"Please stop using the Latin phrase 'quid pro quo' regarding the impeachment inquiry," is what 33 writers suggested in the NY Times yesterday. "Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record. That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase-- which means simply 'this for that'-- as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead. Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use 'bribery' or 'extortion' to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act."Eric Swalwell, a guest on Face the Nation was good with that yesterday. He picked "extortion," as you can see if the clip up top. "We have" he told Margaret Brennan, "enough evidence from the depositions that we've done to warrant bringing this forward, evidence of an extortion scheme, using taxpayer dollars to ask a foreign government to investigate the president's opponent."Adam Schiff by Nancy OhanianThis is all driving Trump out of his adderall-infected mind. On Saturday he tweeted or retweeted 82 times, many of the tweets fighting against impeachment. He mentioned "impeachment," "impeach" or "impeachable" nine times, "Schiff" eleven times, the same number of time he mentioned "whistleblower."And if he wasn't crazy enough before, what do you think this Rolling Stone title will do for him: Trump Sycophant Lindsey Graham Says 'Whistleblower' Is From the 'Deep State'. The loony and instinctually deceptive South Carolina closet queen and Senate Judiciary Committee chair has been all over the map on the transcripts. He boasted he hasn't and never will read the transcripts and the following day said he's read every word of them and has come to the conclusion there's no there there. "I’ve written the whole process off. I think this is a bunch of B.S.," he insisted. He's cracking up almost as much as Trump is.Peter Wade wrote in his Rolling Stone piece that Trump and his regime "are too incompetent even to attempt the extortion plan, saying that the administration’s Ukraine policy was 'incoherent,' adding, 'They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.' So, the over-the-top Trump sycophant decided to go full Alex Jones and has turned to conspiracy theories to take heat off of the president. On Sunday, Graham told fellow Trump ally and Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo that the whistleblower, who initially brought the Ukrainian scandal to light, is part of the fictional entity called the deep state while also accusing Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of wrongdoing.Unfake News by Nancy OhanianLindsey: "When you find out who is the whistleblower is, I’m confident, you’re gonna find out it’s somebody from the deep state. You’re gonna find out find they had interactions with Schiff and this thing’s gonna stink to high heaven." Wade added that "With public hearings set to begin next week, we can expect more of the same from the president’s defenders. Trump’s actions have given them few other options."Whites are now a minority in Kevin McCarthy's district Central Valley district and yet-- for some reason they have refused to answer satisfactorily-- the DCCC has continued never recruiting a candidate to run against him. Odd, isn't it? You can walk-- hike-- from the northern tip on Adam Schiff's district (Soledad Canyon Road) to Quartz Hill at the southern tip of McCarthy's district-- straight through CA-25. But it wasn't very neighborly for McCarthy to assert on Fox News yesterday that Schiff is single-handedly orchestrating a calculated coup against Trump and that Pelosi is the speaker in name only. Like everyone in DC, McCarthy is aware that Schiff doesn't make a move without clearing it with Pelosi first. McCarthy, as always, is just continuing to suck up to Trump. Why doesn't the DCCC go up against this pathetic clown?Russia's on-going interference in the Brexit campaign-- and European elections-- were test cases for their on-going interference in American electoral politics. Other than Devin Nunes and Moscow Mitch there aren't many people who can deny that Russian money flooded into elections in Germany, Holland, France and the U.K... and then, the U.S. Now, in the midst of a U.K. snap election, is Russian money financing the Conservative Party again?Yesterday, the Sunday Times reported that Britains' intelligence agencies are furious over Boris Johnson blocking publication of a report on Russian money flows into U.K. politics. Wealthy Putin cronies in London-- some of whom have become close with Johnson-- have given millions of dollars to the Conservative Party. Alexander Temerko, for example, who has worked for the Kremlin’s defence ministry and speaks about Johnson as a friend, "has gifted more than £1.2m to the Conservatives over the past seven years." The giving has increased dramatically since Jonson moved into Number 10 Downing Street. Between November 2018 and October 2019 Russians connected to the Kremlin have been around half a million pounds into the Conservative Party.Culprits include Russian bankster Lev Mikheev, energy oligarch Alexander Temerko and Lubov Chernukhin, wife of Putin-s uber-corrupt former finance minister Vladimir Chernukhin. In 2014 Lubov donated £160,000 to the Conservative Party for a game of tennis with Johnson and former prime minister David Cameron, as well as a further £30,000 for dinner with the current Education Secretary Gavin Williamson. In total-- just last year-- Lubov gave the Conservatives £450,000.A Labour Party official, Andrew Gwynne, responding to Johnson blocking publication of the report by pointing out that "Billionaires fund the Conservative Party, so this sordid cover up shouldn’t be surprising. The Tories blocked this report and oppose tax transparency so their billionaire backers can continue to rip us off unchallenged."The Tories insist they're not purposely blocking the report, just that it takes a long time for things to get published.Suddenly it matters which one is Lev and which one is Igor And speaking of Russians... how about Ukrainians? Late yesterday, the NY Times dropped a doozy on Trump's head, Giuliani Associate Sats He Gave Demand For Biden Unquiry To Ukrainians. Lev-- of Lev and Igor-- went to Kiev before Zelensky's inauguration and announced that unless the new government publicly announced that it was investigating the Bidens, "Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid." Lev will be swearing to this when he testifies before Congress in the impeachment inquiry. This directly challenges the narrative of events from Señor Trumpanzee and his goon squad and directly links Giuliani "to threats of repercussions made to the Ukrainians, something he has strenuously denied." Igor denies there was any ultimate. And Giuliani said "Categorically, I did not tell him to say that."
The dispute represents the clearest indication yet that Mr. Parnas, who was indicted along with Mr. Fruman last month on campaign finance charges, has turned on Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani....Mr. Parnas’s account of the meeting, if corroborated, would reveal the earliest known instance of American aid being tied to demands for Ukraine to take actions that could benefit Mr. Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. It would also represent a more extensive threat-- to pull Mr. Pence from the inaugural delegation-- than was previously known....Only three people were present at the meeting: Mr. Parnas, Mr. Fruman and Serhiy Shefir, a member of the inner circle of Mr. Zelensky, then the Ukrainian president-elect. The sit-down took place at an outdoor cafe in the days before Mr. Zelensky’s May 20 inauguration, according to a person familiar with the events. The men sipped coffee and spoke in Russian, which is widely spoken in Ukraine, the person said.Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph A. Bondy, said the message to the Ukrainians was given at the direction of Mr. Giuliani, whom Mr. Parnas believed was acting under Mr. Trump’s instruction. Mr. Giuliani said he “never authorized such a conversation.”A lawyer for Mr. Fruman, John M. Dowd, said his client told him the men were seeking only a meeting with Mr. Zelensky, the new president. “There was no mention of any terms, military aid or whatever they are talking about it-- it’s false,” said Mr. Dowd, who represents Mr. Fruman along with the lawyer Todd Blanche.In a statement on Friday, Mr. Shefir acknowledged meeting with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman. But he said they had not raised the issue of military aid. Mr. Shefir said he briefed the incoming president on the meeting. Mr. Shefir was a business partner and longtime friend whom Mr. Zelensky appointed as his chief adviser on the first day of his presidency.“We did not treat Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman as official representatives, and therefore we did not consider that they could speak on behalf of the U.S. government,” Mr. Shefir said. He added Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman had requested that Mr. Zelensky meet with Mr. Giuliani.Mr. Shefir said in his statement that he had told Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman “that we could consider meeting with Mr. Giuliani, but only publicly and officially and only after the inauguration of the newly elected president.”The statement from Mr. Shefir, issued in response to an inquiry from the New York Times, did not directly address Mr. Parnas’s claims that he had delivered an ultimatum about American aid in general and Mr. Pence’s attendance at the inauguration. A representative for Mr. Zelensky did not respond to a request for further comment.Mr. Bondy, Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, challenged Mr. Shefir’s characterization. “It would simply defy reason,” he said, “for Mr. Shefir to have attended a meeting with Mr. Parnas if he did not believe Mr. Parnas spoke for the president, and also for Mr. Parnas not to have conveyed the president’s message at this meeting.”Mr. Pence did not attend the inauguration. His office said in response to questions from The Times that it had told Ukrainian officials on May 13, a week before the swearing-in, that the vice president would not be there.
