Internet and other records — or testimony issued by an executive branch agency or Congress. Unlike traditional grand jury subpoenas, they do not require prior approval from a court or other judicial entity.

The recipient can file a motion in federal court to throw out the subpoena, but legal experts said the standard for review is highly deferential to the government. Basically, the agency only has to show that the information sought is necessary for the performance of the agency’s official duties.

The standard is so lax that one Supreme Court case said administrative subpoenas can be issued based merely on “official curiosity,” said Christopher Slobogin, a Vanderbilt University law professor who has studied administrative subpoenas."

Next thing you know, he will be accusing CNN's parent company AT&T of working to undermine the stable genius as part of the media conspiracy with the aforementioned "Deep State".

[jhu72]

Congressional subpoena.

Only hard to understand if you are a dead ender.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Congressional subpoena.

Only hard to understand if you are a dead ender.

Some call it boot licking.

[MDlaxfan76]

We have a different view on the correct strategy, but I'll take another crack at this. My comments are in red, below.

But I agree, the Dems should slow down and just keep racking up the indictments and victories in court.
Bang the drum of obstruction over and over and over, force the documents out into the open, force these miserable blowhards to testify under oath.
If it takes time, it takes time. Grind it out. Impeachment is part political and part legal. If it were entirely legal, I would agree 100% with this approach. Take the time necessary to gather all of the relevant documents and testimony even if you have to wait months (or more) for Supreme Court rulings. But I think this approach has problems politically due to the time constraints. Until the Ukraine call, Pelosi was in the grind-it-out camp. But she changed her position after the call summary was released. I think she did so, in part, to head off a revolt from part of her caucus, but mainly because the call changed her view of the best way to proceed. Her no. 1 goal is to get Trump out of office. Until the call, she thought an impeachment by the House followed by an acquittal in the Senate would redound to Trump's benefit in 2020. After the call, she evidently concluded impeachment (even with Senate acquittal) would help the Dems beat Trump. (I think she is right, but we shall see.) If she followed the grind-it-out approach, there are no guarantees as to when the S.Ct. would rule or what evidence would be uncovered. (This evidence is largely controlled by Trump. I was always nervous about having to rely on key evidence controlled by my adversary.) And impeachment would almost certainly be stalled for months, maybe many months. She does not want to take attention away from the Democratic primaries, which assuredly would happen if impeachment were to drag on into the summer or fall of 2020. Also, I suspect she thinks (I agree) voter support for impeachment would deteriorate if there were to be a House vote and Senate trial mere months, or less, from the election.

Of course, you may just switch to criticizing the Dems for doing an impeachment during an election year (as if there's some sort of actual prohibition to enforcing the law in an election year), but that's fine, enforce the subpoenas. I don't have a problem, per se, with doing an impeachment during an election year, but I figure Pelosi's political judgment is better than mine. I also agree about the subpoenas. Enforce away, though the House's position in court may be weakened if impeachment has already concluded.

Unfortunately, I think the Dems are going to follow the (poor IMO) advice that they need to get it over with fast and get onto the election. I think that actually does a disservice to the rule of law.I hear you, and don't necessarily disagree, but while it may do a disservice to the rule of law, it may be the correct approach, politically.

But maybe one of our legal eagles can suggest why I may be missing something.
Is it that the Dems will indeed grind out subpoenas even after the impeachment is out of the House?
If so, why are they waiting on subpoenaing Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc? I have written before about my views on Bolton. I don't trust him. Conventional wisdom is that he would give testimony favorable to the Dems. I'm not so sure. He could be very helpful, but he could be a killer. I would stay away from him. Too big a risk. Same with Mulvaney and Pompeo. They would be tough witnesses to get anything helpful out of. They obviously would bend over backwards to support Trump. And they may have valid executive privilege claims. The judge who issued the recent McGahn ruling said her decision did not address any privilege issues. I think you probably would need a second round of litigation to test any privilege claims. The second round could well extend past the 2020 election. My view is that if the McGahn ruling is upheld on appeal (including any appeal to the Supreme Court), the decision will only be helpful to the Dems during a second Trump term if he wins reelection and the Dems control either the House or the Senate (or both).
Why not land those on their desks now?

I think you accurately describe the political calculus being considered by Pelosi, and I'd agree that this is her world, her business, her expertise...not mine. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

But I'm not persuaded.

Seems to me that if she thought (post Ukraine call) she could pull off a large enough share of voters to believe that there was no choice but to impeach because Trump is actually guilty, she now knows that's going to fall short of pulling GOP House members for sure, and the polling in swing states is not yet at 50% for removal. So, easily painted as merely partisan (regardless of what you and I believe to be the facts and law).

The only chance she has of getting there is to actually follow through on getting the most direct testimony and documents relevant to proving that Trump himself directly ordered the hold on aid and that he was clear that he wanted the Ukrainians to know that it would not be released until they announced an investigation(s) into his political adversaries. Nixon doesn't go down without the tapes...until you have the tapes or their analogue don't take the vote. Grind it out.

On winning in court, lord help us if these cases aren't won. Gone are checks and balances and we're in full-on authoritarian mode thereafter. But if Congress doesn't even contest these cases, they abdicate their authority and that becomes precedent...not a final legal ruling but de facto. And I'd agree there's a risk that the courts would narrowly agree that absent impeachment, some of the subpoenas would not be enforceable.

I agree that Bolton is a wild card and Mulvaney and Pompeo are likely to be hostile witnesses...but they'll be under oath. If we really think that with the benefit of the documentary evidence currently withheld these guys won't reveal what Trump told them, what they observed him do and say, and instead would actually hurt the case, then we simply don't have a sufficiently proven case. So, don't impeach, censure.

But the principle of enforcing subpoenas is critical.
Much more important than an impeachment vote on partisan lines with no removal.

[jhu72]

Well Nancy just instructed Nadler and Schiff to draft articles of impeachment. Should end speculation.