Every day it’s harder and harder for me to believe that Mueller couldn’t nail these dipshits down.
He nailed them as much as he was allowed to.
ABC News confirms Italy was among those pressured.
Also, good tweet thread by Renato Mariotti about how this is different than the Ukraine thing and should not be conflated:
If you are making an analogy to a public criminal case, I wouldn’t want private communications with third parties put out in public until the prosecutors actually charge the defendant. Investigators can handle the evidence as much as they want, but until they actually plan on using the evidence, don’t spill the beans!
No, I can’t save idiots from themselves. All I can do is try and convince other forum-goers that it’s generally a bad idea to release private diplomatic communications before determining that they are necessary for trial.
~Max
Try and remember that these are different dipshits than the ones Mueller’s remit allowed him to investigate.
Would have been nice if the whistleblower had come forward about whatever Putin and Trump talked about on their phone calls, but apparently he/she didn’t.
Mueller’s dipshits were related only to Trump’s Russian interference in the 2016 election, most of which occurred in the run-up to that election.
The House Committees’ dipshits relate to Trump’s Ukrainian extortion bid, mostly occurring after the Mueller investigation had concluded on March 22, 2019.
Thanks for the perspective. It’s easy to lose sight of all the Trump dipshits on the scene in the last few years.
I thought a number of Republicans want the Justice Department to investigate the origin of the special counsel? It was brought up during Mr. Barr’s confirmation if I remember correctly.
Do you think this line of newsworthy developments will have any bearing on the Republicans in Congress when they consider whether to impeach and convict Mr. Trump?
~Max
Three crucial points:
- This isn’t a trial.
- As Woodrow Wilson said, the informing function of Congress is to be preferred even over its legislative function.
- The fucking accused released the transcript in order to clear his name. Stop turning this into some kind of implied malfeasance on the part of Congress.
Trump is not owned by hostile foreign powers, I don’t think. They would have had no reason to “own” him before he became president, and would not have been able to buy him once he did. How exactly would that have worked? No, I think it’s possible Trump may have some shady dealings or some sort of tax fraud may be found, but I’m even skeptical of that. I think he wants to hide from the world that he is not a multi-billionaire, not a great deal maker, not a great real estate tycoon, but instead a huckster who convinced some people that that was the case, and he’s been selling his name ever since.
Thanks, I missed that.
I might as well ask you if you want to comment on my theory that even McConnell wouldn’t try to stop trial. No one else wants to. 
- He is the self proclaimed king of debt. 2) No one will loan to him except deutchhebank. 3) Even with DB there must be a cosigner. 4) Trump needs to borrow to be trump. He can’t let go and cruise on hs wealth. That’s a con. 5) His cosigners, who bailed him out, have a lot on him, for blackmail. 6) Who would do that?
No. It’s pretty much automatic. Read Rules 1, 2 and 3
The House of Representatives informs the Senate that the mamnagers have been appointed.
The Secretary of the Senate immediately informs the House that the Senate is ready to receive the managers.
The managers arrive and are presented at the bar.
The managers present the articles of impeachment
The trial automatically begins the next day (excluding Sundays).
Yet again, if the Senate follows the rules then the trial must take place with the Chief Justice presiding (assuming the President is on trial) and yes once the trial starts the Senate is free to consider motions such as dismissing the charges, taking evidence by committee, going into closed session, etc.)
Orders, no.
Hand waving away possible concerns from one of our most important and trusted allies is very troubling to me. It is as troubling as Trumps early phone call with their PM was https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/us-australia-trump-turnbull.html
We don’t take orders from Australia. They have earned us taking a breathe to listen to their concerns.
I wish I had pointed that out over dozen times across 3 different threads.
I have one point to contend with in that article. On the issue of the roll call vote it doesn’t have to be a close voice vote and McConnell cannot stop it. A roll call vote must be held if 11 Senators (1/5 of a quorum) demand it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/28/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment-007689
Sure, it would be an unprecedented move in U.S. history for Republican leader Mitch McConnell to table Trump impeachment proceedings without allowing any significant debate or a vote to convict a president from his own party, thereby removing him from office. But it’d be well within his power.
To be sure this other article disagrees, but only just a little:
*But it’s not clear to me that it’s Mitch McConnell rather than John Roberts, chief justice, who decides to commence the proceedings. Now, political friends tell me that Majority Leader McConnell would wish to avoid a roll-call vote. He’s got too many members who might be exposed that time either to say, “What is clearly established to have happened didn’t happen,” or to acknowledge that it happened, but say, “It’s OK for a president to do things like those that are detailed in articles of impeachment.” I don’t think the majority leader can make motions. It has to be that the president’s lawyers could move to dismiss without any further proceedings and avoid the Senate trial.
So, on that motion to just simply dismiss all the charges—which I believe they could make—if it were carried by a majority vote, I believe that’s the end of the matter in the Senate, as a matter of the Senate’s sheer power to try impeachments. But I think that the chief justice would call the question and listen to the ays and nays, and almost certainly they would be close-enough ays and nays that the chief justice would say, “The voice vote being inconclusive, the clerk shall call the roll.” Senators would have to vote without hearing any evidence, or testimony, or briefing, or presentation, and I think that would be a tough vote, particularly since the chief justice would have the vote to decide whether to proceed or not. The framers didn’t contemplate that there would be a political party that had one member that could control how every member of that party voted—that is the present system where McConnell controls his caucus. But with the chief justice in the chair, I am not at all confident that the majority leader of the Senate can successfully make this go away without having at least an initial vote.*
So, apparently the experts here disagree with you.
This also out today: here is a video clip of Donald Trump fake-making-out with Rudy Giuliani in drag about 20 or so years ago.
True, but the only country which has expressed reservations about exposing these conversations is Russia. Time will likely put the lie to this, but for now I haven’t heard Australia or others repeat Putin’s warning.
In principle I agree with the argument, but these are interesting times.
This is the weirdest case I’ve ever seen of completely understanding the situation and simultaneously claiming to not understand it.
Trump (or any businessman) is owned by whomever he has significant debt exposure to. Trump is the self-proclaimed “king of debt”, yet he has enormous real estate holdings. Trump never divested his business interests or stopped running his business upon being elected.
It’s simple and incontrovertible logic that someone owns Trump. The question is who, and unfortunately we have no clue except a thick stack of investigative reporting, government documents, investigative journalism, and clumsy statements by his own children that he’s in hock to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, and parties yet unnamed.
Other than that though, sure, all hearsay.
Sorry, I thought you were making an analogy. I was.
With regards to impeachment, I don’t think private diplomatic communications should be released (without the other state’s permission) to the public until the Congress actually invokes said evidence in an article of impeachment. Even when that happens, only the communications absolutely necessary to support a conviction of “high crimes or misdemeanors” should be made public.
I don’t believe the “informing function” of Congress supersedes the President’s foreign policy function until the Congress formally lodges articles of impeachment against the President based on his improper exercise of foreign policy powers.
I do not mean to imply malfeasance on the part of Congress. My argument is in anticipation of calls for the public release of communications between heads of state.
~Max