Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

She must have missed the part in the constitution that says unless a party controls both houses, you can’t introduce articles of impeachment because it’s not certain that the POTUS would be voted out.....

[Kismet]

Yep. The sitting President has, in fact, NEVER been voted out. Historically speaking, both previous impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate resulted in acquittal of the Chief Executive.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yep. The sitting President has, in fact, NEVER been voted out. Historically speaking, both previous impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate resulted in acquittal of the Chief Executive.

Nah.... you only do it if you are certain to get a 2/3 majority vote in the senate. They were doing it wrong in the past.

[DMac]

Yep. The sitting President has, in fact, NEVER been voted out. Historically speaking, both previous impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate resulted in acquittal of the Chief Executive.

....and I think there's a unanimous consesus here that this Prez will be acquitted as well (like OJ was), leaving the babbling fool with a big fat W to boast about. The Ds better get their schidt together and come up with a viable candidate (that's sure not Lizzie or Joe) if they want to get this embarrassment out of the oval office.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yep. The sitting President has, in fact, NEVER been voted out. Historically speaking, both previous impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate resulted in acquittal of the Chief Executive.

....and I think there's a unanimous consesus here that this Prez will be acquitted as well (like OJ was), leaving the babbling fool with a big fat W to boast about. The Ds better get their schidt together and come up with a viable candidate (that's sure not Lizzie or Joe) if they want to get this embarrassment out of the oval office.

The OJ trial was a waste of time.

[ggait]

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.

You misunderstand what the current cases are about.

The current litigation is just about the ridiculous "absolute immunity" claims being advanced by Trump. Those cases are proceeding and will very likely eventually hold in favor of Congress.

But once those bad faith claims are swept aside, then a whole other round of litigation then commences. Which would be over narrower claims of executive privelege. Those cases have already been litigated and decided. Everyone, including Judge Jackson, agrees that exec privelege does exist in certain appropriate cases. There's no unresolved legal principle involved there. And if exec privelege exists, senior advisors like Bolton, Mulvaney etc. are the types of folks who would likely have it.

So what would remain to be done would be the detailed court slogs about whether this specific document or that specific topic is/is not appropriate for a claim of privelege. That kind of slog would likely drag on through most/all of 2020. And to what end? To get a bunch of evasions and "I don't recalls" from reluctant/hostile witnesses like Bolton or Pompeo? Congress is free to drill those dry holes during a second Trump term if it occurs.

I can see the argument that you might want to let these proceedings marinate a little bit in 2020 to let the public take it in. But there's really no prospect of getting meaningful additional testimony until Q3 of 2020 at the earliest. So you shouldn't choose a slower pace in order to get more info.

[Trinity]

Pelosi is gonna throw Mueller obstructions at him too. This is gonna be be some trial.

[jhu72]

Pelosi is gonna throw Mueller obstructions at him too. This is gonna be be some trial.

That is probably a good move. It bolsters the argument for obstruction, a pattern, in the Ukraine case.

[Trinity]

PELOSI: "This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding that military assistance? Russia. It's about Russia. Russia is invading eastern Ukraine ... All roads lead to Putin. Understand that."

“Nixon said "I knew I was in trouble when I saw that Tip O’Neill was calling the shots up there." That's Nancy Pelosi today and it's Trump who's in trouble.“ Chris Matthews

[jhu72]

PELOSI: "This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding that military assistance? Russia. It's about Russia. Russia is invading eastern Ukraine ... All roads lead to Putin. Understand that."

It also occurs to me that a guy like Hurd who decided he couldn't see enough in the IC committee case for impeachment, has not commented at all on obstruction in either that case or the Mueller case. Doesn't really cost anything to include the obstruction argument from the Mueller case.

[old salt]

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".

Administrative ? Been doing this for years ? Give us an example of Congress obtaining (then publishing) ph records of a private citizen. reporter, or fellow Congress member.

What would the reaction have been had Chairman Nunes issued a subponea for the phone records of the WP's David Ignatius after he published the leaked TS NSA intercept of Flynn's phone calls. What would the MSM reaction have been to that ? But no problem now when Schiff gets Solomon's ph records or goes after political enemies like Rudy or fellow Congress members like Nunes ?

[old salt]

Congressional subpoena.

Only hard to understand if you are a dead ender.

Some call it boot licking.

Lick this.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Congressional subpoena.

Only hard to understand if you are a dead ender.

Some call it boot licking.

Lick this.
[/quote

EDIT:
Thanks Old Salt. That's a good example.

Merry Christmas

[a fan]

Administrative ? Been doing this for years ? Give us an example of Congress obtaining (then publishing) ph records of a private citizen. reporter, or fellow Congress member.

"So what, that's not illegal".

Dude. Either complain when Trump and the R's wallow in the mud-----denying Supreme Court Justice picks, stretching Hill's investigation----or relax when the Dems return fire.

This is where we are as a nation. And by all accounts, Republicans are asking for four more years of this.

What would the reaction have been had Chairman Nunes issued a subponea for the phone records of the WP's David Ignatius after he published the leaked TS NSA intercept of Flynn's phone calls. What would the MSM reaction have been to that ?

Nothing. Happens all the time. It's the easiest way to catch leakers that are too stupid to not use their phones...they subpoena reporters' phone records.

In any event, has Nunes told us what the F he was doing talking to Lev freaking Parnas? Nope. Gee whiz, he can't remember. Nothing to see here, move along, right?



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/to ... er-n881186

[njbill]

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.

You misunderstand what the current cases are about.

The current litigation is just about the ridiculous "absolute immunity" claims being advanced by Trump. Those cases are proceeding and will very likely eventually hold in favor of Congress.

But once those bad faith claims are swept aside, then a whole other round of litigation then commences. Which would be over narrower claims of executive privelege. Those cases have already been litigated and decided. Everyone, including Judge Jackson, agrees that exec privelege does exist in certain appropriate cases. There's no unresolved legal principle involved there. And if exec privelege exists, senior advisors like Bolton, Mulvaney etc. are the types of folks who would likely have it.

So what would remain to be done would be the detailed court slogs about whether this specific document or that specific topic is/is not appropriate for a claim of privelege. That kind of slog would likely drag on through most/all of 2020. And to what end? To get a bunch of evasions and "I don't recalls" from reluctant/hostile witnesses like Bolton or Pompeo? Congress is free to drill those dry holes during a second Trump term if it occurs.

I can see the argument that you might want to let these proceedings marinate a little bit in 2020 to let the public take it in. But there's really no prospect of getting meaningful additional testimony until Q3 of 2020 at the earliest. So you shouldn't choose a slower pace in order to get more info.

I agree with this. To elaborate a little, any litigation over executive privilege issues probably would be complicated and tedious. At issue would be discussions the president had with his secretary of state, national security advisor, and chief of staff (allegedly) about foreign policy issues. I think a court would be very, very careful in this area. One of the issues that would be litigated is waiver, either as to a specific conversation or document, or perhaps as to a particular subject matter. I think a court would be extremely careful, and probably reluctant, to find a subject matter waiver in the area of foreign policy discussions between the president and his very top advisers. Another issue that would be litigated is the crime/fraud exception to privilege. While a court could well find that exception applies, that would be an extremely sensitive and complicated issue to litigate and resolve. It, too, probably would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

While I agree, in principle, with the position that Trump’s obstruction needs to be challenged in court, I think Congress has to be judicious about which challenges it litigates. Congress is already challenging Trump on his tax returns and, I think, will ultimately prevail. I think Congress will also ultimately prevail on the McGahn case, although, as noted, the round two privilege litigation will be the most critical aspect of that case.

Trump has made some critical strategic mistakes of late. Most significantly, he released the transcript of his Ukraine call, thinking it would exonerate him. In fact, it will lead to his impeachment. Also, he should have released his tax returns shortly after he won the election in 2016. Any negative impact would be old news by now. What is going to happen now, however, is that he will lose this battle in the coming months so the tax returns will be released right in the middle of the 2020 election. Not exactly a good strategy in my book.

[ggait]

What would the reaction have been had Chairman Nunes issued a subponea for the phone records of the WP's David Ignatius after he published the leaked TS NSA intercept of Flynn's phone calls.

Both Ignatius and Solomon presumably would have First Amendment protection/claims against any subpoena of their phone records. But Schiff apparently subpoena-ed the phone records of Rudy and Lev. Neither of whom is a 1st amendment protected journalist.

Any claims by Rudy of A/C privelege are presumably lame to complete BS. And if Rudy wants to assert those claims, he's still free to do so if/when he winds up defending himself in a criminal proceeding. Since A/C privelege is an evidentiary rule that only applies to court proceedings.

Schiff also apparently did not subpoena Nunes' phone records, which would raise some issues since Nunes is a congressman.

Pretty neat and tidy legally. But if you want to gas on about the evils of incidental collection, knock yourself out. But recognize that the Banana Republicans hardly have clean hands when it comes to that issue. I mean Trump is the guy that really really hates leakers and likes to aggressively pursue MSM reporters to find the leakers, right?

And where would Trey Gowdy have been without the scores of subpoenas he issued on Benghazi? IIRC, that one seemed to involved a GOP political rival, no? Goose/gander.

[old salt]

Administrative ? Been doing this for years ? Give us an example of Congress obtaining (then publishing) ph records of a private citizen. reporter, or fellow Congress member.

"So what, that's not illegal".

Dude. Either complain when Trump and the R's wallow in the mud-----denying Supreme Court Justice picks, stretching Hill's investigation----or relax when the Dems return fire.

This is where we are as a nation. And by all accounts, Republicans are asking for four more years of this.

What would the reaction have been had Chairman Nunes issued a subponea for the phone records of the WP's David Ignatius after he published the leaked TS NSA intercept of Flynn's phone calls. What would the MSM reaction have been to that ?

Nothing. Happens all the time. It's the easiest way to catch leakers that are too stupid to not use their phones...they subpoena reporters' phone records.

In any event, has Nunes told us what the F he was doing talking to Lev freaking Parnas? Nope. Gee whiz, he can't remember. Nothing to see here, move along, right?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/to ... er-n881186

The Senate staff leaker arrested in your example was caught & arrested by the FBI.
Nunes preceded Schiff as the Chairman of the House Intel Comm but he never used his "administrative" subpoena powers to spy on reporters, political opponents, or fellow members, & then publish it. ...& your response is (of course) to blame it all on Trump. ..
...& Lev was a not yet indicted nobody when Schiff supposedly spoke with him.

[a fan]

Nunes preceded Schiff as the Chairman of the House Intel Comm but he never used his "administrative" subpoena powers to spy on reporters, political opponents, or fellow members, & then publish it

He published that the calls happened, and how long the calls were. BFD.

Do you have a reason why Nunes would talk to Lev Parnas? Me neither. This whole thing stinks.

...& your response is (of course) to blame it all on Trump. ..

You have spent the last three years telling us "so what, that's not illegal" any time we criticize Trump or his flunkies..

Ethics are gone. Morals are gone. And you make fun of us any time we suggest that our leaders use either.

Until it happens to Republicans. Then you get mad.

Either get mad at all of it, or get mad at none of it. Pick one. I take it today you're mad at all of it??

[old salt]

Nunes preceded Schiff as the Chairman of the House Intel Comm but he never used his "administrative" subpoena powers to spy on reporters, political opponents, or fellow members, & then publish it

He published that the calls happened, and how long the calls were. BFD.

Do you have a reason why Nunes would talk to Lev Parnas? Me neither. This whole thing stinks.

...& your response is (of course) to blame it all on Trump. ..

You have spent the last three years telling us "so what, that's not illegal" any time we criticize Trump or his flunkies..

Ethics are gone. Morals are gone. And you make fun of us any time we suggest that our leaders use either.

Until it happens to Republicans. Then you get mad.

Either get mad at all of it, or get mad at none of it. Pick one. I take it today you're mad at all of it??

...& look how the NYT squealed when the FBI accessed their reporters ph records to catch her leaker/lover.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ali-wa ... -leak-case

“This decision by the Justice Department will endanger reporters ability to promise confidentiality to their sources and, ultimately, undermine the ability of a free press to shine a much needed light on government actions,” New York Times spokesman Eileen Murphy said. “That should be a grave concern to anyone who cares about an informed citizenry."

I'm sure the NYT will be defending John Solomon's privacy.

[a fan]

You missed this part:

The Obama administration also drew criticism for going after reporter records, including a move to subpoena Associated Press journalists’ phone records and seize records for several Fox News phone lines as part of leak investigations.

Seems like an easy problem to fix for reporters. Stop using email or phones when you obtain leaked classified government intel, you idiots.

Meet in a parking garage. Worked just fine for Woodward.