Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=radio

Nunes giving a completely predictable toadying statement? Check.

Jordan yelling at House colleagues? Check.

Jordan advancing a false and distorted story? Check.

Did Gym have his sleeves rolled up?

[RedFromMI]

WH aide Tim Morrison is expected corroborate Bill Taylor’s testimony, per source, specifically that POTUS & aides pushed to withhold aid & a meeting w/ Zelensky until Ukraine opened Biden & 2016 probes. Latest w/ @CarolLeonnig

If Sondland perjured himself, Will DoJ press charges, or is he, too, above the law?

With Barr in charge?

[seacoaster]

https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=radio

Nunes giving a completely predictable toadying statement? Check.

Jordan yelling at House colleagues? Check.

Jordan advancing a false and distorted story? Check.

Did Gym have his sleeves rolled up?

I'm on the radio feed, thank god.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=radio

Nunes giving a completely predictable toadying statement? Check.

Jordan yelling at House colleagues? Check.

Jordan advancing a false and distorted story? Check.

Did Gym have his sleeves rolled up?

I'm on the radio feed, thank god.

Old Gym missed over 300 incidents of sexual misconduct by his athletic trainer at OSU but he will get to the bottom of this.......

[Trinity]

Politico says WH sidelined Col Vindman for a Nunes staffer. A Fake Ukraine expert was needed to not confuse Trump. Outstanding. Ditch the Ambassador. Ditch the soldier. Slide in your stooges. Do some bidness.

[Peter Brown]

Is it fair to say that the same people saying how dare anyone question Vindman's patriotism are the same ones saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Why is it fair to malign one, but not the other?

Do any of the vocal Democrats here who trashed Tulsi understand the inconsistency?

[seacoaster]

Is it fair to say that the same people saying how dare anyone question Vindman's patriotism are the same ones saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Why is it fair to malign one, but not the other?

Do any of the vocal Democrats here who trashed Tulsi understand the inconsistency?

No. This appears to be your MO: you try to equate some things in order to avoid some things.

[seacoaster]

https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=radio

Nunes giving a completely predictable toadying statement? Check.

Jordan yelling at House colleagues? Check.

Jordan advancing a false and distorted story? Check.

Did Gym have his sleeves rolled up?

I'm on the radio feed, thank god.

Old Gym missed over 300 incidents of sexual misconduct by his athletic trainer at OSU but he will get to the bottom of this.......

Kevin McCarthy needs a new speechwriter? Check.

[Trinity]

To review— Pelosi did not want this. He begged her. He’s got it now and she’s beating his brains in. Watch the schedule slow down.

[ggait]

With the corroborating facts piling up fast, I think Morrison's reported testimony is going to be the next spaghetti/defense that will be thrown at the wall:

1. QPQ -- yes.
2. Reported it to the lawyers -- yes.
3. Problematic -- yes.
4. But not improper or illegal or impeachable.

Presumably, just saying #4 often enough will make it true. No need for any explanation/analysis why it isn't illegal or improper or impeachable.

Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. Morrison said he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region. Morrison later notified NSC lawyers about the pressure being exerted on Ukraine, according to Taylor’s testimony.

[Typical Lax Dad]

With the corroborating facts piling up fast, I think Morrison's reported testimony is going to be the next spaghetti/defense that will be thrown at the wall:

1. QPQ -- yes.
2. Reported it to the lawyers -- yes.
3. Problematic -- yes.
4. But not improper or illegal or impeachable.

Presumably, just saying #4 often enough will make it true. No need for any explanation/analysis why it isn't illegal or improper or impeachable.

Morrison told impeachment investigators that the account offered by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting ambassador to Ukraine, is accurate. Morrison said he did not necessarily view the president’s demands as improper or illegal, but rather problematic for U.S. policy in supporting an ally in the region. Morrison later notified NSC lawyers about the pressure being exerted on Ukraine, according to Taylor’s testimony.

Not problematic but reported it to the NSC lawyers...what I learned in High School remains true today. The general public is dumb as hell.

[foreverlax]

Louie Gohmert doing what he does - flat out lying.

Called McMaster an Obama Holdover...conspiring with Brennan to remove a duly elected president. Even the IG is part of Dark State.

[ggait]

Morrison 100% confirms the quid pro quo facts regarding Bursima specifically:

Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general—not President Zelensky—would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.

And yeah I did go to the in-house lawyers about the call transcript and worked with them to make sure it was buried and wouldn't leak. But it wasn't illegal or anything:

After the [July 25] call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.

Hey Tim (a lawyer himself) -- could you explain why you would have had all those concerns if the call was perfect and okie dokie? What impression of the US/Uke relationship were you worried about? Why would the call undermine bi-partisan support for Uke?

Presumably, your concerns were because the call was targeting Biden, right? But that's still no problemo? Funny, it sounds like you are really saying that the call was actually a big problemo. And that you had to cover the truth up. Not because it would create a bad/false impression, but because the truth was dirty?

[CU77]

4. But not improper or illegal or impeachable.

Presumably, just saying #4 often enough will make it true. No need for any explanation/analysis why it isn't illegal or improper or impeachable.

Yep, that's the line they're all going to tow.

I predict no Republican in the House will vote to impeach, and no Republican in the Senate will vote to remove.

That includes Romney, Collins, and Murkowski. In the end, they will all bend the knee.

This is why:

FORT MYERS, Fla. — When it came to impeachment, the congressman wanted “to get all the facts on the table.” He thought the ambassadors testifying in closed session were “professional diplomats” and that an apparent admission from the White House lectern of a quid pro quo with Ukraine should be taken at face value.

At another time, under a different president, Republican Rep. Francis Rooney’s words might have seemed innocuous, banal to the point of irrelevance.

But this is 2019, the president is Trump and in the country clubs and gated communities of Rooney’s ruby-red district along southwest Florida’s shimmering Gulf Coast, the comments provoked a collective howl.

Republican Facebook pages lit up with indignation that Rooney had failed to denounce the impeachment inquiry as “a witch hunt.” Party activists traded outraged texts. Some took their case directly to the congressman, protesting what they saw as an act of supreme disloyalty to a leader they say they have come to revere more than any in their lifetimes.

“I told him, ‘You’ve betrayed your country, your president and your constituents,’ ” said Doris Cortese, 80, the vice chair of the Lee County Republicans, recounting a conversation with Rooney.

“My exact words to him were: ‘Get out.’ ”

Within hours, the longtime Republican insider had, announcing on Fox News his decision not to run again after two terms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

[MDlaxfan76]

Is it fair to say that the same people saying how dare anyone question Vindman's patriotism are the same ones saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Why is it fair to malign one, but not the other?

Do any of the vocal Democrats here who trashed Tulsi understand the inconsistency?

No, very, very few folks think Tulsi is an actual "Russian agent"...lots and lots of folks, D's and R's and I's think trashing Vindman is reprehensible.

Back to Tulsi, "agent" is a very different thing than 'useful idiot'...I doubt the latter is really true either, but I'd be at least willing to consider that the Russians have indeed used her candidacy in that fashion, mobilizing social media tools, etc. I'd want to see some evidence, though.

But as to her actual intentions, makes me peeved too to have folks impugn her that way...unless they have darn strong proof and are willing and able to produce it.

[old salt]

Is it fair to say that the same people saying how dare anyone question Vindman's patriotism are the same ones saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Why is it fair to malign one, but not the other ?

You can just as easily level the accusation (or insinuate the smear) that Vindman is a Ukrainian agent.

Both are unfounded insults to serving Army officers.

[seacoaster]

4. But not improper or illegal or impeachable.

Presumably, just saying #4 often enough will make it true. No need for any explanation/analysis why it isn't illegal or improper or impeachable.

Yep, that's the line they're all going to tow.

I predict no Republican in the House will vote to impeach, and no Republican in the Senate will vote to remove.

That includes Romney, Collins, and Murkowski. In the end, they will all bend the knee.

This is why:

FORT MYERS, Fla. — When it came to impeachment, the congressman wanted “to get all the facts on the table.” He thought the ambassadors testifying in closed session were “professional diplomats” and that an apparent admission from the White House lectern of a quid pro quo with Ukraine should be taken at face value.

At another time, under a different president, Republican Rep. Francis Rooney’s words might have seemed innocuous, banal to the point of irrelevance.

But this is 2019, the president is Trump and in the country clubs and gated communities of Rooney’s ruby-red district along southwest Florida’s shimmering Gulf Coast, the comments provoked a collective howl.

Republican Facebook pages lit up with indignation that Rooney had failed to denounce the impeachment inquiry as “a witch hunt.” Party activists traded outraged texts. Some took their case directly to the congressman, protesting what they saw as an act of supreme disloyalty to a leader they say they have come to revere more than any in their lifetimes.

“I told him, ‘You’ve betrayed your country, your president and your constituents,’ ” said Doris Cortese, 80, the vice chair of the Lee County Republicans, recounting a conversation with Rooney.

“My exact words to him were: ‘Get out.’ ”

Within hours, the longtime Republican insider had, announcing on Fox News his decision not to run again after two terms.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Interesting. I think there will be between 3 and 5 GOP Senators who vote for conviction. Yes, I am an optimist there.

Here's today's lesson in pessimism. Today I listened to the "debate" -- note the quotes -- in the House over the formal impeachment inquiry on C-Span. There was a brief procedural vote, and during this interregnum C-Span gave out three numbers for callers -- a "Republican" number; a "Democratic" number; and an "Other" number -- and proceeded to take calls. Every Republican caller -- every one -- simply repeated the talking points about "the lack of due process," and the "secrecy of Schiff" and the fact that "we haven't heard from the whistleblower," etc., etc. None of them -- again, none -- showed any interest in or alluded to or mentioned or passed upon the fact that the President asked a foreign leader for dirt while holding up $391,000,000 in aid. They just don't care. If it upsets "Libs," good. If "Libs" want it, bad. No need for facts or discernment.

[foreverlax]

Is it fair to say that the same people saying how dare anyone question Vindman's patriotism are the same ones saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Why is it fair to malign one, but not the other?

Do any of the vocal Democrats here who trashed Tulsi understand the inconsistency?

No, very, very few folks think Tulsi is an actual "Russian agent"...lots and lots of folks, D's and R's and I's think trashing Vindman is reprehensible.

Back to Tulsi, "agent" is a very different thing than 'useful idiot'...I doubt the latter is really true either, but I'd be at least willing to consider that the Russians have indeed used her candidacy in that fashion, mobilizing social media tools, etc. I'd want to see some evidence, though.

But as to her actual intentions, makes me peeved too to have folks impugn her that way...unless they have darn strong proof and are willing and able to produce it.

Agreed. The overlap between the folks that are Trumpers (the only ones so far suggesting he is a traitor) and those peddling the Sparrow theory has to be pretty small.

HRC's comment, for me, was truly jaw dropping. I get her sparing with Trump about a 2nd round...I prefer she and Bill do a Houdini.

[youthathletics]

the fact that the President asked a foreign leader for dirt while holding up $391,000,000 in aid. They just don't care. If it upsets "Libs," good. If "Libs" want it, bad. No need for facts or discernment.

If it is so cut and dry in your eyes, then what is the problem with the left that they do not see it so clearly as you do?

Interesting how your comments so overly simplify it all and yet the the left does not even get it. You sound like you are in the republicans corner on this (its a sham) and in the same breath you are standing alongside the left being complicit in a sham.

[seacoaster]

the fact that the President asked a foreign leader for dirt while holding up $391,000,000 in aid. They just don't care. If it upsets "Libs," good. If "Libs" want it, bad. No need for facts or discernment.

If it is so cut and dry in your eyes, then what is the problem with the left that they do not see it so clearly as you do?

Interesting how your comments so overly simplify it all and yet the the left does not even get it. You sound like you are in the republicans corner on this (its a sham) and in the same breath you are standing alongside the left being complicit in a sham.

I gotta tell you: your post makes no sense to me at all. I think it is easy; it is plainly wrong; it is of an “impeachable” character and kind. I genuinely don’t understand how anyone doesn’t think the same. “It’s” not a sham; it’s a gross misuse of public authority and trust.