There is life beyond Floridaman

Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics. As Americans, we must stem the damage he and his followers are doing to the rule of law, the Constitution and the American character.

That’s why we are announcing the Lincoln Project, an effort to highlight our country’s story and values, and its people’s sacrifices and obligations. This effort transcends partisanship and is dedicated to nothing less than preservation of the principles that so many have fought for, on battlefields far from home and within their own communities.

This effort asks all Americans of all places, creeds and ways of life to join in the seminal task of our generation: restoring to this nation leadership and governance that respects the rule of law, recognizes the dignity of all people and defends the Constitution and American values at home and abroad.

Over these next 11 months, our efforts will be dedicated to defeating President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box and to elect those patriots who will hold the line. We do not undertake this task lightly, nor from ideological preference. We have been, and remain, broadly conservative (or classically liberal) in our politics and outlooks. Our many policy differences with national Democrats remain, but our shared fidelity to the Constitution dictates a common effort.

The 2020 general election, by every indication, will be about persuasion, with turnout expected to be at record highs. Our efforts are aimed at persuading enough disaffected conservatives, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in swing states and districts to help ensure a victory in the Electoral College and majorities that don’t enable and abet trumps violations of the constitution; even if that means Democrat control of the Senate and expansion of the Democratic majority in the House.

The American presidency transcends the individuals who occupy the Oval Office. Their personality becomes part of our national character. Their actions become our actions, for which we all share responsibility. Their willingness to act in accordance with the law and our tradition dictate how current and future leaders will act. Their commitment to order, civility and decency are reflected in American society.

Mr. Trump fails to meet the bar for this commitment. He has neither the moral compass nor the temperament to serve. His vision is limited to what immediately faces him — the problems and risks he chronically brings upon himself and for which others, from countless contractors and companies to the American people, ultimately bear the heaviest burden.

But this president’s actions are possible only with the craven acquiescence of congressional Republicans. They have done no less than abdicate their Article I responsibilities.

Indeed, national Republicans have done far worse than simply march along to Mr. Trump’s beat. Their defense of him is imbued with an ugliness, a meanness and a willingness to attack and slander those who have shed blood for our country, who have dedicated their lives and careers to its defense and its security, and whose job is to preserve the nation’s status as a beacon of hope.

Congressional Republicans have embraced and copied Mr. Trump’s cruelty and defended and even adopted his corruption. Mr. Trump and his enablers have abandoned conservatism and longstanding Republican principles and replaced it with Trumpism, an empty faith led by a bogus prophet. In a recent survey, a majority of Republican voters reported that they consider Mr. Trump a better president than Lincoln.

Mr. Trump and his fellow travelers daily undermine the proposition we as a people have a responsibility and an obligation to continually bend the arc of history toward justice. They mock our belief in America as something more meaningful than lines on a map.

Our peril far outstrips any past differences: It has arrived at our collective doorstep, and we believe there is no other choice. We sincerely hope, but are not optimistic, that some of those Republicans charged with sitting as jurors in a likely Senate impeachment trial will do likewise.

American men and women stand ready around the globe to defend us and our way of life. We must do right by them and ensure that the country for which they daily don their uniform deserves their protection and their sacrifice.

We are reminded of Dan Sickles, an incompetent 19th-century New York politician. On July 2, 1863, his blundering nearly ended the United States.

(Sickles’s greatest previous achievement had been fatally shooting his wife’s lover across the street from the White House and getting himself elected to Congress. Even his most fervent admirers could not have imagined that one day, far in the future, another incompetent New York politician, a president, would lay claim to that legacy by saying he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.)

On that day in Pennsylvania, Sickles was a major general commanding the Union Army’s III Corps at the Battle of Gettysburg, and his incompetence wrought chaos and danger. The Confederate Army took advantage, and turned the Union line. Had the rebel soldiers broken through, the continent would have been divided: Free and slave, democratic and authoritarian.

Another Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, had only minutes to reinforce the line. America, the nation, the ideal, hung in the balance. Amid the fury of battle, he found the First Minnesota Volunteers. They were immigrants. Many didn’t speak English. They were the very people the Know Nothings tried to keep out of the country.

They charged, and many of them fell, suffering a staggeringly high casualty rate. They held the line. They saved the Union. Four months later, Lincoln stood on that field of slaughter and said, “It is left to us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”

We look to Lincoln as our guide and inspiration. He understood the necessity of not just saving the Union, but also of knitting the nation back together spiritually as well as politically. But those wounds can be bound up only once the threat has been defeated. So, too, will our country have to knit itself back together after the scourge of Trumpism has been overcome.

George T. Conway III is an attorney in New York. Steve Schmidt is a Republican political strategist who worked for President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. John Weaver is a Republican strategist who worked for President George H.W. Bush, Senator John McCain and Gov. John Kasich. Rick Wilson is a Republican media consultant and author of “Everything Trump Touches Dies” and the forthcoming “Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America From Trump and Democrats From Themselves.”

This article was originally published in The New York Times.

Follow The Lincoln Project on Twitter @ProjectLincoln

🤡🍔🤡🙀🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:yawn:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, you quoted a guy who wrote "Everything Trump Touches, Dies".

Please tell that to everyone in the country who works as a wealth advisor. Tell that to everyone who is amazed at the quarterly statements about their 401ks and IRAs. Tell that to injured vets whose students loans he signed to forgive.

Hyperbole and fear tactics are easy. Can we try something different? Pete, without quoting a 10,000 word essay by someone else, can you tell me in your own words, which core principles of our nation, which fundamentally American institutions, which essential parts of our national fiber, exactly, has Trump either killed off already, or which are on life support thanks to Trump?

Because other then the debt (admittedly a big one), I don't see it. I see exactly zero evidence that America won't endure his term(s) just fine. Where am I wrong?

He's a narcissistic, egotistical, vindictive, vulgar, arrogant baby, and a pathetic excuse for a husband and a father. But what American institutions is he truly threatening?

The Supreme Court is still there, and has on more than one occasion struck him down when he went too far. Congress is still there, one chamber controlled by the opposition party, and they write the laws and budgets, not him. God knows the media is still there, telling us 24/7 that he is the reincarnation of Hitler, giving you fodder to post your anti-Trump manifestos three times a day. Trump can't stop any of that, plenty of people hate him and aren't shy about saying so, and none have gone to the Gulag.

So please tell us, what, exactly, is in jeopardy? Domestically, things are pretty good, except for the political divisiveness, of which Trump is a contributor, but he has plenty of company. Abroad, China and Russia are on the move, but have been since long before he got there. So we can debate the best policy to deal with these threats, but China and Russia surely didn't stop in their tracks from 2009-2016.

What is he on the verge of destroying, exactly? I keep hearing the idea, no one ever provides specifics. Presumably because they can't. The claim is all fizz and no gin.

The level of loyalty Donald Trump commands from elected Republicans seems qualitatively different from that offered to previous Republican presidents.

For instance: Republicans told President Nixon to resign his office. Ronald Reagan ran a vigorous primary challenge to President Ford. President George H.W. Bush was seriously challenged in the 1992 primary. President George W. Bush faced Republican revolts over a Supreme Court nomination, Medicare expansion, and attempted immigration reform.

President Trump’s policy ideas often diverge dramatically from Republican orthodoxy—on trade, executive authority, entitlements, foreign policy—and his almost daily drumbeat of scandals and misadventures have been a millstone around the party’s neck. He won the presidency despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin; lost the House in 2018; has been historically unpopular; and has been trailing his most likely Democratic 2020 rival by double digits for the better part of a year. He is now facing the prospect of impeachment.

If the normal laws of politics applied to Trump, this would be about the time that Republicans decided to cut and run.

But that isn’t happening.

There are four explanations as to why this is and they all add up to the fact that where previous presidents have been stewards of the party, Trump owns the GOP in a way that is unprecedented in the modern era.

In the Republican party, Trump is forever.


(1) The tipping point came early. A common fallacy of the Trump years has been that the tipping point is always close: That there is some action or event, just over the horizon, that will cause Republicans to finally abandon him once they understand the full costs.

Instead, the Republican party establishment seems rather more supportive of Trump today than it was in January 2017.

Which suggests that maybe there was a tipping point, but that it went in the other direction and it came early in his tenure.

I would posit that in late 2018, after the scope of the midterm losses became clear, two things happened. First, the casualties of the midterm were precisely the Republicans who were most likely to rebel against Trump, so while the GOP lost the midterms, Trump emerged with a stronger hold on the party.

Second, with the midterm loss, Republicans tipped over into a place where the sunk costs were so great that they were no longer willing to challenge him on any matter.

And with every passing scandal since then, the cumulative weight of these sunk costs has made independence from Trump less, not more, likely. Because while the doctrine of sunk costs is a fallacy for economic actors, it’s very real for political actors.

(2) Trump primarily uses his political capital against other Republicans. One of the strange inversions of the Trump years is that unlike every other president of the modern era, Trump has treated his own party as his principal opposition.

Normally presidents endure intraparty griping because they need the votes. They don’t want to spend political capital fighting their own party because they need to conserve it to fight with the other side in order to win passage for legislative initiatives.

Trump has turned that dynamic on its head.

From the time he declared his candidacy, Trump has focused most of his attacks on other Republicans. Yes, he takes the obligatory shots at Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. And there was his “go back” to where you came from attack on “the squad.” But Trump’s real passion seems to be fighting Republicans whom he deems insufficiently loyal.

So while Democrats have literally no reason to fear Trump—he has been so helpful to their electoral prospects that they have more to fear from working with him than opposing him—it is Republicans who have come to fear crossing their president.

This is an unusual situation.

The benefit of this arrangement for Trump is that by keeping a constant threat of retribution leveled against fellow Republicans, his party has fallen in line to a truly unprecedented degree. The cost is that, by spending so much time warring with Republicans he has weakened his party’s standing, frittered away his congressional majority, and seen nearly his entire legislative agenda stall.

In a normal presidency, this price might be seen as prohibitively high. But in a presidency that’s been in constant turmoil—veering from crisis to crisis and now climaxing with impeachment—it’s a bargain at twice the price. The grim reality is that Trump needs Republican solidarity much more than he needs legislative accomplishments.

And also, if we’re going to be candid, he has never seemed terribly interested in passing legislation in the first place.

(3) Trump is forever. In the normal course of the last century, the president has been only the interim head of his party. He appoints his people throughout both his administration and the institution of his party, but eventually he leaves office and retires to life outside the public realm. At that point, he may still exert some influence behind the scenes. He may be close to donors. His mentees might still consult his advice. But other political actors are jockeying for position; the world moves on.

It seems highly unlikely that Donald Trump will ever move on.

Either a year from now or five years from now, Donald Trump will step away from the presidency. Raise your hand if you think he will retire to Mar-a-Lago and delete his Twitter account.

It seems much more likely—maybe inevitable—that once he leaves office, Trump will continue to tweet and call in to cable news shows. Perhaps he will even attend political rallies, which is the part of the job he seems to enjoy most.

There is no reason to think—none at all—that he will discontinue his penchant for weighing in on American politics on an hourly basis. There is every reason to think that he will vigorously attack any Republican who was disloyal to him during his administration. Or retroactively criticizes his tenure. Or runs in opposition to one of his preferred candidates. Or jeopardizes any of his many and varied interests.

What this means is that there is no way for a Trump-skeptical Republican to simply wait out the Trump years. There will be no “life after Trump” because Trump is going to be the head boss of Republican politics for the rest of his days.

As I said at the beginning: Trump is not a caretaker of the Republican party. He is the owner.

Once you realize that Trump is forever, it’s easier to understand individual Republicans’ reluctance to stand against him on impeachment. If you’re a Republican with future political ambitions—even if you’re retiring from public life for the moment—you know that voting against Trump now means that he will come after you when you try to re-enter politics.

(4) There is another. The corollary to the idea that Trump is forever is the fact that he clearly has dynastic aspirations. Early on people suspected that Ivanka Trump would one day try to take over for her father. But the last three years have shown that Don Jr. is his logical heir.

Where Ivanka thought it smart to work in the White House and enmesh herself in governing, Don. Jr. understood that the real path to power was to go on Fox News and imitate his father. It’s working.

And if you think Trump will retire to the countryside to let his children make their own way in the world, then you have not paid any attention, at all, to the history of this family.

Hard-headed Trump-skeptical Republicans like to talk about how it’s important to preserve some room to maneuver so that when Trump eventually leaves the stage, the hard work of rebuilding the Republican party can begin.

I understand that sentiment. It sounds prudent. It might even be right.

But that view is predicated on the realities of politics as they existed in 2015.

Until Trump’s election, the working model for American politics was that parties were ideological organizations, not personality cults, and that ex-presidents were seldom seen and never heard.

The post-Trump future may be different: A world where the former president calls into cable shows while tweeting 150 times a day, settling scores, attacking members of his party who he deems insufficiently loyal and paving the way for his son to inherit the office.

If you think about the nature of political parties, the Trumpian view makes a certain amount of sense and what’s remarkable is that the old system lasted for long. Why is it, exactly, that former presidents have not chosen to actively maintain a grip on their political parties?

The only real explanations for the view of presidents as political stewards are humility, tradition, honor. Even Trump’s most eager apologists would never ascribe any of those traits to him. Why would he think himself constrained by such outmoded thinking?

Why would he voluntarily give up a thing of immense value?

When you look at Trump’s administration it is clear that he sees the GOP not as a political party which exists as a vehicle to execute policy visions, but an asset. And assets exist to be controlled and passed down to one’s heirs.

In such a world, the Republican party is a kingdom and GOP politicians are mere feudal lords who may only set up their own fiefdoms at the pleasure of the sovereign. Or, if you’d prefer a less benign metaphor, the Republican party is now a family-controlled syndicate which will run the business until either a rival gang takes them down or the feds catch up with them.

Whichever view you choose, the arrangement will continue as long as Donald Trump has thumbs and a smartphone.

Once you understand what the future of the Republican party must necessarily look like, the present makes a lot more sense.

Jonathan V. Last is executive editor of The Bulwark.

Pete, now you're fostering fear of a Trump dynasty. But Kennedy and Clinton dynasties were nothing to worry about.

No one else named Trump is running in the next 10 years.

MSNBC did a segment this weekend, asking the very important question - what if Trump refuses to vacate the office in 2024? Yes, they are alresy assuming he wins, and also assuming (based on what, they didn't say), that he will force the nation to allow him a third term.

We are deep, deep into the twilight zone.

Conservatives will someday face the horrible truth that the Republican Party fought so hard to justify and excuse an amoral and self-serving president, and what he gave them in return was bigger government and erosion of the principles and values they once claimed to cherish.
Justin Amash
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete for the second
time, any chance you can tell
us which core institutions of our republic, trump has killed
or is close to killing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you can read that letter from Trump, including attacks on Pelosi’s faith and its open attempt to incite civil disorder, and still be an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump, you are a morally disordered person. it’s not about politics, it’s about your lack of character.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course, Orange man bad.
Supporters....worse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you can read that letter from Trump, including attacks on Pelosi’s faith and its open attempt to incite civil disorder, and still be an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump, you are a morally disordered person. it’s not about politics, it’s about your lack of character.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read the letter, and you, "sir," are a slanderous liar. It was a solid letter that expressed what many Americans think about Pelosi and this impeachment. Trump did not "attack" Pelosi's so-called faith. The idea that she and the rest of the Democrats are praying for Trump, or that they are so terribly sad about what they are doing is worse than a mere joke. Are you praying for Trump? Are you sad that he is being impeached? Are the rest of the Dems including Pelosi better and more righteous than you? It is a bald faced lie in the face of the American public. Such a lie given to the people of this nation, who she supposedly serves, and to the God that she supposedly worships, speaks of her lack of character, to say the least, not Jim's.

And there was no "open attempt" to incite civil disorder. You show the deranged "interpretation" of everything Trump says or does, and you display your own lack of character when you say stuff like this.

The letter was "perfect," as Trump might say. Maybe too perfect, hinting that he may have had some help. Then, maybe not. Maybe he wrote it completely on his own. And it was meant, as he said, as a historical document so that future generations would have a better perspective on how his Presidency was attacked from the very beginning, with bogus investigations and baseless calls for impeachment.

If you can read that letter from Trump, including attacks on Pelosi’s faith and its open attempt to incite civil disorder, and still be an enthusiastic supporter of Donald Trump, you are a morally disordered person. it’s not about politics, it’s about your lack of character.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trying to incite civil disorder? then add that to the impeachment charges. or stop talking nonsense.

Your answer to my question, what american institutions is he destroying, is “ nothing.”

Who is inciting civil
disorder? republicans or democrats? When was the last time a liberal speaker
was rushed off a college stage by security, because conservatives were threatening violence? Black lives matter, Antifa, occupy wall street? All are motivated by liberal politics.

Everything trump touches, dies? Tell that to the S&P 500, Einstein.

If Trump is inciting civil disorder, where’s the right-wing civil disorder, exactly? you keep
saying that stupid conservatives obey his every command, so unless that’s a crock, where’s the evidence they are carrying out his orders?

You’re horrified that he won, you are enraged that he’s doing good things, and you’re too small to accept the possibility he might get re elected. that’s the issue. My moral character is as flawed as anyone else’s, but it’s not the issue. Your TDS is the issue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's letter is his way of pleading innocent to the charges of impeachment on the grounds of insanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's letter is his way of pleading innocent to the charges of impeachment on the grounds of insanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As it stands now, Trump is not the one that needs to plead innocent. On the other hand, some may be sweating the results of the Durham report. If you think otherwise, perhaps you're the one who is insane. You certainly do make a lot of deranged rants.

His letter was sanely spot on. That you don't see that is evidence of your derangement.

You certainly do make a lot of deranged rants.

His letter was sanely spot on. That you don't see that is evidence of your derangement.

leftists prefer victims that will stay still and not complain as they are being whipped to death

If you can read that letter from Trump, including attacks on Pelosi’s faith

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she only prays that trump will drop dead

The line on prayer in Trump’s letter was such an insight into his psyche, not that we needed more at this point. He absolutely can’t envision even the idea of praying for someone with whom you disagree.
SAD
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The line on prayer in Trump’s letter was such an insight into his psyche, not that we needed more at this point. He absolutely can’t envision even the idea of praying for someone with whom you disagree.
SAD
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pelosi only invokes faith when she is desperate and/or lying soooo....

I read the letter, and you, "sir," are a slanderous liar. It was a solid letter that expressed what many Americans think about Pelosi and this impeachment. Trump did not "attack" Pelosi's so-called faith. The idea that she and the rest of the Democrats are praying for Trump, or that they are so terribly sad about what they are doing is worse than a mere joke. Are you praying for Trump? Are you sad that he is being impeached? Are the rest of the Dems including Pelosi better and more righteous than you? It is a bald faced lie in the face of the American public. Such a lie given to the people of this nation, who she supposedly serves, and to the God that she supposedly worships, speaks of her lack of character, to say the least, not Jim's.

And there was no "open attempt" to incite civil disorder. You show the deranged "interpretation" of everything Trump says or does, and you display your own lack of character when you say stuff like this.

The letter was "perfect," as Trump might say. Maybe too perfect, hinting that he may have had some help. Then, maybe not. Maybe he wrote it completely on his own. And it was meant, as he said, as a historical document so that future generations would have a better perspective on how his Presidency was attacked from the very beginning, with bogus investigations and baseless calls for impeachment.

"It may be the most unpresidential presidential document ever written." -David Ignatius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It may be the most unpresidential presidential document ever written." -David Ignatius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well...it's in response to the most ridiculous impeachment effort ever soooo.....

Think of it this way Pete. Sure, he is going to cost you $100 by easily being re-elected. But if you hAve any money invested at all then you have been able to watch your savings increase exponentially. It will be a win given the big picture,just a loss for your psyche.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read the letter, and you, "sir," are a slanderous liar. It was a solid letter that expressed what many Americans think about Pelosi and this impeachment. Trump did not "attack" Pelosi's so-called faith. The idea that she and the rest of the Democrats are praying for Trump, or that they are so terribly sad about what they are doing is worse than a mere joke. Are you praying for Trump? Are you sad that he is being impeached? Are the rest of the Dems including Pelosi better and more righteous than you? It is a bald faced lie in the face of the American public. Such a lie given to the people of this nation, who she supposedly serves, and to the God that she supposedly worships, speaks of her lack of character, to say the least, not Jim's.

And there was no "open attempt" to incite civil disorder. You show the deranged "interpretation" of everything Trump says or does, and you display your own lack of character when you say stuff like this.

The letter was "perfect," as Trump might say. Maybe too perfect, hinting that he may have had some help. Then, maybe not. Maybe he wrote it completely on his own. And it was meant, as he said, as a historical document so that future generations would have a better perspective on how his Presidency was attacked from the very beginning, with bogus investigations and baseless calls for impeachment.

Not surprising you would find it perfect, anything less would be a shock to us, the reality is it’s classic Trump pure projection.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pelosi only invokes faith when she is desperate and/or lying soooo....

this is what i don’t get. Not trying to get into the merits of catholicism or
abortion, but the fact is, it’s a binding belief of catholics to oppose convenience abortions. Catholics are not allowed to disagree with this. So why does someone like Pelosi want to identify as catholic? why not choose any one of the many sects of christianity that welcome those who are pro abortion?

She’s obviously no Catholic...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not surprising you would find it perfect, anything less would be a shock to us, the reality is it’s classic Trump pure projection.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s perfect in that it’s pure Trump. Unhinged, erratic, narcissistic, dishonest, ignorant and loaded with victim hood.

Trump’s most valuable asset, his brand, will forever be tainted. Soon we will be able to start restoring confidence in our institutions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s most valuable asset, his brand, will forever be tainted.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he will wear it proudly like a purple heart earned in combat with the forces trying to destroy America

So why does someone like Pelosi want to identify as catholic?

She’s obviously no Catholic...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

only when it benefits her politically

he will wear it proudly like a purple heart earned in combat with the forces trying to destroy America
I don’t think you meant it to write it that way :jester:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read the letter, and you, "sir," are a slanderous liar. It was a solid letter that expressed what many Americans think about Pelosi and this impeachment. Trump did not "attack" Pelosi's so-called faith. The idea that she and the rest of the Democrats are praying for Trump, or that they are so terribly sad about what they are doing is worse than a mere joke. Are you praying for Trump? Are you sad that he is being impeached? Are the rest of the Dems including Pelosi better and more righteous than you? It is a bald faced lie in the face of the American public. Such a lie given to the people of this nation, who she supposedly serves, and to the God that she supposedly worships, speaks of her lack of character, to say the least, not Jim's.

And there was no "open attempt" to incite civil disorder. You show the deranged "interpretation" of everything Trump says or does, and you display your own lack of character when you say stuff like this.

The letter was "perfect," as Trump might say. Maybe too perfect, hinting that he may have had some help. Then, maybe not. Maybe he wrote it completely on his own. And it was meant, as he said, as a historical document so that future generations would have a better perspective on how his Presidency was attacked from the very beginning, with bogus investigations and baseless calls for impeachment.

He's guilty, the evidence clearly shows it.
You're assuming and Floridaman's defense is that he actually cares about corruption.
If Floridaman truly was a corruption fighter, he would not have cut funding for corruption and instead attacked corruption in the world. If Biden was caught up in one of the many corruption investigations who could have complained.

That's not what happened.

Let’s imagine that investigating “corruption” isn’t just a convenient excuse for Floridaman to extort Ukraine’s new president into interfering in our elections by staining the character of his potential political rival Joe Biden, and absolving Russia of guilt for the 2016 hacks of the Democratic National Committee — possibly so Vladimir Putin will conspire to elect him, again.

Let’s take Floridaman at his word that he’s very concerned about even the appearance of family members wringing cash from a president or vice president who shares their name.

Let’s pretend that the man going to the Supreme Court to hide tax returns he promised to reveal dozens of times actually cares about unethical behavior. Because if he did, he’d be so busy investigating his own administration that he’d have to give up all his favorite pastimes — being the friend in "Fox and Friends," yelling at women on Twitter and helping Republicans lose governorships in red states.

Where would Floridaman begin if he were truly bothered by the corruption closest to him?

For the sake of his marriage, let’s dismiss the fact that he has never explained how his wife became a citizen after working in this country without a visa and got an Einstein visa without a college degree. And let’s suppose that getting his daughter and son-in-law security clearances over the objection of almost everyone who cares about national security was an act of fatherly love.

Let’s skip his campaign, after noting that his former campaign chair and co-chair, along with two of his closest advisers, have been convicted of multiple crimes. And we’ll just submit for the record that he shut down his foundation after New York state filed a lawsuit charging "extensive and persistent" illegal conduct, including holding a political fundraising rally for veterans under the auspices of the foundation and he paid a fine of $2 million.

Let’s begin with Floridaman’s grown sons, the ones he didn’t want working in the White House.

“I wish my name was Hunter Biden," Jr. recently said. "I could go abroad, make millions off of my father's presidency. I would be a really rich guy.”

Don Jr. may not be aware of this, or of anything that requires self-awareness, but the company he allegedly runs is still owned by his father, who refused to clearly divest from it, in violation of 19 promises to do so.

The Scam Floridaman Organization has been implicated in money laundering, tax scams and the rampant hiring of undocumented workers.

You could make the case that a president's sons should not even get near a “corrupt company,” as Rep. Stefanik, did during impeachment hearings last week.

Of course, Stefanik was talking about Hunter Biden’s work on the board of the Ukrainian company Burisma — not Jr. and his brother’s employment at a company whose two biggest growth areas are generating conflicts of interest and using their dad’s influence to fuel a fundraising pyramid scheme. But boys in their mid 30s and early 40s will be boys.

Let’s move on to the strange case of Floridaman’s 75-year-old lawyer, former U.S. attorney and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

First of all, since Floridaman isn't paying Rudy, who is? The onetime American hero needs the cash, if you believe his butt dials.

Floridaman also should find out what Rudy was doing with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were trying to leave the country when they were arrested on charges of conspiring to violate bans on foreign and straw donors. Why did Parnas get a million dollars from a Russian Oligarch and just who else is he funding? Contributions from his corporation to many Republicans.

Floridaman also needs to examine what appears to be Rudy’s attempt to use connections to the president to cash in on the Ukrainian energy sector (in other words, exactly what Republicans accuse Hunter Biden of doing). Federal prosecutors looking into the scheme would surely appreciate the help.

Impeachment was made for Floridaman

Finally, if Trump truly cared about corruption, he could spend the next thousand years investigating Floridaman.

To do this properly, he would welcome an investigation into the vast allegations of tax fraud against him and his family that led his sister, a former federal judge, to resign rather than face an inquiry. At the very least, he should figure out why he owes $50 million to a business he owns, because it looks a lot like a tax dodge.

Then there are his possible mafia ties, his strange relationship to a very generous Russian oligarch, and his obvious conflicts of interest with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The truth is that if Floridaman cared about corruption, he would be a huge fan of impeachment. As House Intel Chairman Schiff said, the Founders put impeachment in the Constitution "because they wanted a powerful anti-corruption mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land."

But Floridaman’s concerns here are far more sinister and obvious. If he’s looking into corruption, it’s for one simple reason. He wants to do more of it.

It is shocking to think he violated 19 promises.

Get to your safe space,quickly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t think you meant it to write it that way :jester:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s going to be a badge of honor for him spence. and he’s probably correct to think of it that way.

When the left was clear that impeachment investigations started before the inauguration, you lose some credibility, regardless of the validity of what they ultimately find. They’d have been much better off not being so obvious about their intent to refuse to accept the election results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s going to be a badge of honor for him spence. and he’s probably correct to think of it that way.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he's referring to the use of "combat with" versus "combat against"...he's reaching these days

I think he's referring to the use of "combat with" versus "combat against"...he's reaching these days

their desperation couldn’t be more obvious. That’s all this is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's guilty, the evidence clearly shows it.
You're assuming and Floridaman's defense is that he actually cares about corruption.
If Floridaman truly was a corruption fighter, he would not have cut funding for corruption and instead attacked corruption in the world. If Biden was caught up in one of the many corruption investigations who could have complained.

That's not what happened.

Let’s imagine that investigating “corruption” isn’t just a convenient excuse for Floridaman to extort Ukraine’s new president into interfering in our elections by staining the character of his potential political rival Joe Biden, and absolving Russia of guilt for the 2016 hacks of the Democratic National Committee — possibly so Vladimir Putin will conspire to elect him, again.

Let’s take Floridaman at his word that he’s very concerned about even the appearance of family members wringing cash from a president or vice president who shares their name.

Let’s pretend that the man going to the Supreme Court to hide tax returns he promised to reveal dozens of times actually cares about unethical behavior. Because if he did, he’d be so busy investigating his own administration that he’d have to give up all his favorite pastimes — being the friend in "Fox and Friends," yelling at women on Twitter and helping Republicans lose governorships in red states.

Where would Floridaman begin if he were truly bothered by the corruption closest to him?

For the sake of his marriage, let’s dismiss the fact that he has never explained how his wife became a citizen after working in this country without a visa and got an Einstein visa without a college degree. And let’s suppose that getting his daughter and son-in-law security clearances over the objection of almost everyone who cares about national security was an act of fatherly love.

Let’s skip his campaign, after noting that his former campaign chair and co-chair, along with two of his closest advisers, have been convicted of multiple crimes. And we’ll just submit for the record that he shut down his foundation after New York state filed a lawsuit charging "extensive and persistent" illegal conduct, including holding a political fundraising rally for veterans under the auspices of the foundation and he paid a fine of $2 million.

Let’s begin with Floridaman’s grown sons, the ones he didn’t want working in the White House.

“I wish my name was Hunter Biden," Jr. recently said. "I could go abroad, make millions off of my father's presidency. I would be a really rich guy.”

Don Jr. may not be aware of this, or of anything that requires self-awareness, but the company he allegedly runs is still owned by his father, who refused to clearly divest from it, in violation of 19 promises to do so.

The Scam Floridaman Organization has been implicated in money laundering, tax scams and the rampant hiring of undocumented workers.

You could make the case that a president's sons should not even get near a “corrupt company,” as Rep. Stefanik, did during impeachment hearings last week.

Of course, Stefanik was talking about Hunter Biden’s work on the board of the Ukrainian company Burisma — not Jr. and his brother’s employment at a company whose two biggest growth areas are generating conflicts of interest and using their dad’s influence to fuel a fundraising pyramid scheme. But boys in their mid 30s and early 40s will be boys.

Let’s move on to the strange case of Floridaman’s 75-year-old lawyer, former U.S. attorney and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

First of all, since Floridaman isn't paying Rudy, who is? The onetime American hero needs the cash, if you believe his butt dials.

Floridaman also should find out what Rudy was doing with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were trying to leave the country when they were arrested on charges of conspiring to violate bans on foreign and straw donors. Why did Parnas get a million dollars from a Russian Oligarch and just who else is he funding? Contributions from his corporation to many Republicans.

Floridaman also needs to examine what appears to be Rudy’s attempt to use connections to the president to cash in on the Ukrainian energy sector (in other words, exactly what Republicans accuse Hunter Biden of doing). Federal prosecutors looking into the scheme would surely appreciate the help.

Impeachment was made for Floridaman

Finally, if Trump truly cared about corruption, he could spend the next thousand years investigating Floridaman.

To do this properly, he would welcome an investigation into the vast allegations of tax fraud against him and his family that led his sister, a former federal judge, to resign rather than face an inquiry. At the very least, he should figure out why he owes $50 million to a business he owns, because it looks a lot like a tax dodge.

Then there are his possible mafia ties, his strange relationship to a very generous Russian oligarch, and his obvious conflicts of interest with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The truth is that if Floridaman cared about corruption, he would be a huge fan of impeachment. As House Intel Chairman Schiff said, the Founders put impeachment in the Constitution "because they wanted a powerful anti-corruption mechanism when that corruption came from the highest office in the land."

But Floridaman’s concerns here are far more sinister and obvious. If he’s looking into corruption, it’s for one simple reason. He wants to do more of it.

You said, in another post: "The line on prayer in Trump’s letter was such an insight into his psyche, not that we needed more at this point. He absolutely can’t envision even the idea of praying for someone with whom you disagree . SAD"

Here, you "absolutely can't envision even the idea" of someone who supposedly has done corrupt things being interested in fulfilling his Presidential duty to make sure that our money is not being spent on maintaining corruption in another country.

It is "an insight," as you put it, into your "psyche . . .not that we needed more at this point "

SAD.

On the day the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, his approval rating hit its presidential peak, 73%

Big differences between Clinton impeachment and this one. Clinton at this point was publicly contrite and partisans supporting him mostly argued that what he did was wrong, just not impeachable. This president is on the attack and his partisans deny facts and any wrongdoing.

Clinton lied about having an affair. Floridaman both admitted to and publicly asked multiple foreign governments to interfere in our elections. They are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as such. One was improper and embarrassing. The other was a threat to our democracy.

On the day the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, his approval rating hit its presidential peak, 73%

Big differences between Clinton impeachment and this one. Clinton at this point was publicly contrite and partisans supporting him mostly argued that what he did was wrong, just not impeachable. This president is on the attack and his partisans deny facts and any wrongdoing.

Clinton lied about having an affair. Floridaman both admitted to and publicly asked multiple foreign governments to interfere in our elections. They are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as such. One was improper and embarrassing. The other was a threat to our democracy.

Your psyche is showing.

"Dec. 6, 2018 — At the White House annual Hannukah party, Parnas and Fruman hold a private meeting with President Trump and Giuliani, where Trump tasks Parnas and Fruman to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens, according to associates Parnas told.."

"Dec. 6, 2018 — At the White House annual Hannukah party, Parnas and Fruman hold a private meeting with President Trump and Giuliani, where Trump tasks Parnas and Fruman to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens, according to associates Parnas told.."

You gotta watch out for those associates told stuff. It could be a threat to our democracy.

We went from a Republican "I'm not a crook" president to a "I'm a crook, so what?" Trumplican president.

You gotta watch out for those associates told stuff. It could be a threat to our democracy.

It always traces back to Putin

Last week, prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan to revoke Parnas' bail. They said he had concealed information about his finances, including a $1 million payment he had received from an account in Russia in September.
The account into which the payment was deposited was in the name of Parnas' wife, Svetlana Parnas, government and defense lawyers said.
On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski said that the source of the payment was Firtash's lawyer. She said it was not plausible the payment was a loan to Parnas's wife, as he had said.

On the day the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, his approval rating hit its presidential peak, 73%

Big differences between Clinton impeachment and this one. Clinton at this point was publicly contrite and partisans supporting him mostly argued that what he did was wrong, just not impeachable. This president is on the attack and his partisans deny facts and any wrongdoing.

Clinton lied about having an affair. Floridaman both admitted to and publicly asked multiple foreign governments to interfere in our elections. They are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as such. One was improper and embarrassing. The other was a threat to our democracy.

Impeach the partisans!!!
🤡❄️🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We went from a Republican "I'm not a crook" president to a "I'm a crook, so what?" Trumplican president.

We went from a lot of good founding stuff to a lot of constitutional busting, anti-democratic, authoritarian stuff in the past 100 years. Your twisted fancifully contrived little "we went from" meme pays no attention to that more accurate truth. You have no foundation on which to base your ad hoc and ad hominem accusations and characterizations. Your mind swirls in the midst of conflicting and argumentative suppositions and disjointed "facts" that can be assembled into or forced into various possible jig saw puzzle pictures of "reality."

I realize that this verbiage doe not comport with your psyche. And I realize that you cannot possibly conceive that your self-conceived pristine psyche can have been led astray and corrupted by mere run of the mill, self aggrandizing, politicians.

It might be a SAD thing, but for the larger reality that neither you nor I really matter, except to those few who we love or hate.

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You speak of Trump losing it, and of someone else being a morally disordered person and lacking character, then you post something as vile as this? And you have a problem with Trump's letter which can't touch this for crudity or lack of factual basis?

Your psyche seems to be in a morally depraved, self-inflicted shambles.

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this how you show devotion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You speak of Trump losing it, and of someone else being a morally disordered person and lacking character, then you post something as vile as this? And you have a problem with Trump's letter which can't touch this for crudity or lack of factual basis?

Your psyche seems to be in a morally depraved, self-inflicted shambles.

I found it quite Trumpian, sort of like grabbing body parts, teeth, choking and other covfefe said by the manboy who reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.
It’s time Americans say “You’re Fired” to Floridaman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this how you show devotion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Funny you showed up.
There's always this weird, barely-repressed homosexuality thing going on with MAGA trolls like you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I found it quite Trumpian, sort of like grabbing body parts, teeth, choking and other covfefe said by the manboy who reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.
It’s time Americans say “You’re Fired” to Floridaman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're the one who posted it. You own the vileness in it. It is you.

On the day the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton, his approval rating hit its presidential peak, 73%

Big differences between Clinton impeachment and this one. Clinton at this point was publicly contrite and partisans supporting him mostly argued that what he did was wrong, just not impeachable. This president is on the attack and his partisans deny facts and any wrongdoing.

Clinton lied about having an affair. Floridaman both admitted to and publicly asked multiple foreign governments to interfere in our elections. They are not the same thing and shouldn’t be treated as such. One was improper and embarrassing. The other was a threat to our democracy.

Your saying that by asking Ukraine to investigate into meaningful
evidence of Biden corruption there, that’s asking a foreign power to interfere with our elections?

Using that logic, isn’t it also asking a foreign power to interfere in our elections, when Obama asked a Russian official to postpone missile talks until after his 2012 re election? We all know that conversation, we all
know exactly what it meant, Obama didn’t want to have to answer to voters what he was planning on doing with Russia and missiles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't come close to Floridaman's actions and words.

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell succeeds in his public promise to ensure Trump’s acquittal regardless of the facts, the law, and the survival of our republic, we as Americans need to be prepared for a new normal, colored by a few de facto amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

When Electoral College votes are tallied, we can no longer be sure that the final count represents the will of the people, as we will have condoned the possibility of elections rigged by incumbents using their official powers to threaten foreign governments into interfering on their behalf.

If the president calls out troops to squelch a peaceful protest, deports American citizens because they were born in another country, or directs that certain people be arrested or imprisoned because of their political or religious views, we cannot turn to the U.S. Congress for consequences and accountability. Only the federal courts will remain as a branch with oversight over the executive, and even that recourse assumes that the president continues to honor the legitimacy of the judicial branch as a check on the presidency.

If the president employs the U.S. military abroad, we cannot be sure that he is doing it to serve the interests of the United States instead of his personal interests or those of a personal “ally,” such as Russian president Vladimir Putin. We must accept that our service members who take an oath to defend the Constitution could die defending a would-be monarch or his foreign ally whose interests conflict with those of the United States.

If the president taps a private lawyer, lobbyist, or corporation to undertake work as a substitute for official channels, and if that person or entity takes actions that harm Americans while serving the president’s personal interests, we will have no recourse through the Constitution, federal statutes imposing oversight on federal employees, or the Senate’s advice and consent authority for presidential appointees. We will have sanctioned a shadow government detached from legal oversight and electoral accountability, and there will be nowhere to turn within the confines of the law and the separation of powers if things go awry (which they will).

For federal employees, keeping their jobs and avoiding public humiliation and potential ruin will require abject loyalty to the man in office rather than to the rule of law. The same goes for our military.
If you think this is all hyperbole, read the report for yourself.

Funny you showed up.
There's always this weird, barely-repressed homosexuality thing going on with MAGA trolls like you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You say that like homosexuality is a bad thing. There is nothing weird about it,unless you feel it threatens your overflowing masculinity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your saying that by asking Ukraine to investigate into meaningful
evidence of Biden corruption there, that’s asking a foreign power to interfere with our elections?
As i've said before.
If Floridaman had mounted an aggressive campaign against corruption in countries that we give foreign aid to and Biden had fallen into that web, it would be hard to make the case that Floridaman was targeting his political opponent. Floridaman is not smart enough to do that and has consistently cut funding for anti-corruption efforts. But Biden was also just an unlucky byproduct of Floridaman's attempt to blame Russian interference on Ukraine per his orders. His interference in Ukraine started prior to Biden's announcement and was initially an attempt to clear or at a minimum protect Manafort (remember the Senators letter and date predates Biden's announcement by almost a year) and provide cover for the Russian attempts to interfere in our elections.

Using that logic, isn’t it also asking a foreign power to interfere in our elections, when Obama asked a Russian official to postpone missile talks until after his 2012 re election? We all know that conversation, we all
know exactly what it meant, Obama didn’t want to have to answer to voters what he was planning on doing with Russia and missiles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not negotiating is like asking for something?

But actually if you look into it you'll find that both countries were in an election cycle and agreed to have the discussions continue. These things do take years even without the added pressure of elections and who knew ----------- would be so hard.

You better tell Floridaman that you think it's an impeachable offense, cause he just told China that he can't cut a deal to end his trade war till after the election, though as anyone knows that could change at any minute.

“the survival of our republic.”

despite the fact that you couldn’t name a
single core part of our republic, which is in danger thanks to Trump.

No hyperbole there, nope.

“president calls out troops
to squelch peaceful protests.”

When did he do anything like that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But actually if you look into it you'll find that both countries were in an election cycle and agreed to have the discussions continue. These things do take years even without the added pressure of elections and who knew ----------- would be so hard.

.

So now you’re saying it’s ok to ask a foreign power to influencemour elections, as long as they’re in an election cycle too?

Pete, you can’t win. You’re trying to juggle too many dishes in the air.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not negotiating is like asking for something?

But actually if you look into it you'll find that both countries were in an election cycle and agreed to have the discussions continue. These things do take years even without the added pressure of elections and who knew ----------- would be so hard.


There is no actual "cycle." Elections don't end campaigning. Winning or losing them does not put a stop on campaigning for the next election. Every bill that is passed, every carefully selected word in a speech, statement, or response to questions, every action taken whether in public or in private is tempered by the specter of the next election, either of oneself or of the Party.

So there is no action taken by Trump that cannot be considered an influence on the next election. Saying that something Trump does is asking for interference in the next election is superfluous verbiage. It's a political talking point, which is concocted exactly to influence the next election, as are all political talking points.

The question is, was the action in itself illegal, not whether it would interfere with the next election. Was it illegal for Trump to ask Ukraine, with which we have a treaty covering what is asked, to investigate the corruption that has been a feature of its government, and to look into American citizens that have been a part of that corruption?

TRUMP ON UKRAINE

2016: no aid unless Ukraine agrees to peace with Putin

2017: no aid unless Poroshenko takes Manafort case from NABU

2018: no aid unless Poroshenko agrees not to work with Mueller

2019: no aid until Zelensky agrees to Clinton/Crowdstrike & Biden/Burisma probes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TRUMP ON UKRAINE

2016: no aid unless Ukraine agrees to peace with Putin

2017: no aid unless Poroshenko takes Manafort case from NABU

2018: no aid unless Poroshenko agrees not to work with Mueller

2019: no aid until Zelensky agrees to Clinton/Crowdstrike & Biden/Burisma probes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zelensky says there was no quid pro quo. No pressure. And the aid was given.

Zelensky says there was no quid pro quo. No pressure. And the aid was given.

What would you say if you were he?
He knows Floridaman can throw him to the bear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What would you say if you were he?
He knows Floridaman can throw him to the bear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are conjecturing. The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo. There was no pressure. He said so after he got the money. He knows that Trump cannot stop the money. Trump cannot throw him anywhere.

You post article after article, opinion after opinion, conjecture after conjecture, hearsay after hearsay, all manner of second hand testimony as if they were the truth. But direct disclosure from the actual source you dismiss as a lie.

This whole impeachment thing, the Russian "collusion" thing, the obstruction of justice thing were all driven by the same piling on of conjectures driven by inconclusive circumstantial evidence as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) as well as withholding exculpatory evidence and actual falsifying of a document. It all has been a bunch of manufactured smoke with no actual fire.

And the so-called obstruction of Congress bit is total nonsense. Executive privilege has not been decided as unconstitutional. If the House wanted to challenge that in SCOTUS they could. But to assume (there's that assumption, conjecture, thing again) that the President asserting his rights is obstruction is turning the law and the Constitution on its head. The whole notion of separation of powers is exactly to create a tension between the branches of the federal government which prevents one from overpowering the other.

You are conjecturing.

everyone is lying except pelosi, schiff, comey, schumer, nadler, blumenthal, waters, etc......you know...those pillars of honesty and bi-partisan virtue that the democrats have so much faith in :doh:

The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo.

and his aide insisted he never had the conversation that sondland claimed after revising his testimony that all of this hinges on...soooo

most pathetic impeachment ever but it's really what you'd expect from this bunch of democraps

it will get much worse for them before it gets better :biglaugh:

You are conjecturing. The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo. There was no pressure. He said so after he got the money. He knows that Trump cannot stop the money. Trump cannot throw him anywhere.

Ukraine needs the help and support now and in the foreseeable future. Your isolationist viewpoint will result in the spread of the corrupt Putin administration, quite interesting that you express concern about corruption.
Floridaman's actions at the meeting at the UN, in words afterwards and meeting Lavrov at the same time as Zelensky's meeting Putin for peace negotiations are very detrimental to the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. To claim that Zelensky's statements are made freely and without duress is obtuse, but it is the only defense Floridaman has.

You post article after article, opinion after opinion, conjecture after conjecture, hearsay after hearsay, all manner of second hand testimony as if they were the truth. But direct disclosure from the actual source you dismiss as a lie.

This whole impeachment thing, the Russian "collusion" thing, the obstruction of justice thing were all driven by the same piling on of conjectures driven by inconclusive circumstantial evidence (resulting in 34 indictments and 7 convictions with more expected) as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) (except Comeys "mistake" in announcing more info on Clintons emails days before the election, while not announcing the investigation into Russia and Floridaman) as well as withholding exculpatory evidence and actual falsifying of a document. It all has been a bunch of manufactured smoke with no actual fire.

You state quite simply, every mobsters defense against a RICO case

And the so-called obstruction of Congress bit is total nonsense. Executive privilege has not been decided as unconstitutional. If the House wanted to challenge that in SCOTUS they could. But to assume (there's that assumption, conjecture, thing again) that the President asserting his rights is obstruction is turning the law and the Constitution on its head. The whole notion of separation of powers is exactly to create a tension between the branches of the federal government which prevents one from overpowering the other.

You could be correct, but Floridaman blocked ALL testimony and evidence with the exception of a memcon of a conversation. Everything that the administration does is not subject to executive privilege and no reasonable person would think so. But once he is impeached it is likely null and void. Since you are a great fan of the Founding Fathers, here is some timely correspondence for you to consider. SCOTUS certainly will. Perhaps the House should wait to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate till it wades it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS decides.

Here are some key quotes (with emphasis added), from Washington’s Cabinet (whose advice he had requested) and several others:

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering (in an early draft of what would become Washington’s Message to the House):

“[I]n the case of a treaty, if there be any grounds for an impeachment, they will probably be found in the instrument itself. If at any time a treaty should present such grounds; and it should have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives; and a further enquiry should be necessary to discover the culpable person, or the degree of his offence; there being then a declared and ascertained object; I should deem it to be the duty of the President to furnish all the evidence which could be derived from the papers in his possession.”

Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott (in a letter to Washington on March 26, 1796):

“Except when an Impeachment is proposed & a formal enquiry instituted, I am of opinion that the House of Representatives has no right to demand papers relating to foreign negociations [sic] either pending or compleated [sic].”

Secretary of War James McHenry (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“But as the house of representatives are vested with ‘the sole power of impeachment’ has it not a right as an incident of that power to call for papers respecting a treaty when the object is impeachment? I would presume that it has; but to legitimate such a call the object ought to be explicitly and formally announced. Where it is not, it is not to be presumed.”

Attorney General Charles Lee (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“The house of representatives has generally from the nature of its functions a right to demand from the President such statements of the transactions in any of the executive departments as they shall conceive necessary or useful in forming their laws, and there may be occasions when the books and original papers should be produced: for instance to sustain an impeachment commenced or to discover whether there be any malversation in office which might require impeachment—But it does not therefore follow that this branch of Congress possesses a right to demand and possess without the consent of the President copies of all the instructions and documents in his custody relative to any subject whatsoever, whenever they shall be pleased to require them.”

It will surprise no one that, in addition to asking his Cabinet for advice, Washington also asked Alexander Hamilton for his thoughts. In response, on March 29, 1796, Hamilton sent back a draft message for Washington’s consideration. It included the following language:

“Even with reference to an animadversion on the conduct of the Agents who made the Treaty—the presumption of a criminal mismanagement of the interests of the U [sic] States ought first it is conceived to be deduced from the intrinsic nature of the Treaty & ought to be pronounced to exist previous to a further inquiry to ascertain the guilt or the guilty. Whenever the House of Representatives, proceeding upon any Treaty, shall have taken the ground that such a presumption exists in order to such an inquiry, their request to the Executive to cause to be laid before them papers which may contain information on the subject will rest on a foundation that cannot fail to secure to it due efficacy.”

In addition to all this, at some point in time, Washington’s papers came to contain a letter sent by the Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Ellsworth, on March 13, 1796, to Jonathan Trumbull, a member of the Senate and a former aid-de-camp of Washington’s. In this letter, Ellsworth wrote:

“[N]or does it appear from [the pending House resolution] that [the House has] before them any legitimate object of enquiry to which the papers can apply. They have indeed a right to impeach or to originate a declaration of war, and might for those purposes have possible use for some of the papers in the late negociation [sic], but neither of those objects are avowed by the House nor are they to be presumed.”

It bears emphasizing that this mulling over the possibility of impeachment was not theoretical. The Jay Treaty was a controversy that roiled the new Republic. It created a rift that would never close between James Madison and Washington. There had been popular outcry that Washington was a traitor or at best senile. And some had spoken openly of impeachment. This backdrop makes the unity of opinion regarding the House’s entitlement to documents in an impeachment proceeding all the more impressive.

These writings do not address the question of how the House is to initiate an official impeachment inquiry. We will leave that issue to others. But these writings do make plain that Washington’s line about impeachment in the Jay Treaty was a deliberate concession, a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom.

The above is quoted from Just Security

Ukraine needs the help and support now and in the foreseeable future. Your isolationist viewpoint will result in the spread of the corrupt Putin administration, quite interesting that you express concern about corruption.

Ukraine got the money. And more aid, as well, than the previous administration gave it. Nor did the previous administration do anything substantial to correct Putin's spread of his power when he invaded Ukraine--which was the cause of it needing aid in the first place.

Floridaman's actions at the meeting at the UN, in words afterwards and meeting Lavrov at the same time as Zelensky's meeting Putin for peace negotiations are very detrimental to the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. To claim that Zelensky's statements are made freely and without duress is obtuse, but it is the only defense Floridaman has.

That's an opinion, not a fact. As for opinions, this: the survival of Ukraine depends first on Ukraine, then on all of its allies not just the US. The US is doing its share. Putin's annexation of the Crimea is a fact that can only be undone by war or negotiation. If the US is supposed to be responsible for the survival of Ukraine, then we were derelict during the past administration in reversing that annexation. To blame the current administration for not correcting that dereliction is political fodder. Putin tested us and Europe, and we all failed. And it will remain a failure unless we are all willing to militarily take back and return Crimea to Ukraine, or can, as Trump leans toward, negotiate a satisfactory resolution.

At this point, Putin doesn't seem willing to test a further expansion as we expect he would if he thought it was feasible. Perhaps you think that he is just doing Trump a favor. More likely, he recognizes that Trump would actually do more than the previous administration to push back against further Russian expansion. Trump offers negotiation, as well as military aid to Ukraine, as well as strengthening NATO by asking its European constituents to spending more on defense. As well Trump has strengthened our military and opened up our economy at the detriment of Russia's (especially in opening up our oil exploration and production). If you have a better way, put up or shut up.


(resulting in 34 indictments and 7 convictions with more expected) as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) (except Comeys "mistake" in announcing more info on Clintons emails days before the election, while not announcing the investigation into Russia and Floridaman)

Those indictments were peripheral, not germane to the "collusion" investigation. And the majority were of Russians who nothing can be tried without Russia's consent.

And Comey's announcement re Clinton was not a mistake. Did Horowitz say it was?

You state quite simply, every mobsters defense against a RICO case.

It is also and has many times been, quite correctly, the defense of many innocent defendants. It isn't a mobster defense. It is a valuable legal defense against prosecutorial misconduct.


You could be correct, but Floridaman blocked ALL testimony and evidence with the exception of a memcon of a conversation. Everything that the administration does is not subject to executive privilege and no reasonable person would think so. But once he is impeached it is likely null and void. Since you are a great fan of the Founding Fathers, here is some timely correspondence for you to consider. SCOTUS certainly will. Perhaps the House should wait to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate till it wades it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS decides.


Here are some key quotes (with emphasis added), from Washington’s Cabinet (whose advice he had requested) and several others:

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering (in an early draft of what would become Washington’s Message to the House):

“[I]n the case of a treaty, if there be any grounds for an impeachment, they will probably be found in the instrument itself. If at any time a treaty should present such grounds; and it should have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives; and a further enquiry should be necessary to discover the culpable person, or the degree of his offence; there being then a declared and ascertained object; I should deem it to be the duty of the President to furnish all the evidence which could be derived from the papers in his possession.”

Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott (in a letter to Washington on March 26, 1796):

“Except when an Impeachment is proposed & a formal enquiry instituted, I am of opinion that the House of Representatives has no right to demand papers relating to foreign negociations [sic] either pending or compleated [sic].”

Secretary of War James McHenry (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“But as the house of representatives are vested with ‘the sole power of impeachment’ has it not a right as an incident of that power to call for papers respecting a treaty when the object is impeachment? I would presume that it has; but to legitimate such a call the object ought to be explicitly and formally announced. Where it is not, it is not to be presumed.”

Attorney General Charles Lee (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“The house of representatives has generally from the nature of its functions a right to demand from the President such statements of the transactions in any of the executive departments as they shall conceive necessary or useful in forming their laws, and there may be occasions when the books and original papers should be produced: for instance to sustain an impeachment commenced or to discover whether there be any malversation in office which might require impeachment—But it does not therefore follow that this branch of Congress possesses a right to demand and possess without the consent of the President copies of all the instructions and documents in his custody relative to any subject whatsoever, whenever they shall be pleased to require them.”

It will surprise no one that, in addition to asking his Cabinet for advice, Washington also asked Alexander Hamilton for his thoughts. In response, on March 29, 1796, Hamilton sent back a draft message for Washington’s consideration. It included the following language:

“Even with reference to an animadversion on the conduct of the Agents who made the Treaty—the presumption of a criminal mismanagement of the interests of the U [sic] States ought first it is conceived to be deduced from the intrinsic nature of the Treaty & ought to be pronounced to exist previous to a further inquiry to ascertain the guilt or the guilty. Whenever the House of Representatives, proceeding upon any Treaty, shall have taken the ground that such a presumption exists in order to such an inquiry, their request to the Executive to cause to be laid before them papers which may contain information on the subject will rest on a foundation that cannot fail to secure to it due efficacy.”

In addition to all this, at some point in time, Washington’s papers came to contain a letter sent by the Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Ellsworth, on March 13, 1796, to Jonathan Trumbull, a member of the Senate and a former aid-de-camp of Washington’s. In this letter, Ellsworth wrote:

“[N]or does it appear from [the pending House resolution] that [the House has] before them any legitimate object of enquiry to which the papers can apply. They have indeed a right to impeach or to originate a declaration of war, and might for those purposes have possible use for some of the papers in the late negociation [sic], but neither of those objects are avowed by the House nor are they to be presumed.”

It bears emphasizing that this mulling over the possibility of impeachment was not theoretical. The Jay Treaty was a controversy that roiled the new Republic. It created a rift that would never close between James Madison and Washington. There had been popular outcry that Washington was a traitor or at best senile. And some had spoken openly of impeachment. This backdrop makes the unity of opinion regarding the House’s entitlement to documents in an impeachment proceeding all the more impressive.

These writings do not address the question of how the House is to initiate an official impeachment inquiry. We will leave that issue to others. But these writings do make plain that Washington’s line about impeachment in the Jay Treaty was a deliberate concession, a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom.

The above is quoted from Just Security

Those were selected opinions with selected passages. Were there any rebuttals or contraries during those original discussions? I don't have the energy to research that. But, if you read carefully even in some of those of those selected above, there seem to be some reservations. The "unity of opinion" called for does not exist in this current case. The opinion is divided strictly on party lines. And the notion that these opinions are "a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom" is an acknowledgement that the question of Executive Privilege has not been formally, judicially acknowledged. That the Court may have to decide that.

But, if that is the case, then Trump cannot be charged with a crime that has not officially been defined as a crime. And any decision by the Court to say that Executive Privilege cannot be claimed in such situations, that would be a clarification from now on. But cannot fairly be applied ex post facto.

I think we will find out what SCOTUS thinks.
It looks to me that after Graham and the Turtle promised a sham trial with a guaranteed aquittal, Pelosi just might wait and let Floridaman play with his checkers.
The Igor and Lev show is starting to make it’s way into the news along with all the Rubles and who got them.
Plenty of Trumplicans don’t want to be stained with that.
Floridaman’s Russian money will show up.
His taxes will come out in this SCOTUS term.
The walls are closing in on him and soon it will be time to retire to Mar a Lago, aka the southern swamp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask Lindsey, Floridaman doesn’t need to be charged with a crime to be impeached or is that only Dems?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think we will find out what SCOTUS thinks.
It looks to me that after Graham and the Turtle promised a sham trial with a guaranteed aquittal, Pelosi just might wait and let Floridaman play with his checkers.
The Igor and Lev show is starting to make it’s way into the news along with all the Rubles and who got them.
Plenty of Trumplicans don’t want to be stained with that.
Floridaman’s Russian money will show up.
His taxes will come out in this SCOTUS term.
The walls are closing in on him and soon it will be time to retire to Mar a Lago, aka the southern swamp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't argue with Nostradamus Jr.

Ask Lindsey, Floridaman doesn’t need to be charged with a crime to be impeached or is that only Dems?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Need" and "should" often part ways. Graham's opinion parts ways with the Constitution here. I'll stick, consistently, with the Constitution. You can pick and choose which Graham opinions suit you.

Pete I applaud your zeal, but you are involved in a debate that can’t be won, there is NOTHING you can post that will change anyone’s mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Need" and "should" often part ways. Graham's opinion parts ways with the Constitution here. I'll stick, consistently, with the Constitution. You can pick and choose which Graham opinions suit you.

If you insist, there are plenty of crimes to choose from and they all fall within the impeachment charges.

Campaign Finance Law

Bribery

Honest Services Fraud

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Hatch Act

Contempt of Congress

Impoundment Act

Pete I applaud your zeal, but you are involved in a debate that can’t be won, there is NOTHING you can post that will change anyone’s mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's ok, I find the information interesting. And I have learned some interesting things. It's sort of like fishing, if you look at the time and money invested you're way better off buying fish.

If you insist, there are plenty of crimes to choose from and they all fall within the impeachment charges.

Campaign Finance Law

Bribery

Honest Services Fraud

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Hatch Act

Contempt of Congress

Impoundment Act

Nancy must have missed these. You should send her a memo.

Nancy must have missed these. You should send her a memo.

Don’t worry double jeopardy doesn’t apply to impeachments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“A partisan process,fueled by tribalism”
Tulsi Gabbard on why she voted present.
Please explain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t worry double jeopardy doesn’t apply to impeachments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. I won't worry.

“A partisan process,fueled by tribalism”
Tulsi Gabbard on why she voted present.
Please explain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Man, she is smokin’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Man, she is smokin’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed!....

“A partisan process,fueled by tribalism”
Tulsi Gabbard on why she voted present.
Please explain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not to mention the FISA COURT filing from Wednesday regarding the lies and distortions concocted to get the FISA warrants that started this whole fiasco...lots of people need to go to jail....Brennan, Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Strok, Page...probably Obama who according to Clapper was directing all of this...sad that Obama's administration politicized and weaponized government in such a way....justice!

not to mention the FISA COURT filing from Wednesday regarding the lies and distortions concocted to get the FISA warrants that started this whole fiasco...lots of people need to go to jail....Brennan, Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Strok, Page...probably Obama who according to Clapper was directing all of this...sad that Obama's administration politicized and weaponized government in such a way....justice!

The FBI lied in order to suspend the civil rights of an American citizen, who happened to be working for a rival presidential campaign. Nothing to see there.

Man, she is smokin’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is very attractive. Way more so, when she's on stage with the others competing for the democratic nomination. Lowers the bar, so to speak...

I think she'd like to kick Nikki to the street and replace Pence, I wonder how Hinduism would sit with the evangelicals?
They're not driven by lust like you guys:lasso:

She is very attractive. Way more so, when she's on stage with the others competing for the democratic nomination. Lowers the bar, so to speak...

classy. You're no better than Trump.

classy. You're no better than Trump.

Not my fault they embrace Liz Warren, the embodiment of lying, hypocrisy, and nastiness.

My wife would say I'm a little better than Trump, I'm faithful to my family.

Lighten up, Francis.

yes, being faithful is a little better than Trump.

Not my fault they embrace Liz Warren, the embodiment of lying, hypocrisy, and nastiness.

My wife would say I'm a little better than Trump, I'm faithful to my family.

Lighten up, Francis.

When she was your age, she too was a Republican.

When she was your age, she too was a Republican Cherokee. Fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Princess Lies Through Her Teeth, who never stops shrieking about the evils of student loans, made a fortune teaching at Harvard. It's OK when SHE benefits from students going deep into debt, no one else is allowed to do it.

She never stops shrieking about the sinister nature of banks lending money to homeowners. But she make a pile flipping foreclosed properties with her husband. It's fine when she profits from the misery of others, everyone else who does so is a vulture.

She never stops shrieking about the evils of business. Yet she took huge money defending Travelers from liability claims of workers who died of asbestos exposure, and made a pile shielding companies from lawsuits filed by women who got sick from silicone breast implants. So it's OK for HER to profit from the risky nature of commerce, but evil when anyone else does it.

Any of that wrong?

Princess Lies Through Her Teeth, who never stops shrieking about the evils of student loans, made a fortune teaching at Harvard. It's OK when SHE benefits from students going deep into debt, no one else is allowed to do it.
Just how do you think she made a fortune?

Do you think her salary at Harvard compared to what she could make in a firm as one of the leading lawyers in her field?
Oh, I forgot, education is a calling and you should work for free. Where have you ever seen the cost of Professors as a driving cost of college education? And just how would her sitting in an endowed chair at Harvard add to anyone's educational cost?

She never stops shrieking about the sinister nature of banks lending money to homeowners. But she make a pile flipping foreclosed properties with her husband. It's fine when she profits from the misery of others, everyone else who does so is a vulture.

I thought you were a capitalist and it was good to make money. She flipped far fewer houses than a lot of people I know, a total of 5 and made less than 250K. She had issues with lending firms pushing legislation that gave them an unfair advantage in dealings with homeowners and if you look into what she pushed against it is pretty outrageous. Now compare her to the Foreclosure King, Mnuchin.

She never stops shrieking about the evils of business. Yet she took huge money defending Travelers from liability claims of workers who died of asbestos exposure, and made a pile shielding companies from lawsuits filed by women who got sick from silicone breast implants. So it's OK for HER to profit from the risky nature of commerce, but evil when anyone else does it.

Any of that wrong?

Do you think attorneys take work based on their political views?

Or do you believe that she enabled and abetted Travelers in defrauding the claimants? That she misrepresented something to the court?

She has made a couple million in the last 30 years in private practice.
That's not a very good salary for any category leading attorney.

She claims to be a capitalist, but she certainly gets under your skin and makes you shriek. Take a Midol.

“A partisan process,fueled by tribalism”
Please explain
Could she be a plant or just honest?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“A partisan process,fueled by tribalism”
Please explain
Could she be a plant or just honest?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who cares?

Do you think attorneys take work based on their political views?

Or do you believe that she enabled and abetted Travelers in defrauding the claimants? That she misrepresented something to the court?

She has made a couple million in the last 30 years in private practice.
That's not a very good salary for any category leading attorney.

She claims to be a capitalist, but she certainly gets under your skin and makes you shriek. Take a Midol.

"Do you think her salary at Harvard compared to what she could make in a firm as one of the leading lawyers in her field'

It was reported she made $400k for teaching one, single class. That's a good gig. Good enough where she wanted it bad enough, to commit fraud on her application, and exploit the atrocities against Native Americans, to get it.

"Oh, I forgot, education is a calling and you should work for free"

You missed the point COMPLETELY. If she wants to get paid $400k to teach one class, and students want to pay the massive tuition to fund that, that's their business, it's a free country. But she has no right to then claim that it's wrong to profit from student debt. That's the point. If she can get rich from students going into debt, so can anyone else. Sorry if that went over your head.

Unless you're saying, as she is saying, that she has a right to get rich off of student loans, but no one else does? Why does she have a right to live differently than anyone else?

Your response was a weak dodge.

You sound like Trump. Ha ha

More than anything it’s a wake up call to anybody who thought this had something to do with the constitution. These are just party tricks being exposed by one of the offenders loyalists. My guess is that PeteF has a little more insight than the democrat from Hawaii who answers to Putin along with Trump.
🤡🤡🤡
Sleep tight cupcakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Do you think her salary at Harvard compared to what she could make in a firm as one of the leading lawyers in her field'

It was reported she made $400k for teaching one, single class. That's a good gig. Good enough where she wanted it bad enough, to commit fraud on her application, and exploit the atrocities against Native Americans, to get it.

"Oh, I forgot, education is a calling and you should work for free"

You missed the point COMPLETELY. If she wants to get paid $400k to teach one class, and students want to pay the massive tuition to fund that, that's their business, it's a free country. But she has no right to then claim that it's wrong to profit from student debt. That's the point. If she can get rich from students going into debt, so can anyone else. Sorry if that went over your head.

Unless you're saying, as she is saying, that she has a right to get rich off of student loans, but no one else does? Why does she have a right to live differently than anyone else?

Your response was a weak dodge.

Jim, her chair at Harvard is endowed.
Someone funded it specifically.
It doesn't cost students money and is a big plus to them to be in her class.

Your response is ignorant of the facts, but those silly things are inconvenient to Floridaman and Trumplicans.

You sound like Trump. Ha ha

More than anything it’s a wake up call to anybody who thought this had something to do with the constitution. These are just party tricks being exposed by one of the offenders loyalists. My guess is that PeteF has a little more insight than the democrat from Hawaii who answers to Putin along with Trump.
🤡🤡🤡
Sleep tight cupcakes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

daydrinking? better take a nap.

Jim, her chair at Harvard is endowed.
Someone funded it specifically.
It doesn't cost students money and is a big plus to them to be in her class.

Your response is ignorant of the facts, but those silly things are inconvenient to Floridaman and Trumplicans.
Somebody is paying Einstein. That money could have been used elsewhere for good,instead of wasted on her shrieking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

daydrinking? better take a nap.

It’s friday and I am not Spence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, her chair at Harvard is endowed.
Someone funded it specifically.
It doesn't cost students money and is a big plus to them to be in her class.

Your response is ignorant of the facts, but those silly things are inconvenient to Floridaman and Trumplicans.

Despite their endowment, they charge massive tuition, when they could let everyone go free for decades, and still wouldn't burn through their endowment.

Paul, I tried again here. If you can't admit that she acts one way and expects others to behave very differently, I can't converse with you, you're not capable of rational conversation. I hated just about everything about Obama. But I gave him credit when it was due (rarely, but occasionally), and obviously I can criticize Republicans when they have it coming.

I know you're not so stupid that you don't see the point I'm making. What are you afraid would happen, exactly, if you admitted she's hypocrite? In all seriousness, what does it say, that you can never, ever criticize a Democrat?

Forgotten Facts About Steele’s Research:

1. Project started by Ted Cruz diehards;

2. Dossier sent to John McCain;

3. He showed to Lindsey Graham;

4. After reading Graham said give it to FBI.

5. Surprise! Steele & Ivanka have been chummy for 12 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Forgotten Facts About Steele’s Research:

1. Project started by Ted Cruz diehards;

2. Dossier sent to John McCain;

3. He showed to Lindsey Graham;

4. After reading Graham said give it to FBI.

5. Surprise! Steele & Ivanka have been chummy for 12 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

None of which give the dossier any validity. It's still debunked garbage which was knowingly used to defraud The FISA court.

But thanks for the info. It's very interesting . . . to somebody, i'm sure. There are probably thousands more similarly irrelevant facts about Steele which would be interesting . . . to someone . . . But not to the FISA court.