Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;

b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;

c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;

d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;

e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;

f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;

g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;

h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;

k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;

l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;

m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;

n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;

o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;

p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;

q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;

r. Lying incessantly to the American people;

s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;

t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;

u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;

w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;

x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;

y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;

z. Engaging in a documented campaign of obstruction of a Special Counsel's investigation.

aa. Lying about a hush money payoff and omitting his debt to his attorney for that payoff from his financial disclosure report (which is a crime if done knowingly and willfully);

bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;

cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;

dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;

ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;

ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);

gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;

hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;

ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;

jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;

kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;

ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;

mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;

nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and

oo. Bypassing Congress through the use of "acting" heads of agencies and cabinets.

None of the Republican Senators defending Trump could say with a straight face that they would tolerate a Democratic president doing the same thing. But, given this dangerous precedent, they may have no choice if they ever lose control of the Senate. Is that what they want?

And this is only what Trump did while the remote threat of Congressional oversight existed. If the Senate acquits him, he will know for certain there is nothing that could ever lead to Congress removing him from office. And what he does next will similarly set precedents.

At this point, I would remind these unpatriotic Senators of the line "you have a republic if you can keep it," but a variation on this line may soon be more apt when Trump redoubles his attack on our election: You have a republic, if you can call this a republic.

Walter Michael Shaub Jr. (born February 20, 1971) is an American attorney specializing in government ethics who, from January 9, 2013 to July 19, 2017, was the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

.

Someone who voted for Hilary, is going to argue that Trump's use of personal devices for official work, shows that trump is unfit to be POTUS.

I know you recently looked up the Webster definition of bigot. Try looking up the word "irony".

Someone who voted for Hilary, is going to argue that Trump's use of personal devices for official work, shows that trump is unfit to be POTUS.

I know you recently looked up the Webster definition of bigot. Try looking up the word "irony".


Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"
@AnnieClarkCole
: How can anyone vote for Hillary when she careless with emails that jeopardize our security. She is not to be trusted."
10:55 PM · Sep 30, 2015·Twitter for Android

🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
"
@gretawire
: PresObama is not busy talking to Congress about Syria..he is playing golf ...go figure"
12:04 AM · Sep 8, 2013·Twitter for Android

🙈🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

����
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is actually one of your better posts. That big list of crap that you started this thread with is the more typical boring and time wasting mischaracterization that you too often make us wade through.

(1) Trump withheld crucial military aid from Ukraine;

(2) Ukraine knew it;

(3) While the aid was being withheld, Trump asked Ukraine for a “favor”—investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens;

(4) The request for investigations morphed into a demand for a public statement;

(5) Ukraine agreed to make the public announcement, was working with U.S. government officials on a script for the announcement, and was scheduled to deliver it in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria;

(6) Ukraine canceled the CNN interview only when Trump released the aid after the scheme was exposed by the whistleblower report.

(1) Trump withheld crucial military aid from Ukraine;

(2) Ukraine knew it;

(3) While the aid was being withheld, Trump asked Ukraine for a “favor”—investigations into the 2016 election and the Bidens;

(4) The request for investigations morphed into a demand for a public statement;

(5) Ukraine agreed to make the public announcement, was working with U.S. government officials on a script for the announcement, and was scheduled to deliver it in a CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria;

(6) Ukraine canceled the CNN interview only when Trump released the aid after the scheme was exposed by the whistleblower report.

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Clearly you missed that Trump did not have the authority to freeze those funds. So he broke an existing law to do so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

This is simply fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman would like to have you think so

This is simply fake news
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the last few weeks of impeachment hearings, Republicans liked to cite a number — 55 — the number of days they thought the military aid for Ukraine was withheld.

According to their timeline, the clock begins on July 18, a date that a number of witnesses said they first learned of the hold.

But the clock really began a month earlier, on June 18. That’s when the Pentagon publicly announced it would release its portion of the money: $250 million.

Just a few days later, word of a hold on the funding had made it to David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs.

“I first started to hear that there was a problem with it on June 21; that OMB had stopped the aid,” he told House investigators.

According to documents reviewed by Just Security, the Office of Security Assistance at the State Department sent the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a routine congressional notification for its Foreign Military Financing program that same day: June 21. The State Department needed OMB to green light the document, which described the congressionally appropriated funding, including more than $100 million in funding for Ukraine.

Soon after submitting the congressional notification, the State Department was made aware that the White House had concerns about the Ukraine funding, and so State Department officials started inquiring about what exactly was going on. Was it just the State Department’s money that had been frozen or had the Defense Department’s program also been stopped? And, if the money was really being held, why? Emails flew back and forth from State to OMB to the White House chief of staff’s office, as officials tried to clarify what was happening.

Meanwhile, across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, Laura Cooper, who oversees Ukraine policy at the Defense Department (DoD), was also being told that the White House had questions about DoD’s military assistance for Ukraine.

She testified that days after the Pentagon made its June 18 announcement, her office received a set of questions about the funding from the White House. She was told the questions came out of a meeting with the president, so Cooper presumed they were directly from Trump. The questions were: 1) Is U.S. industry providing any of this equipment? 2) What are other countries doing to contribute? 3) Who gave this funding?

Cooper said her office responded to those questions with a set of fact sheets. They explained that the vast majority of companies providing the equipment were American. Her office also told the White House that the United Kingdom, Canada, Lithuania and Poland all contribute training and equipment to Ukraine. As for the third question, it was the trickiest to answer because of its “strange phrasing,” Cooper said. “It was something along the lines of who provided this funding, or where did this funding come from?” So, her office answered: It comes from Congress and it has strong bipartisan support.

After her office responded to the questions, Cooper never heard anything back. She had no inkling at the time that the president wanted to put a hold on the money, but behind the scenes that’s what had happened. And word started getting out.

Army Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who oversees Ukraine policy on the National Security Council, testified that by July 3, he “was concretely made aware of the fact that there was a hold placed by OMB.”

News of the hold was also making its way to the Ukrainians.

“On July 25, a member of my staff got a question from a Ukraine embassy contact asking what was going on with Ukraine security assistance,” Cooper testified. “Because at that time we did not know what the guidance was … I was informed that the staff member told the Ukrainian official that we were moving forward but recommended that the Ukraine embassy check in with State.”

Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden that same day.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.


Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-why-did-trump-release-ukraine-aid-the-answer-is-simple

Dang! I thought I had a unique, facetious, twist on the over analyzed conspiracy of Trump's supposed "extortion," or is it "bribery," or is it "quid pro quo," or whatever it is. Didn't know that Trumplicans were also facetiously accusing Zelensky of extortion.

Oh well . . .

So Trump thought that he had the legal authority to hold funds upon assuring that the money would not just be funneled into a cesspool of corruption. He had expressed concerns about that corruption for some time before that. And so others think he didn't have the authority. And that he caved into releasing the money because he got "caught."

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/analysis-why-did-trump-release-ukraine-aid-the-answer-is-simple

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.

"Ukraine is really corrupt and I was worried about it"

Never mind that this administration has signed off on the anti corruption markers required by Congress for the funding, eliminated funding for corruption investigation, looked right past corrupt regimes in other countries (Russia, Turkey, etc) and yet somehow the possibility of corruption in Ukraine involving the 2016 election and his opponent captures Trump's attention.

It is typical Trumplican baloney.

Now we see Pompeo claiming they need to further investigate the already disproven "Crowdstrike server" theory and together with Barr, coming up with all sorts of possibilities for why it is acceptable for this administration to obstruct investigations, withhold evidence and otherwise ignore their constitutional responsibilities while claiming to be victims.

To date this administration has stonewalled all Congressional investigations.
It will end up in court and one can only hope that the court sees Congress as a co-equal branch of government with oversight responsibility.
I am hoping we do not end up with a king and certainly not this mad prince.

But the documents and the facts contradict that theory, which interestingly enough is exactly the defense that I said the other day they will present.


There's a lot of assumptions going on with this stuff. I'm going to assume that Byron York is aware of any documents that you mention. And I trust his version over yours.

A simpler explanation is that he was informed that in the continuing resolution the House inserted that the money was going to be released and that the Senate would agree, not block, it. So Trump really had no choice but to let it go.

Typical power play between Congress and the Executive, and Congress won.
I'm not even sure you believe this.

I'm not even sure you believe this.

What I "believe" is irrelevant. What in the Byron York article I posted is untrue?

Two weeks before Trump released the Ukraine aid, White House lawyers briefed him on whistle-blower’s complaint — a key detail about what Trump knew when he made a critical decision at the heart of impeachment investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two weeks before Trump released the Ukraine aid, White House lawyers briefed him on whistle-blower’s complaint — a key detail about what Trump knew when he made a critical decision at the heart of impeachment investigation.


There are a lot of "key" details. They don't all coalesce into one indisputable narrative. Your "key" detail here is not proof of anything other than itself. Nor does it contradict (as you claim) what you call the "theory" in the Byron York article. Other than the "theory" (which hasn't been proven to be false) what is untrue in that article? Why is York's "theory" any less plausible than yours? It's certainly less complicated and less in need of all kinds of other "key" details.

Somebody ought to get their story straight, otherwise it looks like they’re just making it up again

Mr. Trump said at an Oct. 2 news conference that he lifted the aid after a request from Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somebody ought to get their story straight, otherwise it looks like they’re just making it up again

Mr. Trump said at an Oct. 2 news conference that he lifted the aid after a request from Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That precisely agrees with the Byron York article that I linked, and so with the York "theory."

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BOOM

🤡🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.


How do you know what I assume? Are assumptions that important to you? Conjectures? Innuendoes? Maybes? Could be? Probably? Possibly?

I made no assumption about the whistleblower Report. I posted an article that had factual information and a different possibility than your preferred one. Timelines re WB Report do not prove anything. Nor do they make Byron York's facts, timeline, possibility, untrue.

York's assumption is simpler, more elegant, and doesn't require the convoluted piling on of circumstantial evidences that your assumption requires.

I prefer York's.

Keep believing and trying to make it add up.

Trump will clean it all up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8NcsTXI6s

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday suggested that the United States has a “duty” to further probe a conspiracy theory promoted by President Trump alleging that Ukraine was responsible for the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

as CIA director Mike Pompeo claimed that US intelligence agencies believed Russian interference did not affect the results of the 2016 US presidential election.

only issue he made that part up


The CIA never came to that conclusion (did not affect the results) released a statement that clarified Pompeo's remarks.

and Ukraine is not mentioned as someone who also interfered in our elections.. until now

How do you know what I assume? Are assumptions that important to you? Conjectures? Innuendoes? Maybes? Could be? Probably? Possibly?


I prefer York's.

You assume York's is correct.

As the Trumplicans say "you don't have direct knowledge"

We'll leave common sense out of the discussion, it would ruin your narrative.

You assume York's is correct.

As the Trumplicans say "you don't have direct knowledge"

We'll leave common sense out of the discussion, it would ruin your narrative.

Again, you employ your slippery sliding technique of shifting from what was said into saying something else that suits you or your narrative or your shadowy amorphous yet somehow in your mind concrete opinion. I didn't say that I assume York's is correct. Nor did I actually assume so. I said that I prefer it. I don't assume much of any conclusion that is being made about what the actual truth is. I simply don't know. I go by the notion that without proof of criminality, innocence is presumed.

Those that make conjectures don't or can't actually know. Except for, in your mind, you.

Again, you employ your slippery sliding technique of shifting from what was said into saying something else that suits you or your narrative or your shadowy amorphous yet somehow in your mind concrete opinion. I didn't say that I assume York's is correct. Nor did I actually assume so. I said that I prefer it. I don't assume much of any conclusion that is being made about what the actual truth is. I simply don't know. I go by the notion that without proof of criminality, innocence is presumed.

Those that make conjectures don't or can't actually know. Except for, in your mind, you.

Per usual, lot's of verbiage, nothing said.

In your world on what cause could someone be indicted?

Could they just shoot someone, say a Norwegian, on Fifth Avenue and walk away as innocent with no chance of indictment, as long as no one saw them shoot the gun?

Doesn't require more than a yes or no answer.......or does it

Just as a reminder about innocent people, what I was taught as a child, your associates define you.

The president’s personal lawyer and campaign manager are currently in prison. His National Security Advisor pleaded guilty to federal crimes. His longtime political adviser was recently convicted. His current lawyer is under federal investigation.

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think there is a good chance he will be removed and that he should be.

At this point the majority thought Nixon would not be either, his popularity waned two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

Per usual, lot's of verbiage, nothing said.

In your world on what cause could someone be indicted?

Could they just shoot someone, say a Norwegian, on Fifth Avenue and walk away as innocent with no chance of indictment, as long as no one saw them shoot the gun?

Doesn't require more than a yes or no answer.......or does it

Actally, my verbiage correctly pointed out how you mischaracterized what I said, and it pointed out that I don't have any assumptions about what is the "truth" re any the various narratives re Trump's intentions in withholding the money.

I do understand, however, that you would consider that "nothing." If it were something, it would show how slimy you tend to get. Or, as PaulS might say, how scummy.

As for your questions, someone could be indicted for various causes. It is said that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. I don't know why you slid the discussion, if we can call it that, into my opinion of what can cause an indictment.

Just as a reminder about innocent people, what I was taught as a child, your associates define you.

The president’s personal lawyer and campaign manager are currently in prison. His National Security Advisor pleaded guilty to federal crimes. His longtime political adviser was recently convicted. His current lawyer is under federal investigation.

I'm guessing that most of the people Trump is associated with are not in prison or guilty of federal crimes. I have no idea how that would fit into what you were taught as a child.

Dang, I have associated with some people who wound up doing bad things and even some who went to prison. Some were not the paragons of virtue even when I associated with them. I guess that makes me not innocent--makes me a guilty miscreant unfit for government employment. Somehow, I don't see it that way. For some reason, I feel that I am at least as fit as you to be considered reputable and a contributor to society.

I'm guessing that most of the people Trump is associated with are not in prison or guilty of federal crimes. I have no idea how that would fit into what you were taught as a child.

Dang, I have associated with some people who wound up doing bad things and even some who went to prison. Some were not the paragons of virtue even when I associated with them. I guess that makes me not innocent--makes me a guilty miscreant unfit for government employment. Somehow, I don't see it that way. For some reason, I feel that I am at least as fit as you to be considered reputable and a contributor to society.

Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman

Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman

And there it is folks. All those who support Trump are guilty. We are not honorable. We are not truthful. We are ignorant if not actually stupid. We are not worthy of respect, nor consideration as co-equal citizens in the continuing experiment of this great country. We don't match up to the elevated virtues of people like PeteF.

Your superior upbringing taught you to practice guilt by association. It apparently also taught you to convict by conjecture. It must have also taught you that to assume is to know.

Good God, what a reprobate Christ must have been! He associated with some of the worst lowlifes of his time and community. I have a gut feeling that he would have seen a more kindred spirit in Trump than in Pelosi or Sanders or most any Progressive.

And there it is folks. All those who support Trump are guilty. We are not honorable. We are not truthful. We are ignorant if not actually stupid. We are not worthy of respect, nor consideration as co-equal citizens in the continuing experiment of this great country. We don't match up to the elevated virtues of people like PeteF.

Your superior upbringing taught you to practice guilt by association. It apparently also taught you to convict by conjecture. It must have also taught you that to assume is to know.

Good God, what a reprobate Christ must have been! He associated with some of the worst lowlifes of his time and community. I have a gut feeling that he would have seen a more kindred spirit in Trump than in Pelosi or Sanders or most any Progressive.

Right, There are only two kinds of people. Those who never stop attacking Trump, and those who are as sleazy as he is. There is no middle ground - none.

Right, There are only two kinds of people. Those who never stop attacking Trump, and those who are as sleazy as he is. There is no middle ground - none.
So you are as sleazy as he is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you are as sleazy as he is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your ilk here, constantly refer to me as a Trumplican, and as someone who never criticizes him, and never would. It doesn't matter to them, that the accusation is demonstrably false. What matters, is that it supports The Narrative. That's all that matters. Its nothing more than simple-minded partisan BS. That helped him get elected by the way.

I can't think of anything your side could be doing to help him get re-elected, that they're not doing. Nothing. And you don't see it. You have Obama for Gods sake, who not long ago was the most liberal person in Congress, worried that the party is going too far to the left. And no one listens.

Carry on!

And there it is folks. All those who support Trump are guilty. We are not honorable. We are not truthful. We are ignorant if not actually stupid. We are not worthy of respect, nor consideration as co-equal citizens in the continuing experiment of this great country. We don't match up to the elevated virtues of people like PeteF.

Your superior upbringing taught you to practice guilt by association. It apparently also taught you to convict by conjecture. It must have also taught you that to assume is to know.

Good God, what a reprobate Christ must have been! He associated with some of the worst lowlifes of his time and community. I have a gut feeling that he would have seen a more kindred spirit in Trump than in Pelosi or Sanders or most any Progressive.

Again, you employ your slippery sliding technique of shifting from what was said into saying something else that suits you or your narrative or your shadowy amorphous yet somehow in your mind concrete opinion.

Your ilk here, constantly refer to me as a Trumplican, and as someone who never criticizes him, and never would. It doesn't matter to them, that the accusation is demonstrably false. What matters, is that it supports The Narrative. That's all that matters. Its nothing more than simple-minded partisan BS. That helped him get elected by the way.

I can't think of anything your side could be doing to help him get re-elected, that they're not doing. Nothing. And you don't see it. You have Obama for Gods sake, who not long ago was the most liberal person in Congress, worried that the party is going too far to the left. And no one listens.

Carry on!

As the victim cries his usual Narrative, But Obama, everyone else is a socialist, we will all die without Floridaman, he is the second coming of Christ complete with toilets of gold, all should worship him because he can do no wrong. And everyone is picking on him.

Meanwhile in the real world, other authoritarians rejoice
Putin gets what he wants
Erdogan gets what he wants
MBS gets what he wants
Netanyahu gets what he wants
Xi Jingping gets what he wants
Even NK gets the recognition they have wanted for generations

And historic alliances are tossed by the wayside because someone's gut tells him something.

There has been a little return but nothing compared to the losses created by this fool's incompetence.

We will pay for a generation for what he has undone.

Give him another term and this republic will be gone, you will crown him King.

So you are as sleazy as he is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dont forget racist and all the other ists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As the victim cries his usual Narrative, But Obama, everyone else is a socialist, we will all die without Floridaman, he is the second coming of Christ complete with toilets of gold, all should worship him because he can do no wrong. And everyone is picking on him.

Meanwhile in the real world, other authoritarians rejoice
Putin gets what he wants
Erdogan gets what he wants
MBS gets what he wants
Netanyahu gets what he wants
Xi Jingping gets what he wants
Even NK gets the recognition they have wanted for generations

And historic alliances are tossed by the wayside because someone's gut tells him something.

There has been a little return but nothing compared to the losses created by this fool's incompetence.

We will pay for a generation for what he has undone.

Give him another term and this republic will be gone, you will crown him King.

There is always Canada for the real snowflakes. GTFO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The house will likely impeach, no way the senate removes him (unless something new comes to light). I agree with you, this is pointless. Also no reason why Congress shouldn't vote now. Get it over with.

You are 100% correct.

There is always Canada for the real snowflakes. GTFO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wave on your way there

ESADA

Wave on your way there

ESADA

I am going to stay right here where I am happy. I have a couple trips planned for the winter just to recharge with the family.

My point was,if you are so sad,then find a place that suits your needs. Life is too short to complain on a daily basis. Unless the whining makes you happy. If that is the case then please enjoy your misery. I know that I do.
MAGA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Also no reason why Congress shouldn't vote now. Get it over with.

You're in an awful hurry for such an important occasion.

Usually for Republicans it only requires a blowjob and 3-4 years of investigation to start impeachment proceedings and that's with cooperation from the Presidents office, like actually testifying and even giving blood.

This President has provided ZERO documents and allowed no testimony, that is a first, a record and hopefully one that will never be permitted again. This one Floridaman honestly got.

In other word he has obstructed this investigation to the maximum extent possible, there is nothing else he could do.

Well except perhaps to investigate the investigators and he has done that.

These are the rules as written, the rest is up to Congress. They can choose to follow or ignore precedent, it's up to them.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

🤡🤡🍔🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just like clinton

Again, you employ your slippery sliding technique of shifting from what was said into saying something else that suits you or your narrative or your shadowy amorphous yet somehow in your mind concrete opinion.

So what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman"?

Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;

b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;

c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;

d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;

e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;

f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;

g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;

h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;

k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;

l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;

m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;

n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;

o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;

p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;

q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;

r. Lying incessantly to the American people;

s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;

t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;

u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;

w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;

x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;

y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;

z. Engaging in a documented campaign of obstruction of a Special Counsel's investigation.

aa. Lying about a hush money payoff and omitting his debt to his attorney for that payoff from his financial disclosure report (which is a crime if done knowingly and willfully);

bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;

cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;

dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;

ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;

ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);

gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;

hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;

ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;

jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;

kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;

ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;

mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;

nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and

oo. Bypassing Congress through the use of "acting" heads of agencies and cabinets.

None of the Republican Senators defending Trump could say with a straight face that they would tolerate a Democratic president doing the same thing. But, given this dangerous precedent, they may have no choice if they ever lose control of the Senate. Is that what they want?

And this is only what Trump did while the remote threat of Congressional oversight existed. If the Senate acquits him, he will know for certain there is nothing that could ever lead to Congress removing him from office. And what he does next will similarly set precedents.

At this point, I would remind these unpatriotic Senators of the line "you have a republic if you can keep it," but a variation on this line may soon be more apt when Trump redoubles his attack on our election: You have a republic, if you can call this a republic.

Walter Michael Shaub Jr. (born February 20, 1971) is an American attorney specializing in government ethics who, from January 9, 2013 to July 19, 2017, was the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.




https://i.postimg.cc/wMpbw5SF/UpDown.gif


Pace yourself, ya got 5 more years of Trump to get through.

So what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman"?

That you would claim to be a victim
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That you would claim to be a victim
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pointing out that you implicated that because I support Trump, and your previous assertion that you can know someone by whom they associate with, ergo I am like your version of Trump is hardly claiming to be a victim. I even asserted before that " I am at least as fit as you to be considered reputable and a contributor to society."

So, no, I didn't claim to be a victim, but, as usual, in order to slide out of directly and honestly answering a question, you slid into something else that suits your purpose.

Pointing out that you implicated that because I support Trump, and your previous assertion that you can know someone by whom they associate with, ergo I am like your version of Trump is hardly claiming to be a victim. I even asserted before that " I am at least as fit as you to be considered reputable and a contributor to society."

So, no, I didn't claim to be a victim, but, as usual, in order to slide out of directly and honestly answering a question, you slid into something else that suits your purpose.

"And there it is folks. All those who support Trump are guilty. We are not honorable. We are not truthful. We are ignorant if not actually stupid. We are not worthy of respect, nor consideration as co-equal citizens in the continuing experiment of this great country. We don't match up to the elevated virtues of people like PeteF."


You poor boy, claiming to be horrified and called deplorable like Floridaman does while calling others human scum.

You poor boy, claiming to be horrified and called deplorable like Floridaman does while calling others human scum.

You said that I assumed Byron York was correct, when I pointed out that I did not assume that, you slid out of that lie by claiming that my response was "nothing" and then wandered into the notion that one is defined by those he associates with implying that Trump was defined by those he knew and were indicted or went to prison.

When I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned, and that I had associated with some who had been, you replied that it was understandable since I supported Trump.

When I pointed out that your reply implied that all trump supporters were, per that association, the various deplorables that you characterize Trump to be, you deflect from that lie by throwing a quote back at me.

When I asked, then, "what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman?", you said that I claimed to be a victim.

When I debunked that lie, you switched to me claiming that I was horrified, which I never claimed--yet another usual lie by you.

That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You keep sliding from lie to lie, into other narratives as escape routes, from one lie into another rather than having an honest conversation.

It is ironic, maybe projection, that you constantly refer to Trump as a liar.

I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned,

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because the high bar on the other side cheated their way to Hillary. How did that piece of honesty work out for you. Now, after strategic planning ...years in the making. They are going to counter with_____ _______?

I can not wait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

That precisely agrees with the Byron York article that I linked, and so with the York "theory."

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said that I assumed Byron York was correct, when I pointed out that I did not assume that, you slid out of that lie by claiming that my response was "nothing" and then wandered into the notion that one is defined by those he associates with implying that Trump was defined by those he knew and were indicted or went to prison.

When I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned, and that I had associated with some who had been, you replied that it was understandable since I supported Trump.

When I pointed out that your reply implied that all trump supporters were, per that association, the various deplorables that you characterize Trump to be, you deflect from that lie by throwing a quote back at me.

When I asked, then, "what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman?", you said that I claimed to be a victim.

When I debunked that lie, you switched to me claiming that I was horrified, which I never claimed--yet another usual lie by you.

That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You keep sliding from lie to lie, into other narratives as escape routes, from one lie into another rather than having an honest conversation.

It is ironic, maybe projection, that you constantly refer to Trump as a liar.

You started with a story by York that has a possibility of being true and fits your narrative.
When I point out there is additional evidence that at a minimum casts doubt on the York tale, you erupt in a barrage of chaff-like verbiage and claim that you didn't believe or assume it was true but you liked it.
Like it all you want and generate as much smoke as you would like, sooner or later the cleansing rays of light will reach the Floridaman administration's machinations that seek to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. He is a con man and always will be.

Because the high bar on the other side cheated their way to Hillary. How did that piece of honesty work out for you. Now, after strategic planning ...years in the making. They are going to counter with_____ _______?

I can not wait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they’re going to counter with a freak who escaped from the Island Of Misfit Toys.

Four years of Trump, and this is the best they have to offer. One serious candidate, Biden, who is a little too far past his prime. The rest? Yeesh. Looking good for
Nikki Haley in 2024.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they’re going to counter with a freak who escaped from the Island Of Misfit Toys.

Four years of Trump, and this is the best they have to offer. One serious candidate, Biden, who is a little too far past his prime. The rest? Yeesh. Looking good for
Nikki Haley in 2024.

they may have to get hilary or better yet, Michelle to run if they want to have a shot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You started with a story by York that has a possibility of being true and fits your narrative.

What's my narrative? I don't think I've expressed much of one re Trump. Towards you, it's mostly been a rebuttal or deconstruction of your portrayal of Trump. I am not committed to Trump per se. I am committed to opposing the Progressive destruction of our constitutional framework of government. That would be the only narrative that I totally believe in. And Trump is preferred by me rather than any Dem as assisting in that opposition.

The York story gave a simpler more reasonable, to me, account of what happened. I didn't swear by it being the true account. I don't know the total, true account. I don't for sure know if Trump is telling the whole truth. And I think the Dems are selecting a piece of what they think, or are fabricating, the truth to be. And I suspect that the reason for what they're doing is some desperate attempt to remove Trump or weaken him to help gain total control of the Federal government in 2020.

When I point out there is additional evidence that at a minimum casts doubt on the York tale, you erupt in a barrage of chaff-like verbiage and claim that you didn't believe or assume it was true but you liked it.

My verbiage may have chaffed you, understandably so since it pointed out your lies. The type of lying that you continue with this last post #61 to which I am responding. You left out some of my pertinent verbiage that would give the lie to what you are trying to represent here.

Like it all you want and generate as much smoke as you would like, sooner or later the cleansing rays of light will reach the Floridaman administration's machinations that seek to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. He is a con man and always will be.

That may be happen. I have no idea about all that. In the meantime, I try to shed some cleansing rays of light on your smoke.

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump--response to quote originally Posted by detbuch: "I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned,"


Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What ??!! Are you serious? There is something wrong with your brain.

What ??!! Are you serious? There is something wrong with your brain.

As you blame
“On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As you blame
“On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What blame? I deferred, on the other hand, to your notion of Trump being defined by those he associated with to point out that the scumminess that you attribute to Trump might indeed have been a result of his association with those others. What is your problem with that? How is that a retreat? Are you retreating from your own notion?

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍔🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just think, after Floridaman is impeached by the House he becomes one of two Presidents that CANNOT be pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn’t that something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn’t that something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty important to Individual #1

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you are switching from being defined by those you associate with to being defined by making your own choices. It is difficult to wade through the swamp of the way you think.

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you are switching from being defined by those you associate with to being defined by making your own choices. It is difficult to wade through the swamp of the way you think.

Not a switch, but a return to origins.
Roy Cohn was the first in a long line of Floridaman lawyers, who were willing to do whatever he wanted because Floridaman would say, "I hate lawyers who tell me that I can’t do this or that".

Apparently it has culminated, or possibly terminated with Cipollone, Colludy and Barr.

Not a switch, but a return to origins.
Roy Cohn was the first in a long line of Floridaman lawyers, who were willing to do whatever he wanted because Floridaman would say, "I hate lawyers who tell me that I can’t do this or that".

Apparently it has culminated, or possibly terminated with Cipollone, Colludy and Barr.

So which is it, Trump is defined by his association with Cohn or Cohn, and Cippollone, Colludy, and Barr are defined by their association with Trump?

And how is Trump defined by all of his other associations? Or is it only the associations that you pick and choose which are the ones who define Trump?

Or . . . wait . . . this is silly stuff. I withdraw my question. No point in continuing this nonsense. If you must believe that Trump is a criminal because he associated with a few criminals or with those have not been convicted of or proven to be criminals (geez, throwing even Barr into the mix), and before you smear any others, than I will no longer question your wisdom on what defines Trump.

You're obviously right. Trump is a criminal because he associated with some criminals and shady (oxymoron) lawyers. After all, other Presidents (Kennedy, Nixon, Roosevelt, Johnson (both), Obama, Clinton, and a whole lot, if not most, of the others have escaped becoming criminals even though they too associated with these types. But Trump, obviously, just isn't a good enough guy to escape it. I get it.