Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration The Impeachment of Donald trump

From Dima Vorobiev, published in 2018

"Russia is not the enemy of the Western Europe. The disruptive policy of President Putin is aimed at (1) weakening the political and military dominance of the US in Europe and/or (2) full or partial acceptance by the West of the following list of Russia’s political objectives:"

• Putin's list
• Recognition of Crimea as Russian territory
  
  Total freeze on expansion of NATO. No membership for Sweden, Finland, Ukraine or Georgia.
  
  No NATO bases in the Baltics, Poland, Czech republic and Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. Removal of the American anti-ballistic bases in Central Europe.
  
  Finlandization of Georgia, Ukraine and guarantees of such arrangement for Belarus, in case it gets a pro-Western government in the future.
  
  Guarantees of unhindered land connection through Lithuania between the Russian heartland and the exclave of Kaliningrad. The unhindered transit through the Suwalki gap would be very useful for Russia as a gauge of the level of determination on the part of NATO in the case of a swift escalation in tensions.
  
  Recognition of Russia’s right to permanent military presence in the Mediterranean (through bases in Syria and possibly in Libya or other places)
  
  Repeal of all sanctions against Russian oligarchs, their companies and sectoral interests.

---What do WE get in exchange for all of the above ^^^ ???

"If the West won’t agree to such a new global security arrangement, the current confrontation will continue, with variations only in the level of tensions. Because of the technological gap, the Russian military-industrial complex will increasingly depend on China for high-tech components for our weapons systems. Russian economy will also be more and more streamlined to accommodate the needs of Chinese manufacturing."

This stalemate can continue for many years, unless one of the following happens:

Unexpected massive deterioration of economy in Russia.
***Low-probability, high-impact catastrophe in the US or Europe that makes the West seek help from Russia
Power shift in Russia with full revision of national policy. (Highly unlikely with President Putin still in power).

---***This second to last talking point sounds vaguely similar to the
PNAC wish list for American military expansion in the pre-9/11 days.


Yeah...The Project for the New American Century...everyone knows they're all a bunch of disgusting hypocritical liberals.

So a public official making a statement or writing an op-ed is interference vis a vis a dedicated campaign of troll farms, disinformation, hacking servers, distribution of illegally obtained emails, etc. So are you saying the US does the same thing Russia is doing, because that is what I mean by interference, it is what the IC mean by interference. So unless you have some information I don't have, I think there is a better choice of words to describe your concerns.

This is not to say the US has not in the past (and I believe may be still actively engaged in a specific case) meddled in foreign elections i.e. regime change.

The case is not about "just" a phone call. There was a large scale conspiracy, led by Mr Trump, using Sec Pompeo, Amb Sondland, CoS Mulvaney, and a host of minor henchmen to leverage US standing as a hegemony over Ukraine by withholding 1) essential, Congressionally authorized,military aid, and proper DoD signoff, 2) WH meeting to solidify allied relationship and enhance Pres Zelenskiy to his people, in consideration of 1) investigations into Burisma, 2) investigations into Crowdstrike in relation to 2016 and hacking DNC, 3) investigation into Hunter and VP Biden for corruption. The investigations had a 2-fold purpose. First to undermine the Mueller Report and the IC determinations Russia was behind the meddling i.e. it was Ukraine, and second, to use corruption investigations as political dirt in the 2020 election against a putative political opponent.

I find it pretty interesting. Apparently the senate Republicans are going to swear that they are unbiased just before they crown Trump the king. This is WONDERFUL! Just think, every Republican who raises his/her hand and swears they are unbiased pretty much are saying something like; "my sworn word is a joke and means nothing". Kinda makes my heart beat a little faster. Since most have already announced on TV, that they plan on voting against removing Trump they have also, at the same time, announced their inability to tell the truth.

I wonder if we will be treated to the spectacle of those Republican stalwarts kneeling before their Lord and Master and declaring their unending loyalty.

Kinda puts everything the Republicans claim to be pure, utter, self proclaimed bull***t.............

Yup! Decent Americans need to remember this when they vote in November 2020.

And here I was laboring under the possible misconception that flagrant violation of the Oath of Office is grounds for mandatory recusal.

Screw it, we don't have laws anymore, we have suggestions.

LOL, okay. There may be only a couple of senators truly unbiased. Every other senators are biased as all get out. I'd say 95 out of the 100 senators vote is cast in stone before the trial begins, before one shred of evidence is offered or one witness is called. Contrary to popular opinion on this site, one can be biased against Trump as for Trump.

I guarantee, no matter what the evidence shows, witness's say, 95 senators will totally ignore it and them. Impeachment is a political process, a very partisan one in this case, as it was with Bill Clinton's impeachment. We knew with a couple of exceptions exactly how each senator would vote before Bill's trial. We know that today for Trump.

Welcome to the modern era of polarized politics, of ultra-high partisanship. Expecting any senator to be basically impartial, Republican or Democratic, isn't being realistic. Minds and votes have been made up for at least 95 senators since the House began its unofficial investigations back in February. That's 95 senators at the least, perhaps one or two more that are biased as Hades that ought to recluse themselves if being biased for or against Trump is the case.

Is that your argument for allowing any president to run criminal enterprises out of the WH?

Why the frak do we even have a Constitution??????

Even if I grant you everything, the principle of the thing is what counts and when one openly and scurrilously mocks that principle, one is delivering a fatal blow to universal respect for the law.

Tell me, Perotista...why should any criminal take any future oath seriously from here on out? Why should perjury, witness tampering or any malfeasance even be considered a crime from here on out.

It is one thing to have a gut feeling on the odds of a vote or outcome, or to have apprehension or engage in pessimistic advance speculation as to the outcome of a juror's decision.

It is another thing altogether to mock it openly in the light of day, in full view of the American people.

This isn't making fun of your mother-in-law, this is openly dropping a cyanide capsule in her Chardonnay in full view of her and her whole damn family.

Simply put, this is openly announcing that one intends to scoff at the rule of law...while serving as a lawmaker.

Mitch McConnell is inviting the American people to sniff and admire the lunker bowl-winder he has laid on the bench.

There is no defense, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada.

I didn't say a thing about any criminal enterprise. Only expecting one side to recluse itself because of bias when both sides are, that doesn't pass my common sense test. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If one side must recluse itself because of bias, then both sides must.