Politics The Probe

Has Rudy "Counselori" Giuliani dug a hole he can't climb out of, let his ego reveal things he should've kept quiet about? I'm extremely curious to know what his role is in the Ukraine scandal (to me it qualifies as a scandal), and other "situations" that we might or might not know about.

Rudy Giuliani says he was the President's lawyer AND working for the State Department on Ukraine | Daily Mail Online

 

Obstruction is a crime in and of itself.
You may not like that there is an investigation but you get a fucking lawyer and follow the rules.
Just saying no, I don't want to play is not how it works.
That's not how any of this works.

 

Trumps gets a counselori, and they both break the rules.

 

View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181883934776401920


Is a "Wirch Hunt" a legal concept I'm not aware of?

As to Jesse Watters (Fox News) remark, he incorrectly states the whistleblower has a "professional relationship with one of the Democrats running against President" when in fact, it is not a current relationship, but a past relationship.

But that relationship is not really relevant given that the Intelligence Inspector General (a Trump appointee) said despite the person's possible political bias, the complaint was "credible and urgent" and the CIA's top general counsel (a Trump appointee) believed the complaint was credible and urgent enough to make a criminal referral to the Dept. of Justice

 

More information about Counselori Guiliani's role in the Ukraine scandal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9c101a-eb63-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

Did Counselori Guiliani advice them to leave the country?

I'm seriously hoping this reaches the point where the Trump/Guiliani attorney-client privilege is declared moot because Counselori acted as an agent and employee, not as an attorney. It certainly appears as thought that line has been crossed many, many times.

I have no idea what would need to transpire for this to happen. If the investigators can crack Guiliani, legally and literally (a much more difficult task?), Trump is in trouble.

And it would glorious if Trump in his "great and unmatched wisdom" got nailed (red handed, holding a smoking gun) offering presidential pardons. IIRC he got caught at least once "suggesting" a pardon, but it was indirect and vague (legally speaking that is, his meaning was certainly clear).

 

By the end of this week we should have some interesting information to mull over.

Will a smoking gun be revealed?

Or will the testimony be along the lines of "I'm not aware of any quid pro quo," and "I don't know what the president knew."?

 

The Republicans, and the conservative media, are being silent because they can't defend Shyster Trump, and they want the impeachment inquiry to be perceived of as sour grapes by the Democrats.

The Democrats, at least the wise ones IMO, are being cautious because of "sour grapes."

And it would really help to have a Smoking Gun. There are a lot of voters who won't consider the shadow efforts as an impeachable offense, even though Shyster Trump has clearly violated the law several times. To them a mountain of "circumstantial" evidence won't be enough.

...........

Counselori Giuliani is a loyal pit bull, willing to fight to the death. But what happens if Shyster Trump makes a stupid compulsive move that Counselori perceives as being betrayed? The expectation of unwavering loyalty has been a Giuliani strength and weakness for decades.

 

Counselori Giuliani has said he will refuse to honor House subpoenas (is subpoeni the proper Latin?) . The House has the constitutional right to issue the subpoenas, and Counselori is obligated to honor them. Of course he can refuse to produce documents, emails, text messages, etc., for a variety of reasons, but he needs to appear and then present his case. This could bring to a head what I've previously mentioned: At what point will Attorney-Client Privilege be challenged, and possibly legally declared moot, invalid, non-applicable, etc.?

While Shyster Trump continues to demand a House vote regarding the impeachment inquiry, which is something the House is not required to do.

Many people, and not just the White House and other Republicans desperate to delay the inquiry, support a vote. On the surface it's easy to think, "Why not? If you have the votes to make the impeachment inquiry "official," do it."

No. Absolutely not. To do so would suggests a policy of appeasement, and give Shyster Trump a victory, so to say. Do not let Shyster and the Republicans gain any ground. Do not allow them to break and rewrite the rules. Do not let them rewrite Constitutional law.

Of course the majority of the Senate Republicans remain silent, they want the inquiry to become bogged down, and die. That would save them from voting to not impeach a guilty POTUS.


Of course we have the Big Question: What would happen if we had a Democrat POTUS, a Republican House, and Democrat Senate? The answer to that question would support the charge of partisan politics and sour grapes (which doesn't, or shouldn't, change the fact Trump acted inappropriately and the House is doing the right thing). Unfortunately that seems to be the nature of politics these days.

 

Last Friday, three House committees heard in private from former US ambassador to Ukraine who was fired (recalled) by Trump at the request of Guiliani because she opposed his "shadow" activities in Ukraine outside of government channels and oversight . Monday, they heard from Trump's top National Security Council official who resigned over the same concerns of Ukraine policies being directed by a "shadow" group led by Guiliani. Today, they are hearing from the former chief of staff at State Dept who resigned over similar concerns and, tomorrow, from the former US ambassador to the EU who has emails and a paper trail that refute Trump's version of events.

All of the above were directed by the White House not to testify. They all asked to be subpoenaed so that they could refuse the White House demands and appear because they put the rule of law above covering Trump's ass.

The House committees have also requested a number of documents....



NY Times reporter Nick Fandos explains why the testimony and depositions are in private...

The Democrats are trying to collect as much information as possible as quickly as possible. Big made-for-TV hearings are a chaotic and clunky way to try to build a body of evidence. They allow witnesses to line up their stories in advance and could easily backfire on Democrats trying to build a public narrative in real time.

Most congressional veterans would tell you that from a fact-finding point of view, you are better off following the Watergate model: Investigate in private first, then choreograph a series of public hearings that recreate for the public what the investigation found. Republicans, nevertheless, are accusing Democrats of impeaching a president in secret.​

It appears there may be another few days of private testimony and depositions next week after which it will all be turned over to the House Judiciary Committee and, at some point, in the near future, the public "impeachment inquiry" will begin.

Added....


View: https://twitter.com/PoliticusSarah/status/1184122720377806849?s=19

 

Unfortunately, that truth, or at very least that perception, is hurting the Democrats.

 

It'll be the Democrats fault.
And Obama.
And Clinton.
And Carter.
And FDR.




And maybe I should stop now.