Join institutional investors, analysts and strategists from the world's largest banks: Subscribe today
Already have an account? log in
Tim Morrison Corroborates Quid Pro Quo Account. Says Trump-Zelensky Call Was ‘Concerning’ But Not ‘Illegal’
Tim Morrison was the top Russia and Europe adviser on Donald Trump’s National Security Council.
We say "was" because he resigned on Wednesday evening, just hours before testifying in the House impeachment inquiry.
Morrison's decision to leave his post wasn't influenced by the investigation into Trump, he told lawmakers on Thursday. "Whether you choose to believe that is up to you", a source remarked, in comments to Axios.
According to people familiar with Morrison's deposition, the former T
So Sondland is an idiot, know-nothing political novice and Morrison thinks he’s hatching up hare-brained schemes on his own that the White House surely will disown should they make it that far?
Sounds like we’re a lot safer and better off with this guy resigning since he somehow got clowned by a clown working for a clown.
Thank God for clarity on what’s legal — this literally took me 5 minutes to find on the internet — I didn’t even use fox news. The help comes from our very one and only (little buddy) Chief Roberts of SCOTUS, thus he serves as a great resource in terms of what’s legal and how one defines stuff:
McDONNELL v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15—474. Argued April 27, 2016–Decided June 27, 2016
Re: “Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption–the
exchange of a thing of value for an “official act.””
“Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meeting,
hosting an event, or making a phone call is always an
innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an
official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a
phone call on a question or matter that is or could be
pending before another official, that could serve as evidence
of an agreement to take an official act. A jury could
conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to
pressure or advise another official on a pending matter.
And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give
that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be
illegal.”
==> Now then, if I were lording over the Senate in an impeachment trial, I’d certainly like to pretend that I didn’t shed some light on the matter at hand, e.g., was trump’s call to the Ukraine official, or was it an ordinary birthday chat between buddies? If trump’s call was a non-official chat, then why were so many security advisors in place to screen the call and then question the content related to the act of bribery? Did trump pressure someone by withholding Congressional appropriations and why might one ponder that investigating a political rival like Biden would not be a thing of value?
Is there any clear reason why Roberts wouldn’t bring out the guillotine for this, unless he is corrupt and will oversee an impeachment in the Senate, where the majority of the members think that trump can murder anyone at anytime — is this really going to be a circus where the Chief Justice shots across the face of liberty and holds his swastika aloft as he kisses trumps shoes? Are we really going there?
Sort of off topic, but the following offers a nice lesson in trump administrative chaos, which is basically the entire reason that the impeachment is going forward, i.e., a bunch of idiots are breaking laws, ignoring laws and basically acting like the criminals they are, but, the Senate is ok with that and they fervently believe that trump can kill anyone and thus be above all laws, anywhere on Earth — after all, trump has the best mafia lawyers that dirty money can buy.
Bonus points: Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a Latin maxim which means “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one
Recent SCOTUS thoughts, apparently by Roberts: “[W]e cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given,” Roberts wrote as he referenced the sole reason given by the administration: that it complied with a request by the Department of Justice to insert the citizenship question because it was necessary to review compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the Supreme Court noted, it was Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross who elicited the request from the Department of Justice. “The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”