And there's the payoff

 

Not even Wisconsin cares about political bribes

 I know the Supremes don't care.  They said if it's after the fact, it's called a gratuity, and that's perfectly legal.  

MAGA.

UPDATE 03/31/2025:  Laws for thee, but not for me.

Because they can't win if they don't cheat - Part whatever

 

Totally legal.  Didn't the Supreme Court recently decide that it's not bribery if you pay for it after the fact?  Then it's gratuity.

UPDATE 03:03 pm:  Maybe not legal in Wisconsin. 

UPDATE 03/30/2025:  Welp. Not even in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile...

Hunter Biden's big dick  might not be the big news Musk and the MAGAsphere would like it to be, there's this...

Maybe call Rex Tillerson as a witness

“A Very Stable Genius” — a 417-page book named after Trump’s own declaration of his superior knowledge — is full of [...] vivid details from Trump’s tumultuous first three years as president, from his chaotic transition before taking office to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation and final report.

[...]

Many of the key moments reported in the book are rife with foreign policy implications, portraying a novice commander in chief plowing through normal protocols and alarming many both inside the administration and in other governments.

[...]

Early in his administration, for instance, Trump is eager to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin — so much so, the authors write, “that during the transition he interrupts an interview with one of his secretary of state candidates” to inquire about his pressing desire: “When can I meet Putin? Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony?” he asks.

  WaPo

Did he need Putin to tell him what to say at the ceremony?

After the two leaders meet face-to-face for the first time — 168 days into his presidency at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg — Trump promptly declares himself a Russia expert, dismissing the expertise of then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who had worked closely with Putin since the 1990s.

[...]

“ ‘I have had a two-hour meeting with Putin,’ Trump told Tillerson. ‘That’s all I need to know. . . . I’ve sized it all up. I’ve got it.’ ”

In spring 2017, Trump also clashed with Tillerson when he told him he wanted his help getting rid of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that prevents U.S. firms and individuals from bribing foreign officials for business deals.

Say what?!?

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump says, according to the book. “We’re going to change that.”

The president, they go on to explain, was frustrated with the law “ostensibly because it restricted his industry buddies or his own company’s executives from paying off foreign governments in faraway lands.”

Hmm.

One government aide tells the authors that Trump has destroyed the gravity and allure that used to surround the presidency, regardless of the Oval Office occupant.

“ ‘He’s ruined that magic,’ this aide said of Trump,” Rucker and Leonnig write.

Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing.

“ ‘The disdain he shows for our country’s foundation and its principles. The disregard he has for right and wrong. Your fist clenches. Your teeth grate.’ ”

Yes, that.

At one point, after the department blocks the release of what the president believes was a pro-Trump memo, he calls Kelly ranting. “ ‘This is my Justice Department. They are supposed to be my people,’ Trump told Kelly,” the authors write. “ ‘This is the ‘Deep State.’ . . . Mueller’s all over it.’ ”

[...]

Early in his presidency, Trump agrees to participate in an HBO documentary that features judges and lawmakers — as well as all the living presidents — reading aloud from the Constitution. But Trump struggles and stumbles over the text, blaming others in the room for his mistakes and griping, “It’s like a foreign language.”

English?

What does Bret Kavanaugh have to do with impeaching Trump?

Nothing really.  But the Supreme Court has just taken up three cases having to do with releasing Trump's financial records.

He's treating Kavanaugh like he did Manafort and the others when they were in a position to possibly flip on him.  This is the legal edge of bribing a judge.  And, why not?  That's why they put Kavanaugh on the bench.  To be Trump's toady.

Jesus wept.  And Kavanaugh needs to be impeached, too.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Teaser in Rick Gates' sentencing papers

According to a podcast with Ken White,  in the Rick Gates (Paul Manafort's right-hand man) sentencing papers there's a note that reads in essence, "in the course of resisting pressure not to cooperate...[Gates] was not only approached by what the government calls high-level politicians, but also offered money."

Hmmmm.  Who would that be?  And will it come up somewhere in a future case?  White adds, "It's not the sort of bomb they drop casually."

Gates is to be sentenced next Tuesday.  Prosecutors are are recommending that he receive no jail time due to his extensive cooperation, including testifying in both the Manafort and Roger Stone trials.

UPDATE: 

Taking apart Turley's impeachment hearing statement

The witness called by the Republicans, professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School (where I teach a course on white-collar crime), argued that the record concerning the Ukraine scandal does not establish impeachable conduct by President Trump.

[...]

One of Turley’s primary arguments is that Trump’s conduct would not amount to bribery under the Supreme Court’s 2016 unanimous decision in McDonnell v. United States. In McDonnell, the court held that actions taken by Virginia’s governor in exchange for secret gifts, including sending emails and arranging meetings, did not amount to “official acts” as defined in the federal bribery statute.

[...]

The essence of the crime [of bribery] is abuse of office: a public official corruptly seeking a personal benefit in return for an exercise of his or her official power. There are many different bribery statutes and many different definitions of the crime. In McDonnell, the court was interpreting one clause of a single statute, not pronouncing a universal definition of bribery for the ages, and certainly was not interpreting the impeachment clause of the Constitution. And given that all four experts, including Turley, agreed that a president may be impeached for conduct that is not a crime at all, it’s unclear why Turley insists that to be impeachable, bribery must meet the precise requirements of McDonnell.

[...]

When it comes to Trump withholding a White House meeting, Turley claims McDonnell held that meetings cannot be official acts. But this is too simplistic. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was arranging meetings between his subordinates and a benefactor, on relatively minor issues, and taking no further action himself. An official White House meeting between the president and a visiting head of state is no ordinary “meeting" but a coveted and significant diplomatic event. Deciding whether to grant such a meeting likely would be an official act under McDonnell.

[...]

He argues a bribery case would fail for lack of a quid pro quo, claiming that “Trump does not state a quid pro quo in the call” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But bribery defendants are not required to say, “Here, I have a quid pro quo for you,” to be found guilty. By saying he wanted Zelensky to do him “a favor” immediately after Zelensky mentioned military aid, Trump made his intent clear. And focusing solely on the call ignores other compelling evidence, including the express testimony from Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that there was indeed a quid pro quo.

[...]

Turley also suggests there is insufficient evidence of Trump’s corrupt intent. He argues that if Trump was honestly concerned about misconduct by Hunter Biden, then requesting the investigation may not have been corrupt. This boils down to claiming, “If the president did not have corrupt intent, then he did not have corrupt intent.” That’s true — and tautological. But the question is whether any objective observer believes this is remotely plausible. The evidence is overwhelming.

[...]

Particularly unsound is Turley’s suggestion that because there is a Justice Department investigation into possible involvement of Ukraine in the 2016 election, Trump’s demands that Ukraine cooperate in that investigation may not have been corrupt. This is classic bootstrapping: An administration can’t begin a dubious investigation into a debunked conspiracy theory to politically benefit the president and then claim that the existence of that investigation legitimizes otherwise corrupt demands.

  WaPo

I beg to differ. They CAN. And they ARE. It's bullshit, but they can.

Turley also claims bribery is not established because the requested investigations might not have been personally valuable to the president. He notes the investigations might not have been completed before the election, or might have ended up exonerating Biden.

Is that the same defense as "he can't be accused of attempted robbery because his plan might not have worked?

Sondland’s testimony that it was the public announcement of the investigations that was the key [claims there] was no demand they actually be completed. This is further evidence of corrupt intent, undermining the claim that Trump’s true concern was with rooting out corruption.

[...]

Turley concluded his written testimony concerning bribery by saying, “As a criminal defense attorney, I would view such an allegation [of bribery] from a prosecutor to be dubious to the point of being meritless.” Funny, as a former federal prosecutor, that’s exactly how I feel about Turley’s bribery defense. This is a case I’d be very comfortable taking to a jury.

And, once again, there doesn't have to be a statutory crime to warrant impeachment.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sondland hearing finally ends

Laura Cooper and David Hale were scheduled to begin testimony an hour and a half ago, but Sondland's testimony has just ended.

I have to say that I look forward to the endings of all these hearings because of the final line-up of questioners.  Since the Dems have more members on the committee than Republicans do, the final five interrogators are all Democrats in a row with no interruption:  Denny Heck, Peter Welch, Sean Patrick Maloney, Val Demings and Raja Krishnamoorthi.  (*Correction below.)

Denny Heck always soothes and oils the witness with sincere, heartfelt appeals to everyone''s better angels, followed by an always intelligent and respectful set from elder statesman Welch, setting them up for the one-two punch of Maloney and Demings, both with a deceptive and deadly demeanor if they're not buying what the witness is selling.

Sondland took a real beating from those two today after Heck and Welch relaxed him, outright blindsided by Maloney, and Demings never let him up from it.

Honorable mention to Jackie Speier:

And to Mike Quigley for finally pointing out that the name or testimony of the whistleblower is competely unimportant to the proceedings:  "If we were investigating arson [Republicans] would indict the guy who pulled the fire alarm."

*Correction:

I misremembered. That asshole Gym Jordan comes after Denny Heck in the line of questioning.

Tomorrow:  Fiona Hill and David Holmes

UPDATE:

Indict Wayne LaPierre while your'e at it

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

As desperation sets in

President Trump met in the White House on Friday with Wayne LaPierre, the chief executive of the National Rifle Association, and discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president as he faces impeachment and a more difficult re-election campaign, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

During the meeting, Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House “stop the games” over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said.

  NYT

Sort of turning the tables on Trump from his call to Zelensky. Can we talk about quid pro quo?

In a statement Friday evening, an N.R.A. spokesman confirmed the meeting took place but insisted The Times’s account of the meeting was “inaccurate.”

“The N.R.A. categorically denies any discussion occurred about special arrangements pertaining to the N.R.A.’s support of the President and vice versa,” the statement said.

Of course not.

Even before the launch of a formal impeachment inquiry, Mr. LaPierre’s influence on Mr. Trump has been clear. After a 30-minute phone call last month, Mr. Trump appeared to be espousing N.R.A. talking points when answering questions about guns.

[...]

Privately, Mr. Trump has raised questions with his aides about the N.R.A.’s ability to help back his 2020 campaign the way it did in 2016, when it poured over $30 million into his election, more than any other outside group. He has voiced concerns that the group looks like it is going bankrupt and may lack the political clout it had last election cycle.

This year, the N.R.A. has been mired in investigations by attorneys general in New York and Washington, D.C. and beset by leaks about its lavish spending practices, while also facing restive donors and inquiries over its ties to Russia. And its finances have been strained.

Recent public filings have shown that it largely exhausted a $25 million line of credit that was guaranteed by the deed to its Fairfax, Va., headquarters, and borrowed against insurance policies taken out on its executives. Oliver North, who departed this year as the N.R.A.’s president in an acrimonious leadership fight, has said that the organization’s legal bills, running between $1.5 million and $2 million a month from its main law firm, have created an “existential crisis.

[...]

But the organization still has considerable resources and more than five million members, many of whom overlap with Mr. Trump’s base. And rallying grass-roots support has traditionally been one of its strengths.

Aides have reassured Mr. Trump that the group is still in good enough financial shape to help him, even as his own political fortunes have shifted since the mass shootings.

[...]

Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and a senior White House adviser, was still calling around to senators this week, saying her father wanted to make a move on guns even as he faced impeachment. But Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. LaPierre on Friday indicated that his priority may be his own political survival rather than making any strides on guns.

May be.



Circling the drain, more like.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Aborted

A week after the surfacing of the infamous "grab them by the pussy" video, Trump presented himself as the common man's only defense against a vast conspiracy of global financial interests:

"There is nothing the political establishment will not do," he said, "and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense."

[...]

"For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat," Trump said.

[...]

Months later, with the self-proclaimed "existential threat" to special interests in office, the "establishment" has it better than ever.

[...]

Tuesday, for instance, Trump signed a repeal of a bipartisan provision of the Dodd-Frank bill known as the Cardin-Lugar Amendment.

The rule was stalled for the better part of six years by a relentless and exhausting parade of lobbyists, lawyers and other assorted Beltway malingerers. It then lived out of the womb for a few sad months before Trump smothered it this week.

[...]

The law was designed to prevent energy companies from bribing foreign dictators. The simple goal was to ensure that the wealth of resource-rich countries would be enjoyed by their citizens, and not converted into obscene personal collections of yachts, mansions, sports cars and Michael Jackson memorabilia – as, for instance, it was when oil was discovered in Equatorial Guinea, and the brutal dictator Teodoro Obiang started doing business with Rex Tillerson's ExxonMobil.

[...]

The oil-and-gas people, of course, pretended the whole time that they didn't want to kill the provision, exactly, just improve it.

[...]

This is why laws like Dodd-Frank end up being unwieldy monstrosities of thousands and thousands of pages: On the road to trying to kill a law outright, lobbyists usually try to weigh it down first by adding exceptions and verbiage.

[...]

Another irony here is that the public perception that nothing ever gets done in Washington is driven by this very dynamic.

[...]

This leads to frustration with Washington inaction. And as we've seen, this leads to political support for big talkers like Trump who promise, hilariously, to cut through the red tape and "get things done."

[...]

Ask Trump supporters about this episode, and many would say they won't weep for the loss of any government regulation.

But they should ask themselves if, when they were whooping and hollering for the man who promised to end special interest and lobbyist rules in Washington, they imagined the ExxonMobil chief in charge of the State Department cheering as the new president wiped out anti-bribery laws. The "establishment" sure is on the run, isn't it? 

  Matt Taibbi

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.