The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby RocketMan » Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:27 pm

Yes, I await with great fascination what horrors the Democratic Party will foist on us after the Trump regency. Again, I wonder what these #Resistance folks think is the future when they no longer can blame foreigners for All-American policy. I wonder if that feeling of emptiness is even greater than after Election Night 2016.

Trump could also resign, I just read that some former Trump Org person said, do a Nixon.

I get a very "RFK in '68" vibe from the Sanders run, even without an assassination. Except this time, if/when it fails/is made to fail, the fallout will not be limited to some faraway jungle in an Asian nation.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:30 pm

Is Bill Barr working with US Attorney investigating Muller report to legitimize conspiracy theories?

1 min ago
U.S. Attorney John Durham was tasked by Attorney General Bill Barr to “investigate the investigators” involved in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. But Barr flew Durham along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and right-wing activist Sebastian Gorka to Italy to uncover evidence to justify their theory that multiple countries worked to set up President Donald Trump for collusion with Russia.

As The Washington Post recalled, a European professor met with a top Trump advisor during the 2016 and Barr wants to get to the bottom of the professor’s impact on the Mueller investigation. The investigation into Mueller’s investigation was supposed to be run by independent U.S. Attorney Durham, but it seems Barr has taken hold of the investigation using the resources of the Department of Justice.

“It just seems like they’re doing everything they can to delegitimize the origins of that investigation,” one source involved in Muller’s investigation told The Post. “I just don’t think there’s any real basis to disparage it.”

Barr has been one of Trump’s greatest allies by releasing an inaccurate summary of the Mueller report that lied about the findings but managed to change the political narrative to cause public confusion about the truth in Mueller’s findings.

While his supporters say Barr is exploring the conspiracy theories to uncover if they are legitimate, the investigation into Muller’s probe is itself an investigation into a conspiracy theory.

“He’s not a conspiracy theorist. He’s a realist,” said Barr friend George Terwilliger. “And I’m confident that if he has a concern that justifies his personal involvement, it’s based on fact, not conjecture.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/is-bil ... ssion=true
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:36 pm

trump and Rudy Giuliani just got caught trying to extort huge amounts of money out of a Ukraine gas company

Julia Davis

Trump and Giuliani allies driving the attempt to change the senior management at Ukraine's Naftogaz appear to have had inside knowledge of the U.S. government’s plans in Ukraine. They told people that Amb. Yovanovitch would be recalled 3 months in advance.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 1887776769




Julia Davis

Parnas & Fruman told Naftogaz exec they had flown in from Florida on a private jet to recruit him to be their partner in a new venture to export up to 100 tanker shipments a year of US liquefied gas into Ukraine, where Naftogaz is the largest distributor.

Trump donor, Harry Sargeant III, told Naftogaz executive, Andrew Favorov, that he regularly meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and that the gas-sales plan had the president’s full support.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/stat ... 1887776769


Scoop: Trump pins Ukraine call on Energy Secretary Rick Perry
Alayna Treene, Jonathan SwanOct 5, 2019
President Trump told House Republicans that he made his now infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the urging of Energy Secretary Rick Perry — a call Trump claimed he didn’t even want to make.

Behind the scenes: Trump made these comments during a conference call with House members on Friday, according to 3 sources on the call.

Per the sources, Trump rattled off the same things he has been saying publicly — that his call with Zelensky was "perfect"and he did nothing wrong.
But he then threw Perry into the mix and said something to the effect of: "Not a lot of people know this but, I didn't even want to make the call. The only reason I made the call was because Rick asked me to. Something about an LNG [liquefied natural gas] plant," one source said, recalling the president's comments. 2 other sources confirmed the first source's recollection.
Why it matters: The president's remarks suggest he may be seeking to distance himself from responsibility or recast the pretext for the call. White House officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Another source on the call said Trump added that "more of this will be coming out in the next few days" — referring to Perry.
Worth noting: Text messages released this week between Trump administration officials and Andrey Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, suggest that Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was a primary advocate for arranging the call.

There is no mention in the text messages of Perry playing a role in making this call happen.
Zelensky talks about buying American oil and wanting to work with the U.S. on energy independence, but Perry and LNG are not discussed in the 5-page memo of the Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House.
Between the lines: Perry, who is reportedly resigning by the end of this year, has become increasingly embroiled in congressional Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

In May, Perry led a U.S. delegation to Ukraine for Zelensky’s inauguration in place of Vice President Mike Pence, and Democrats have begun to press Perry for more information about the trip and his conversations with Ukrainian leaders.
The House subpoena of Rudy Giuliani also seeks documents related to Perry's "involvement with Ukrainian leaders last spring."
However, Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday that, "as God is my witness," neither Joe or Hunter Biden's name ever came up.
And as The Washington Post recently reported, "no evidence has emerged that Perry participated in the effort to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter."
Perry's spokeswoman, Shaylyn Hynes, told Axios: “Secretary Perry absolutely supported and encouraged the president to speak to the new president of Ukraine to discuss matters related to their energy security and economic development."

"He continues to believe that there is significant need for improved regional energy security—which is exactly why he is heading to Lithuania tonight to meet with nearly 2 dozen European energy leaders (including Ukraine) on these issues,” Hynes added.
The White House acknowledged the conference call in a Friday readout that said participants included Minority Leader McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney, and GOP leaders on key House committees — and that they discussed Friday's jobs report, the economy and concerns about Democrats' impeachment inquiry.
https://www.axios.com/trump-blamed-rick ... 7h4ycVtL_A



AP sources: Trump allies pressed Ukraine over gas firm

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump’s main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.

Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine’s massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.

Their plan hit a snag after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko lost his reelection bid to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose conversation with Trump about former Vice President Joe Biden is now at the center of the House impeachment inquiry of Trump.

But the effort to install a friendlier management team at the helm of the gas company, Naftogaz, would soon be taken up with Ukraine’s new president by U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, whose slate of candidates included a fellow Texan who is one of Perry’s past political donors.

It’s unclear if Perry’s attempts to replace board members at Naftogaz were coordinated with the Giuliani allies pushing for a similar outcome, and no one has alleged that there is criminal activity in any of these efforts. And it’s unclear what role, if any, Giuliani had in helping his clients push to get gas sales agreements with the state-owned company.

But the affair shows how those with ties to Trump and his administration were pursuing business deals in Ukraine that went far beyond advancing the president’s personal political interests. It also raises questions about whether Trump allies were mixing business and politics just as Republicans were calling for a probe of Biden and his son Hunter, who served five years on the board of another Ukrainian energy company, Burisma.

On Friday, according to the news site Axios, Trump told a group of Republican lawmakers that it had been Perry who had prompted the phone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a “favor” regarding Biden. Axios cited a source saying Trump said Perry had asked Trump to make the call to discuss “something about an LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant.”

While it’s unclear whether Trump’s remark Friday referred specifically to the behind-the-scenes maneuvers this spring involving the multibillion-dollar state gas company, The Associated Press has interviewed four people with direct knowledge of the attempts to influence Naftogaz, and their accounts show Perry playing a key role in the effort. Three of the four spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The fourth is an American businessman with close ties to the Ukrainian energy sector.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Energy Department said Perry, a former Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate, was not advancing anyone’s personal interests. She said his conversations with Ukrainian officials about Naftogaz were part of his efforts to reform the country’s energy sector and create an environment where Western companies can do business.

The Trump and Giuliani allies driving the attempt to change the senior management at Naftogazt, however, appear to have had inside knowledge of the U.S. government’s plans in Ukraine. For example, they told people that Trump would replace the U.S. ambassador there months before she was actually recalled to Washington, according to three of the individuals interviewed by the AP. One of the individuals said he was so concerned by the whole affair that he reported it to a U.S. Embassy official in Ukraine months ago.

THE BUSINESSMEN

Ukraine, a resource-rich nation that sits on the geographic and symbolic border between Russia and the West, has long been plagued by corruption and government dysfunction, making it a magnet for foreign profiteers.

At the center of the Naftogaz plan, according to three individuals familiar with the details, were three such businessmen: two Soviet-born Florida real estate entrepreneurs, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, and an oil magnate from Boca Raton, Florida, named Harry Sargeant III.

Parnas and Fruman have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Republicans, including $325,000 to a Trump-allied political action committee in 2018. This helped the relatively unknown entrepreneurs gain access to top levels of the Republican Party — including meetings with Trump at the White House and Mar-a-Lago.

The two have also faced lawsuits from disgruntled investors over unpaid debts. During the same period they were pursuing the Naftogaz deal, the two were coordinating with Giuliani to set up meetings with Ukrainian government officials and push for an investigation of the Bidens.

Sargeant, his wife and corporate entities tied to the family have donated at least $1.2 million to Republican campaigns and PACs over the last 20 years, including $100,000 in June to the Trump Victory Fund, according to federal and state campaign finance records. He has also served as finance chair of the Florida state GOP, and gave nearly $14,000 to Giuliani’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.

In early March, Fruman, Parnas and Sargeant were touting a plan to replace Naftogaz CEO Andriy Kobolyev with another senior executive at the company, Andrew Favorov, according to two individuals who spoke to the AP as well as a memorandum about the meeting that was later submitted to the U.S. Embassy in Kiev.

Going back to the Obama administration, the U.S. Energy Department and the State Department have long supported efforts to import American natural gas into Ukraine to reduce the country’s dependence on Russia.

The three approached Favorov with the idea while the Ukrainian executive was attending an energy industry conference in Texas. Parnas and Fruman told him they had flown in from Florida on a private jet to recruit him to be their partner in a new venture to export up to 100 tanker shipments a year of U.S. liquefied gas into Ukraine, where Naftogaz is the largest distributor, according to two people briefed on the details.

Sargeant told Favorov that he regularly meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and that the gas-sales plan had the president’s full support, according to the two people who said Favorov recounted the discussion to them.

These conversations were recounted to AP by Dale W. Perry, an American who is a former business partner of Favorov. He told AP in an interview that Favorov described the meeting to him soon after it happened and that Favorov perceived it to be a shakedown. Perry, who is no relation to the energy secretary, is the managing partner of Energy Resources of Ukraine, which currently has business agreements to import natural gas and electricity to Ukraine.

A second person who spoke on condition of anonymity also confirmed to the AP that Favorov had recounted details of the Houston meeting to him.

According to Dale Perry and the other person, Favorov said Parnas told him Trump planned to remove U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and replace her with someone more open to aiding their business interests.

Dale Perry told the AP he was so concerned about the efforts to change the management at Naftogaz and to get rid of Yovanovitch that he reported what he had heard to Suriya Jayanti, a State Department foreign service officer stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv who focuses on the energy industry.

He also wrote a detailed memo about Favorov’s account, dated April 12, which was shared with another current State Department official. Perry recently provided a copy of the April memo to AP.

Jayanti declined to provide comment. Favorov also declined to comment.

On March 24, Giuliani and Parnas gathered at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with Healy E. Baumgardner, a former Trump campaign adviser who once served as deputy communications director for Giuliani’s presidential campaign and as a communications official during the George W. Bush administration.

She is now listed as the CEO of 45 Energy Group, a Houston-based energy company whose website describes it as a “government relations, public affairs and business development practice group.”

This was a couple of weeks after the Houston meeting with Favorov, the Naftogaz executive. Giuliani, Parnas and Baumgardner were there to make a business pitch involving gas deals in the former Soviet bloc to a potential investor.

This time, according to Giuliani, the deals that were discussed involved Uzbekistan, not Ukraine.

“I have not pursued a deal in the Ukraine. I don’t know about a deal in the Ukraine. I would not do a deal in the Ukraine now, obviously,” said Giuliani, reached while attending a playoff baseball game between the New York Yankees and Minnesota Twins. “There is absolutely no proof that I did it, because I didn’t do it.”

During this meeting, Parnas again repeated that Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador in Kyiv, would soon be replaced, according to a person with direct knowledge of the gathering. She was removed two months later.

Giuliani, who serves as Trump’s personal lawyer and has no official role in government, acknowledged Friday that he was among those pushing the president to replace the ambassador, a career diplomat with a history of fighting corruption.

“The ambassador to Ukraine was replaced,” he said. “I did play a role in that.”

But Giuliani refused to discuss the details of his business dealings, or whether he helped his associates in their push to forge gas sales contracts with the Ukrainian company. He did describe Sergeant as a friend and referred to Parnas and Fruman as his clients in a tweet in May.

As part of their impeachment inquiry, House Democrats have subpoenaed Giuliani for documents and communications related to dozens of people, including Favorov, Parnas, Fruman and Baumgardner’s 45 Energy Group.

Baumgardner issued a written statement, saying: “While I won’t comment on business discussions, I will say this: this political assault on private business by the Democrats in Congress is complete harassment and an invasion of privacy that should scare the hell out of every American business owner.”

Sargeant did not respond to a voice message left at a number listed for him at an address in Boca Raton.

John Dowd, a former Trump attorney who now represents Parnas and Fruman, said it was actually the Naftogaz executives who approached his clients about making a deal. He says they then met with Rick Perry to get the Energy Department on board.

“The people from the company solicited my clients because Igor is in the gas business, and they asked them, and they flew to Washington and they solicited,” Dowd said. “They sat down and talked about it. And then it was presented to Secretary Perry to see if they could get it together.

“It wasn’t a shakedown; it was an attempt to do legitimate business that didn’t work out.”

THE ENERGY SECRETARY

In May, Rick Perry traveled to Kyiv to serve as the senior U.S. government representative at the inauguration of the county’s new president.

In a private meeting with Zelenskiy, Perry pressed the Ukrainian president to fire members of the Naftogaz advisory board. Attendees left the meeting with the impression that Perry wanted to replace the American representative, Amos Hochstein, a former diplomat and energy representative who served in the Obama administration, with someone “reputable in Republican circles,” according to someone who was in the room.

That Perry had pushed for Ukraine’s state-owned natural gas company Naftogaz to change its supervisory board was first reported by Politico.

A second meeting during the trip, at a Kyiv hotel, included Ukrainian officials and energy sector people. There, Perry made clear that the Trump administration wanted to see the entire Naftogaz supervisory board replaced, according to a person who attended both meetings. Perry again referenced the list of advisers that he had given Zelenskiy, and it was widely interpreted that he wanted Michael Bleyzer, a Ukrainian-American businessman from Texas, to join the newly formed board, the person said. Also on the list was Robert Bensh, another Texan who frequently works in Ukraine, the Energy Department confirmed.

Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Kurt D. Volker, then the State Department’s special envoy to Ukraine, were also in the room, according to photographs reviewed by AP. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said he was floored by the American requests because the person had always viewed the U.S. government “as having a higher ethical standard.”

The Naftogaz supervisory board is supposed to be selected by the Ukrainian president’s Cabinet in consultation with international institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, the United States and the European Union. It must be approved by the Ukrainian Cabinet. Ukrainian officials perceived Perry’s push to swap out the board as circumventing that established process, according to the person in the room.

U.S. Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said Perry had consistently called for the modernization of Ukraine’s business and energy sector in an effort to create an environment that will incentivize Western companies to do business there. She said Perry delivered that same message in the May meeting with Zelenskiy.

“What he did not do is advocate for the business interests of any one individual or company,” Hynes said Saturday. “That is fiction being pushed by those who are disingenuously seeking to advance a nefarious narrative that does not exist.”

Hynes said the Ukrainian government had requested U.S. recommendations to advise the country on energy matters, and Perry provided those recommendations. She confirmed Bleyzer was on the list.

Bleyzer, whose company is based in Houston, did not respond on Saturday to a voicemail seeking comment. Bensh also did not respond to a phone message.

As a former Texas governor, Perry has always had close ties to the oil and gas industry. He appointed Bleyzer to a two-year term on a state technologies fund board in 2009. The following year, records show Bleyzer donated $20,000 to Perry’s reelection campaign.

Zelenskiy’s office declined to comment on Saturday.

In an interview Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Perry said that “as God as my witness” he never discussed Biden or his son in meetings with Ukrainian or U.S. officials, including Trump or Giuliani.

“This has been a very intense, a very focused push to get Ukraine to clean up the corruption,” Perry said in the interview. “I can’t go in good faith and tell a U.S. company, go and invest here, go and be involved if the corruption is ongoing.”

He did confirm he had had a conversation with Giuliani by phone, but a spokeswoman for the energy secretary declined to say when that call was or whether the two had discussed Naftogaz.

https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2







IMPEACHMENT DEPOSITIONS & DEADLINES
10/8: Ulrich Brechbuhl
10/8: Gordon Sondland*
10/10: Lev Parnas
10/11: Igor Fruman
10/11: Marie Yovanovitch*
10/14: Semyon Kislin
10/15: Subpoena deadline for Rudy Giuliani
10/15: Subpoena deadline for VP
10/18: Subpoena deadline for WH

"pray with me, henry..."

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:09 pm

Federal judge says trump can be indicted while he’s still in office

Kyle Cheney

IMPORTANT: The New York judge who dismissed Trump's tax return suit also took a huge swing at the DOJ memos that say a sitting president can't be indicted. He says the legal weigh given to these OLC opinions is "not warranted." >>>>>

Image
Rather, the judge suggests there is a better balance between protecting the president's interests and ensuring justice >>>

Image
And the judge also argues that the DOJ memos describing the horrors of a presidential indictment were conjured out of thin air rather than out of legitimate factual concerns.

Image
Image


And the judge presents a hypothetical that would *support* the indictment a sitting president: preventing criminal associates from going free or himself from escaping justice due to a statute of limitations.

Image
Image
NEW: A federal judge just lodged the most significant rejection ever made to the DOJ memos saying a sitting president can't be indicted -- the centerpiece of Trump's legal strategy. The details:


The judge's order has been STAYED by the Appeals Court and will be scheduled for consideration soon. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/0 ... rns-037121
Image

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/ ... 2264262657
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:44 pm

Dem Mark Pocan is demanding that Pompeo explain who told Sondland not to show up and testify today, and he’s revealed that he’s going to cut off Pompeo’s salary if it doesn’t happen. Pocan is citing the specific section of federal law that allows him to do this, and because he sits on the House Appropriations Committee, he’s in position to make this happen.


Inbox: Rep. Mark Pocan is demanding info from Mike Pompeo about who instructed European Union Amb. Gordon Sondland to not attend his scheduled testimony in front of the House Intel Committee. Pocan threatened Pompeo's salary under Section 713 of Division D of Public Law 116-6.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1 ... 8380320769


278F67DC-FD92-4226-AB48-D17486ADD555.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:31 am

Russian-American business exec with ties to Trump is drawn into impeachment inquiry
Matt Smith
He was a Russian-American commodities trader who told the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine that he was President Donald Trump’s adviser.

And in a series of phone calls last year, Semyon “Sam” Kislin, 83, a New York-based business executive with ties to Trump – and, according to the FBI, to Russian organized crime – importuned U.S. officials for help recovering $21 million in assets from the government of Ukraine, U.S. State Department records show.

The money Kislin sought was a small portion of the more than $1 billion in assets targeted by prosecutors in their probe of Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt former president, Viktor Yanukovych. He is accused of looting the national treasury before he fled the country in 2014.

According to documents obtained by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, Kislin claimed that $21 million worth of government bonds seized by prosecutors in the Yanukovych probe was rightfully his.

Contending he was the victim of Ukrainian “corruption,” Kislin and his lawyers urged the staff of then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch to intercede with Ukrainian officials on Kislin’s behalf.

The heavily redacted files, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Reveal, show that embassy personnel reacted cautiously, mindful of Kislin’s ties to Trump and to Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who now is the president’s personal lawyer.

Embassy officials also emailed around an Associated Press news story concerning Kislin: In 1994, an FBI intelligence report had labeled Kislin an associate of a Russian organized crime and money-laundering ring based in Brooklyn.

Despite his pleas, Kislin still hasn’t gotten the money.

In a phone interview today, Kislin downplayed his relationships with Trump and Giuliani. He denied saying he was the president’s adviser, though it’s reflected in embassy documents. He also described himself as Trump’s adviser in a 2018 interview with a Ukrainian journalist.

Kislin told Reveal he is frustrated that he didn’t get more help from the embassy.

Now Kislin’s activities in Ukraine have attracted the attention of three congressional committees that are spearheading the impeachment investigation of Trump.

In a Sept. 30 letter, the committees asked Kislin to produce any information he has about Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, into launching a corruption probe of the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, one of Trump’s political rivals.

The committees also want all documents in Kislin’s possession concerning Trump, Giuliani, former ambassador Yovanovitch and a long list of other U.S. and Ukrainian officials who are figures in the impeachment investigation.

The House Select Committee on Intelligence seeks to depose Kislin on Oct. 14, according to the letter, which was signed by Reps. Adam Schiff, Eliot Engel and Elijah Cummings.

Kislin has “no information that would be remotely relevant,” said his attorney Jeffrey Dannenberg.

Trump and Giuliani have alleged, without evidence, that Biden’s son Hunter illegally profited during his years on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings. A whistleblower complaint about a July phone call in which Trump pushed Zelensky to investigate the Bidens sparked the impeachment probe.

According to local news reports, Kislin has made several visits to Ukraine in pursuit of the $21 million and while there has complained bitterly about widespread “corruption” in the Ukrainian government.

Now, the congressional inquiry may bring unwanted attention to Kislin, a Russian émigré who has known Trump for more than 30 years.

After growing up in Odessa, Ukraine, Kislin came to the U.S. in the 1970s, part of a wave of Jewish immigrants fleeing the Soviet Union. He opened an electronics store. Trump, then a brash young developer getting his start in Manhattan, became an important customer.

As Kislin later recalled in a Ukrainian media interview, in one early deal, Trump ordered new television sets for a 320-room hotel, then waited until the last possible minute to give Kislin his money.

In the 1990s, Kislin set up a company called Trans Commodities and invested heavily in Russia’s metal industry during the height of the post-Soviet privatization boom.

Later, according to Bloomberg News, he began making real estate loans to Russian citizens who wanted to buy units in the 72-story Trump World Tower near the United Nations headquarters.

As he grew wealthy, Kislin got involved in New York politics, donating $46,000 to Giuliani’s 1993 and 1997 mayoral campaigns, according to news reports. Kislin was named to the city’s Economic Development Corp., but controversy dogged him after stories were published about the 1994 FBI report, which also accused Trans Commodities of laundering millions of dollars of Russian money.

Kislin denied wrongdoing. He was not charged with a crime in connection with the allegations.

“I don’t know anything about the Mafia,” he said.

But in a 2014 report, the New Jersey attorney general’s office referred to Kislin as a “reputed member of a New York-based Russian organized crime group.”

Kislin’s dispute with the Ukrainian government involves a Cyprus-based firm called Opalcore Ltd. The government mentioned Opalcore repeatedly in its 2017 prosecution of Arkady Kashkin, a Ukrainian man who confessed to being a low-level conspirator in the money-laundering scheme allegedly orchestrated by former president Yanukovych.

According to Ukrainian court records obtained from the U.S. Embassy, Opalcore was one of dozens of shell corporations corrupt officials used to launder government funds they had misappropriated.

Embezzled money – sometimes in the form of Ukrainian government bonds – allegedly was moved into the corporations’ accounts, the records show. Later, the funds were passed on to other accounts controlled by the conspirators, in what were made to look like legitimate transactions, the government said.

In 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors froze the accounts of many of the suspect corporations, including Opalcore. Opalcore’s assets were transferred to a government-controlled bank.

In their letters to the U.S. Embassy, Kislin’s lawyers disputed that Opalcore was part of an embezzlement scheme. They said the firm had purchased $21 million in government infrastructure bonds in 2013. The company was acquired by a British company in 2016, and Kislin’s company bought Opalcore from that firm, they wrote.

Soon, Kislin discovered that the government had “illegally absconded with Opalcore’s funds,” as the lawyers put it. They also accused prosecutors of inducing Kashkin to give false testimony in his confession.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/russ ... t-inquiry/



Here’s Another Impeachable Offense: Trump’s War on the Constitution
The president intensified the attack by saying he won’t cooperate at all with the House impeachment inquiry.


Mother Jones illustration; Getty, Drew Angerer/Getty
Resolved, the president of the United States ought to be impeached for “interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation…and Congressional Committees.” That’s a line from the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon approved on July 27, 1974 by the House Judiciary Committee on a 27-to-11 bipartisan vote. (You can listen to the roll call for the vote here.) And now Donald Trump is providing today’s House Democrats little choice but to consider a similar charge as their impeachment inquiry proceeds.

As the New York Times reported on Tuesday morning, “The White House all but declared war on the House impeachment inquiry…intervening for the first time to block the testimony of a key witness as President Trump signaled his administration would try to starve investigators of more witnesses and documents.” That witness was Gordon Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union. He is a Trump crony—a fellow hotel magnate—who raised money for the GOP in 2016 and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration. A novice in the field of diplomacy, Sondland was given the EU ambassadorship presumably due to his pro-Trump largesse. And he has become embroiled in the Trump-Ukraine scandal. Text messages turned over to House investigators include exchanges between Sondland and fellow American diplomats suggesting that Sondland knew Trump was proposing an inappropriate quid pro quo to Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky—and wasn’t comfortable with it. The House Democrats running the Ukraine investigation had requested that Sondland come in for a private interview. But shortly after midnight on Tuesday morning, hours before he was supposed to report to Capitol Hill, the State Department ordered Sondland not to talk to the congressional investigators.

Then, late Tuesday afternoon, Trump intensified his assault on House investigators by a factor of gazillion. His White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and several House Democratic chairs a blistering eight-page letter declaring that the Trump White House will not cooperate with the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. “President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process,” Cipollone proclaimed in the letter, which was full of partisan outrage and devoid of legal arguments. He added that Trump “cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry.” In other words, the White House will turn over nada to the Democrats—it will produce no documents, no witnesses.

This was no shocker. The White House has routinely blocked House Democrats investigating a wide array of alleged Trump wrongdoing from gaining access to witnesses and documents. The White House has thwarted House Judiciary Committee efforts to probe the various alleged instances of Trump obstructing justice outlined in detail in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report by blocking witnesses, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, from being questioned by the committee. Attorney General Bill Barr refused to appear before the panel when told he would be questioned by a committee lawyer in addition to members. On orders from the White House, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, declined to answer questions about some of his conversations with Trump when he came before for the committee. Other witnesses questioned as part of the House Democrats’ investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal and Trump’s possible obstructions of justice—such as former Trump senior aide Hope Hicks—also have followed White House instructions to keep mum about their interactions with Trump—without the White House formally invoking executive privilege. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has impeded the House Ways and Means Committee’s request for Trump’s tax returns, though the law clearly states that the IRS “shall” turn over such records if the committee asks for them. This has forced House Democrats to go to court. The Justice Department has also said nyet to a House request for investigative material related to Mueller’s probe, triggering another court case.

There are other instances of Trump thumbing his nose at the House’s demands for information and witnesses, and now he is applying that tactic to his impeachment defense. In refusing to make any witnesses and documents available to House Democrats, the White House has been arguing, without any merit, that Congress essentially has no oversight responsibilities that are not part of a legislative process—that is, congressional investigators are prohibited from investigating possible wrongdoing for investigation’s sake. This is an absurd position and one not followed by Republicans when they have been in charge. (Benghazi, anyone?) And though legal experts generally agree that the House’s authority to demand possible evidence of wrongdoing deepens when impeachment is on the table, Trump and his lawyers are now stretching their absurd no-investigations-allowed argument to cover all requests linked to the impeachment inquiry. In his letter, Cipollone is contending that if a president considers an impeachment proceeding to be politically motivated, he does not have to cooperate. There is no such provision in the Constitution.

Trump’s letter and his overall stonewalling is an assault on the Constitution. As any armchair constitutional law expert knows, Congress is a co-equal branch of the government and was empowered by the framers to be a check on presidential power. Trump, Barr, and the president’s legal team have contended that Trump cannot be indicted on federal charges while he is president. Mueller accepted that argument in his final report. But that report clearly said that this does not mean a president can get off scot-free. Mueller noted it was up to Congress to examine the allegations of obstruction he outlined. And he implied (strongly) that the possible punishment for a presidential violation of the law would be impeachment.

That’s in keeping with the Constitution that awards Congress the right to indict the president, bring him to trial, and then boot him out of office, should he engage in serious wrongdoing. And if Congress has that task, it seems that it also has the right to investigate before doing so. And if it has that right, then it has the right to demand information necessary for such an investigation.

Yet Trump declines to recognize this power. In fact, he has insisted that Article II of the Constitution “allows me to do whatever I want.” That’s obviously nonsense. The authors of the Constitution clearly worried that an authoritarian with alliances with foreign interests might one day inhabit the White House and—good for them!—presciently included provisions to be used in such a dire instance. But Trump is waging a war on the Constitution, and all those congressional Republicans who are riding along with him are collaborators. Yes, we are no longer supposed to play this game, but imagine what they would have shouted had President Barack Obama blocked Hillary Clinton from appearing before the Benghazi committee. Imagine if the Clinton White House had refused to hand over documents to the Republicans who controlled Congress and who investigated every -gate they could find.

Today’s Republicans are neutering Congress and weakening its ability to restrain or punish a president who doesn’t play by the rules, who doesn’t respect the law, and who doesn’t give a damn about constitutional checks and balances. By accepting Trump’s defiance of congressional investigations, they are eviscerating their own powers and establishing a dangerous precedent.

And with these moves, Trump is forcing the Democrats to widen their impeachment inquiry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has wanted to keep the impeachment process narrowly focused on Trump’s alleged misconduct in the Ukrainian caper. Quid pro quo? Then the president must go. But several House committees have long been at work digging into other possible and impeachable wrongdoing: the alleged obstruction, Trump’s violation of the Emoluments Clause (which bans a president from accepting money from foreigners, unless Congress approves), his involvement in the hush-money payments to a porn star, his welcoming of foreign interference in US elections, and more. Some of these acts may eventually be funneled into articles of impeachment in addition to Ukraine-related charges.

On top of all that now could be Trump’s attempts to cover up his various misdeeds. The House Democrats, after being denied Sondland’s testimony, announced they would subpoena Sondland and related documents. But what if the subpoena is defied, as the Trump administration has ignored other subpoenas in the assorted investigations? The House Dems will then take it to court, as they have other cases. And this issue, like the other cases, may end up with the Supreme Court. Then who knows? But in the meantime, House Democrats can look back 45 years to Nixon and Watergate. Nixon’s refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations was deemed an impeachable offense. Trump’s stonewalling can be regarded in the same manner. It violates the intent of the Constitution and prevents the House from fully examining and reviewing conduct that might be cause for impeachment. Shady dealings in Ukraine that entail Trump abusing the power of his office certainly warrant consideration for impeachment. But Trump’s undermining of the Constitution and the rule of law might even be more deserving of that document’s ultimate punishment.


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... stitution/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:31 am

trump4.jpg

10/08/2019

That Letter From Trump Is Punk Ass Bitchery
The Constitution is pretty fucking clear in how vague it is about impeachment. All it says in Article I is "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment" and "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments" with more procedure following there. But that's after impeachment in the House. In Article II, you get this: the president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." That's interesting, no? Oh, and this: "The President...shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There's also something about a jury not being required.

There ya go. Everything else is up to the House of Representatives on how to proceed, which is guaranteed by the Constitution ("Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"). Nothing in there about a vote to open an impeachment inquiry. Nothing in there about anything. At this point, the Democratic-led House of Representatives can make up any fuckin' rules it wants: "Republicans can only ask questions if they do so without pants" or "Democrats can make farting noises when Republicans speak." Or, you know, let's just investigate this and get on with it, which is what Democrats are trying to do.

And since Donald Trump is the king of motherfucking, of course he was going to be a motherfucker about it. This has been his modus operandi his whole life: throw up as many lawsuits and delays as he can until the other side just gives up. Now, his legal counsel has released a letter to the leadership of the House where it says that Trump ain't gonna eat his vegetables and that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are such mean meanies.

The letter is less a legal document and more a review of the script of every bullshit campaign ad that Trump has put out in the last couple of weeks. They've still got 2016 on the brain: "You seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away" in order to defeat Trump.

This is the "state the obvious in a sinister way" strategy. Yeah, fucko, the purpose of an impeachment is ultimately to remove the president, which, obviously, somewhat undoes the last election (it won't undo the shit-ton of damage Trump has already done) and, yeah, obviously, it would influence the next election. Every time someone says this shit, someone else should be there to yell, "Duh" and "No shit, shit-for-brains."

The rest of the letter is a list of the Fox "news"-ready grievances and lies that Trump airs every fuckin' day on Hell's Twitter feed. The phone call with President Zelensky was "completely appropriate." Rep. Adam Schiff "covertly assisted" the whistleblower. And, my favorite, Schiff created "a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up," which is true if you're not a fucking moron and if Schiff hadn't said that he was speaking "the essence" of what Trump said, "shorn of its rambling character." By constantly insisting that Schiff didn't present it as a paraphrase, Trump is counting on his idiot hordes' idiocy (and probably revealing his own) in not understanding what Schiff said.

But even on substance, the letter is just fucking weird. There's the constant insistence on due process. And while, yes, there is some due process involved in hearings, what the letter demands is the full range of rights that would be available in a fucking trial, not in an investigation.

And as for the complaint that Republicans aren't allowed to subpoena people, well, fuck, each subpoena requires a vote of the full committee. So do they really fucking expect Democrats to go along with all the circus freaks that Republicans would want to put in front of the cameras to insist that Joe and Hunter Biden are the source of all corruption in the world? Shit, they'd probably wanna drag Hillary Clinton into it because they just can't quit her.

(Sidebar: As for "precedent," there was no Judiciary Committee investigation for Bill Clinton's impeachment because everything was based on the Starr Report. In other words, the investigation was done. Not so here.)

The letter even fucking lies about things. For instance, it reads, "The Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld."

It cites a letter from the chairs of the committees to Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan that's about Secretary of State and Trump's most loyal ass lamprey Mike Pompeo preventing DoS employees from testifying. Reps. Engel, Cummings, and Schiff say that House rules say that witnesses may have personal counsel present, but not Executive Branch counsel. And that "the same rule has been in place for more than a decade...and it was in place during Secretary Pompeo's tenure on the Benghazi Select Committee" back when Pompeo was just that fucking prick congressman from Kansas. And the Democrats go on to say that, if you insist on violating the rules and force your employees to violate them, here are the penalties, including loss of salary, which is what the law calls for. Imagine how Pompeo would have blown a fucking fuse if Hillary Clinton (see? She's always around) had told the Benghazi committee to go fuck themselves. Republicans would have Benghazi'd the State Department themselves.

Most impotently, Trump challenges Pelosi to hold a vote on the inquiry: "the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step." And that gives the game away. "Political accountability" just means "I want some shit to make more campaign ads. I want some names I can toss around at my rallies of the damned."

Right now, I'm hearing the punditocracy say that Democrats should knuckle under and let Republicans have more say. They keep talking about previous impeachment hearings like Republicans now are even remotely like Republicans in 1974 (and, in 1998, it was Republicans running it). Fuck that. They are rabid dogs. Rabid dogs don't get to be treated with "fairness."

This is of a piece with the lawsuit blocking the Southern District of New York from getting Trump's taxes. Trump's lawyers argued that the president can't be held accountable for any crimes while president. It was such a breathtaking argument that a federal judge said, essentially, "Oh, fuck to the no on that shit." Now, in this letter to Democrats, his lawyer is arguing that you can't impeach the president if the president doesn't think he should be impeached. Or, in other words, he's not just above the law; he's above the Constitution.

Democrats should respond to the letter by escalating this shit. Break out the inherent contempt. Arrest some motherfuckers. Make people beg to talk. They wanna play this hard? You gotta go harder. Fuck going high. Break the foundation under them.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:28 am

George Conway and other prominent conservatives call for ‘expeditious’ impeachment probe
Colby Itkowitz

George T. Conway III, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, is among more than a dozen prominent conservatives who have written a letter supporting the impeachment of President Trump. (Chip Somodevilla//Getty Images)

More than a dozen prominent conservative lawyers, including George T. Conway III, offered their legal reasoning for an “expeditious” impeachment probe into President Trump, creating a document they hope will be read by Republicans who continue to stand by the president.

The 16 attorneys, many of whom worked in Republican administrations, wrote in a joint statement to be released Thursday morning that Trump’s now infamous call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the text messages between diplomats and Trump’s public call for China to investigate a political opponent are “undisputed” events that amount to Trump violating his oath of office.

“We have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections,” they wrote.

Conway, husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and outspoken Trump critic, helped form a coalition of like-minded conservatives a year ago who wanted to call out what they deemed illegal and unconstitutional behavior by the president. The signatories are members of that group, Checks and Balances.

Paul Rosenzweig, who served as President George W. Bush’s deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department on Homeland Security, said he personally would have gone further than the group’s comments, which are stern, but measured in tone.

“It strikes me that no reasonable attorney can doubt that there was a quid pro quo here,” said Rosenzweig, referring to Trump’s holding back military aid to Ukraine while requesting the country investigate a political foe.

“I would vote for impeachment, and I would vote for conviction and removal in the Senate as well,” Rosenzweig said.

For Stuart M. Gerson, who worked on President George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign and in his administration, the joint statement adds a conservative perspective to the cacophony of people on the left backing impeachment.

“We believe it’s important there be a loyal opposition from the conservative side in defense of the rule of law,” Gerson said. “We feel duty-bound to be able to do it. What’s at risk here is more than our country should stand.”

“There comes a tipping point where you look at this and say my country first, the party comes second,” he added.

Don Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, said he found it “inexplicable” that other Republicans were sticking by Trump.

“I am disgusted by the conduct of Republican senators who pose as reputable people, but shamelessly hide under rocks instead of calling out the president’s horrendous behavior as the gross misconduct that they know it to be,” he said.

“But there aren’t that many people defending [Trump] in an affirmative way,” Ayer added. “There are a lot of people who put their heads down and don’t talk about it.”

Rosenzweig said the goal of the joint statement is to give Republicans “intellectual cover” to stand up with other conservatives and say, “the emperor has no clothes” and “do the right thing.”

The Republicans in Congress have “been a greater disappointment to me than Trump himself,” Rosenzweig said. So far, not one has come out in support of an impeachment inquiry.

“Trump is Trump. His nature is his nature. He’s not any different than the person I knew he was going to be three years ago,” Rosenzweig said.

“But the people who I cannot hold any honor for are the Republicans. There’s lots of really smart Republicans who understand what’s at stake here. They are not stepping up and throwing a flag,” he continued. “They all know it’s wrong. They’re not idiots. They just need the courage, so if others say it first, perhaps that helps.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html


trump demanded Comey comment publicly abt ongoing investigation; he refused and was fired

trump demanded Sessions violate DOJ ethical rules on recusal; he refused and was fired

trump demanded Yovanovitch pursue back channel investigation; she refused and was fired
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:05 am

she just walked in ....she's there and ready to testify

Trump impeachment inquiry: ex-Ukraine envoy scheduled to testify – live
Joan E Greve7m ago
Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine. A senior aide said on Thursday that Yovanovitch and her lawyers were ‘on board’ with the congressional interview.
Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine. A senior aide said on Thursday that Yovanovitch and her lawyers were ‘on board’ with the congressional interview. Photograph: Mikhail Palinchak/AP
7m ago 09:56

In his classic reality-television manner, Trump previewed his meeting this afternoon with the Chinese vice premier to discuss trade negotiations.


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Good things are happening at China Trade Talk Meeting. Warmer feelings than in recent past, more like the Old Days. I will be meeting with the Vice Premier today. All would like to see something significant happen!

12.3K
8:49 AM - Oct 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

6,000 people are talking about this

US stocks jumped yesterday after Trump announced the meeting with Liu He, as investors expressed hope that the sit-down could lead the administration to ratchet down tariffs on Chinese imports.

But Trump has shown no signal of wanting to call off his trade war, only predicting that China would eventually be forced to make a deal with him.

17m ago 09:46

Some of the House Republicans who sit on the committees leading the impeachment inquiry have arrived for Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony, but it’s still unclear whether the former US ambassador to Ukraine will appear.

Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney)
The Rs have arrived for Yovanovitch testimony: Jordan, Zeldin, Perry pic.twitter.com/0QRVMS4iVR
October 11, 2019
17m ago 09:46

Unlike many news organisations, we chose an approach that means all our reporting is free and available for everyone. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable.

For as little as $1 you can support us – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Make a contribution - The Guardian

19m ago 09:44

The executive editor of Lawfare and a former lawyer for the National Security Agency argued that Gordon Sondland’s decision to testify could set an important precedent in the impeachment inquiry.

Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey)
It is significant that Sondland is testifying over State Department objections. This will give cover to career officials to do the same, even if Pompeo tries to stop them. https://t.co/GlHiZRaFbd
October 11, 2019
25m ago 09:38

The lawyer for Gordon Sondland, who is now expected to testify in the impeachment inquiry next Thursday, added in his statement that the former US ambassador to the EU would speak to House committees despite the State Department’s opposition.

But he warned that the former ambassador would not be able to produce many of the documents that House Democrats requested in their subpoena.

Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett)
Sondland's counsel says he "respects the Committees’ interest in reviewing all relevant materials; however, federal law and State Department regulations prohibit him from producing documents concerning his official responsibilities." Counsel says he doesn't control the documents
October 11, 2019
31m ago 09:32

Maryland's Republican governor expresses support for impeachment

Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland, expressed support for the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

Maryland governor Larry Hogan participates in the All Markets Summit in New York.
Maryland governor Larry Hogan participates in the All Markets Summit in New York. Photograph: Evan Agostini/Invision/AP
Hogan said in a PBS segment that aired last night: “I think we do need an inquiry because we have to get to the bottom of it.”

But the Maryland governor made clear that, for now at least, he was only backing the investigation: “I’m not ready to say I support impeachment and the removal of the president, but I do think we should have an impeachment inquiry.”

Hogan, who has previously offered severe criticism of Trump, is now the third Republican governor to express support for the inquiry – joining Phil Scott of Vermont and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts.

39m ago 09:24

A lawyer for Gordon Sondland, the former US ambassador to the EU who was blocked from testifying in the impeachment inquiry earlier this week, said he would speak to House committees next Thursday.

Sondland’s lawyer said in a statement that the former ambassador “looks forward to testifying.” A person familiar with the matter told CNN that the State Department has not yet offered any guidance on Sondland’s appearance.

When the State Department blocked him from speaking to Congress earlier this week, Sondland said in a statement through his lawyer that he was “profoundly disappointed that he will not be able to testify.”

53m ago 09:10

Sondland will speak to House committees next week, congressional aides say

Gordon Sondland, the former US ambassador to the EU who was blocked from testifying in the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, is expected to speak to House committees next week after receiving a subpoena.

Axios reports:

One source familiar with the rescheduling tells Axios that after the State Department pulled the plug on Sondland’s testimony, Republicans close to Trump encouraged the president to let the ambassador come before the committees. Trump’s allies believe Sondland’s testimony will be helpful to their side.

‘Republicans are looking for any silver lining they can get,’ the source said. ‘Sondland could be a silver lining ... He donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural. He’s a Trump guy. Whereas [former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie] Yovanovitch is a career person.’

Updated at 9.19am EDT

1h ago 08:46

Former US ambassador to Ukraine expected to testify in impeachment inquiry

Good morning, live blog readers – and congratulations on making it to Friday!

House committees leading the impeachment inquiry against Trump are scheduled to depose Marie Yovanovitch, the former US ambassador to Ukraine, today.

The key word here is “scheduled” because Yovanovitch is still a State Department employee, and the department blocked another diplomat, Gordon Sondland, from testifying to the committees earlier this week. A senior congressional aide said yesterday that Yovanovitch and her lawyers were “on board” with the interview.

If she does appear, the former ambassador could provide valuable insight into reports that she pushed back against efforts from Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

Yovanovitch was recalled from her post in the spring, reportedly after Giuliani complained to Donald Trump about her opposition to the pressure campaign.

So the former ambassador could answer a key question: did Trump make significant foreign-policy decisions solely to hurt the political fortunes of his potential election opponent? House Democrats are hoping to find out today.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... ve-updates



Mike Scarcella

Break: DC Circuit upholds House subpoena seeking Trump records from Mazars, his accounting firm /// Panel was skeptical Trump would prevail https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/ ... ena-fight/
Image
https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/statu ... 5762128896
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:36 pm

Appeals Court Upholds House Subpoena Of Trump Financial Records
Matt Shuham

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 10: U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions before boarding Marine
President Donald Trump has lost his bid in the Washington, D.C. federal appeals court to shield his financial records from Congress.

The ruling comes just a few days after the President lost his bid in a New York federal district court to block the release of his tax returns.

The three-judge appeals panel split 2-1. D.C. Circuit Court Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion for the court and Judge Neomi Rao dissented.

Asked Friday whether the President would appeal, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow told TPM, “We are reviewing the opinion and evaluating all appellate options.”

The D.C. case dates back to April, when the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Mazars USA, Trump’s accounting firm, for Trump’s records.

Trump took the unusual step of hiring outside attorneys in the case, who argued against the release of Trump’s financial records. District Judge Amit Mehta upheld the subpoena in May, and Trump appealed.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Congress’ subpoena was an improper attempt to seize law enforcement authority, rather than an exercise in congressional oversight as Democrats have asserted.

The appeals court found that, regardless of motive or potential criminal conduct that could be exposed in the documents, Congress had a valid legislative aim in seeking the records.

“[P]ublic record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits, not an impermissible law-enforcement purpose, behind the Committee’s subpoena,” Tatel wrote, pointing to relevant legislation pending in the House that would require presidents to disclose financial information.

“Simply put, an interest in past illegality can be wholly consistent with an intent to enact remedial legislation,” he said, adding later: “Whether current financial disclosure laws are successfully eliciting the right information from the sitting President, occupant of the highest elected office in the land, is undoubtedly ‘a matter of concern to the United States.'”

Tatel also pointed to the Emoluments Clause, the subject of other court battles involving Trump, as an example of why records of Trump’s finances could be of the legislature’s concern.

“If the President may accept no domestic emoluments and must seek Congress’s permission before accepting any foreign emoluments, then surely a statute facilitating the disclosure of such payments lies within constitutional limits,” the opinion read.

And while it’s possible that a congressional request could be too onerous for a President to comply with it, Tatel granted, “Congress can require the President to make reasonable financial disclosures without upsetting this balance” between the branches.

Read Tatel and Rao’s opinions below:

Tierney Sneed contributed reporting from Washington, D.C.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/appe ... al-records


STEP ON UP
More Potential Whistleblowers Are Contacting Congress

The first two officials who came forward about the president’s pressure campaign on Ukraine seem to be just the beginning, according to Hill sources.
Spencer Ackerman
Sam Brodey
Sam Stein
Updated 10.11.19 12:31PM ET / Published 10.11.19 12:13PM ET
EXCLUSIVE
New potential whistleblowers are coming forward to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, two congressional sources tell The Daily Beast.

They seem to be emboldened by the actions of the whistleblower whose explosive account of President Donald Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky about investigating Trump’s domestic political rivals ignited the impeachment inquiry. Another whistleblower is known to have come forward.

Congressional investigators are currently vetting the new accounts they’ve received for credibility. Accordingly, knowledgeable sources would not discuss where in the government these new would-be whistleblowers come from, nor what they purport to have to say.

It’s also unknown if their accounts are as significant as that of the intelligence whistleblower whose alarm over President Trump’s July 25 phone call sparked the impeachment probe. Investigators often encounter cranks as well as those with genuine knowledge of wrongdoing. Nor is it clear if these new ostensible whistleblowers have contacted any inspectors general, as the original two whistleblowers did.

“There are clearly numerous whistleblowers out there and many people who possess firsthand relevant information who could come forward, and I expect some will,” said attorney Mark Zaid, who represents those two whistleblowers (and also represents The Daily Beast in freedom-of-information lawsuits).

One knowledgeable source said that the daily accumulation of revelations about Trump’s willingness to use U.S. foreign relations for his personal political benefit has prompted more people to approach Congress. Two associates of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani have been arrested and charged with campaign-finance violations arising from their Ukraine dirt-digging effort. The Financial Times reported that Trump China adviser Michael Pillsbury said he received “quite a bit of background” on Joe Biden’s son after Trump publicly called for China to aid his domestic political prospects. The Washington Post reported that Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, and Trump attempted to quash a prosecution of a Turkish national—represented by Giuliani and important to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan—for violating Iran sanctions.

Investigators are using the soon-to-expire congressional recess to vet the accounts they’re getting.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who chairs the House Intelligence committee, a locus of the impeachment probe, told The Daily Beast this month that he did not want to comment on whether investigators had heard from additional whistleblowers. Schiff noted that his committee rarely acknowledges receiving whistleblower complaints because “people can reverse-engineer who whistleblowers are” given an abundance of identifying information.

“The only thing I can say, and I don’t want to suggest too much by this, is we began discussions with other committees investigating these issues, when the first news started breaking about Giuliani seeking foreign help in Ukraine to aid the president’s campaign,” Schiff said.

The revelations come while Congress interviews the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine the administration removed, Maria Yovanovitch, despite the White House’s announced refusal to cooperate with the House Democratic inquiry. Other cracks in that front have emerged. On Friday, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union implicated in the Ukraine pressure campaign, announced through his lawyers that he will defy State Department instructions against talking to Congress.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/more-pote ... itter_page
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:09 pm

Spoiler:Trump isn't going to be impeached. It's a ploy to keep activists like Username slad busy on fantasy errands.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:19 pm

Screen Shot 2019-10-11 at 3.20.29 PM.png


Nearly 3 weeks into the Trump impeachment inquiry, polls show a shift in public opinion
WASHINGTON – It has been nearly three weeks since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24 into President Donald Trump's pressuring of the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

House Democrats have escalated their inquiry, issuing subpoenas to several administration officials and associates of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

The White House has vowed not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, calling it a "partisan" probe.

Despite the clashes between the legislative and executive branches, public opinion polling has shown noticeable shifts in attitudes towards impeachment, though every single poll has asked about impeachment differently.

Partisan divides still persist in every poll, with Democrats and Republicans splitting on the issue. Independents, however, have slowly started to support impeachment or impeachment proceedings.

As of Oct. 10, an average of impeachment polls calculated by FiveThirtyEight, a polling analysis website, shows 49.3% of respondents supporting impeachment and 43.5% not supporting it.

Here is what the individual polls say about impeachment, separated by each question.

Impeachment:All of the people who have been subpoenaed so far in House Democrats' impeachment inquiry

Approve of the House opening an inquiry?

A poll conducted by NPR/Marist/PBS NewsHour from Oct. 3 to Oct. 8 shows 52% of adults support House Democrats starting an impeachment inquiry into Trump — 43% disapprove.

This is an increase from their earlier polling of the same question the night of Sept. 25, one day after Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry. The poll showed Americans supported the opening of an inquiry at 49% to 46%.

Independents' views also appeared to have shifted in the early October poll: 54% of independents supported the opening of an inquiry, and 41% disapproved. In contrast, 50% disapproved and 44% approved in the Sept. 25 poll.

Polling by The Washington Post/Schar School released on Oct. 8 and conducted from Oct. 1-6 mirrored the finding: 58% of adults said they supported the opening of an inquiry and 38% opposed it.

Trump in Minnesota:Trump lashes out at Democrats over impeachment inquiry at Minneapolis rally

Voting to impeach?

A USA TODAY/Ipsos poll released on Oct. 3 and conducted from Oct. 1-2, just one week after the beginning of the inquiry, found 45% of Americans approved of a vote in the House to impeach Trump, and 38% disapproved of a vote. Forty-four percent of people in the same poll approved of the Senate voting to convict the president, and 35% did not.

In June, previous polling conducted for USA TODAY by Suffolk University found that only 31.8% of registered voters thought the House "should seriously consider impeaching President Trump," with 60.6% opposing it. That poll had been conducted prior to special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House, and far before the emergence of details of Trump's Ukraine controversy.

Approve of impeachment and removal from office?

Fox News asks the question slightly differently in its poll. A Fox News poll conducted from Oct. 6-8 among registered voters shows 51% of voters supported Trump's impeachment and removal from office, 4% supported impeachment but not removal, and 40% opposed impeachment.

This result drew a rebuke from Trump, who tweeted on Oct. 10 to say "Whoever [Fox's] Pollster is, they suck."

When Fox had asked the same question in July of this year, 42% of voters supported impeachment and removal, 5% supported impeachment but not removal, and 45% opposed impeachment.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 933117002/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:29 pm

Image


Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify
John Bowden10/12/19 09:06 PM EDT
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revealed in a new interview that House Democrats have discussed jailing allies of the president who do not comply with congressional subpoenas, an escalation of the House's efforts to force White House compliance with an impeachment inquiry.

Tlaib told Deadline Detroit that such an action, known as inherent contempt, would be "uncharted territory" for Congress but added that "serious discussions" about taking the step have occurred within the Democratic caucus.

“There have been actual serious conversations about what the logistics would look like... if we did have to force someone through a court order to come before the Congressional committee," she said. "This is pretty uncharted territory for many of us and even for Congress.”

Tlaib's comments echoed those of Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who called for the House to do as much in a CNN interview earlier this week.

"I think it's time to call in the sergeant-at-arms and march them off to our little jail, which we do happen to have," Garamendi said on Wednesday.

"Let them sit there and cool off for a while," he added.

Whether Congress would be successful in enforcing a declaration of inherent contempt is unclear. Such a crime is prosecuted by the Justice Department, which could potentially decline to prosecute the charge.

The White House has warned Congress that it will not cooperate with an impeachment probe in the Democratic-controlled House, though a State Department official defied an order to not testify this week and met with congressional investigators.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4655 ... s-who-dont


Image

Image


10/12/2019

Random Observations on Two Nights of Trump Batshittery
1. At his campaign rallies of the damned the last two nights, in Minneapolis on Thursday and in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on Friday, President Donald Trump repeated one word like it was a tic or, more likely, the result of having the vocabulary of an Adderall-popping 8-year-old. That word? "Great." Like when he was blowing Fox "news":
- "What a great group, Ainsley and Steve, and by the way, Brian has gotten a lot better, right? Brian was a seven and he's getting close to ten territories, and Steve has been so great, and Ainsley is just incredible."

And then immediately:
- "There's some really great people, and again, Tucker has been very good. I have to say he's been very good. Smart, he's been great, Tucker. And the legendary Sean Hannity, great, number one, number one show."

And in a fucked-up story about dead soldiers coming back (which morphed into one of his "sir" stories of lies):
- "I said, 'How are you doing?' 'We're fine, sir. We're fine. We're really good.' I say, 'That's great' and I'll tell the Colonel and say, 'Colonel, I think you're doing great.' 'No, sir. They're not going to do great, you'll see...'"

Seriously, like 50 times per speech, at least, he said something was "great," as in "very good" or "very large," sometimes repeatedly:
- "They're just very, very devastated but these are great, great people."

All that was just a small sample in Minneapolis. In Lake Charles? Here he is fluffing a pair of frauds who wrote shit books that say Trump is innocent of everything except being awesome:
- "A man like Greg Jarrett, great guy. He wrote a book and the book tells you the whole story. Best seller book. Greg Jarrett, great guy. So many. Bongino, I tell you, he's not a lawyer, but he is better than the lawyers. He's called 'street smart.' But these are great. So many great people."

I mean, fucking seriously, here he is attempting to say something about the Republicans running for governor in Louisiana:
- "Then one of our two great candidates will win that and it'll be John Bel Edwards against one of our two great and they're both great people. They're great."

It just gets worse and worse. Talking about Louisiana's Republicans in Congress:
- "He loves you so much and he's really a brave guy, Steve Scalise. And then we have some other great warriors, great congressmen. Thanks, Steve. Great, great."

He's always a fuckin' car salesman, always trying to convince you that every goddamn lemon is a Rolls. But even a car salesman knows you gotta vary the pitch or it gets boring.

2. Trump will do anything to get a crowd whipped up. In both places, he pretended to be former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page texting notes to each other, leading up to an orgasm over Trump losing. In Lake Charles, he declared the impeachment inquiry "bullshit." In both cases, the idiot hordes lost their tiny fucking minds, screaming in joy like they found out Miller Lite and store-brand tortilla chips were half-price at the Piggly Wiggly.

3. Beyond Strzok and Page, Trump's attacks on people for hating the United States (or, more precisely, hating him) are getting so appalling that the rallies are just a rope away from becoming a lynch mob. His savage lies about Rep. Ilhan Omar, whose district is Minneapolis and some suburbs, were hysterical. "We have never seen scandals like Omar's in Congress, and nothing gets done about it," he said, as if he knows about all the scandals in the history of Congress. She is an "America-hating socialist," he said, and then he cited fucking Powerline, a shit blog, in saying that Omar married her brother to give him citizenship. He did another fantasy conversation where Hunter Biden is being interviewed about his business dealings and then went nutzoid mob boss, saying, "I want to see Hunter asked this way. Hunter. You know nothing about energy, you know nothing about China, you know nothing about anything, frankly. Hunter, you're a loser." That's the president of the goddamned United States tearing apart a private citizen for the crime of not being a criminal. He is implicitly inviting violence to stop these America-hating and -harming enemies.

3a. I thought paraphrasing or making up conversations was bad and wrong and should never be done. But I guess that only applies when Trump is one of the people in the conversation.

4. You have to be one devoted racist to still support Trump at this point. I mean, you have to be a filthy semi-human who can't stand the idea of blacks and whites and Hispanics and others living together in any proximity. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to be a human-sized piece of shit to say that Trump is worthy of being your leader. They will never get those arenas clean again.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com




Julia Davis

Fruman told the Brooklyn-based Russian-language publication Jewish World that the two men had been part of a group of just eight people who met privately with the president, discussed the upcoming midterm elections and Ukraine-U.S. relations at the dinner.

#TrumpCrimeSyndicate

Trump’s relationship with the New York Russian Bratva (Brotherhood), underworld and Mafia goes back decades.

Craig Unger’s @craigunger book is a MUST read! Brilliant & Detailed
By the way, KellyAnne’s grandfather:
Image

KellyAnne’s grandfather:

Image
https://twitter.com/BeckySpooner1/statu ... 4306521088
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:10 pm

I never knew hustlers confessed in stereo :partydance:

Mick Mulvaney undercuts Trump defense, admits Ukraine aid was blocked to force investigation

Massive blunder or true confession? White House chief of staff spells out Ukraine quid pro quo: "Get over it"

IGOR DERYSH

OCTOBER 17, 2019 8:30PM (UTC)
During a press briefing on Thursday, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney directly undercut President Trump’s claim that there was “no quid pro quo” in his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.

Mulvaney admitted to reporters that the release of military aid to Ukraine was tied to Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s demands that the Ukrainian government investigate alleged "corruption" involving Democrats in the 2016 election.

“The look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that [Trump] was worried about in corruption with that nation,” Mulvaney said, insisting that the president's action was “absolutely appropriate.”

Mulvaney said the aid to Ukraine was initially blocked because “everybody knows this is a corrupt place,” but that Trump had later cited what he believed to be Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election.

“Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that,” Mulvaney said. “But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

Mulvaney was referring to Trump’s debunked conspiracy theory that the Democratic National Committee's computer server, supposedly containing Hillary Clinton’s missing emails, was actually in possession of a Ukrainian company, which Trump has falsely claimed refused to grant the FBI access to its contents.

"To be clear, what you described is a quid pro quo,” a reporter told Mulvaney.

“We do that all the time,” Mulvaney claimed. “You’re saying the president of the U.S. can’t ask someone to help with an ongoing public investigation?”

“I have news for everybody: Get over it," he told reporters. “There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

Despite effectively admitting to the “quid pro quo” that Trump has denied, Mulvaney claimed that “the money held up had absolutely nothing to do with [Joe] Biden.”

That was contradicted by the testimony of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who told Congress on Thursday that there was “no quid pro quo” before revealing that Trump and Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine “also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son.”

Former National Security Council official Fiona Hill heard Sondland discussing the Ukrainian firm that Biden’s son Hunter worked for while negotiating a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Hill later reported that discussion to White House lawyers.

Mulvaney’s comments also made clear that Trump wasn’t just looking for dirt on Biden. He also wanted to undercut the basis for the entire investigation into ties between his 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

The DNC server conspiracy Mulvaney referred to is premised on the idea that Russia never hacked the DNC servers at all. Instead, in this narrative, Democrats faked the hack on their own computer systems but were discovered by Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was killed in a suspected attempted robbery. Trump supporters, including Fox News’ Sean Hannity, have sometimes pushed the conspiracy theory that Rich was killed because he learned of the nonexistent fraud. There is absolutely no evidence for any of these claims, which have been refuted by U.S. intelligence agencies and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.

Though Mulvaney made an effort to separate the search for an imaginary DNC server from the quest for dirt on Joe Biden, Giuliani made it clear in a Fox News interview that his search for the server led to the Biden conspiracy theory.

“The reality is I came about this by accident, investigating Ukrainian collusion with Democrats to affect the election,” Giuliani said at the time.

Democrats said on Thursday that Mulvaney’s startling admission would have significant consequences in their impeachment inquiry.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told The New York Times: “Mr. Mulvaney’s acknowledgment means that things have gone from very, very bad to much, much worse.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who sits on both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, went a step further. He told Politico that Mulvaney had effectively “co-signed the president’s confession,” adding that Trump has essentially “pleaded guilty” and all that was left was to determine the sentence.
https://www.salon.com/2019/10/17/mick-m ... stigation/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:41 pm

No, Putin Doesn’t Like Impeachment
There’s one thing the Kremlin wants even more than sowing chaos in the United States: Keeping Trump in the White House.

Darren SamuelsohnOctober 20, 2019
Vladimir Putin
Alexei Nikolsky, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP
Tatiana Stanovaya is a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center and the founder of the political analysis firm R.Politik.

As impeachment proceedings loom over President Donald Trump, some observers have speculated that Russia, actively enjoying sowing chaos in the United States, is delighted by the dysfunction tearing apart the U.S. government. Nineteen Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee signed a joint letter to the Wall Street Journal that was published on the paper’s op-ed page last month with the headline, “Impeachment Is What Vladimir Putin Wants.” The GOP members of Congress wrote, “His goal, now and before the 2016 election, has been to pit Americans against one another and erode confidence in our democratic process.”

That might be true up to a point. But the impeachment investigation might be a bit too chaotic, even for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There are many ways in which the Ukraine affair is terrifying the Kremlin, because it threatens to unwind what little progress Russia has made in recent years and undercuts its wider goals. Putin’s long-term goal is pretty clear: He wants the United States to conclude a “big deal” that would revise the outcome of the Cold War and limit the strategic threat that he believes the West poses to Russia through its military expansion, double standards in foreign affairs and liberal values.

Putin himself repeated many times that it’s hard to deal with a United States that is torn apart by internal fighting. “As regards the developments in the United States—how can we cooperate with them when they are so engaged in their domestic political affairs?” Putin said earlier this month. “Obviously, this is always the case during an election campaign, and the United States is no exception. But this domestic political race has got a little over the top.”

This is not the scandal the Kremlin wants for three reasons. First, the Russians were interested in an improvement in Russia-U.S. relations during the Trump presidency. Just after Trump’s election Moscow began preparing proposals aimed at finding ground for the kind of “big deal” the new American president had talked about during his campaign.

But the initial euphoria has faded. U.S.-Russia relations turned out to be worse than ever, following revelations of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Even so, Trump remains the one political actor the Kremlin has been relying on to revive bilateral relations.

This spring, Moscow began to hope that tensions between Russia and other countries, including the United States, were relaxing for the first time since Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. French President Emmanuel Macron called on the West to embrace Russia without geopolitical conditions, which was interpreted by Russia as the start of a possible détente with the West.

Even relations between Russia and Ukraine were looking up. Moscow and Kiev carried out a historic exchange of prisoners in September. Some hoped that the exchange would open the door to progress on the Minsk agreements, the stalled framework deal of 2014-15 to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Implementation of those agreements is a prerequisite for the lifting of U.S. and European sanctions, which have hurt the Russian economy.

And now—poof. A new cycle of chaos and madness has begun, which may lead to more negative repercussions for Russia. A new wave of anti-Russian sentiment is being unleashed in U.S. politics that could trigger new congressional sanctions. No less an authoritative figure than Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Russia was directly involved in the Trump-Ukraine mess. The call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is often interpreted as an extension of Russia’s 2016 interference. All the discussions about Ukraine in the United States almost always lead to Russia and become a reason to talk about Ukraine as its victim in need of protection. Altogether, any mention of Ukraine in the current anti-Russia news media further damages Russia’s international image, which, of course, is already considerably underwater.

The second reason for the Kremlin’s worry is that the Ukraine scandal undermines Trump’s capacity to conduct his own Russia policy, in opposition to the rest of the U.S. political establishment. As far as the Kremlin is concerned, Trump functions, in Putin’s eyes, as a buffer between Russia and the traditional U.S. national security establishment, which the Kremlin sees as implacably hostile. Trump has thrown overboard all of the established U.S. foreign policy approaches to Russia. He doesn’t preach and he doesn’t stand in Russia’s way. Trump is a businessman, not an ideological warrior, and he is not impeded by annoying democratic values.

Russia is ready to pay a price to maintain the Trump buffer, including enduring further rounds of Western economic sanctions. The rest of the U.S. political class, both Democratic and Republican, represents a long-term strategic threat to Russia and its geopolitical interests. Thus, regardless of whatever headaches Trump may create for the Kremlin, he will always seem like the lesser evil. Not surprisingly, whatever happens to Trump, Putin publicly supports him. But now, there is more scrutiny than ever on Trump’s foreign policy conduct, and he will likely not be able to operate in secret.

The third and final reason for the Kremlin to be worried comes from the growing fear that a private presidential conversation with Trump could be published without Russia’s permission. After the release of a transcript of the July 25 conversation between Trump and Zelensky, the Kremlin said that Washington would need Russian consent before publishing any transcripts of conversations between Putin and Trump.

Putin is probably not worried the transcripts can hurt his standings at home—in domestic affairs he remains politically untouchable. Rather, there are two other problems Putin is likely concerned about if such a transcript is published. First, Putin surely sees the transcript as a potential tool that could be used by Trump’s rivals to undermine and weaken Trump, which is not good for Moscow. We know from news accounts that Trump has said some very embarrassing things to Russian officials, such as dismissing the significance of Russian interference in the 2016 election and endorsing the idea of a joint U.S.-Russian cyber unit to somehow prevent this from ever happening again. Second, the risk itself that the talk can be published is psychologically uncomfortable for the Russian president, as he likes to have intimate heart-to-heart conversations with his counterparts—something that apparently worked during the Trump-Putin 2017 Helsinki summit. This is his style of dealing with his counterparts—to try to find some special chemistry with other world leaders. It’s harder to establish that kind of rapport while thinking that all you say might go public tomorrow.

It’s possible that Putin wants to sow chaos in the United States. He certainly enjoyed Trump’s presidential campaign victory and its corrosive effect on American political life. But the Ukraine scandal and the impeachment investigation might be moving a bit too fast, even for the chaos mastermind. For Putin, it would have been better if the Ukraine scandal had never happened. Trump is better than a traditional American president, who would continue the traditional policy of treating Russia as a Cold war loser.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ump-229861
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests