#2

That horse has already left the barn back in 2014-15 when their efforts first started.

The only way to negate the influence of their interference is to have a full public acknowledgement that it is actually occurring. Then and only then can we take concrete steps to protect ourselves with full consensus.

And that is something which is impossible right now because this President calls the whole thing a "hoax" since he knows that it benefits him and harms his opponents. Trump, with Putin's help, has already turned Americans against Americans, and does so almost every day. That is Trump's only play because too many people rightly despise him, so he has to gaslight all the rest in order to keep his power and to stay out of future jail after all his crimes catch up to him.

Facebook said the network bears the hallmark of the same Kremlin-backed group that interfered in the 2016 election by sowing social discord, seeking to boost Trump and attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The new disinformation campaign appears to follow the same playbook.

This time, a coordinated group of Russian accounts that appears to show some links to the Internet Research Agency largely took to Facebook's photo-sharing app, Instagram, to post content this year about U.S. politics and memes targeting Democratic presidential contenders.

The operation demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the schisms within the Democratic Party as it labors to choose a nominee to face Trump in 2020. One Russian account, which portrayed itself as a black voter in Michigan, used the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to hammer Biden for gaffes about racial issues. Some of the accounts boosted one of his rivals on the left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

"We are seeing again that the aim of the Russians is not exclusively to favor one candidate over another but to create divisiveness within the electorate overall," said Paul M. Barrett, deputy director of New York University's Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. "The reason that networks of phony accounts are drawn to Instagram is because disinformation is increasingly visual in nature, and that's what Instagram specializes in."

No wonder Trump wants to get to another election, and one of the few very important reasons he must be impeached and exposed as unfit for his office.

Given that Pelosi greenlighted the House investigation that likely will end in Trump's impeachment " and, thus, that Trump sees her as his nemesis " the president likely considered the speaker's trip a slap in the face.

But somebody had to do it. Somebody had to tell leaders who have thrown in their lot with the United States that Washington hasn't forgotten its friends or forsaken its responsibilities. That was the message of Pelosi's trip, aimed not just at leaders in Amman and Kabul but at allies around the world who wonder whether the United States is still worthy of their trust.

In an administration that operates like a television reality show, Pelosi's trip was effective counterprogramming. For Trump, this may be the most unsettling development of all: He's not the only one in town who knows how to steal the spotlight with a well-timed surprise.

With Pelosi's dressing-down of Trump at last Wednesday's White House meeting, her weekend trip abroad and her highly visible oversight of the impeachment process in the House, a first-time visitor to the capital might conclude that she is shaping events while Trump just thrashes around.

She didn't get where she is by accident and hopefully she'll be able to help guide us safely through these troubled waters.

Just like a boss should do.

The role played by Putin and Orban, a hard-right leader who has often allied himself with the Kremlin's positions, was described in closed-door testimony last week by George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, before House impeachment investigators, U.S. officials said.

Kent cited the influence of those leaders as a factor that helped sour Trump on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the months leading up to their July 25 phone call " a conversation that triggered an extraordinary whistleblower complaint as well as a House impeachment inquiry.

Neither of those foreign leaders specifically encouraged Trump to see Ukraine as a potential source of damaging information about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, nor did they describe Kyiv as complicit in an unsubstantiated 2016 election conspiracy, officials said.

U.S. officials emphasized that while Putin and Orban denigrated Ukraine, Trump's decision to seek damaging material on Biden was more directly driven by Trump's own impulses and Kyiv conspiracy theories promoted by his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani.

My favorite sad, lonesome, but beautiful songs.

I want this played at my funeral. Kinda says it all about life and loneliness. Just a woman and her piano.

Rachel is telling this story in her A block tonight. As usual, kudos for the prescience Gal.

(Trump) decreed Thursday that next year's Group of Seven gathering of world leaders must be at the Doral resort he owns in a clear quid pro cash flow for the Trump Organization. His funneling of government business to Mar-a-Lago has been a quid pro chateau. Having the U.S. military patronize his Scotland property is a quid pro Glasgow, and Vice President Pence's hawking of Trump's Ireland property is a blatant quid pro brogue. Trump's Washington hotel rakes in lobbyists' and foreign governments' cash in a quid pro dough, and government funds paid to his New York and New Jersey properties complete the quid pro portfolio.

Donald Trump Jr.'s protests about Biden family nepotism this week, while ignoring his own, can only be termed a quid pro bozo. Trump's national security adviser, Robert O'Brien, last week, floated a quid pro whistleblow: He's clearing out career professionals (prospective whistleblowers) by slashing the NSC staff. The administration also tried to block cooperation with the inquiry, in a quid pro Pompeo. And then there's Trump's decision to let Rudy Giuliani take over U.S. foreign policy: a quid pro schmoe.

The attorney general, William Barr, has trashed his principles to give Trump a quid pro ego. Trump has been doing this sort of thing since a quid pro big toe kept him out of Vietnam. He abandoned gun-safety plans after meeting with the NRA, a quid pro ammo. His voter-suppression efforts are a quid pro Jim Crow. In a quid pro Kudlow, he convinced free-market conservatives to embrace a trade war. His tax cut, a quid pro CEO, ballooned the debt in a quid pro borrow. Evangelical Christians tolerate his immorality in exchange for his judicial nominees, a quid pro Roe . He paid hush money to Stormy Daniels, a quid pro lie low (or quid pro for a blow). Much of his presidency has been a quid pro Moscow.

He trades in false claims (quid pro Pinocchio) and plugs for friendly Fox News hosts (quid pro puppet show). And his requiring of constant flattery from underlings (quid pro braggadocio) has turned the West Wing into a quid pro freak show. Giving Giuliani responsibility for anything? A blatant quid pro asino (this for a fool). But that's pro forma for a president who sold his soul (quid pro animo) and made his office a quid pro mimo: this for a farce.

One means of preventing this type of tyranny was through impeachment. As James Madison noted, there needed to be a way to remove the president other than through a subsequent election, or else "[h]e might pervert his administration into a scheme of [embezzlement] or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

The founders bestowed the impeachment power on Congress, therefore, as a constitutionally approved method to remove presidents who proved disloyal to the country.

For the founders, "the possibility particularly of foreign influence in any of many potentially insidious forms was an essential reason to bestow the impeachment power on the U.S. Congress, to check the power of a president beholden to or actively working with foreign nations." Similarly, the founders believed that some forms of foreign-related corruption could violate the emoluments clause, which also could lead to impeachment. Edmund Randolph"governor of Virginia and first attorney general of the United States"said during the ratification debate, without reservation, that where a president becomes corrupted by receiving any present or emolument from foreign powers, "he may be impeached."

The founders could not have been clearer: There should be no undue foreign influence in the internal affairs of the United States, especially in elections. And certainly, no president should be inviting it, especially for his personal gain. Through the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and other writings and debates, the founders attempted to erect a solid framework"and a clear expectation"that would prevent this sort of corruption and abuse of power.

Donald Trump must be impeached, convicted and removed from office for his transgressions against the US Constitution for that is what IT says must be his fate for the sake of the nation's sovereignty.

What did the founders say about the dangers of foreign involvement in American elections or a president who might solicit such corrupt involvement?

George Washington, in his farewell address at the end of his presidency, argued that one of the greatest dangers to the United States involved the "insidious wiles" of foreign powers and their multiple avenues to improperly influence our political system. Washington urged Americans "to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

Thomas Jefferson also sounded the alarm about "entanglements" between the United States and foreign governments, which he and other founders viewed with "perfect horror" due to the corruption that could result. Jefferson knew that a republic could not function if its chief executive would abuse his office"and the public trust"by soliciting personal political assistance from a foreign government.

John Adams had similar beliefs, writing to Jefferson in 1787 that he understood Jefferson's apprehension about "foreign Interference, Intrigue Influence." Adams, too, was concerned about corruption in the political system, leading him to assert that America should not conduct elections too often. "As often as Elections happen," Adams wrote, "the danger of foreign Influence recurs."

Alexander Hamilton warned specifically about a foreign power's ability to cultivate a president or another top official. In Federalist Paper Number 68, published in 1788, Hamilton wrote:

These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry of the Union?

The founders set up our system of checks and balances among three branches of government, in part, to restrain potential presidential corruption. They knew:

... that if the checks and balances proved to be not strong enough to restrain the executive, or if the legislative and judicial branches, convinced by a crisis, yielded too much power to the executive"well, that way lay tyranny, because a president would then be able to do whatever he pleased, even if in the process he destroyed the republic.

Indeed, such actions, had they been taken by a mayor, a county executive or a governor, would in all likelihood result in state or federal public corruption charges. While laws and rules vary by state and locality, ethics laws generally prohibit public officials from profiting from their offices.

Giving oneself a large government contract as Trump's White House announced Thursday with the selection of his troubled Doral, Florida, golf course as the site of the next summit of the world's largest democratic economies would almost certainly result in a criminal prosecution, ethics experts said.

"This is a president who believes the powers of the presidency are bestowed on him to advance his own personal interests, political and profit-seeking, rather than those of the American people," said Robert Weissman, president of the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen.

But as the sitting president, Trump is immune from both ethics laws and criminal prosecution, and not only has he openly engaged in nepotism and self-dealing, he has, in recent weeks, started accusing political opponents and the news media of "corruption."

#22 from your link:

The precise way in which the House proceeds to impeachment is not dictated by the Constitution. As our colleague David Priess wrote, the House of Representatives voted on Feb. 24, 1868, to impeach President Johnson without an investigation and without even debating specific articles of impeachment. It was only after the impeachment vote that a committee was appointed to draft a set of precise articles and return them to the full House.

On the legal side, courts generally defer to Congress on how it organizes itself and its work.

There have been multiple threads about the rule changes and their effect on the House progression of the impeachment process.

They are hiding their "witnesses" and the names change every day. More come out and then vanish? No cop on Earth would take tthis to a judge.

Err... no, the witness schedule is published in advance. Every single non-public hearing is attended by the Republicans on the respective committees. They are given the same amount of time to question witnesses as are the Democrats. It's just done behind closed doors so that each witness does not know exactly what the other witnesses have said so they cannot coordinate stories. Just like grand juries do every day.

Once it's no longer necessary, the transcripts of the hearings/depositions will be made public with needed redactions to protect secrets. At that time everyone can read it for their own and make up their own minds without influence of anyone should they want to.

Frankly, this is fairer to the subject of the investigation since both party's committee members aren't allowed to speak publicly about details and observations beyond very general points except when a witness makes an opening statement which is given to the public.

Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal standards, the Constitution says nothing close to that. Read the Federalist Papers or peruse some of the Colonial debate over Impeachment that occured as our Founders wrestled with the language of the Constitution.

"believing those who lie to you every day."

#9 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

Constitutionally illiterate.

HRat, I know that you're a learned fellow who often talks about subjects and things of which I have no clue, but on this topic, you need to actually read how the impeachment process is designed and stop believing though who lie to you every day.

Cliff notes: Impeachment is a two part process where the House acts as a grand jury and decides whether to "indict" a high government official for specific "high crimes and misdemeanors" - which doesn't mean exactly as it sounds. There is no need for an actual statutory crime behind an article of impeachment. The details are like et_al recites in post 5.

If the House votes to pass any Article of Impeachment then a trial commences in the Senate, where the House acts as the prosecution and the accused has his own defense with all the attendant rights you refer to above. But only at trial. Just like with a grand jury, an accused has no rights to do anything, they don't even have a right to know they are being investigated, although that's impossible due to the nature of impeachment.

It's not the press secretary, it's the President's Chief of Staff - who is the closest person to him who can speak for the President. He spoke in clear English sentences and was asked directly on more than one occasion if he was saying what the assembled press thought he was saying.

Perhaps ROC should read Gen. McRaven's thread and rediscover that this nation should expect our leader to respect the people who learn what they're doing from the press, not try to blame the press for accurately reporting what millions around the world heard the COS say in real time.

#2

There's at least one bank account in the Grand Caymans or Switzerland being filled up with cash for Donald by his friends who're using his tweeting to insanely profit from the market fluctuations the tweets and his chaotic policies cause.

Here's hoping he never gets out of jail with the ability to spend any of it.

#103

TRUMP GOLF COUNT: 223*

Cost to Taxpayer: About $110,000,000**

*Daytime visits to golf clubs since inauguration, with evidence of playing golf on at least 104 visits. Our last recorded outing was on October 13, 2019. Click on complete data table for a list of Trump's outings, or view our breakdown of total costs.

There is still more to learn about the Ukraine affair. But this much is now undisputed: Mr. Trump conditioned U.S. defense aid, as well as a visit to the White House, on the Ukrainian president's help in providing him with political dirt.

It was a quid pro quo. It was corrupt. And Mr. Trump is now confessing it, in the cynical expectation that Republicans will not hold him accountable. If he is right, our political system will be grievously damaged.

The chief of staff's declaration represented an about-face in the White House defense on the Ukraine affair. Until now, Mr. Trump's main argument has been that the whistleblower who described his July 25 phone call with Mr. Zelensky and his subordination of U.S. diplomacy to his reelection campaign had gotten it all wrong: There was no quid pro quo. But testimony to Congress by half a dozen present and former State Department and White House officials, and a rough transcript of the phone call, have fully confirmed the whistleblower's memo.

The new defense outlined by Mr. Mulvaney: Okay, we did it. So what?

The chief of staff argued that every administration seeks concessions from foreign governments in exchange for aid or meetings with the president. That's true " but the difference here is that Mr. Trump was demanding help for his personal political cause, not for the United States.

Anybody got an idea of where exactly the Kurds are supposed to go with their 120 hour reprieve?

Select quotations from Cumming's closing statement at Michael Cohen's hearing: