WTF? Democrat House Judiciary Committee Takes First Step to Hold Bill Barr in Contempt of Congress

[Flopper]

Yes, investigating the president for a possible bill of impeachment is pure politics because that is what impeachment is, a political process to remove a government official from office, not a legal process. The House of Representative has the authority to investigate any government official, including the president to gather information for a Bill of Impeachment.

It's not pure politics, far from considering the substance of Trump's behavior in office, including many of the episodes documented in the special council's report.

What is the precedent for the Presidency of the United States of America going forward if Trump simply walks off such blatant obstruction of justice? Trump will come and go but the swampy new norms left behind will stink for generations.

When I say, it's pure politics I'm referring to the impeachment process. Impeachment is simply a way of removing a person who is unfit for office. It is a political process. Removal does not even require charges of criminal activity. Little deportation, it is not punishment. It is simply correction in status.

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's not pure politics, far from considering the substance of Trump's behavior in office, including many of the episodes documented in the special council's report.

What is the precedent for the Presidency of the United States of America going forward if Trump simply walks off such blatant obstruction of justice? Trump will come and go but the swampy new norms left behind will stink for generations.

When I say, it's pure politics I'm referring to the impeachment process. Impeachment is simply a way of removing a person who is unfit for office. It is a political process. Removal does not even require charges of criminal activity. Little deportation, it is not punishment. It is simply correction in status.

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hahaha. Why does that matter? It makes no difference on whether or not they are allow to see Grand Jury information. That will be up to a judge.

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

yep impeachment. that's it. have to have justification/ evidence for it. just like you can't scream bomb on a plane. fk I hate stupid people like you.

The way forward is in the courts, like in Nixon's case.

the courts will tell them to go away, got to have something to argue. what is it they will argue? I'll wait.

I was wrong. The vote was 8-0. Rehnquist recused himself.

 

[jc456]

it matters to the authority to issue a subpoena and not complying. so, again, what is it the congress will do once their subpoena is ignored? tell me?

"The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Graham said two decades ago.

Lindsey Graham in 1998: Ignoring Subpoenas Impeachable

Nixon's case it went all the way to the SC. He lost 9-0.

yep impeachment. that's it. have to have justification/ evidence for it. just like you can't scream bomb on a plane. fk I hate stupid people like you.

The way forward is in the courts, like in Nixon's case.

the courts will tell them to go away, got to have something to argue. what is it they will argue? I'll wait.

I was wrong. The vote was 8-0. Rehnquist recused himself.

still waiting on what they will be arguing in front of the SCOTUS before they say go away?

 

[Flopper]

When I say, it's pure politics I'm referring to the impeachment process. Impeachment is simply a way of removing a person who is unfit for office. It is a political process. Removal does not even require charges of criminal activity. Little deportation, it is not punishment. It is simply correction in status.

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

No so. The Constitution states that the president may be impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4). Although most people today assume that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” require that the president commit some indictable offense, the history of the phrase suggests a broader meaning. The Constitution invites debate about the scope of impeachment, and those subject to impeachment are most likely to insist on its narrowest application.

The first person impeached and removed from office by the Senate, John Pickering was convicted on charges of drunkenness and general low moral character.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I say, it's pure politics I'm referring to the impeachment process. Impeachment is simply a way of removing a person who is unfit for office. It is a political process. Removal does not even require charges of criminal activity. Little deportation, it is not punishment. It is simply correction in status.

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

 

[jc456]

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

yep, and I challenge anyone to name a crime/ misdemeanor is still a crime, the high guy has committed.

the other piece is that the the senate needs 70 votes to get him out of office. hmmmm. I'd say not likely.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

No so. The Constitution states that the president may be impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4). Although most people today assume that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” require that the president commit some indictable offense, the history of the phrase suggests a broader meaning. The Constitution invites debate about the scope of impeachment, and those subject to impeachment are most likely to insist on its narrowest application.

The first person impeached and removed from office by the Senate, John Pickering was convicted on charges of drunkenness and general low moral character.

So to use your original phrase if Congress thinks the President is unfit for office it can remove him without showing evidence of a crime. But if Congress can remove any president simply by saying he or she is unfit for office what would keep every Congress from removing any president of the opposite party?

As for Pickering, how stupid do you have to be to imagine impeaching a federal judge is equivalent to impeaching a president?

 

[deanrd]

The truth is this administration is so lawless they assume there’s going to be a whole lot of subpoenas. So they’re just waiting a little bit longer to bundle them all together before they pass them on to the courts. Got Mnuchin, who is refusing to give trumps tax returns under the law.
Remember Trump told everybody to not work with Congress and to ignore the constitution.
If the courts side with Trump then we have turned into an authoritarian regime and the democracy that we’ve liked for so long is over.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was just a suggestion from the founding fathers? Another example of what Democrats mean when they say the Constitution is a living document.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion. You either do not understand impeachment or you do not understand my post.

Impeachment is a political process in the constitution for removing government officials. It was used in colonies to remove judges and other government officials. The reasons for removal was commonly referred to as High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

High Crimes and Misdemeanor covers a wide range of allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficial, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Chief Justice John Marshall had this to say about impeachment in a ruling in 1803. “The constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” In the context of impeachment, this means that the Constitution cannot be expected to specify in detail every ground on which impeachment is or is not permissible. If it attempted to do so, an individual who should be impeached might evade this punishment because the officer’s conduct does not meet some technical element of the definition even though the officer’s conduct had so harmed the nation that all agree the officer should be removed. Instead, the Constitution sets forth the general principle of impeachment and leaves its more specific definition to be developed by the House of Representatives and the Senate".
The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”? By Neil J. Kinkopf - The Scope of the Impeachment Power: What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”?

In other words, you do think the Constitutional requirement that a President can only be removed from office if he is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors is just a suggestion from the founding fathers.

What the fuck or you talking about?

lol I'm just editing the bullshit out of your post. Your whole argument is that High Crimes and Misdemeanors is whatever the crazy House Democrats want it to be. To abide by the Constitution the President must be found guilty of a real crime, as Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury.

As much as I hate to say it, Flopper's actually correct. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't actually refer to just indictable criminal actions.

Jon Roland, of the Constitution Society, explains it this way: "[T]he key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming."

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Roland's opinion about an impeachable offense is very interesting if you are in a debating society or teaching a high school civics class, but he goes on to say,

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

so every president who has told a lie while in office can be impeached for it, and that means every president can be impeached. Obviously, Roland's speculations on impeachment have no reasonable application in the real world.

 

[the other mike]

McConnell on Russia investigations: Enough already

 

[the other mike]

The truth is this administration is so lawless they assume there’s going to be a whole lot of subpoenas. So they’re just waiting a little bit longer to bundle them all together before they pass them on to the courts. Got Mnuchin, who is refusing to give trumps tax returns under the law.
Remember Trump told everybody to not work with Congress and to ignore the constitution.
If the courts side with Trump then we have turned into an authoritarian regime and the democracy that we’ve liked for so long is over.

I'm a true liberal, so my tears are real not like
crocodile maddow weeping.

 

[AntonToo]

McConnell on Russia investigations: Enough already

Mueller: Here is ton of evidence for Congress to make Obstruction of Justice case.

McConnell: Case closed.

Hmm, whom to believe - the evidence or the plastic man with an assertion?

 

[the other mike]

Mueller: Here is ton of evidence for Congress to make Obstruction of Justice case.

McConnell: Case closed.

Hmm, whom to believe - the evidence or the plastic man with an assertion?

Don't say you weren't warned when you reelect him.

 

[AntonToo]

Mueller: Here is ton of evidence for Congress to make Obstruction of Justice case.

McConnell: Case closed.

Hmm, whom to believe - the evidence or the plastic man with an assertion?

Don't say you weren't warned when you reelect him.

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

 

[the other mike]

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

I'm defending the US Constitution against a shadow government
of which you're a pawn for and don't even know.

 

[AntonToo]

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

I'm defending the US Constitution against a shadow government

Nope, what you doing is posting crazy fucking nonsence to annonymous strangers on the internetz.

 

[the other mike]

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

I'm defending the US Constitution against a shadow government

Nope, what you are is a total nutbag talking to annonymous strangers on the internetz.

 

[AntonToo]

It's not my fault that you deplorables get hard-ons for crooks.

I'm defending the US Constitution against a shadow government

Nope, what you are is a total nutbag talking to annonymous strangers on the internetz.

Yep, where are indictments dummy? Where does all this well-this-one-guy-in-youtube-video-sayz meet with REALITY?

 

[the other mike]

Yep, where are indictments dummy? Where does all this well-this-one-guy-in-youtube-video-sayz meet with REALITY?

You guys had 2 years and came up empty.
We're just getting started Chip.
Orwellian Cloud Hovers Over Russia-gate
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/05/03/orwellian-cloud-hovers-over-russia-gate/