The Giuliani trip was laid out in advance in the NY Times on 9 May


"Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, is encouraging Ukraine to wade further into sensitive political issues in the United States, seeking to push the incoming government in Kiev to press ahead with investigations that he hopes will benefit Mr. Trump.

Mr. Giuliani said he plans to travel to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in the coming days and wants to meet with the nation’s president-elect to urge him to pursue inquiries that allies of the White House contend could yield new information about two matters of intense interest to Mr. Trump.

One is the origin of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other is the involvement of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son in a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch."  NY Times


Well, pilgrims, this story ran on May 9 2019 based on an interview with Giuliani.  It describes in detail all the business tediously and sonorously read into the public record in the Adam Schiff drama of the last week.  Why did Schiff not just enter this into the record of the hearings instead of dancing about while looking more insane and power mad than usual?

Or did he?  Am I missing something?

Clearly Giuliani was not trying to hide what he was about to do in Ukraine.  He does not seem to have thought any of it was illegal or improper.  pl

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, government, Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Giuliani trip was laid out in advance in the NY Times on 9 May

  1. Bill H says:

    I have watched the “impeachment hearings” off and on for several days. Are they speaking English? It sort of sounds like English, and some of the words are English, but many of the words seem to come from some other language, and I seldom can make any sense of what they’re saying.
    Fortunately, SWMBO comes home and I can clearly follow every thing she says, so I know it’s not me.

  2. Terence Gore says:

    I assume this is a political show trial and has very little to do with our law. The quote “No one is above the Law” is simply a device to gain political capital.
    IMO if one wishes to go deeper “the Law” is a political construct and can be manipulated by those in power to achieve whatever ends they feel they need. The illusion that it is about justice has been paramount to maintain a sense of equity amongst the populace.
    I don’t know why maintaining that sense of equity is breaking down. It feels like we are heading toward a “cultural revolution” where only proper points of view are allowed.

  3. vig says:

    Sometimes, one may have too eager acolytes. Superficial explanation, but then who is Trump’s favorite lawyer now?
    That anyway is part of the superficial glimpses I got. Not looking seriously. Partisan omplaints that he drew way too much attention?
    while looking more insane and power mad than usual?
    was wondering about the references here concerning his eyes. But yes, alarmingly wide open. Occasionally. But all in all it was pretty ritualistic/ritualized performance on both sides. … Once again.
    Otherwise Zelensky sounded eager to please Trump. What a pity we cannot listen to the tape. Will Naftogas be privatized longterm, that would offer more then simply another board member job to be filled with a more solid American? Naftogaz and American LNG cooperation plus expertise and funds? With Biden and Burisma serving as distraction?

  4. Aristophones says:

    I believe President Trump said, in an interview with ABC news, that it was OK to use dirt obtained from a foreign source on a political opponent. Complete transparency of his beliefs and widely covered in the news.
    The major question is whether the President, through Giuliani, used coercion in an attempt to get dirt on a political opponent and if so does this rise to an impeachable offense?

  5. Factotum says:

    1. Biden is not a “political opponent”. He is merely running for the DNC opportunity to be a poltiical opponent.
    2. Obama and his deep state dug up dirt on some one who was a designated Democrat political opponent.
    3. Current CNN-WaPo-Deep state fingering low level FISA clerks to be the fall guys for Comey, Clapper and Brennan, as well as Obama, is too sel-serving to be believed.
    4. Democrats demanded Trump investigate 2016 foreign interference with US elections. Trump was simply carrying out their wishes.

  6. Dan says:

    It’s funny to watch you folks attempt to turn the simple, blatant potential corruption in Ukraine into mere “political dirt”.
    Three years of investigations into obvious garbage allegations tied to the mindless Steele dossier, but turn the light on lefty corruption and suddenly we’re a lot more vigilant about the credibility of sources of information.

  7. turcopolier says:

    Who is “you folks?”

  8. 505th PIR says:

    The 2020 Election cannot come fast enough. Even then, things will never be the same as they once were. This dystopia makes one feel that we are in for an endless cycle of what we are presently experiencing. The fragmentation will lead to implosion. Farewell America.

  9. srw says:

    Why did Schiff not just enter this into the record of the hearings instead of dancing about? It was done for public education.

  10. srw says:

    This is a House inquiry. The trial, if it takes place, is in the Senate.

  11. turcopolier says:

    In the senate, eh. Who knew?

  12. turcopolier says:

    For public education? Who knew?

  13. turcopolier says:

    505th PIR
    Yes. If there are not massive indictments of the conspirators, then IMO the jig is up for the Great Republic as Churchill called it.

  14. Factotum says:

    Democrats prove anyone they chose are now below the law: and they are going to get you by any means necessary. Witch hunts, kangaroo courts and star chambers are all below the law. A Democrat specialty.

  15. Mark Logan says:

    What is an impeachable offense depends on who you talk to. Or listen to, perhaps. Some say it is the breaking of a law, but there is no requirement for a conviction in a court of law to assess that. It’s up the the House and the Senate to agree on this. Marbary v. Madison does not apply here, there is no judicial review. That appears to have been tacitly agreed on by all parties throughout our history. Impeachment belongs to Congress, end of story.
    I think the Senate majority, if forced by some means to admit a crime was committed, will Merrick Garland this: “Too close to an election”. And that is the correct call.

  16. Diana C says:

    If the victory of one of the parties is so great, the other party may have to whimper away and re-group.
    While I don’t want Trump to be so victorious that he doubles down on “being Trump,” I want the Republicans to be obviously victorious, so to speak. I just can’t see myself as having to designate my personal take on my sexual orientation and my opinion about race relations, and so on and so forth, every time I introduce myself.
    Any real move toward true socialism or (God forbid) communism will have me looking to attempt to join the Space Force. Our supposed capitalist Constitutional government has already moved to far in that direction.
    I hope if Trump wins again, this time he will do more to replace some of the entrenched swamp creatures with creatures of his own choosing, if that is even possible with civil service regulations.
    Heck, I’m still wanting Lois Lerner to face justice.
    My most fervent wish is never to see or hear Schiff on TV again. Will the citizens of California ever wake up to how their choice of politicians–including the boozy Nancy Pelosi–has caused people like me to cross CA off my list of places to visit. Too bad, too, since it was always a beautiful place to visit.

  17. Upstate NY'er says:

    “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
    The Democrats have always had a soft spot for the USSR.

  18. PRC90 says:

    505, I suggest the implosion will occur within the DNC between 2020 and 2024.
    By then the DNC will have demonstrated a solid intent of maintaining the galloping Swamp Snake endless marathon race for which Trumpism is the sole opponent. The DNC rank and file actually need jobs as they are unable to feed themselves and pay bills with Progressiveness. They will have had enough and will turn to the second iteration of Trumpism under Gabbard, with an entirely new non-DNC party, in 2024.
    Sometime in the mid-20’s, Hillary and Joe, if still lucid, will offer blame to those they believe deserve it.

  19. PRC90 says:

    It would be interesting to see any personal popularity rating trends for Schiff over the 2018-2019 calendar years. I suspect it may not very encouraging, and would be a good barometer of the value of the impeachment strategy.

  20. PRC90 says:

    Trump may be unwilling to do so prior to 2020 so as to avoid the appalling spectacle of a two-way DC cat fight – far better for him to be the underdog. He and Barr may productively hit one or two token malfeasants before 2020, however I suspect he’ll get a second term and that will be the time to go to town on the whole bunch.

  21. PRC90 says:

    It’s called Schiff-lish. Essentially, words and phrases can mean anything one day and something else the next, but it relies on everyone first getting together in a back room for a rehearsal to ensure that they at least can understand each other.
    It’s designed to make Senate Republicans see Trump as an electoral liability.
    I suspect that Senate Republicans can actually speak Schiff-lish better than Schiff.

Comments are closed.