Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

This is what I'm talking about by having differences in morality with you.

This is the Trump era partisan tactic, and both libs and Trumpfans do it all the time. Bring up something that made you livid when the Dems did it....and use it to justify something a Republican does, and make it seem ok. And vice versa.


And sit their smugly as if this makes logical sense. You raise kids like this? "Son, you did a bad thing, but I don't care because that friend of yours that I can't stand did it too. So you're all set, no problems here. Need the keys to the car for tonight?"

Of course you don't. So stop with the whataboutHillary nonsense.


Morality has a party affiliation now that FoxNews and its counterpart MSNBC has arrived with big ratings. Now ethics are wholly dependent on little D's and R's.

Gee, I wonder if we're seeing any negative consequences from this.

One thing I am sure of-----if Nixon's impeachments happened in 2019? There's NO WAY he would be impeached. Not a chance.

[RedFromMI]

Why is Trump attacking the cyber security firm CrowdStrike? Let’s see...who else hates them?

It is all connected with a group of conspiracy theories - the murder of Seth Rich included. The idea is that it really was not the Russians but the DNC with help of Ukraine that framed the Russians for involvement with the 2016 election campaign. CrowdStrike is the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC to investigate the phishing attacks/access gained by the Russians. The conspiracy theory is that CrowdStrike created a fake server that was given to the FBI to look at instead of the "real" server which has the evidence of such conspiracy.

Real tin-foil hat stuff, with no factual basis. But Trump knows a portion of his base will get whipped up by it...

[dislaxxic]

HOW ROGER STONE’S TRIAL RELATES TO THE UKRAINE SCANDAL

Roger Dodger's trial is scheduled to commence - i believe - in November...

..

[dislaxxic]

The Quid-Pro-Quo may be staring us in the face

[youthathletics]

The Quid-Pro-Quo may be staring us in the face

For this to be Quid-Pro-Quo, wouldn't one need to be contingent on the other? I did not read the Javelin request as being contingent on Crowdstike investigation.

[Typical Lax Dad]

People in this country have lost their minds.

[youthathletics]

Agreed, if it is so clear cut, there would be zero reason for an impeachment inquiry and they would simply call the vote on the floor....why then have they not done that if it is crystal clear?

[seacoaster]

The Quid-Pro-Quo may be staring us in the face

For this to be Quid-Pro-Quo, wouldn't one need to be contingent on the other? I did not read the Javelin request as being contingent on Crowdstike investigation.

Here, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo. In the law business, public corruption cases are known to be notoriously difficult cases in which to get convictions – because real operators know how to couch language in a way that creates just enough space to create a “reasonable doubt.” And the "transcript" of Trump’s call with the President of Ukraine here – standing alone anyway -- is a paradigm example of this problem.

Trump starts by talking about aid to Ukraine, which he knows was authorized and appropriated by Congress and signed into law by him – but which he hasn’t yet released: “…Merkel, she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything…but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

Trump then says the scales, as between Ukraine and the US, though, aren’t even: “I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily, because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

The hook is set at this point. And after the Ukraine President says that they are ready to buy “Javelins” – a sophisticated “fire and forget” anti-tank gun, Trump then says “I would like you to do us a favor though….”

There are actually two favors: the first is to investigate “Crowdstrike.” Crowdstrike is mentioned four times in the Mueller Report – in footnotes. This is a company that investigated the hack into the DNC computers in 2016 and provided that evidence and investigative materials to the FBI. Trump tweeted last year that he wonder “where is the DNC server, and why didn’t the FBI take possession of it.” So Trump is still on the hunt to discredit Mrs. Clinton. His strange fetish makes its way into supposed diplomacy.

The second favor, of course, is to investigate former Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter. Biden, as of July 2019 anyway, was a meaningful political rival in the upcoming election.

He then says, essentially, "I’ll have an emissary follow up with you; please take his call.” Is this his Assistant Secretary of State for East European Affairs? The Secretary of State himself? The Secretary of Defense, who might talk about the purchase of advanced military hardware, like the Javelins? Nope. It’s Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. These erstwhile matters of statecraft will be managed by the President’s private lawyer. “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I am sure you will figure this out.”

It’s true; he never says: I’m not releasing the dollars appropriated by the Congress until you do this for me. There is no explicit breast-for-tat, or quid pro quo. But the office itself is plainly being used to advance a personal agenda, not the public’s business, using a personal emissary, not a professional engaged in high statecraft, who will be charged with (and in fact undertook) the mission of asking the President of another nation if he would facilitate an investigation into Biden’s only living son. The voters put him in the Oval Office, and gave him the public trust. And this is how it is used.

Imagine this conversation in almost any other milieu: I have something you want and have been good to you in the past. I know you are sleeping with your neighbor’s wife. Boy, it’s been hot this summer; doesn’t your kid have a pool business? We should get a beer sometime and talk about the price of a nice deep pool.

The pitiable thing is that ardent partisans will avoid seeing that the offense is this: the misuse of the Office. Overlooking that, they will demand the quid pro quo required to jail someone in a public corruption case. But that’s jail time. We are talking here about fitness to be the principal representative of our country and traditions and system of values. Let the Congress make the case, and Senators tell us why it’s OK to do business this way, and why the public trust can be used to pressure foreign heads of state to do the President “a favor” or two. At least we’ll find out what kind of a country we have.

[Typical Lax Dad]

+1

[youthathletics]

The Quid-Pro-Quo may be staring us in the face

For this to be Quid-Pro-Quo, wouldn't one need to be contingent on the other? I did not read the Javelin request as being contingent on Crowdstike investigation.

Here, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo. In the law business, public corruption cases are known to be notoriously difficult cases in which to get convictions – because real operators know how to couch language in a way that creates just enough space to create a “reasonable doubt.” And the "transcript" of Trump’s call with the President of Ukraine here – standing alone anyway -- is a paradigm example of this problem.

Trump starts by talking about aid to Ukraine, which he knows was authorized and appropriated by Congress and signed into law by him – but which he hasn’t yet released: “…Merkel, she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything…but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

Trump then says the scales, as between Ukraine and the US, though, aren’t even: “I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily, because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

The hook is set at this point. And after the Ukraine President says that they are ready to buy “Javelins” – a sophisticated “fire and forget” anti-tank gun, Trump then says “I would like you to do us a favor though….”

There are actually two favors: the first is to investigate “Crowdstrike.” Crowdstrike is mentioned four times in the Mueller Report – in footnotes. This is a company that investigated the hack into the DNC computers in 2016 and provided that evidence and investigative materials to the FBI. Trump tweeted last year that he wonder “where is the DNC server, and why didn’t the FBI take possession of it.” So Trump is still on the hunt to discredit Mrs. Clinton. His strange fetish makes its way into supposed diplomacy.

The second favor, of course, is to investigate former Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter. Biden, as of July 2019 anyway, was a meaningful political rival in the upcoming election.

He then says, essentially, "I’ll have an emissary follow up with you; please take his call.” Is this his Assistant Secretary of State for East European Affairs? The Secretary of State himself? The Secretary of Defense, who might talk about the purchase of advanced military hardware, like the Javelins? Nope. It’s Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. These erstwhile matters of statecraft will be managed by the President’s private lawyer. “I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I am sure you will figure this out.”

It’s true; he never says: I’m not releasing the dollars appropriated by the Congress until you do this for me. There is no explicit breast-for-tat, or quid pro quo. But the office itself is plainly being used to advance a personal agenda, not the public’s business, using a personal emissary, not a professional engaged in high statecraft, who will be charged with (and in fact undertook) the mission of asking the President of another nation if he would facilitate an investigation into Biden’s only living son. The voters put him in the Oval Office, and gave him the public trust. And this is how it is used.

Imagine this conversation in almost any other milieu: I have something you want and have been good to you in the past. I know you are sleeping with your neighbor’s wife. Boy, it’s been hot this summer; doesn’t your kid have a pool business? We should get a beer sometime and talk about the price of a nice deep pool.

The pitiable thing is that ardent partisans will avoid seeing that the offense is this: the misuse of the Office. Overlooking that, they will demand the quid pro quo required to jail someone in a public corruption case. But that’s jail time. We are talking here about fitness to be the principal representative of our country and traditions and system of values. Let the Congress make the case, and Senators tell us why it’s OK to do business this way, and why the public trust can be used to pressure foreign heads of state to do the President “a favor” or two. At least we’ll find out what kind of a country we have.

seacoaster - Thank you so much for the effort and time to explain this in an all encompassing evaluation of the call memo, very much appreciated. This is why I suggested their is no "contingent" smoking gun, you elude to this in red, but make a case for it in the full explanation.....surely a quagmire.

The piece in red and then the underlined piece, can also be further called into question, why? because an argument can be made on behalf of the 'public's business' that a potential clear and present threat was made to our political system via of the last administration, current democrat candidate AND the interactions of and players involved in Crowdstrike. This also flirts around the edges of opposition research.

I hate that we are having conversations like that. And again, thanks for you reply.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Rudy and Donald going to get to the bottom of it:

[get it to x]

This is not about impeachment at all. This whole deal is based on placating the far left red diaper babies. They are all the noise and the media is sympathetic to them. There will not be a vote any time soon. Too many seats in peril. This is a tough balancing act, though I wouldn't be surprised if she held a vote when it's too late to primary a sitting member and allow them to vote to save their seats. She acts dumb but she is far from it.

[dislaxxic]

...because an argument can be made on behalf of the 'public's business' that a potential clear and present threat was made to our political system via of the last administration, current democrat candidate AND the interactions of and players involved in Crowdstrike. This also flirts around the edges of opposition research.

So nice to have illustrated, once again, the thinking of MAGA Nation. The straws being grasped by republic party types are getting thinner and more tenuous and brittle by the hour. Those nefarious, treasonous libs are causing all sorts of woe to be rained down on our great country. How can Dear Leader be expected to function effectively with all the anti-American activity happening on the Far Left?

SUCKS to be a conservative in 2019!

..

[youthathletics]

...because an argument can be made on behalf of the 'public's business' that a potential clear and present threat was made to our political system via of the last administration, current democrat candidate AND the interactions of and players involved in Crowdstrike. This also flirts around the edges of opposition research.

So nice to have illustrated, once again, the thinking of MAGA Nation. The straws being grasped by republic party types are getting thinner and more tenuous and brittle by the hour. Those nefarious, treasonous libs are causing all sorts of woe to be rained down on our great country. How can Dear Leader be expected to function effectively with all the anti-American activity happening on the Far Left?

SUCKS to be a conservative in 2019!

..

Worth a listen from C-Span and the final words from the D of California in this clip. https://www.instagram.com/p/B22lbq0nXKI ... esngwlpou4

But facts are irrelevant in the minds of some leftists.

[MDlaxfan76]

Wow, heads are firmly in the sand (or somewhere!) of some of our friends on the hard right.

I realize it's really painful to admit, guys, but Trump and his cronies are corrupt as all get out and are going to continue to be called to account.

I read a good op-ed in the WSJ today regarding the alternative of censure to impeachment, arguing basically that nearly all of Congress would sign up for censure (likely correct), whereas impeachment, while perhaps simple (now) in the House, is still most likely doomed in the Senate.

Maybe that will change in the Senate as this rolls out further, ie we get the whistleblower complaint (likely to deal with more than the single call), and the witness testimony of various officials who were trying, for multiple months, to prevent Trump taking exactly this stupid, abuse of power course of action.

The transcript alone, as well as Trump's and Rudy's public admissions, certainly constitute an egregious abuse of power, but this will very likely get played out in detail with such testimony to the efforts to keep Trump from doing this.

The Dems are going to use the greater powers under the formal impeachment inquiry to push faster action with the courts on all sorts of other matters, as well. They're going to finally get the documents and the witnesses they've previously subpoenaed re emoluments and various other matters.

They needn't be in any rush to actually impeach.

At some point, enough R's other than Romney may well recognize that they better not be on the wrong side of history.

Personally, I'd rather see a very tough censure and then a strong rebuke at the polls in 2020.
That is, unless the R's get a backbone and stand up to the hard right Trumpist base...I just have grown cynical about my fellow members of the "GOP". they appear to be totally cowed by the hard right base that became emboldened first with the Tea Party and then with Trump. The amazing aspect is that the principles of the Tea Party totally went out the window to follow the 'strong man'.

[youthathletics]

That’s about the only way this happens....R’s turn on him.

If the left only had a viable candidate, this would be a non issue. The left is pulling out all the stop in hopes the senate will follow in their lock step.

[MDlaxfan76]

That’s about the only way this happens....R’s turn on him.

Yup, I just added an additional comment re that above.

[youthathletics]

A little humor: https://www.instagram.com/p/B22wS11nk-l ... ulq3u1uc6j

[MDlaxfan76]

That’s about the only way this happens....R’s turn on him.

If the left only had a viable candidate, this would be a non issue. The left is pulling out all the stop in hopes the senate will follow in their lock step.

The Dems actually have a whole slew of "viable" candidates who can beat Trump, it's just that you and I aren't happy with the leading choices most likely to get the nod.

Unfortunately, we may need to suck it up for awhile and hope we can rebound to some sort of more centrist balance.

[Typical Lax Dad]

A little humor: https://www.instagram.com/p/B22wS11nk-l ... ulq3u1uc6j

Jesus