Dude, you’re missing the key nuance – you don’t just up and request the money, you have to be cordial and agreeable when making your request.
Pleasant bank robbers aren’t bank robbers at all!! They’re just bank visitors who happen to walk out with money that isn’t theirs! Get your facts straight!
It’s no longer a joke. We have become the banana republic that your great-granda left behind to immigrate to the USA.
A mob enforcer has kidnapped your daughter. You know this. He knows you know this. He phones you, and politely asks you to do him a favor. He never mentions your daughter. By G.O.P. logic, no extortion has occurred.
But you can’t prove guilt in a criminal trial if you can’t indict …
There’s a job waiting for you in the OLC. We here in Trumplandia like the way you think! 
“For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–”
And in some parts of this country everyone is armed, whether you can see the gun or not. So it’s better to mind your p’s and q’s.
Convictions for criminal offenses can be appealed. I don’t think we want Trump led so astray with criminal law references he gets the idea, should the Senate improbably vote for removal, he can somehow appeal their conviction. He’ll whip up 40-50 million people demanding it should we delude him so thoroughly on how all this works. The House is likely stitching together the case he has failed to fulfill his duties of office, and duty to nation. A focus on criminal acts per se will be minimal I posit.
I’m certainly hoping they’re not going to stick slavishly to the Ukraine fiasco, not when there’s so much more out there.
Pelosi has told Schiff, et al she wants a focused, narrow presentation. Look at the witness list for the public hearings, everyone has some relation to the Ukraine affair. You see no one being called to expound on Trump’s acts of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report. Pelosi wants simple, easily understood violations of the oath of office, not a deep dive into a John le Carré novel.
Why?
Short answer “They’re protected by the clock”.
Ever since all of this began - the strategy for the administration has been to delay - delay - delay - until it reaches the Supreme Court - if ever. And by then, the plans for stealing the election would have played out.
Subpoena’s are good for nothing in congressional power. So far - if you WANT to testify - you do. If you DON’T want to testify - you don’t - and run out the clock. Sorry to say - this has been a tried and true strategy.
So just as a good lawyer/prosecutor never asks a question they don’t already know the answer to - it would seem a good congressional committee never subpoenas a witness who isn’t willing (or has signaled as much) to testify for them.
Dang! if this does not blow a hole in the Republican “innocent mind” defense.
Giuliani is a gift that keeps on giving.
Rudy, you gotta save the good shit for your podcast, dude!
It really does. Essentially Trump doesn’t understand right from wrong, so he commits crimes in daylight, takes pictures of it, and sends them to the newspapers. He’s also a stupid, buffoonish person, and surrounds himself with similar people because birds of a feather. This militates against successfully hiding international conspiracies or subverting the political structure of an advanced society. The real crisis is the corruption of the Republican Party, not that Giuliani said another crazy thing. But out here in the grass roots we’re working on addressing that. Stay tuned. : )
With all due respect to an institution I wholeheartedly admire, Rudy should consider writing an op-ed for The Onion.
Which leads to the question, why isn’t there a subpoena for Giuliani’s appearance time stamped 9/24/2019?
Note to courts considering ability to ignore congressional subpoenas: One can’t claim “universal privilege” while publishing bullshit “opinion” pieces on the same subjects. Otherwise we have devolved into a second rate dictatorship. I’m just sayin’.
Oh, whoops, I forgot my usual caveat regarding such comments. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve played on on TV. Actually, I’ve been in court a number of times, been sued, read many a legal filing, done a lot of legal research in law libraries, been deposed, and been something of an observer of many legal cases in the foreground of our culture. I’m sure of what I speak. Attorneys never suffer from making bad, absurd, incorrect, or inappropriate legal arguments. They’ll put in every argument in a filing, lot’s of it being simply boiler plate stuff, for which the other side has boiler plate knockdowns for a judge to rule on. Who’s going to turn them or otherwise complain to their state bar? Other attorneys? They’re all in the same club, and they get used to it, and enjoy perks, including the money.
So, basically I’m just saying this is a good perspective from which to view Guliani’s contortions. He may well say different things when under oath and/or in a legal filing. However, the point is that coming up with absurd arguments is a finely tuned art for such people, so we ought never be surprised by various points of view they propound, which they likely do not necessarily believe and which they just as likely may not have thought about much at all. The counter-arguments often are there for the offering, but, of course, the problem is getting those counter arguments into the proper channels. Fox News and The Wall Street Journal editorial page won’t let them in.
Every time Rudy opens his mouth he digs a deeper hole. Excellent.
Nice little store you got here. It’d be a real shame if anything happened to it. I just want to make a little suggestion, that’s all.