Pat Nee had a funny feeling about the bank robbery he was about to pull off with some other guys. As they waited outside the bank for the right opportunity with the necessary firearms. Pat asked the name of the guy who had set it up. When he was told, a gloom descended on him. He knew the guy was an FBI informant. With the gloom came car loads of FBI agents.
Pat was arrested and brought to trial. He complained that the robbery did not take place. He said: “No crime, no time!” A few years later Pat stopped doing time.
I thought of Pat as I watched the Impeachment hearings. The allegation against Trump is that he withheld military and other aid for the purpose of squeezing the Ukrainian president Zelinsky into making a public statement on CNN that he was investigating Joe Biden and his son. Biden is the one guy Trump fears running against.
The president had all the intent in the world to withhold this aid and actually did it for a while without even at first notifying Ukraine which was fighting an invading Russian army and depended greatly on it. Then he let it go through when the Whistles Blower, like the FBI with Nee, came along and blew a big hole in the plan.
‘No crime, no time” the Republicans argue. Oh, OK, we’ll forget the attempt to force a president of a nation into doing Trump a favor if he wants to stop the Russians from further invading his country. The worst thing is he stopped the aid for the only possible reason which was to extort the statement against Biden.
“No! No!”cry the GOP. It was corruption. Then a GOP Congressman pointed out there’s corruption in many countries and the president should be concerned about it. Talk about undermining your case. All countries are corrupt but Trump only acts against Ukraine. He decides to condition aid on getting rid of corruption in the one country he’s trying to pressure to investigate his political opponent.
What gives lie to the corruption argument is that amazingly he suddenly restores the aid even though the only significant change in the situation is he’s been caught when the whistle-blower complains. You do recall that complaint went to the White House while the aid was being withheld.
The GOP argues “it’s hearsay and not reliable. It would never be used in court.” Tell that to retired FBI Agent John Connolly who has been sentenced to die in prison on gross hearsay.
There were two witnesses of impeccable integrity with the utmost dedication to America who testified how much they feared what Trump was doing. The last place they wanted to be is there testifying. The GOP questioners were apoplectic they’d dare tell of their concerns. Letting the president extort another country into helping his election is all right, telling about it is wrong.
Sure Trump was better to Ukraine than Obama. That’s not the issue unless you think that gives him a pass to then extort President Zelinsky.
Trump is toast. No need for any more witnesses. It is clear what he did. Not only is he guilty of attempted extortion, he’s also guilty of obstruction for refusing to comply with subpoenas for people and documents. What is he hiding? Why is he hiding? If he’s done no wrong then show us. But he won’t. He can’t.
Like Nee Trump was caught. Like Nee he doesn’t think he has to do time. Like Nee, he will do his time.
Nice touch-General Bonespurs criticizing Purple Heart and CIB sportin’ soldier. There is no depth to which these slugs will not stoop.
Matt, I post this here because it’s late and I’m tired. I’m gonna watch some T.V. Anyway, in relation to Colonel Foley’s statements, I found this review of Foley’s book in the Washington Times: her is an excerpt:
“Mr. Foley also writes that, in addition to his FBI protectors, Mr. Bulger had political connections, as his brother Billy Bulger was for many years the president of the Massachusetts State Senate. According to Mr. Foley, Billy Bulger was in a good position to protect his brother as he had a good deal of influence over district attorneys while he controlled their budgets from the state capital. Mr. Foley also notes that Billy Bulger filed a state bill that forced the retirement of investigators who were close on his brother’s trail.”
Of course, that “Bill” was not filed by Billy . . .it was filed by another Senator. Even so, the Bill had nothing to do with Whitey and, as I recollect, it went nowhere. Be that as it may, and, moreover, Foley presents ZERO EVIDENCE that Billy ever exerted “influence” over any DA or DAs to help Whitey. Foley just says it, I guess, because it makes Foley sound more heroic, like he’s fighting multiple wicked forces: the gangsters, corrupt FBI agents, and corrupt State House Officials.
Foley’s hero? Fred Wyshak, the Jihadi Javert.
So, it goes, the circuses and charades and sham trials continue; the political persecutions continue; Kafka and Orwell warned us of these things.
Goodnight!
William:
The video of Foley was helpful. I hope to write something about it. His problem is he might be a decent guy who means well but doesn’t understand the evil he does. I did a DA’s budget for many years. Bill Bulger never crossed my mind during those days because the place that controlled the budget was the House. If it decided what we should get then it happened,
Foley knows that the State Police under O’Donovan was about to take Whitey down in the Lancaster St operation. How does that fit into his theory? He knows my office was close to getting him when he and his FBI buddies messed that up. He wants to pretend that Col Charlie Henderson and DA O’Reilly were doing something daring in giving him the OK to go after Whitey. Charlie took several shots at wiretaps with me and others trying to get him as as sergeant. Riley did what the Suffolk and Norfolk DAs had done before.
The idea that Bill was behind the bill on retirement was investigated by a Congressional committee. They found no evidence. I recall talk about the bill and my recollection was that it was an intra-State Police matter. Bottom line Foley is off in mkany areas but I attribute it to self-aggrandizement not evil.
“Sentence first–verdict afterward.” -Red Queen, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, Lewis Carroll
https://sabian.org/alice_in_wonderland12.php
Ed:
The impeachment hearing in the house is to determine if there is evidence for impeachment. It is an investigation. When it finds there is enough – as I suggest they have plenty – then it impeached and a trial will start. Perhaps you better reread Alice’s trek.
A strange tweet from a man who isn’t even watching the hearing. It was characteristically stupid and mean-spirited. Of course Trump was using the aid package to generate an investigation of the man he viewed as the greatest threat to his re-election. The Trump cult can’t seem to process this simple fact. Sad.
Dan, we beg to differ. We say Trump is innocent. His prosecution is Kafkaesque. The “Trump Cult” versus “The Trump Derangement Syndrome Sufferers”. Who will prevail? You see “a bribe” when the President of Ukraine says he felt “no pressure” and says he did not know Aid was being withheld.
William:
Latest witness – met with Zelensky who said he had three special requests from Trump he had to handle -seems that was some pressure. Also testified he heard Trump saying he wanted his investigation – you want a president who uses America for his own personal benefit – so be it. – but you may want to think that those you criticize are just doing what he did.
Dan:
I think the Trump cult understands Trump’s a corrupt crook but he’s their corrupt crook so they give him a pass. They have no problem with a president using American power to line his pockets. What can you do?
To all of you Trump ass kissers whose minds were made up before the process became open to the public explain the work of Rudi in the Ukraine.
LenA: Explain the work of Biden in the Urkaine> Rudi’s son didn’t get three million dollars from Burisma.
(2) Presidents have always used advisors outside of normal channels to assist in foreign relations. Look at George Mitchell in the Northern Ireland Peace Accords and George Mitchell was also sent to the Middle East for a peace effort with the Israelis and Palestinians under Obama.
All Presidents have used private parties to do diplomatic work for them.
William: but those prior guys weren’t attempting to undermine a country by putting corrupt guys in power. That was on old America when we tried to help nations solve their problems not like today.
Len:
Start with the premise that anything Trump does is all right with them. Pressure a small dependent country to help him in his election – no problem. Rudy working with corrupt Ukrainians to oust an ambassador fighting corruption – no problem.
The insanity continues. Schiff says Trump criticizing the Ambassador is “witness intimidation.” So, I guess any Congressman, Reporter or Citizen who criticizes her performance as an ambassador, “She stunk” or who questions her testimony: “She wasn’t believable” is subjected to being charged with “witness intimidation” by Schiff and his DEM colleagues.
See how they twist the law. Free speech, freely criticizing someone, freely criticizing a witness, is now “witnesses intimidation.”
Witness intimidation is supposed to be coercing, intimidating someone not to testify or to change their testimony. It’s not supposed to mean witnesses can’t be criticized.
William:
Trump slandered the ambassador saying she was bad wherever she went when the opposite was tru. Normal presidents don’t do that. Trump told Ukrainian President she was a bad person. It was a lie. I don’t know how you justify criticizing others when you can’t see the difference between a president lying about an ambassador of impeccable reputation sending out a message to her and others that she’s going to get it.
The only thing I can equate it to is a Mafia boss criticizing someone. The position of the person speaking has much to do with coercion.
If I were President Trump, I would appoint a special counsel to investigate (1) Congress’s contempt of the Executive Branch; (2) Congress’s Obstruction of the functions of the Executive Branch; (3) Congress’s ignoring the “Executive Privilege” specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution; (4) Congress’s leaking of classified information to the Media; and (5) whether there is a cabal in Congress (Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi) intent on a coup of the President of the United States.
The purpose of Executive Privilege (the President’s right not to disclose information) is so that members of the President’s Cabinet and the Executive Branch can freely communicate with the President without fear of harassment (subpoenas) from Congress. Throughout Trump’s Presidency, Congress has acted as if it rules the Executive Branch, and has shown no respect for the Executive Branch, thus eroding the foundations of our government.
William:
You may want to read the Constitution. Congress has oversight on the executive. Executive privilege doesn’t prevent all the agencies from turning over documents. Your suggestion seem appropriate for a dictatorship. What would you suggest Congress‘s role to be. One of silence when a president commits crimes.
Trump isn’t toast and he isn’t Hitler. This is the Russian Collusion Hoax part 2. It is a manufactured scandal comparable to the Probation Officers crimes An invention of the deep state. A tempest in a teapot. Even if the Dems in the House vote impeachment there is no chance for conviction in the Senate. A total waste of time.
Just a couple of headlines to buttress my arguments:
1. Trump and Mulvaney’s claim that corruption concerns held up …
https://www.washingtonpost.com › politics › 2019/10/23 › trump-mulvaneys…
Oct 23, 2019 – “Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, ranked 130 out of 180 … the U.S. government says on its foreign-aid website, ForeignAssistance.gov. … it withheld the $250 million in aid through the Defense Department or the …
2. Trump weighs conditioning foreign aid on religious freedom …
https://www.politico.com › news › 2019/11/11 › trump-weighs-foreign-aid..
These days, I don’t put much faith in the partisan Wash Post’s views, but the headlines are correct . . .the U.S. has long been concerned about Ukraine as “the most corrupt country in Europe.”
And from the Politico headline we conclude that conditioning foreign aid on compliance with American values is par for the course in foreign policy.
I, for one, declare President Trump, not guilty of any impeachable offense.
Your arguments suck, Bill. You have no moral compass. Take off the knee pads, take a step back and look what Bonespurs did. And that little fucking ex-mayor from NYC did several things that are punishable with life sentences. He did EXACTLY what the framers of The Constitution were making laws to prevent from happening. In 1819 he would be hanging from a gibbet, rotting in the sun for the sport of the crows.
Pointing fingers at other criminals does not justify YOUR criminals actions. Don’t tell me you never heard mom say “Two wrongs don’t make a right” up on The Hill when you were growing up.
“If I were President Trump, I would appoint a special counsel to investigate……”
It is his worst attribute. I hope he catches a dose. A nasty one.
Matt: It is like John Connolly’s case to this extent: One set of “judges” look at “the evidence” and uphold John’s conviction, and another set of judges looking at the same “evidence” (hearsay) call the first set’s reasoning “sheer sophistry.” It is SHEER SOPHISTRY what the Dems are doing in attempting to impeach Trump for conducting Foreign Policy.
1. Your error in logic is this: Because X occurs AFTER fact Y, does not mean it occurred because of fact Y. After Trump’s phone call with the New Ukrainian President (read the TRANSCRIPT) aid continued to be withheld for several weeks. (Late July to early September.) A better explanation is that Trump temporarily withheld aid until he was assured the New President would spend it well and was sincere about addressing corruption.
2. You write that all countries have corruption. Yes, to lesser or greater extents, but I’ve read that Ukraine leads the list (is “one of the top three most corrupt receiving U.S. aid”). Trump ran on a promise not to waste US dollars on corrupt governments.
3. Why single out Ukraine. Well, in fact Trump has held up aid to at least two other countries that had nothing to do with Biden. The better question is why did Joe Biden single out the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the gas company Burisma that was paying his son $80,000 a month? Did Joe ask any other prosecutor in the world to be fired? And didn’t Joe attach a $1 billion conditional aid, to a promise to clean up corruption (or as some see it, to a promise not to investigate his son’s company.) I guess it’s OK for the Obama Administration to be concerned about corruption but not the Trump Administration?
4. What is wrong with a President asking the new president of a foreign country to investigate corruption?
5. The Transcript simply indicates Trump asked the new president to look into potential Ukrainian corruption (interference in our 2016 election) . . . you and all the Democrats have been wailing for three years we should “investigate” Russia’s interference in our 2016 election. Why not investigate potential Ukrainian interference?
6. At the end of the Transcript, the Bidens name is mentioned . . . .Trump does not ask to dig up dirt on the Bidens . . . .he only says that situation stinks (paraphrasing) (as we all know it stinks) . . .and Trump infers that should be looked at too. What’s wrong with taking another look at that?
7. Because Biden is running for president, is he immune from being investigated? Is this a new rule the DEMs have invented? Like the FEDs inventing the crime of “not hiring the most qualified.”?
8. Finally, your analogy with Pat Nee, would bettter fit if the two other guys sitting in Pat’s Nee’s car said they had no intention of robbing the bank, they had never discussed robbing the bank, and the FBI knew this, therefore the FBI would not be arresting them . . .they may be arresting Pat for his intent to rob the bank . . . .The facts show the New President of Ukraine and his underlings have stated that not only did they not know they were being “extorted or bribed” that is they did not know the aid was being held up, they were never asked by Trump to dig up dirt on anyone as a condition of doing anything.
9. So, your willingness to prosecute someone for extortion when the alleged extorted person denies being extorted falls flat. Imagine going to a jury on an extortion charge, and you bring in the witness who has been allegedly extorted, and the witness says, “Joe never extorted me, he never bribed me, he never offered me anything to do anything; he never forced me, he never coerced. ”
Conclusion: (1) Why did Trump temporarily hold up the money? Because he wanted to assure it was not going to be wasted, it was going to be well spent, it was going to a New Ukrainian President who was intent on rooting out corruption, unlike past Ukrainian Presidents.
(2) Did Trump bribe or extort the Ukrainian President? The Ukrainian President says he did not. CASE OVER.
P.S. As far as the two bureaucrats (Taylor et Kent) who testified yesterday, their beef seemed to be that Trump’s policies differed from theirs; that Trump used “channels” outside their channels, the established channels. They forgot who sets Foreign Policy. The president, not the bureaucrats in the State Department. They forgot that other Presidents used independent channels (like FDR.) The forgot that Trump ran on a promise to set new foreign policy priorities and to put America first, and not to continue the Cold War policies and wasteful foreign spending and wasteful foreign entanglements of the past. The President sets Foreign Policy, not Taylor and Kent.
“4. What is wrong with a President asking the new president of a foreign country to investigate corruption?”
I love you, Bill. I do. And like Doctor Lecter said to Clarice, “The world is a much more interesting place with you in it….” but I have to ask. How do you escape from your handlers every day and find a working computer? Do you have any idea what happened in the Ukraine?
They said to Ghoul-iani, “This woman of yours is causing trouble” and he said, “We can get rid of her for you” and he replied, “Really?” and the scum from NYC said, “No problem.” That is how it went. With not a care for her 33 years of impeccable, dedicated work on behalf of this country she was blacklisted.
You’re going to need to change your name, Abe. Was she the first ambassador to be reassigned? She still works for the government, as she has been “blacklisted” to Georgetown. Doesn’t fit your narrative, so you leave it out, implying that she was fired. Is that honest? I think not,
OK. I am Honest Bob from now on.
As far as the Ukraine is involved she was blacklisted. She was done to what blacklisting is. She was tarnished. She was put on report as a poor employee of the US and she was the opposite. The extreme powers that be made false claims against her that wherever she went she failed. The opposite was true. We can call is whatever you want but an honest mistake was not made. It was layers upon layers of lies.