According to Adam Schiff, withholding aid from Ukraine puts us at risk of Russia attacking our mainland.

And in addition, Trump must be removed to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election. Yes, Schiff is arguing that Trump should be punished today, for wrongdoings he will commit in the future. Because that’s perfectly consistent with the traditions of American jurisprudence. Convict someone before they commit a crime.

If Schiff believed in the validity of the underlying charges, he wouldn’t be going to these absurd extremes. Obviously, not even Schiff believes in the charges.

It’s a farce.

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

Schiff continues to demonstrate that he is a deranged lunatic...which makes him the perfect democrat to lead his party to slaughter...I feel for the senators that have to sit and be lectured to by this bug eyed toad....it will all be over soon and the democrats can get back to their relentless effort of undermining our country and our president...

some great dirt surfacing on the bidens lately...amazing how every time joe went abroad a close relative with no experience got a boatload of cash and a cushy job

I can't believe commie bernie called lie-a-watha a liar on national tv....those kids need to get together and smoke a peace pipe...

now hillary is taking out bernie, bernie is taking out lie-a...biden just needs to open his trap to take himself out.....bernie's campaign workers are threatening to guillotine and gulag the rich(I wonder if that includes bernie, lie-a, bloomberg, pelosi...the democrat list is long)

did that guy on the democrap impeachment team wear his sneakers into the senate too...I think it's a cool look buy mildly inappropriate

this could not be more enjoyable....

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

they could not have concocted weaker articles of impeachment...now they are paying the price...they need to go back to the drawing board and I have no doubt that they will....btw...Ian didn't state facts he stated opinion

No, Ian stated facts and so did GS. You just can't admit it.

👶 🍼 👶
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up, it’s party first laws second.

if he believed those facts, he wouldn't be trying to scare us into thinking Russia is planning to invade.

I'm old enough to remember when Obama made fun of Romney for suggesting Russia was any kind of adversary, now Russia is planning to invade our shores?

It's a complete joke.

No, Ian stated facts and so did GS. You just can't admit it.

Paul, is Russia planning to invade us?

Paul, is Russia planning to invade us?

Did Ian or GS say that?

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Republicans will not address the evidence or the extreme coincidence all witnesses said the same thing.

They'll attack the process only ingnoring Trump own words in mutiple interviews rallies and Twitter asking for and encouraging help from foreign countries

Even during the perfect call
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to Adam Schiff, withholding aid from Ukraine puts us at risk of Russia attacking our mainland.

And in addition, Trump must be removed to ensure the integrity of the 2020 election. Yes, Schiff is arguing that Trump should be punished today, for wrongdoings he will commit in the future. Because that’s perfectly consistent with the traditions of American jurisprudence. Convict someone before they commit a crime.

If Schiff believed in the validity of the underlying charges, he wouldn’t be going to these absurd extremes. Obviously, not even Schiff believes in the charges.

It’s a farce.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution.
That's why there is no penalty other than being removed from office and prevented from holding another position.

As far as why Floridaman should be removed, work backwards: The “check” on acting in a purely partisan way on matters of law is that your standard will apply to the other party. The only way you don’t care is if you believe the opposition will never hold power again. And to guarantee that, you NEED the foreign interference.

To continue, this assumes that the foreign interference will always work in your favor. What do you do to ensure that? You make sure and permit the money and the power of the U.S. to be used for the benefit of those countries who are willing to “help,” not based on what is truly in our nation’s interest.

This whole thing is setting up the corruption and reorienting of our institutions and processes for the sole purpose of maintaining power. That’s it.

Did Ian or GS say that?

Did I say they did?

Once again, are you worried that Russia is planning to physically attack us?

Seems like you don't want to answer that question.

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution.
That's why there is no penalty other than being removed from office and prevented from holding another position.

As far as why Floridaman should be removed, work backwards: The “check” on acting in a purely partisan way on matters of law is that your standard will apply to the other party. The only way you don’t care is if you believe the opposition will never hold power again. And to guarantee that, you NEED the foreign interference.

To continue, this assumes that the foreign interference will always work in your favor. What do you do to ensure that? You make sure and permit the money and the power of the U.S. to be used for the benefit of those countries who are willing to “help,” not based on what is truly in our nation’s interest.

This whole thing is setting up the corruption and reorienting of our institutions and processes for the sole purpose of maintaining power. That’s it.

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a desperate cry for a thorough mental evaluation :laugha:

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's "brilliant" to suggest that we punish someone for something they might do in the future, and to suggest Russia is going to invade?

It's "brilliant" to suggest that we punish someone for something they might do in the future, and to suggest Russia is going to invade?
What exactly did he say? Seems like you're just trying to distract yourself from the real issue.

Did I say they did?

Once again, are you worried that Russia is planning to physically attack us?

Seems like you don't want to answer that question.

I don't know what he said but you constantly pick out one thing a Dem. says or does and complains about it while ignoring the numerous thing Repub. do.

Sorry, but I think you are a very petty person.

Schiff’s performance was nothing short of brilliant. What’s a joke are the republicans who are just pretending nothing happened. Why don’t they want more evidence? Because trump is guilty and they all know it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I only watched a short portion of it but I would agree. Trump's misdeeds have been laid out with crayons for the mouth breathers who listen to Trump's constants whining that what he did was perfect.

I only watched a short portion of it but I would agree. Trump's misdeeds have been laid out with crayons for the mouth breathers who listen to Trump's constants whining that what he did was perfect.

I know you are very disappointed but you really need to be able to get on with your life....I'm praying for pete too:kewl:

I know you are very disappointed but you really need to be able to get on with your life....I'm praying for pete too:kewl:

You forgot to throw in your usual "Democraps" insult somewhere into your post.

What exactly did he say? Seems like you're just trying to distract yourself from the real issue.

So, by your own admission, you don't know what he said. But you somehow concluded that he was "brilliant".

It's a complete waste trying to talk to you guys.

"don't need to commit a crime to be impeached, look at Graham, Dershowitz and others statements from 1999 or you could read the Constitution"

Here's a sincere question, doesn't it say high crime or misdemeanor?

And can you be impeached, out of fear of what you might do in the future? Because that's the case Schiff is making, when he says we have to remove Trump to secure the integrity of the 2020 election, which is 9 months out. In this country, we don't punish people for things we fear they might do in the future.

The case that Schiff is making is that he has already done so and has said that he is currently and will continue to seek foreign interference in our elections.

Impeachment was not designed as punishment, but as protection for the Constitution and the Republic that it enabled.

In impeachment proceedings, the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. According to the Constitution, the only penalties allowed to be imposed by the Senate are removal from office and disqualification from holding any federal office in the future.


I'll defer to Hugo Black on high crimes and misdemeanors and what he thinks they mean It's as short an excerpt as I could make it, you really should read the whole chapter for yourself

"Other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This is the third, catchall phrase in the formula designating impeachable offenses. The reader will hardly need to be told that it must generate, and has generated, great difficulties of interpretation. Some definite things can be said about its extent, but we will be left with an area of considerable vagueness. Let us take the definite things first.

It would be well to start with the one and only discussion of the phrase at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The day was September 8, 1787, just nine days before the Constitution was signed and transmitted for the adherence of the states. The impeachment provision, as reported out by the last of the convention committees (except the final one charged only with polishing the style of the Constitution), listed "treason and bribery" as the only grounds for impeachment and removal. The colloquy we need to look at was brief, taking perhaps five minutes:

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up.

Col. Mason. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined— As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after "bribery" "or maladministration". Mr. Gerry seconded him—

Mr Madison So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr Govr Morris, it will not be put in force & can do no harm— An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. Mason withdrew "maladministration" & substitutes "other high crimes & misdemeanors"

On the question thus altered

N. H— ay. Mas.— ay Ct. ay. (N. J. no) Pa no. Del. no. Md ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay.* Geo. ay. [Ayes—8; noes—3.]

This is by far the most important piece of evidence on the original intention with regard to the "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrase. It is true that the proceedings of the Convention were secret (a fact, like the fact that the Supreme Court deliberates in deep secrecy, not often mentioned by those who would have us think that secrecy in public affairs is always wrong). But the men present were representative of their time, and their understanding, at the moment when the crucial language was under closest examination, tells us a great deal about its meaning.

It is interesting first that this passage quite definitely establishes that "maladministration" was distinctly rejected as a ground for impeachment. The conscious and deliberate character of this rejection is accentuated by the fact that a good many state constitutions of the time did have "maladministration" as an impeachment ground. This does not mean that a given act may not be an instance both of "maladministration" and of "high crime" or "misdemeanor." It does mean that not all acts of "maladministration" are covered by the phrase actually accepted. This follows inevitably from Madison's ready acceptance of the phraseology now in the text; if "maladministration" was too "vague" for him, and "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" included all "maladministration," then he would surely have objected to the phrase actually accepted, as being even "vaguer" than the one rejected.

On the other hand, Mason's ready substitution of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" indicates that he thought (and no voice was raised in doubt) that this new phrase would satisfactorily cover "many great and dangerous offenses" not reached by the words "treason" and "bribery"; its coverage was understood to be broad.

The whole colloquy just quoted seems to support the view that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" ought to be conceived as offenses having about them some flavor of criminality. Mere "maladministration" was not to be enough for impeachment. This line may be a hard one to follow, but it is the line that the Framers quite clearly intended to draw, and we will have to try to follow it as best we can.

You can read the rest if the chapter here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeachable-offense

and an essay applying Blacks thoughts to our current situation here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/impeach-president-applying-authoritative-guide-charles-black

The underlying charge is that the president broke the law and abused the power of the office that put him in the position to do so.

"Abuse" of power is, in itself, too vague a concept to be considered a crime and is subject to opposing opinion. All Presidents could have been accused of abuse of power, but the "abuse" would have to be specified as a crime before it could be considered impeachable. The actual action that is supposed to be an abuse is what must be considered.

That law was the congressionally approved funding which was to be sent to an ally to help an ongoing ground war with an invading country the US is not friendly with.

That law had a date by which it had to be fulfilled. The money was sent before that date. The money was sent, and Ukraine didn't have to do anything extra to get it. Ukraine's President has said more than once that there was no pressure or no bribe or any quid pro quo to get the money. Those are all facts.

There has been a mountain of evidence and testimony that shows that there were people who were aware of this and helped cover it up.

He doesn’t just believe in it, it’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

Cipollone stated Tuesday that Republican lawmakers had not been allowed into the secure room where the House Intelligence Committee deposed witnesses last year

Is this Cipollone losing his marbles or just a continuation of the sleazy, lying Republican (in my best JimCT voice) ways?

,

First of all Floridaman admitted publicly that he has all the evidence and will not release it. The only innocent man in the world who hides exculpatory information.

You have not stated a fact. You have given your opinion.

There is sufficient exculpatory information already available in open sources. The burden is on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence of guilt. That has not happened.

When it comes to the constitutional separation of powers, executive privilege would be eroded by submitting to requests that would abridge that power. There is already sufficient exculpatory evidence, so there is no need to endanger the power of executive privilege.

Crime, you can start here
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.

Read the press statement. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

The money was given on time. The reason for temporary delay was a reasonable request under the circumstances to ask for some assurance that it would not be wasted on further corruption. Some may argue that it was not reasonable, others would say it was. The money was delivered on time without a quid pro quo.

As far as no pressure goes, you think Zelensky had a choice, that he could say he committed a corrupt act?
As a comedian and an actor, he was famous for his laser focus on the foibles of Ukrainian politicians. Zelensky chooses his words carefully. When he met with Trump, Zelensky knew that Ukrainians would be listening carefully, too.

Zelensky ran for the presidency on an anti-corruption platform, and won in a landslide. Admitting to giving in to pressure — or admitting to pressuring independent members of his government to conduct investigations — would mean not only losing bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress but also destroying his credibility among Ukrainians.

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

Zelensky's satements are facts. Your "interpretation" is conjecture.

Executive privilege only works for certain people and things, it cannot be a protective blanket over all actions that the office wants to conceal, and as with other legal veils, once pierced it is moot and in any case cannot be used to conceal a crime.

I'm really concerned that we won't be able to fight the coming Russian invasion while at the same time fighting the ground war that trump started with iran a couple of weeks while at the same time preventing the takeover of Virginia by white supremacists and nazis

Executive privilege only works for certain people and things, it cannot be a protective blanket over all actions that the office wants to conceal, and as with other legal veils, once pierced it is moot and in any case cannot be used to conceal a crime.

It ain't been pierced and no crime has been established. I believe the Court would have to decide, not you.

So, by your own admission, you don't know what he said. But you somehow concluded that he was "brilliant".

It's a complete waste trying to talk to you guys.
Didn't watch the entire thing but what I saw was freaking great.

You're dodging now.

Didn't watch the entire thing but what I saw was freaking great.

You're dodging now.

Apparently Schiff is a good actor. Even Graham congratulated him on a well spoken presentation.

Of course, Graham would probably say that though the presentation was good in style, it was BS in substance.

It ain't been pierced and no crime has been established. I believe the Court would have to decide, not you.

Conjecture, obviously.

Just remember, Democrats don't know what the withheld documents say. Maybe they say it was a perfect call or there was no quid pro quo. But if you care about the truth, you'd want the documents released.

Conjecture, obviously.

Just remember, Democrats don't know what the withheld documents say. Maybe they say it was a perfect call or there was no quid pro quo. But if you care about the truth, you'd want the documents released.

Maybe the truth has already been exposed. No need to keep beating a dead horse. Ahhhh . . . the maybe trail really has no end other than just stopping.

I'm really concerned that we won't be able to fight the coming Russian invasion while at the same time fighting the ground war that trump started with iran a couple of weeks while at the same time preventing the takeover of Virginia by white supremacists and nazis

meanwhile we’re all broke because the GOP tax cuts gave everything to the Koch brothers. Grim times, indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

meanwhile we’re all broke because the GOP tax cuts gave everything to the Koch brothers. Grim times, indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With the way Trump is running up the debt, the country will be broke. But hey it is a Repub. admin. so who cares.

With the way Trump is running up the debt, the country will be broke. But hey it is a Repub. admin. so who cares.

Uggghh . . . I know it has already been mentioned a few times, but . . . Congress is in charge of the debt. Just sayin.

Uggghh . . . I know it has already been mentioned a few times, but . . . Congress is in charge of the debt. Just sayin.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it is the President who it usually is attributed to.

Trump did have a small part in lowering taxes which is reflected in the deficit.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it is the President who it usually is attributed to.

Trump did have a small part in lowering taxes which is reflected in the deficit.

Federal government revenues have gone up in spite of the tax cuts. Tax cuts were part of the total equation. They helped to greatly expand the whole economy, which resulted in greater government revenues. Can't believe that we constantly have to point this stuff out.

So, if revenues have gone up, it's Congress's duty to wisely spend, and it is its profligacy, not the tax cuts, that is the reason that the debt keeps rising.

Maybe the truth has already been exposed. No need to keep beating a dead horse. Ahhhh . . . the maybe trail really has no end other than just stopping.

Floridaman's modus operandi has always been lawyer up, deny and lie. Just like he learned from Roy Cohn. That's not all he and Epstein learned from Cohn, but that is another sordid story.

That's how you get involved in 3500 lawsuits, not counting arbitration and need everyone to sign NDA's.

I have no reason to believe he has found a new way since he became Master of the Trumplicans and the evangelical's false idol.

He would like his Trumplicans to believe that anyone that contradicts his propaganda is dead to him, just look at what happened to Gaetz.
Though that one smells like a false flag op to me.

This is far from dead.

Federal government revenues have gone up in spite of the tax cuts. Tax cuts were part of the total equation. They helped to greatly expand the whole economy, which resulted in greater government revenues. Can't believe that we constantly have to point this stuff out.

So, if revenues have gone up, it's Congress's duty to wisely spend, and it is its profligacy, not the tax cuts, that is the reason that the debt keeps rising.

overall revenues are up? interesting to know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, everything is ok. Revenue increased less than inflation and far less than spending increases passed by Congress and signed by Floridaman

1. Our National Debt is High and Rising
2. Debt Could Reach Record Levels by 2030
3. Spending is Above Its 50-Year Average While Revenue is Below
4. Legislation signed into law by President Trump will add $4.1 trillion to the debt between 2017 and 2029. The single-largest contributor was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is projected to cost $1.8 trillion through 2029 and could easily cost more if lawmakers extend the individual income tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2025.
5. Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Double Budget Deficits

Floridaman's modus operandi has always been lawyer up, deny and lie. Just like he learned from Roy Cohn. That's not all he and Epstein learned from Cohn, but that is another sordid story.

That's how you get involved in 3500 lawsuits, not counting arbitration and need everyone to sign NDA's.

I have no reason to believe he has found a new way since he became Master of the Trumplicans and the evangelical's false idol.

He would like his Trumplicans to believe that anyone that contradicts his propaganda is dead to him, just look at what happened to Gaetz.
Though that one smells like a false flag op to me.

This is far from dead.

When those dead bodies have arisen as current actual manifestations rather than apparitions of your fevered and twisted past infested mind, then I might be convinced that they are not dead.

But I admit, as long as you anti-Trumpers keep the stories and conjectures on life support, they do have the semblance of a horrific living dead.

Sure, everything is ok. Revenue increased less than inflation and far less than spending increases passed by Congress and signed by Floridaman

1. Our National Debt is High and Rising
2. Debt Could Reach Record Levels by 2030
3. Spending is Above Its 50-Year Average While Revenue is Below
4. Legislation signed into law by President Trump will add $4.1 trillion to the debt between 2017 and 2029. The single-largest contributor was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is projected to cost $1.8 trillion through 2029 and could easily cost more if lawmakers extend the individual income tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2025.
5. Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Double Budget Deficits

Congress is obviously not doing its job.

Congress is obviously not doing its job.

Typical Trumplican response, anything bad is someone else's fault.

Because Floridaman is infallible and must not be questioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljz8y2qX1f4

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Congress is obviously not doing its job.

Pete F: Typical Trumplican response, anything bad is someone else's fault.

Because Floridaman is infallible and must not be questioned.

If you're trying to say that it is typical for me to make an accurate statement, I appreciate your judgment.

As for the "Floridaman . . . infallible . . . must not be questioned" crap, I don't use those stupid words and haven't made those stupid, extreme, pronouncements.

It seems it's difficult for you to make a point without making stuff up. Maybe that leftist opinion-morphed-into-fiction thing?

With the way Trump is running up the debt, the country will be broke. But hey it is a Repub. admin. so who cares.

Republicans of old did have concerns about debt.

Republicans of old did have concerns about debt.

Could be a dying breed those pols of either party who had such "concerns."

No, there are not mountains of proven evidence of an actual crime. There is the proven fact that the money was delivered within the specified time frame and that Zelinsky said all was legal and he was not pressured or bribed.

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution, yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution, yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

this is nonsensical

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

Funny you keep suggesting you are an expert on the real meaning of the constitution,

When the hell did I ever suggest that I am an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution? Or an expert on anything else? As I've said before--you just say stuff. And you seem to have this conviction that what you say is based on some obvious evidence, and it is amazing to you that the rest of us don't see the obvious truth that you do.

yet the crimes you suggest need to be proven weren’t even on the books and part of law when they penned the constitution, what Trump is guilty of is exactly what they were concerned about. None of these crimes you think need to be proven we’re even codified when our founders wrote the constitution.

Are we supposed to assume that by saying this you are suggesting that you're an expert on the real meaning of the Constitution?

No constitutional crimes were "on the books" before they penned the Constitution. Writing the Constitution was the act that created constitutional crimes. That Constitution was the "book" in which those crimes were delineated. We are not speaking of common civil law, or criminal law, but our subject is our Federal government's constitutional law.

And the only way any laws can be added to the Constitution is by amendment.

The way the Constitution is assembled is by broad categories that encompass an indefinite range of possibilities that fall within the proper category. Impeachment of a President is instigated by the President committing an act that is within the possible range of Treason, bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It is not necessary to have a massive constitutional codex of specific "crimes" which define what are High Crimes. But there must certainly be what is considered a crime no matter what decade or century the impeachment occurs. And that consideration should be bolstered by legal definitions, court decisions, legal precedent, and common or traditional practices. And a crime must not be so vague that any thing someone wants can be squeezed into its definition.

The articles of this impeachment do not fall within the range of what has been nor is now considered to be a federal constitutional High Crime or High misdemeanor. General obstruction of Congress is too vague and broad to fit. The specific obstruction charged is nullified by executive privilege. The House was not willing to wait for a decision by SCOTUS whether executive privilege can be applied. So that supposed crime has not been established. Abuse of power is also too vague and largely subject to opinion. The House's article of abuse rests specifically on the notion that there was a quid pro quo that Trump imposed on Ukraine that would benefit his reelection. But the only solid, confirmed and direct evidence is that, according to the President of Ukraine, there was no such abuse. Nor was there a reciprocal required action committed by Ukraine in order to get the money.

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

Let the voters decide
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I've said before--you just say stuff. And you seem to have this conviction that what you say is based on some obvious evidence, and it is amazing to you that the rest of us don't see the obvious truth that you do.

.

don't they call this narrow-minded?

A true/false test for Trumplicans
Trump asked Zelensky to fight corruption
Rudy Giuliani was acting as Trump's lawyer
Abuse of power could be impeachable according to Bill Barr
Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo
There are relevant emails the White House won't turn over
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material.” Trump being Trump, he can’t help incriminating himself in order to grab a headline.

White House counsel to the Senate: The House should have gotten a court order.

DOJ to the courts: The House has no right to even ask for a court order.

A true/false test for Trumplicans

I can't answer for who you call "Trumplicans," but I'll take the test--in spite of it being a slanted selection skewed into your preferred direction, and there are a lot of other questions you're not asking that would lead in another direction.

Trump asked Zelensky to fight corruption

True.

Rudy Giuliani was acting as Trump's lawyer

True.

Abuse of power could be impeachable according to Bill Barr

I'll take your word that he said that. His qualifier "could" implies that abuse of power could also not be impeachable. I assume he meant, therefore, that abuse of power is not, in itself, impeachable. That an actual, specific, action that some might label abuse is what determines impeachability.

Mick Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo

True and false. He made a GENERAL RESPONSE that there is always that sort of give and take in foreign policy but didn't use the phrase "quid pro quo". But he later SPECIFIED that “there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election."

He also said " it is legitimate for the president to want to know what’s going on with the ongoing investigation into the server … it is completely legitimate to ask about that . . . it’s legitimate to tie the aid to corruption, it’s legitimate to tie the aid to foreign aid from other countries. That’s what I was talking about . . . Can I see how people took that the wrong way? Absolutely. But I never said there was a quid pro quo, because there isn’t.”

There are relevant emails the White House won't turn over


I don't know if the emails are relevant. I don't know what's in them. At this point, they are protected by executive privilege. And there are very sound and basic reasons for that right of secrecy.

Let me give you a true/false test:

President Zelensky said he was not pressured. That he didn't know of any quid pro quo required in order to get the money.

The money was delivered.

Zelensky didn't have to do a quid pro quo to get the money.

I don't know if the emails are relevant. I don't know what's in them. At this point, they are protected by executive privilege. And there are very sound and basic reasons for that right of secrecy.

Let me give you a true/false test:

President Zelensky said he was not pressured. That he didn't know of any quid pro quo required in order to get the money.

The money was delivered.

Zelensky didn't have to do a quid pro quo to get the money.

When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?

When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege

Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.

As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.

No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.

The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?

And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmBiZ0EoXE

pete has also lost his marbles...

When did Floridaman mention corruption at all?

When Rudy did all his admitting on TV, he rubbed out most of the lawyer client privilege

Presidential privilege is not all encompassing in scope and the administration has unprecedentedly blocked everything that congress asked for.

As far as Zelensky not being able to say publicly that he was pressured, there is evidence that Ukraine knew the aid was being withheld, arrangements were made to announce an investigation and the whole drug deal blew up when the whistleblower information was coming out and there was no way around it.

No different than any other extortion case, it's a crime whether you were successful or not.

The other question there is what happened to the criminal referral that came out of the whistleblower report, just how did that disappear?


I answered your true false test. You were not able or not willing to answer mine. That is not unusual for you. You routinely doge, avoid, distract, as in here throwing back more questions to answer than answering the true/false quiz. It comes to a point where there is no purpose in either answering your questions nor expecting an answer from you.

And here's Mulvaney........admitting to a quid pro quo or are you claiming the equal to "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmBiZ0EoXE

It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.

The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.

As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.

Those are the discernable facts.

What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.

But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.

pete has also lost his marbles...

He is setting himself up for disappointment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is setting himself up for disappointment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope the disappoint doesn’t cause him to double his efforts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was general response to the give and take involved in foreign policy. I believe that even you had said the same in some previous thread. His answer was not specifically regarding a quid pro quo for information that would benefit the next election.

The phone call that sparked the controversy did not ask for a quid pro quo. The facts are that there was no quid pro quo asked for in the phone call. There was no quid pro quo demanded or received when the money was given. Those are the facts.

As well as the fact that Mulvaney specifically said there was no quid pro quo other than some assurances that corruption would be looked into as Trump had every legal right, and an actual duty, to inquire about.

Those are the discernable facts.

What Mulvaney said is not so much the question as is what Trump said. What is undeniable, manifest, discernable fact, is that Trump has not been shown to ask Zelensky for something, much worse, something illegal, in EXCHANGE for the aid. Zelensky concurred that there was no such quid pro quo. It is conjectured or implied that he did. Those are the facts.

But what is pure conjecture is that what he asked for or intended was dirt to influence the next election. That is pure, unknowable, speculation. It may comfort you to indulge it, but speculation is not grist for impeachment nor for any criminal prosecution.

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want, if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted. If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence. Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence. You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office, I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged, I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree, so let’s fing move on to 2020.

"We can all agree the right will NEVER vote to throw their president out of office"

Not in this case, no...

"I also think we Democrat’s or independents agree he is guilty as charged"

Democrats, yes. Independents? We'll see in November.

"I suspect many republicans would in secret also agree"

I suspect you are spectacularly wrong on that one.

"so let’s fing move on to 2020"

Couldn't agree more.

I moved on to 2020 24 days ago. I think we can all agree that 98% of Americans who have watched any of this impeachment debacle now hate democrats
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I moved on to 2020 24 days ago. I think we can all agree that 98% of Americans who have watched any of this impeachment know the boot licking, god is this really my party thinking in private republican senators will never vote against the supreme leader and we too are ready for November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is what was said when Mulvaney admitted to the ask.
Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

Geez . . . I already covered that above. I didn't expect that would satisfy you. But I'm not about to go round and round repeating the same chit.

Claim that only direct evidence counts and ignore as much other evidence as you want,

I'm not ignoring any evidence. I've argued actual evidence with you. But I don't consider conjecture, assumption, speculation, to be evidence.

if this was in a court of law with proper discovery, witnesses and documents, Floridaman would be convicted.

If this was in a court of law, it would be dismissed for lack of an actual crime to adjudicate. The obstruction of Congress charge is a joke. There has been a long accepted, including some adjudication, that the President has executive privilege in protecting conversations with his staff. The abuse of power charge that Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election has not been even closely shown to exist in any pre-trial preparation and discovery. Every thing Trump requested was legitimate under current treaty law. There is no smidgen of FACT that what he did was to effect a future election. That is pure conjecture. That is pure speculation on the President's state of mind. A judge should expect something more solid than a prosecutor's opinion that Trump was doing this for something other than what he would normally do in his office of President in instances where corruption existed.

If he was not president the FBI would have been at the door at 2am and taken the evidence.

The Horowitz investigation has shown that the FBI was quite willing to falsely concoct evidence to spy on Trump. And, anyway, if Trump were not President, he wouldn't have the duties which he was fulfilling and for which he has executive privilege to protect internal communications, for security reasons among others, which I'm sure the FBI would appreciate since it routinely redacts or withholds information for similar reasons.

Cases are concluded with convictions all the time based on indirect, demonstrative and other types of evidence.

When there is direct exculpatory evidence, as in this case, versus a lack of direct evidence of guilt, as in this case, and the prosecution consists of conjecture, assumption, second, third, and fourth hand opinion, conviction would be a breach of justice.

You don't honestly think that Teflon Don II didn't learn anything from Roy Cohn. Keeping the witnesses with direct evidence out will only work if the crime is well hidden. The corrupt behavior affected several branches of the administration, ‘Everyone was in the loop’.
Obstructing congress is only temporary, the truth always finds the light of day and when it does the enablers will be done.
Perhaps they will wish they had chosen to take the risk of having their heads on a pike.

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

Better

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have clearly outsmarted yourself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a complete waste trying to talk to you guys.

This happened before the end of page 1... imagine if... ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Ukrainian Aid package was approved in August of 2018. If it was so vital to the Ukrainian's ability to fend of Russia, why would the process to deliver it to Ukraine take 11 to 12 months?

I think the argument that it was held up (legally or not) is a red herring and the Democrats a bit disingenuous for focusing on the Trump delay as so shattering to the Ukrainian's ability to defend themselves, and the follow on ability for the US to withstand Russian aggression. If the Congressional Oversight Committees focused on improving the funding process, there would not have been a delay. Not very efficient oversight or process. It is the responsibility of Oversight Committees to identify ineffective congressional processes and recommend improvements.

OK. I like that finish. It was an artfully, (slightly but appropriately demented sounding) rant that would do very well for the closing summation of a prosecutor who had a very weak, totally circumstantial and conjectural case which had been demolished by direct exculpatory evidence--or as well as it could.

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What exculpatory evidence?

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election? How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do I feel like you are crying into a towel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What exculpatory evidence?

The most obvious one is that Zelensky said there was no pressure, no quid pro quo arrangement. The money was delivered. No special quid pro quo was fulfilled to get the money. And Sondman, the only witness who got direct input from Trump re q pro q, said Trump told him no q pro q and tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

What IS the truth? That Floridaman would NEVER cheat in an election?

Who is it, exactly, that would NEVER cheat in an election, and how would you know? This is frivolous postulation, not rational argument.

How dare anyone accuse the Chosen One of such behavior. Just because he cheated on all 3 of his wives, cheats on his taxes, launders money, doesn’t pay his contractors, steals from charities to buy portraits of himself?


Since you ask for the speculation, someone would dare to in order to influence the 2020 election.

The
I think the argument that it was held up (legally or not) is a red herring and the Democrats a bit disingenuous for focusing on the Trump delay as so shattering to the Ukrainian's ability to defend themselves, and the follow on ability for the US to withstand Russian aggression.

How is this a red herring, it’s literally the crime. It’s been discovered that part of the delay was that he was continuing to withhold it until they publicly announced an investigation into his own political rival.

What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Were those instances to hold up the aid done so that a person would receive a personal gain? And was the withholding of the aid done in secret like Trump and his admin has done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were those instances to hold up the aid done so that a person would receive a personal gain? And was the withholding of the aid done in secret like Trump and his admin has done?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. Because everything a politician does (unless he is being term limited out) involves potential personal gain. Everything Obama did in hs first term, involved the potential for it to effect his chances of getting re elected. You could argue his decision to have Bin Laden killed (was that in his first term?) was done in the hopes it would help him get re elected, meaning it would help him keep a job paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

I'll ask again, you're saying that under no circumstances can a sitting POTUS ask for an investigation of a political rival, regardless of what the political rival does? The sitting POTUS can't ask for an investigation of anything that could help him get re elected?

And for the 50th time, if Trump got the investigation and it showed that Biden didn't do anything, Trump looks stupid for wasting everyone's time. Trump has every incentive not to ask for a baseless investigation.

When Hilary's campaign gave the Steele dossier to the DOJ to use to investigate the Trump campaign, that wasn't done in the hope that it would provide personal gain for Hilary?

You have a very cynical view of politicians if you think everything they do is to benefit themselves and not the country. A lot of the civil servants who have come forward to discuss Trump's misdeeds are doing it to their potential detriment. Having a foreign country announced an investigation into the bidens without any proof that they did anything wrong is as sleazy as it gets. He wasn't looking for an investigation into the Biden's just an announcement that there was an investigation. An FYI Hillary was not in office
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have a very cynical view of politicians if you think everything they do is to benefit themselves and not the country. A lot of the civil servants who have come forward to discuss Trump's misdeeds are doing it to their potential detriment. An FYI Hillary was not in office
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You have a very cynical view of politicians if you think everything they do is to benefit themselves and not the country."

So if the Bidens were actually engaged in nepotism and corruption, you're saying it doesn't benefit the country to know that? It only benefits Trump? Seeking the truth isn't a noble goal?

Constantly moving the goalposts...constantly.

I never said presidents don't care about the good of the country. I'm saying that they also care a lot about getting re elected. You say that makes me cynical, I say denying that makes you naïve.

trumps lawyer made an opening statement listing all the previous times that aid had been temporarily withheld, and no one cared.

Is there a law that says someone running for president, is immune from being investigated for anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when :btu:

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

Asking for a friend : "How can any Republican's head end up on a pike if it's already stuck up Trump's ass?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when :btu:

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page
it’s also interesting that democrats don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny You and other Trump fans heard the evidence and heard Trump ask Russia to hack Clinton and if China was listening to do the same and ask Ukraine to do him a favor against Biden on the perfect call.. but never ask 2016 17 or but late 18 when he saw a poll PS the aid wasn't held until guess when :btu:

AND YOU DON'T CARE

But but Carter Page

Clinton's server on which the 33,000 deleted emails were once located, was out of service and in the hands of the FBI at the time that Trump made his obviously sarcastic remark. So Russia could not have hacked them then. He was obviously not asking for Russia to hack Clinton, but making a sarcastic remark to point out Clinton's duplicitous destroying of those emails before she handed the server over to the FBI. And Trump threw in a sarcastic shot at the media as well (which had been all in for Clinton and constantly bashing Trump) by saying that the media would reward the Russians for finding the missing emails.

If Trump had been serious about asking Putin (Russia) for help, he would have done so through secret channels not on national TV for millions of voters, all the media, and the FBI and CIA and the Democrat Party and the rest of the "Swamp" to see and hear.

"What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying if the aid was so vital, why have a 10 or 11 month process to deliver it? If it was approved in August of 2018, why not write the check in January of 2019 if the need was so vital to the troops in the field, and our own Nat'l Sec? Focusing on the weeks that Trump held it up rather than the total timeline makes it a red herring, crime or not.
(btw, I didn't vote for Trump...)

Clinton's server on which the 33,000 deleted emails were once located, was out of service and in the hands of the FBI at the time that Trump made his obviously sarcastic remark. So Russia could not have hacked them then. He was obviously not asking for Russia to hack Clinton, but making a sarcastic remark to point out Clinton's duplicitous destroying of those emails before she handed the server over to the FBI. And Trump threw in a sarcastic shot at the media as well (which had been all in for Clinton and constantly bashing Trump) by saying that the media would reward the Russians for finding the missing emails.

If Trump had been serious about asking Putin (Russia) for help, he would have done so through secret channels not on national TV for millions of voters, all the media, and the FBI and CIA and the Democrat Party and the rest of the "Swamp" to see and hear.

Thru a back channel perhaps?
A resident of Trump Tower?
Or maybe thru Lev or Igor to Firtash?
Interesting new Parnas tape tonight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thru a back channel perhaps?
A resident of Trump Tower?
Or maybe thru Lev or Igor to Firtash?
Interesting new Parnas tape tonight
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In other words, you got nothin'. So had to make a ridiculous stretch, and change the subject. Just can't let one of those ridiculous lies about Trump be exposed. It, like the Charlotte "good Nazis on both sides" lies that can be used to fatten up some skinny diatribe about Trump that suffers from the lack of a healthy dose of actual facts.

"What you’re pointing out is something they should focus on AFTER they hold him accountable for abuse of power, not instead!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying if the aid was so vital, why have a 10 or 11 month process to deliver it? If it was approved in August of 2018, why not write the check in January of 2019 if the need was so vital to the troops in the field, and our own Nat'l Sec? Focusing on the weeks that Trump held it up rather than the total timeline makes it a red herring, crime or not.
(btw, I didn't vote for Trump...)

You can say that it’s less important than it seems to be, but can’t really call it a red herring.

Regardless of the length of the delay: one hour, one day, one year, it’s about why he did it.

Personal gain through a power only granted to him by the office he holds.

That’s abuse of power, and then he repeatedly stood in the way of the constitutional checks and balances afforded to congress to hold him accountable for it.

This is pretty black and white, regardless of how much the Biden’s did coke with the Ukrainians.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the entire left has lost their marbles...it was fun seeing team trump bend schiff and his managers over their knee and spank them in front of the Senate and on national tv yesterday....

the entire left has lost their marbles...it was fun seeing team trump bend schiff and his managers over their knee and spank them in front of the Senate and on national tv yesterday....
Those alternative facts are handy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton's server on which the 33,000 deleted emails were once located, was out of service and in the hands of the FBI at the time that Trump made his obviously sarcastic remark. So Russia could not have hacked them then. He was obviously not asking for Russia to hack Clinton, but making a sarcastic remark to point out Clinton's duplicitous destroying of those emails before she handed the server over to the FBI. And Trump threw in a sarcastic shot at the media as well (which had been all in for Clinton and constantly bashing Trump) by saying that the media would reward the Russians for finding the missing emails.

If Trump had been serious about asking Putin (Russia) for help, he would have done so through secret channels not on national TV for millions of voters, all the media, and the FBI and CIA and the Democrat Party and the rest of the "Swamp" to see and hear.

Here we go with. The emails.. another outrage the right couldn't support with any evidence , just like. Crowd strike

And if on cue what trump asked it was hyperbole,,, funny he could have ask ukraine , as you suggested go through secret channels for dirt on biden or even offical ones

But like russia China he thinks crimes in the open aren't crimes and clearly his supporters feel the same way

it’s also interesting that democrats don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this unethical behavior,, plotting against the socialist. That Republicans love to call socialist yet hope he gets the nomination chime in how unfairly he was treated as if they care. His nomination they hope will help them keep the White House, please spare me ... PS it was the Russians who hacked a US political party it should matter but again not to Trump fans who claim America 1st but that only applies to Trump and his supporters, the rest hate America anyway


Funny outrage over Dems being unethical

But Trumps behavior Republicans cant even use the word unethical out of fear ,

The use of the word criminal in a sentence would get them banished


"don’t care about the unethical
behavior revealed in the hacked emails, all that matters is who hacked them"

Do you hear yourself ? this is Trumps and the Republicans entire defense . Is built on your statement

All that matters is who did the telling ..... Whistleblower

lost marbles cause mindless babble syndrome....

In other words, you got nothin'. So had to make a ridiculous stretch, and change the subject. Just can't let one of those ridiculous lies about Trump be exposed. It, like the Charlotte "good Nazis on both sides" lies that can be used to fatten up some skinny diatribe about Trump that suffers from the lack of a healthy dose of actual facts.

In response to your typical justification that Floridaman’s actions if “wrong” are jokes.

I’m sure it will be the new defense for criminal cases, “my client was joking”.
Maybe Alan Underwear will use it to claim his latest guilty clients innocence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You have a very cynical view of politicians if you think everything they do is to benefit themselves and not the country."

So if the Bidens were actually engaged in nepotism and corruption, you're saying it doesn't benefit the country to know that? It only benefits Trump? Seeking the truth isn't a noble goal?

Constantly moving the goalposts...constantly.

I never said presidents don't care about the good of the country. I'm saying that they also care a lot about getting re elected. You say that makes me cynical, I say denying that makes you naïve.
You need to look up the definition of nepotism cuz you have no idea what it means. There has never been anyone who's posted anything indicating how they were corrupt but you continue to defame someone with no facts that is pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Personal gain through a power only granted to him by the office he holds.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s concern about ‘corruption’ in Ukraine is highly selective and remarkably convenient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?
Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmm, let me think how to respond about whether the Clintons and Obama benefited from being President after they left office versus how Trump is benefiting personally while in office??? Can anyone help me?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the tenth time, if the biden’s were actually engaged in corruption, Trump can’t ask for
an investigation, because it would benefit him? So the Biden’s can rob a bank, and Trump can’t ask for
an investigation because that might help him?

As to personally benefitting from the office? The Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, and the Obamas just bought a $15 million vacation home. All thanks to the office they held. But it’s only an issue when a republican benefits from his office. Gimme a break.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has a justice department for that, and congress (which he held control of both houses for a stretch.) If this was about corruption, this was literally the worst way a president could go about getting it investigated. Bottom line is that it was illegal. You can’t argue that.

He got caught. Said there was no quid pro quo. Sondland SAT IN FRONT OF CONGRESS and said there was actually quid pro quo. They charged him with it. GAO confirmed it was illegal. Now we’re in the senate to decide what’s next.

Hey he most frustrating thing here is that he can be guilty of breaking the law and not removed from office. I wish people who don’t want him gone would just admit he broke the law. This drawn out argument backed by lies that he did nothing wrong is just hurting the institution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s concern about ‘corruption’ in Ukraine is highly selective and remarkably convenient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i completely agree.

What’s also selective, is the liberal concern for politicians benefitting personally from the decisions they make.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he enlists help from that country. boy that was hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmm, let me think how to respond about whether the Clintons and Obama benefited from being President after they left office versus how Trump is benefiting personally while in office??? Can anyone help me?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?

You’re saying it’s an impeachable offense for a potus to do anything that might help him get re elected. Wow. I mean, wow.

There’s also every reason to believe that Biden used his office, while he was in office, to benefit his son. You really have to have your head in the sand to deny that between the cushy job in the Ukraine and all the foreign money that flowed to his investment bank when daddy was vp, that daddy had nothing to do with it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he enlists help from that country. boy that was hard.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong. Finding out the truth about what was going on in the Ukraine, benefits all
if us.

You literally just said, that getting to the truth about whether or not the Biden’s were corrupt in Ukraine, benefits no one except for Trump. There’s no benefit, none whatsoever, to learning the truth?

Have fun with that nonsense, Paul. When clinging to your agenda requires you to say that learning the truth about what a leading presidential candidate has done has zero benefit, isnt it time to maybe get a different agenda?

Just sayin’.

You don’t want to know what the Biden’s we’re doing there. That doesn’t mean there’s no benefit. Not even close. Biden is by far, by far, the best chance against Trump, so we need to protect him, and avoid the truth, at all costs.

At lest you admitted it explicitly, if unknowingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's actions benefit him personally and only him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who benefitted when the fbi deceived the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign, Paul? how is that different than finding out the truth about what the Bidens were up to?

answer- it’s ok to investigate politicians you don’t happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok. the personal benefit to trump, is that it helps him get re elected, right, You’re saying all politicians don’t do things because they hope it will help them get re elected? so a president in his first term, isn’t supposed to do anything, that will make people want to vote for him again? Do you hear how stupid that sounds?

Obama bragged during his 2012 re election that GM was alive and Bin Laden was dead. Obama
was using the actions he took while in office, to help benefit himself. Where were the calls for impeachment?

You’re saying it’s an impeachable offense for a potus to do anything that might help him get re elected. Wow. I mean, wow.

There’s also every reason to believe that Biden used his office, while he was in office, to benefit his son. You really have to have your head in the sand to deny that between the cushy job in the Ukraine and all the foreign money that flowed to his investment bank when daddy was vp, that daddy had nothing to do with it.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Floridaman is concerned about adult children benefiting from their father’s name, why did he allow his sons to run his company during his presidency and give his unqualified children a place in administration?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong. Finding out the truth about what was going on in the Ukraine, benefits all
if us.

You literally just said, that getting to the truth about whether or not the Biden’s were corrupt in Ukraine, benefits no one except for Trump. There’s no benefit, none whatsoever, to learning the truth?

Have fun with that nonsense, Paul. When clinging to your agenda requires you to say that learning the truth about what a leading presidential candidate has done has zero benefit, isnt it time to maybe get a different agenda?

Just sayin’.

You don’t want to know what the Biden’s we’re doing there. That doesn’t mean there’s no benefit. Not even close. Biden is by far, by far, the best chance against Trump, so we need to protect him, and avoid the truth, at all costs.

At lest you admitted it explicitly, if unknowingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Floridaman was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why ask a private attorney to go investigate it and why focus Zelensky only on topics that benefited Floridaman politically?
Isn’t it the job of U.S. law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoing by Americans?
How could you say it is corrupt to seek to oust a corrupt prosecutor, a move the U.S. government and the Western alliance supported? At the time Viktor Shokin was fired, he was not actually investigating Burisma, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who benefitted when the fbi deceived the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign, Paul? how is that different than finding out the truth about what the Bidens were up to?

answer- it’s ok to investigate politicians you don’t happen to like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The correct answer is you need a predicate to open an investigation in this country.
Plenty of predicates existed to cause an investigation of the Floridaman campaign.

What’s the predicate for opening an investigation into Biden or his son?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You conveniently forgot to include the foreign country with whom we have a treaty on mutual assistance in criminal investigations.

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The DOJ is investigating it. And it is also "proper" to ask the foreign government to assist in the investigation.

The correct answer is you need a predicate to open an investigation in this country.
Plenty of predicates existed to cause an investigation of the Floridaman campaign.

What’s the predicate for opening an investigation into Biden or his son?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The predicate for opening an investigation on Trump was based on false information which none of which was given to the public at the time. The public is not aware of all information which now exists on the Biden scandal.

If Floridaman was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, why ask a private attorney to go investigate it and why focus Zelensky only on topics that benefited Floridaman politically?

Nothing wrong with asking a private agency, all topics can either benefit or hurt Trump, and he also asked the foreign government and the DOJ to investigate.

Isn’t it the job of U.S. law enforcement to investigate potential wrongdoing by Americans?

It is so doing.

How could you say it is corrupt to seek to oust a corrupt prosecutor, a move the U.S. government and the Western alliance supported?

The U.S. government and European governments are often corrupt, self-serving, and prone to do shady things.

At the time Viktor Shokin was fired, he was not actually investigating Burisma, right?

There is testimony that he was.

I can't believe this is still being debated, like that process is ever going to change either sides mind on this board, it's not worth the time at this point, it will all be over one way or the other soon. So much evidence has come out since the house finished, I can't believe the right is even attempting to claim innocence at this point.

I can't believe this is still being debated, like that process is ever going to change either sides mind on this board, it's not worth the time at this point, it will all be over one way or the other soon. So much evidence has come out since the house finished, I can't believe the right is even attempting to claim innocence at this point.

the more the evidence the tapes, photos ,written testimony trump supporters keep digging a deeper hole to hide in defending the defenseless .

the senate would never impeach him for any offense ..

But this defense of he did nothing wrong.. that won't mention trump's connection with giuliani on the floor of the senate is clear to the vast amount of americans outside his base ,

what he did wasn't right... and my not rise to removal of any POTUS not just Trump ... But will they Vote for him again ... that the Big question :kewl:

Trump tweet “Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man,” Trump tweeted Sunday morning. “He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”


Republicans not outraged at the above threat from Trump the POTUS

yet their outraged with the suggestion Trump would have their heads on a Pike

Republican senators outraged after Schiff repeats 'head will be on a pike' report

Such cowards :rotf3:

Lets make it even more simple. Say Trump believes there’s evidence of corruption by any American in a foreign country. Does he enlist help from:

A) The FBI

or

B) Lev Parnas

Have fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is fun, get this spence...

you’re saying it’s fishy that Trump asked Ukraine for help, instead of going to the FBI.

Yet you recently defended senate democrats for writing a letter to Ukraine, asking them to investigate Trump and Manafort. It was ok when democrats asked ukraine for an investigation instead of the fbi, but sinister when trump does it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The proper channel is the justice department not another country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So where was the outrage when Senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump and Manafort? That letter has been widely circulated in public, and not once did I hear anyone on the left criticize the senate democrats for asking another country for help, that they should have gone to the Justice Dept.

So where was the outrage when Senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Trump and Manafort? That letter has been widely circulated in public, and not once did I hear anyone on the left criticize the senate democrats for asking another country for help, that they should have gone to the Justice Dept.

Did you read the letter?

Who did Mueller work for?

Here is the opening sentence: "We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller."

That is the difference between an aboveboard investigation and Floridaman's backchannel baloney.

Did you read the letter?

Who did Mueller work for?

Here is the opening sentence: "We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller."

That is the difference between an aboveboard investigation and Floridaman's backchannel baloney.
the difference, is whether or not you support the politician asking a foreign country for help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the difference, is whether or not you support the politician asking a foreign country for help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


The difference is one abused his power to benefit himself, the others were assisting the Justice Department in an ongoing investigation.

As I have said before, if Floridaman had a anti corruption campaign, he would likely been able to investigate the Biden's involvement in Ukraine and no one would have been able to do a thing.
Floridaman found some lackeys to do his bidding who were actually pursuing corrupt opportunities in Ukraine and the USA.
There is still plenty of dirt to come out of the administration's horror show in Ukraine.
I feel bad for Zelensky who has been walking a wire trying to stay out of it while continuing to receive the support he has to have and keep his position as the leader of a government with an anti-corruption platform.

The difference is one abused his power to benefit himself, the others were assisting the Justice Department in an ongoing investigation.

As I have said before, if Floridaman had a anti corruption campaign, he would likely been able to investigate the Biden's involvement in Ukraine and no one would have been able to do a thing.
Floridaman found some lackeys to do his bidding who were actually pursuing corrupt opportunities in Ukraine and the USA.
There is still plenty of dirt to come out of the administration's horror show in Ukraine.
I feel bad for Zelensky who has been walking a wire trying to stay out of it while continuing to receive the support he has to have and keep his position as the leader of a government with an anti-corruption platform.

i don’t see how you can conclude it was an abuse of power. Trump, if guilty, threatened to withhold
aid unless they did what he wanted. Biden did the same exact thing, bragging that he threatened to withhold aid.

This is an insane joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Differing standards as usual.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t see how you can conclude it was an abuse of power. Trump, if guilty, threatened to withhold
aid unless they did what he wanted. Biden did the same exact thing, bragging that he threatened to withhold aid.

This is an insane joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman asked for the announcement of an investigation.
Show any proof of more than that, not your thoughts or feelings, a document, witness or other.
Trump's clear pattern of behavior stays true to course all the time.

There is just as much evidence that Floridaman ordered the hit on the Iranian to placate Bolton as there is that any Biden committed a crime having anything to do with Ukraine.
My feelings say the Bolton tradeoff is true and I want it investigated.
So what............

Back to gibberish I guess.🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

every media/democrap bombshell blows up in their faces...it's pretty amusing

Mitt Romney just said he supports calling John Bolton as a witness for Trump’s removal trial: “I can't begin to tell you how John Bolton's testimony would ultimately play on a final decision but it's relevant. And therefore, I'd like to hear it.”

It's kind of funny.

Lindsey Graham minced no words warning the Republican party that Trump would destroy them. And now that Trump is burning the GOP to the ground Lindsey is standing right there next to Trump handing him the gasoline and the matches.

I sympathize with your distress PeteF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox News' Chris Wallace on the Bolton news: "If you want a sense of how big the news is that we've heard in the past 12-14 hours, listen to the Trump supporters...spinning like crazy that it isn't big news and you get a sense that this is really an important development."

Trump will pull out every legal string he can if enough senators break ranks and vote for witnesses, the last thing he wants is Bolton testifying. But it was a perfect call and all about corruption and the world is flat don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

“I don't know those gentlemen. I don't know them, I don't know about them, I don't know what they do... I don't know, maybe they were clients of Rudy. You'd have to ask Rudy. I just don't know.”

But there are tapes and photos and video

Yawn. I think you guys have really got him this time! For the thousandth time
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yawn. I think you guys have really got him this time! For the thousandth time
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the smoking gun, this time!

It's kind of funny.

Lindsey Graham minced no words warning the Republican party that Trump would destroy them. And now that Trump is burning the GOP to the ground Lindsey is standing right there next to Trump handing him the gasoline and the matches.

For Graham's entire career, his goal was to be the Democrats' favorite Republican. He always compromised with democrats, to the point that a lot of conservatives didn't like Graham. Do you know what changed him? Do you know what finally illumintd the truth to him? The Kavanaugh debacle.

Your side turned Graham into a staunch conservative attack dog. Limbaugh and Hannity used to make fun of Graham all day long for being liberal, now Graham is on Hannity almost every day. Just like you did a lot to get Trump elected, just like you're doing everything humanly possible (and many things heretofore not thought to be possible) to get him re-elected.

You guys can defend him like the rest of the boot licker senators, but you and they aren’t saying what they fear, that when all the evidence comes to light (it will with or without witnesses), Trumps base and votes in 2020 shrink to a point he likely won’t win another term.

You guys can defend him like the rest of the boot licker senators, but you and they aren’t saying what they fear, that when all the evidence comes to light (it will with or without witnesses), Trumps base and votes in 2020 shrink to a point he likely won’t win another term.

Double or nothing right now.$$$
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

great to see Schumer so excited that the unconfirmed, leaked, anonymous report in the NY Times confirms what he believes :kewl::rotflmao:

drinking game...let's add boot licker to the list:gu:

You guys can defend him like the rest of the boot licker senators, but you and they aren’t saying what they fear, that when all the evidence comes to light (it will with or without witnesses), Trumps base and votes in 2020 shrink to a point he likely won’t win another term.

Did you add in the votes from all the independents that are disgusted with how the democrats have acted the past 3 years. That Kavanaugh debacle was pretty effed up to those people who didn’t have a side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys can defend him like the rest of the boot licker senators, but you and they aren’t saying what they fear, that when all the evidence comes to light (it will with or without witnesses), Trumps base and votes in 2020 shrink to a point he likely won’t win another term.

and democrats aren’t saying what they fear, that if there's another fair and open election in november, there’s a fair chance he wins re election, given the freaks running against him.

both sides want to win in november, no one denies that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny stuff, fair election, is that why Trump bribed a foreign power to help him win in the next one. Good stuff��

Funny stuff, fair election, is that why Trump bribed a foreign power to help him win in the next one. Good stuff��

how about the corona virus? you’re going to let him off the hook for that?

how does a foreign power rig an election, exactly? how do they have a bigger impact than the media?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny stuff, fair election, is that why Trump bribed a foreign power to help him win in the next one. Good stuff��

he didn't

The denials are also funny��

The denials are also funny��

They may be funny to you, but they are not denials, they are statement of fact. Ukraine received the money without having to do a quo to get it. Your notion that your imaginary crime was that what didn't actually happen was supposed to influence a future election is pure speculation which makes the entire fiction funny.

They may be funny to you, but they are not denials, they are statement of fact. Ukraine received the money without having to do a quo to get it. Your notion that your imaginary crime was that what didn't actually happen was supposed to influence a future election is pure speculation which makes the entire fiction funny.

Good joke, funny stuff, Ukraine didn’t want to and luckily wasn’t forced to announce the investigation in order to get their aid and meeting, because Trump and his BS bribery plot got outed by the whistle blower. Just because it didn’t work and he was forced to release the aid, doesn’t absolve him of abusing his power and then obstruction of congress.

Go drink some more cool aid, your getting low on facts and an argument that holds water.

The only reason Ukr. got the $ was bc people found out about the scam.

The only reason Ukr. got the $ was bc people found out about the scam.

That is pure, unsubstantiated speculation.

Good joke, funny stuff, Ukraine didn’t want to and luckily wasn’t forced to announce the investigation in order to get their aid and meeting, because Trump and his BS bribery plot got outed by the whistle blower. Just because it didn’t work and he was forced to release the aid, doesn’t absolve him of abusing his power and then obstruction of congress.

Go drink some more cool aid, your getting low on facts and an argument that holds water.
Cool aid time!
🍻
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good joke, funny stuff, Ukraine didn’t want to and luckily wasn’t forced to announce the investigation in order to get their aid and meeting, because Trump and his BS bribery plot got outed by the whistle blower. Just because it didn’t work and he was forced to release the aid, doesn’t absolve him of abusing his power and then obstruction of congress.

Go drink some more cool aid, your getting low on facts and an argument that holds water.

I stated facts. You speculate. Impeachment should be based on fact, not speculation.

The fact is and almost every criminal prosecutor would agree, because the criminal effort was foiled before it was successfully completed, doesn’t mean no crime was committed. Keep spinning, you must be getting dizzy by now:biglaugh:

That is pure, unsubstantiated speculation.

but it fits the narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The denials are also funny��

is it funny when the left denies there’s any evidence that the Biden’s were engaged in fishy stuff there? Or is it only funny when the right makes denials of that which makes them look bad?

a little consistency would go a long way...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fact is and almost every criminal prosecutor would agree, because the criminal effort was foiled before it was successfully completed, doesn’t mean no crime was committed. Keep spinning, you must be getting dizzy by now:biglaugh:

"Almost every criminal lawyer would agree" that there must be proof or actual evidence of criminal effort, not mere speculation, before it can be surmised that any crime was committed.

The facts are that the money was given on time and the receiver claimed there was no coercion or bribery.

"Almost every criminal lawyer would agree" that there must be proof or actual evidence of criminal effort, not mere speculation, before it can be surmised that any crime was committed.

The facts are that the money was given on time and the receiver claimed there was no coercion or bribery.

I guess you took me literally and kept spinning, haha.

I guess you took me literally and kept spinning, haha.

Facts are literal statements. They are not spin. I stated fact. Apparently, since you weren't speaking literally, you weren't stating facts. You were spinning.

Facts are literal statements. They are not spin. I stated fact. Apparently, since you weren't speaking literally, you weren't stating facts. You were spinning.

No sir you don't state a fact when you say there is no evidence of a crime, I guess you haven't really been paying attention as you mind is already made up......party first.

No sir you don't state a fact when you say there is no evidence of a crime, I guess you haven't really been paying attention as you mind is already made up......party first.

What evidence is there that he bribed Ukraine? Is your evidence something along the lines of (taking off on your previous bank robber analogy) he wanted to rob a bank but didn't, so he is guilty of robbery?

That is pure, unsubstantiated speculation.

Nope, go look at the time line.

is it funny when the left denies there’s any evidence that the Biden’s were engaged in fishy stuff there? Or is it only funny when the right makes denials of that which makes them look bad?

a little consistency would go a long way...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What fishy stuff. I've asked a few times and you constantly say well Hunter got a job he wasn't qualified for. What exactly is the "fishy" stuff bc w/o someone explaining to me what it is I think accusing them of fishy stuff is very scummy?

Nope, go look at the time line.

The timeline can lead to various speculations . . . including yours. But they are still speculations.

The timeline can lead to various speculations . . . including yours. But they are still speculations.

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

but not reasonable to assume
that Hunter getting a job in Ukraine is related to his father being the executive branch’s point person on issues related to that ukraine, at the time Hunter got the job.

It seems your standard for what’s reasonable suspicion, depends on politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, any reasonable person would recognize that when the Trump admin. saw other people now knew about the holdup and they then unfroze the $ w/in a day or 2 it was bc they got caught. I don't believe they ever gave any explanation for releasing the $.

It would be reasonable to recognize various scenarios. But they are still speculations. And yes, they gave explanations for releasing the money. There are various explanations given by others as well. There is even this neutral explanation by Byron York:

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

But the main crux is not the temporary hold, which was not illegal, but the notion that it was for political gain. That can only be speculation since only Trump could actually know that. And ultimately, it is all irrelevant. The aid was given. Zelensky said there was no pressure.

And, in any event, as Dershowitz pointed out, whether what Trump did was "right" or "wrong" it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Impeachment should require a higher standard or else it creates the danger of creating the Executive branch a stepchild of Congress.

but not reasonable to assume
that Hunter getting a job in Ukraine is related to his father being the executive branch’s point person on issues related to that ukraine, at the time Hunter got the job.

It seems your standard for what’s reasonable suspicion, depends on politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not illegal or corrupt (or nepotism) like how you have been trying to spin it. That is the child of a connected person benefiting from their parent. Happens all the time. The Bush girl got a tv gig bc of her father. C. Clinton got a good job bc of her parents. Nothing "corrupt' there - just benefiting from their parents.

So you have nothing and tar the name of 2 people based on nothing.

If anything,this portrayal of Hunter Biden is flattering compared to what is known about him. But some folks ( libs) choose to ignore the character he has displayed. This guy is pure scum and has done more tarring of the Biden name than the media or right could EVER hope for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not illegal or corrupt (or nepotism) like how you have been trying to spin it. That is the child of a connected person benefiting from their parent.

So you have nothing and tar the name of 2 people based on nothing.
PaulS, please look up the definition of nepotism and stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be reasonable to recognize various scenarios. But they are still speculations. And yes, they gave explanations for releasing the money. There are various explanations given by others as well. There is even this neutral explanation by Byron York:

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

But the main crux is not the temporary hold, which was not illegal, but the notion that it was for political gain. That can only be speculation since only Trump could actually know that. And ultimately, it is all irrelevant. The aid was given. Zelensky said there was no pressure.

And, in any event, as Dershowitz pointed out, whether what Trump did was "right" or "wrong" it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Impeachment should require a higher standard or else it creates the danger of creating the Executive branch a stepchild of Congress.

Since Dershowitz is easier, I'll do him first.

Short and sweet is, The idea that only violations of criminal law are impeachable is logically, legally, morally, constitutionally, historically and factually absurd.

Common-law crimes are no harder to define with precision than crimes written down in a statute.
Ask any first-year law students for the common law’s definition of burglary and they’ll (hopefully) be able to tell you: “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony.” If someone is accused of burglary in a state where the crime isn’t defined by statute, no defense lawyer would respond by announcing that burglary is vague or made up.

President Trump’s defense falls apart for precisely the same reason. As with burglary, American legal treatises and judicial opinions have long recognized the criminal offense of “abuse of power,” sometimes called “misconduct in office.” In 1846, the first edition of the pre-eminent treatise on American criminal law defined this common-law offense as when “a public officer, entrusted with definite powers to be exercised for the benefit of the community, wickedly abuses or fraudulently exceeds them.” The treatise noted that such an officer “is punishable by indictment, though no injurious effects result to any individual from his misconduct.”

Once again, the argument that Dersh is making undercuts the defense. He is saying any kind of quid pro quo, even if there is a personal benefit is not impeachable, let alone a crime. Then what was there to investigate w Biden??? He has the same defense!

You cite "speculation" to prove your explanation of the money being withheld illegally, Byron York is not a witness of any type.

Laura Cooper is, along with others and plenty of documentary evidence exists.

On the same day in Washington, officials representing national security agencies in a meeting of the “Ukraine Deputies Small Group,” convened by the NSC express “unanimous support” for lifting the hold on security aid to Ukraine. Laura Cooper relays the Defense Department’s sense of urgency about the legal requirement to spend the money by Sept. 30. A readout sent by John Rood, head of policy at the Defense Department, to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and reported by Just Security’s Kate Brannen, makes clear that the hold occurred at the direction of President Trump:

OMB noted that the President’s direction via the Chief of Staff in early July was to suspend security assistance to Ukraine including by blocking the $115 [Foreign Military Financing] congressional notification and by halting execution of the $250M FY19 USAI programs.

Aug. 3, 2019 — OMB political appointee Michael Duffey signs a letter informing Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and U.S. Agency for International Development Deputy Administrator Bonnie Glick of “a `reapportionment’ of over a dozen different funding categories, including Ukrainian military aid, and ordering an `accounting’ of the unobligated balances in each account,” according to the Washington Post. The letter served as a warning to the agencies that the administration planned to review and could potentially cancel” all $391 million of military aid to Ukraine.

“Without being provided explanation or justification about why the administration was delaying the aid, some career officials at the Office of Management and Budget became worried they didn’t have the legal authority to hold up the funds,” which had been appropriated by Congress, the Wall Street Journal reported. “While career civil servants put an initial hold on the aid,” Duffey “was given the authority for continuing to keep the aid on hold after the career staff began raising their concerns to political officials at OMB.”

Aug. 6, 2019 — Duffey emails acting Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker that he plans to extend the hold. McCusker raises the question of whether the extension would affect the Defense Department’s ability to spent the money before Sept. 30, as legally required by Congress.

8/9
The same day, acting Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker emails senior OMB officials, including Sandy and Duffey, to warn that it may not be possible to spend the money before the end of the fiscal year unless the hold is lifted by Aug. 12. That element was blacked out when the administration released that email in December 2019 in response to a FOIA request.

Aug. 17, 2019 — Sondland asks Volker in a text whether the U.S. side still wants Zelenskyy “to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma [cq]?” This may indicate Zelenskyy has balked. Volker responds, “That’s the clear message so far…I’m hoping we can put something out there that causes him to respond with that.”

Less than 10 days later, Politico publishes an exclusive with the headline, “Trump Holds Up Ukraine Military Aid Meant to Confront Russia.”

Aug. 21, 2019 — DoD’s McCusker emails her DOD colleagues that members of the House Appropriations Committee had been in Ukraine earlier that month and sent the Pentagon a request for information regarding the funding.

Aug. 22, 2019 — The Trump administration abandons its effort to slash foreign assistance programs, but the military assistance to Ukraine remains suspended until it is finally released on Sept. 11. If the funding hadn’t been released before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, it would have been canceled, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Aug. 26, 2019 – The Inspector General forwards the intelligence community whistleblower complaint to Acting DNI Maguire.

On the same day, Duffey emails McCusker that the funding hold is being extended again, Just Security‘s Kate Brannen reported. That prompts McCusker to ask, “What is the status of the impoundment paperwork?” She adds in the rest of the exchange, “It is now necessary — legal teams were discussing last week.” McCusker’s side of the exchange was redacted in emails the administration released in December 2019. McCusker later that day tells Duffey that the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) also had begun asking questions about the aid.

Aug. 27, 2019 — Defense Secretary Esper’s chief of staff, shares with McCusker an email he received the day before from L3 Harris Technology, a defense contractor that was slated to provide some of the allotted equipment to Ukraine, saying the company had heard of a hold on the aid and asking what was happening, according to reporting by Just Security‘s Kate Brannen. McCusker responds, “This situation is really unworkable made particularly difficult because OMB lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process — and the information we have provided.”

McCusker also gives Duffey a heads-up that the Pentagon is preparing a letter from the deputy defense secretary to Russell Vought, the acting director of OMB, that says, “We have repeatedly advised OMB officials that pauses beyond Aug. 19, 2019 jeopardize the Department’s ability to obligate USAI funding prudently and fully, consistent with the Impoundment Control Act.” The letter goes on to say that, since the latest hold had expired and had not been extended, the Pentagon is proceeding with obligating the money and that any further delay would require “a special message [to Congress] proposing rescission or deferral of funding.”

But later that day, Duffey extends the hold again.

Aug. 28, 2019 – Then-U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton becomes the first high-level Trump administration official to visit Kyiv since President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. Bolton says the two discussed a possible meeting between the two presidents during a trip Trump planned at the time to Poland.

The same day, Politico breaks the news that President Trump was delaying the distribution of $250 million of fiscal 2019 security assistance that Ukraine needs to fight its war with Russia on its eastern flank, by asking his administration to review how it was being spent. The hold on the aid package at the same time as Trump and Giuliani were agitating publicly for Ukraine to investigate Biden raises the specter that the U.S. president was using congressionally appropriated taxpayer dollars as leverage to coerce a foreign government to investigate his potential rival in the 2020 election. It later emerges that a separate military aid package of $141.5 million in Foreign Military Financing also was included in the suspension, for a total of almost $400 million.

As the Trump administration prepares talking points for its response to the story, McCusker emails Duffey to say that she disagrees with the final point that says, “No action has been taken by OMB that would preclude the obligation of these funds before the end of the fiscal year.” The emails that the administration released in December 2019 in response to a FOIA request redacted McCusker’s note.

Aug. 30, 2019 — After Esper and Pompeo meet with President Trump, Duffey emails McCusker, “Clear direction from POTUS to hold.” He adds that he would send new paperwork extending the hold. But in the meantime, Esper tells Chewning that no decision emerged from the meeting.

Late August: The Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General of the Intelligence Community make a written criminal referral to the Justice Department after the Inspector General conducts an inquiry into the whistleblower’s complaint, according to Acting DNI Maguire’s congressional testimony and the New York Times. (See Aug. 14 entry for verbal criminal referral.)

September 2019 – The Wall Street Journal reports on Sept. 24, “Ukrainian officials earlier this month expressed concern to U.S. senators that the aid had been held up as a penalty for resisting that pressure.”

Sept. 1, 2019 — Vice President Mike Pence, standing in for President Trump at a World War II commemoration in Warsaw, meets with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who raises the question of the hold on military assistance. Sondland and Morrison also attended the meeting. Afterwards, Sondland has a brief side conversation with Zelenskyy aide Yermak and tells him that the aid likely would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced the investigations.

The same day, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, and Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, visit Kyiv and meet with Zelenskyy, accompanied by Taylor. Zelenskyy’s “first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance,” Taylor later tells the impeachment inquiry. “Both senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’ s most important strategic asset and that President Zelenskyy should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics,” Taylor says.

The same day in Washington, the Trump administration again extends the hold on Ukraine assistance.

Sept. 9, 2019 – Three U.S. House committees launch probe into Trump and Giuliani pressure campaign

The House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Reform committees announce a joint investigation of Trump and Giuliani’s alleged efforts to strongarm Ukraine into pursuing two investigations for the president’s political gain, including by threatening to withhold $250 million in security assistance. The joint press release says public records show the efforts have continued “for nearly two years” and were conducted “under the guise of anti-corruption activity.”

Sept. 9, 2019 — Duffey adds OMB and Pentagon lawyers to a response to McCusker that contradicts months of email exchanges, saying OMB had, in fact, “authoriz[ed] DoD to proceed with all processes necessary to obligate funds” for Ukraine security aid and laying all responsibility for any delay onto DoD. McCusker replies, “You can’t be serious. I am speechless.”

Sept. 11, 2019 – Trump releases the hold on U.S. security assistance to Ukraine

Sorry Pete, I just can't get myself to trod through another one of your long tickey tack tangled web revelations. I tried scanning, and kept running into possibilities and concerns about possibilities and interpretations. A piling on preponderance of speculation and interpretable circumstance doesn't, sheerly because of the large number of words, make it a convincing argument to remove a President over a no harm dispute about why money was withheld and then not withheld and which led to a relation with Ukraine being cemented by agreeable dispositions on both sides.

Go drink some more cool aid, your getting low on facts and an argument that holds water.



ding...ding...ding....:buds:

I stated facts. You speculate. Impeachment should be based on fact, not speculation.

Paul pointed out recently that he'd lapped up and digested every bit of evidence and testimony that schiff chose to cherry pick and offer to fit the narrative and then completely ignored what the trump team offered in response and then declared himself fully informed and of great judgment and probably a better person with an open mind for having done so....so...that's kind of where we're at

Sorry Pete, I just can't get myself to trod through another one of your long tickey tack tangled web revelations. I tried scanning, and kept running into possibilities and concerns about possibilities and interpretations. A piling on preponderance of speculation and interpretable circumstance doesn't, sheerly because of the large number of words, make it a convincing argument to remove a President over a no harm dispute about why money was withheld and then not withheld and which led to a relation with Ukraine being cemented by agreeable dispositions on both sides.

And your rebuttal is based on lies.
There is enough evidence that I cited.
Yes, it is a long and tangled web that Floridaman wove, but making it hard to discern the truth does not make him innocent.

And your rebuttal is based on lies.
There is enough evidence that I cited.
Yes, it is a long and tangled web that Floridaman wove, but making it hard to discern the truth does not make him innocent.

The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

PaulS, please look up the definition of nepotism and stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


When are you going to smarten up and recognize that when you think I am wrong, you usually are the one who is wrong.


nep·o·tism

/ˈnepəˌtizəm/


the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

Paul pointed out recently that he'd lapped up and digested every bit of evidence and testimony that schiff chose to cherry pick and offer to fit the narrative and then completely ignored what the trump team offered in response and then declared himself fully informed and of great judgment and probably a better person with an open mind for having done so....so...that's kind of where we're at

Pls. point that out to me where I said anything about the Trump team otherwise be a good snarky little boy and say you're sorry.

When are you going to smarten up and recognize that when you think I am wrong, you usually are the one who is wrong.


nep·o·tism

/ˈnepəˌtizəm/


the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

Thanks for making my point,son.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

Sounds like this defense

“I ate him because I’m a murdering cannibal, but, in all fairness, it was also lunchtime.” - Jeffrey Dahmer

Sounds like this defense

“I ate him because I’m a murdering cannibal, but, in all fairness, it was also lunchtime.” - Jeffrey Dahmer

OK . . . now you're not merely demonstrating the irredeemable bias you regularly demonstrate re anything about Trump, but you're beginning to sound delusional . . . if not actually crazy.

BTW . . . The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

OK . . . now you're not merely demonstrating the irredeemable bias you regularly demonstrate re anything about Trump, but you're beginning to sound delusional . . . if not actually crazy.

BTW . . . The aid was given, on time, Zelensky said no pressure. Facts, not lies.

You're just missing some facts, Dahmer was hungry so he ate might be missing some also.

As deputy foreign minister of Ukraine, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

Laura K. Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in Congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

You're just missing some facts, Dahmer was hungry so he ate might be missing some also.

As deputy foreign minister of Ukraine, it was Olena Zerkal’s job to read incoming diplomatic cables from embassies around the world. One from Washington caught her eye back in July, she recalled: It said the Trump administration had frozen military aid for Ukraine.

Laura K. Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense, said in Congressional testimony that Ukrainian diplomats knew about the aid freeze at least by July 25, when they began to question United States officials about it.

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.

That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.

A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.
Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.

Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.

But what if Floridaman sincerely, if misguidedly, believed that killing his opponents was vital for the public interest?

That the rest of the evidence will show how mealy-mouthed that claim is, is the danger for the Trumplican party.

"will show"--speculation. It may "well show" to be the opposite. That remains to be shown one way or the other. I realize that this is just your opinion. But I do realize it is your opinion, not, at this time, a fact.

A couple of days ago it was that there was no quid prop quo.

There is still no qpq. The money was given. Zelensky says there was no pressure. Nor did he perform a quo.

Now Floridaman's Alan Dershowitz says "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

That assertion amounts to that even if all of the allegations are true — that Floridaman was, in fact, seeking election advantage when he demanded that Ukraine investigate his political opponents — it would still be appropriate.

He said IF it happened, not that it did. Dershowitz said there were three possible motives for a quid pro quo in foreign policy: the public interest; personal political interest; and personal financial interest.

In the end, he argued, only the latter instance is corrupt.

"Every public official I know believes" their election "is in the public interest," Dershowitz added.

No one has charged, nor given evidence that Trump delayed funds because of a financial interest.

This corresponds to what Jim and I have been saying before Dershowitz said so. Our version is that everything a politician does will affect an election. So it's a ridiculous notion on which to create and impeachment, or to charge an abuse of power. Otherwise, everything a politician does would be an abuse of power.

Now I'm not saying that it is not normal for presidents to make foreign policy decisions with politics in mind, but what Trump did far exceeded that. He used his power to highjack a national security issue for the purpose of benefiting personally, while clearly harming U.S. interests.

Yeah, but you're speculating--that there was a hijacking rather than a legitimate delay and that it was for some avoidable and nefarious personal benefit.

And there is this unavoidable fact: the money was not hijacked, it was delivered. And Zelensky said their was no pressure. And there was no quo.

But did they "discover" that the freeze was specified for interference with the next election?

The delay was not illegal. It is documented that Trump had for some time been concerned about corruption continuing in Ukraine. A new President had just been elected in Ukraine. Getting assurances from him that he would do what he ran on, get rid of corruption, was a valid reason, given that it was the President's duty to ensure that the money was to be spent as Congress directed and not spent on continuing corruption before the money was given.

BTW, the money was delivered on time. And Zelensky said there was no pressure.
How long before the talking points wear out? Do you have a suit? Fly to DC and join the party.

How long before the talking points wear out? Do you have a suit? Fly to DC and join the party.

I don't know how long the talking point about influencing an election will last. But it sounds so convincing that it will probably keep resurfacing even if it temporarily takes a rest.

I don't know how long the talking point about influencing an election will last. But it sounds so convincing that it will probably keep resurfacing even if it temporarily takes a rest.
At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, but you're speculating--that there was a hijacking rather than a legitimate delay and that it was for some avoidable and nefarious personal benefit.

And there is this unavoidable fact: the money was not hijacked, it was delivered. And Zelensky said their was no pressure. And there was no quo.

Question: If Floridaman’s actions do not merit impeachment and removal then what actions do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dershowitz just said the president can do anything to get re-elected if they think it’s in the public’s interest. This is full on crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.


I have stated very clearly, several times, that Trump has no power to keep anything he says or does from influencing an election. No politician does. It is inevitably in the nature of political action or speech that its consequence will influence an election. There is no desperation required for that to happen. It is a basic consequence, intended or not, that it will do so.

So claiming an illicit abuse of power because of a politician's speech or action is ridiculous. It is not an abuse of power. It is a use and projection of power. Otherwise, all politicians are "abusing power" every time they say or do anything political in carrying out there prescribed duties. I agree with Dershowitz that it can only be an illicit abuse if it is done specifically and solely for personal financial gain.

I agree with that view. I doubt if you do. But if you do, then we agree.

Question: If Floridaman’s actions do not merit impeachment and removal then what actions do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ummmm...have you see the democrap line up????? I don't think any influence is necessary :hihi:

ummmm...have you see the democrap line up????? I don't think any influence is necessary :hihi:

come in, there’s more impressive talent there than the Yankees had in Murderers Row!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least we can agree Trump is desperately trying to influence an election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Breathe in
.
.
.
Breathe out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dershowitz just said the president can do anything to get re-elected if they think it’s in the public’s interest. This is full on crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Puppies will help
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dershowitz just said the president can do anything to get re-elected if they think it’s in the public’s interest. This is full on crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what are you saying? that if a first term president has an idea that will
benefit all of us, he can’t enact it if
it will also help him at the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dershowitz just said the president can do anything to get re-elected if they think it’s in the public’s interest. This is full on crazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bizarre legal strategy, we now admit he did the dirty dead, but he can do anything he likes in order to get elected if he thinks it’s in the public interest. Can you imagine how bad that could get if expanded into other areas of what he perceives is not in the public interest.

He can seek help from a foreign power to influence our elections, illegally hold back military aid putting our national security at risk and when caught obstruct congress from doing its job, all because what is important is getting re-elected because he perceives it’s in the public interest.

Crazy wacky legal argument is what your left with when you really can’t defend the charges.

Did you mean dirty deed?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:hihi::hihi: dun dirt "cheep"

Leave it to you two to focus in on the insignificant single letter in a post, good look that you both wear well, wouldn’t expect either to step out of character.

I am glad I could help. Next time you will get it write.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who needs to worry about spell check getting it right when I have you two clowns to double check, still I worry about you SD if the meaning escapes you with one letter off.:hs:

he did the dirty dead

.

they could probably impeach him for this....very troubling

Who needs to worry about spell check getting it right when I have you two clowns to double check, still I worry about you SD if the meaning escapes you with one letter off.:hs:

Musta Ben the cheetahs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bizarre legal strategy, we now admit he did the dirty dead

No, "we" are not saying that the deed was dirty. And"we" are not saying that an actual "deed" was done. The deed did not occur. It is alleged that he wanted to do the deed. But the deed was not done.

but he can do anything he likes in order to get elected if he thinks it’s in the public interest.

No. Dershowitz was speaking of foreign policy decisions. He is not able to commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That also applies to his foreign policy actions. And even his foreign policy decisions can be contested or not funded if they require money and many other ways, including lack of support from his own party.

Can you imagine how bad that could get if expanded into other areas of what he perceives is not in the public interest.

See above.

He can seek help from a foreign power to influence our elections, illegally hold back military aid putting our national security at risk and when caught obstruct congress from doing its job, all because what is important is getting re-elected because he perceives it’s in the public interest.

Crazy wacky legal argument is what your left with when you really can’t defend the charges.

Your crazy wacky legal argument is merely a false conjecture, and a concocted speculative narrative about what supposedly happened.

Drip.....drip.....drip

Indicted Rudy Giulaini associate Lev Parnas has now directly implicated Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in President Donald Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme.

It turns out the plot to strong-arm Ukrainian officials into announcing a sham investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden goes back to 2018, and Graham not only knew everything from the start, he was in on it long before Parnas got involved.

Flanked by his attorney Joseph Bondy, Parnas revealed the extent of Graham’s involvement during an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN Wednesday night.

“Senator Lindsey Graham I haven’t had any contact with, but because of my relationship with Rudy Giuliani, I have a lot of information about his dealings,” Parnas said. “It was, like, surreal to watch Lindsey Graham up there, sit there — he’s out there talking about all the stuff, that this is a sham, that this should go away.”

“At the end of the day, he was in the loop just like everybody else,” Parnas continued. “He (had) a very good relationship with Rudy Giuliani, he was aware of what was going on going back to at least 2018, maybe even earlier. If you recall, he was the one Rudy Giuliani was supposed to bring Viktor Shokin to when the visa got denied, and I think he was even, if you check the records, involved in getting the request for the visa somehow.”

Giuliani pushed for such a visa in January 2019 in order to bring Shokin, a disgraced and corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor, to the United States to deliver what would have been false testimony accusing Biden of getting him ousted to kill an investigation of Burisma, the gas company his son Hunter Biden worked for as a board member. However, the investigation had been dormant for two years before the Obama administration pushed for Shokin’s ouster.

His effort to bring Shokin failed, so Trump himself would demand a “favor” from newly elected Ukraine President Zelensky and withhold nearly $400 million of military aid hostage until Zelensky bowed down to his demand. In the end, Trump got caught after a whistleblower revealed the extortion scheme.

“Senator Graham was involved even before I got involved with Mayor Giuliani, so he had to have been in the loop and had to have known what was going on,” Parnas said. “I was with Giuliani every day, that was what was happening. Rudy told me not once but on several occasions that he spoke to Lindsey Graham about the situation, that Lindsey was always aware. I don’t know how deeply aware, I didn’t speak to Lindsey Graham, I don’t have text messages with him, we didn’t interact, so I can only speak from what Rudy told me.”

Detbuch you don’t think he did anything impeachable I get it, however a large majority of the country a believe would disagree. He unfortunately is so insecure he felt the need to illicit help from a foreign power to interfere (this was never about corruption) in our elections and yes that and the coverup are impeachable offenses as yes it’s as close to bribery as you can get. You spin your way and I’ll interpret things my way.

Detbuch you don’t think he did anything impeachable I get it, however a large majority of the country a believe would disagree. He unfortunately is so insecure he felt the need to illicit help from a foreign power to interfere (this was never about corruption) in our elections and yes that and the coverup are impeachable offenses as yes it’s as close to bribery as you can get. You spin your way and I’ll interpret things my way.

So I'm spinning and your "interpreting." This biased characterization belies your attempt to sound even-handed. And, anyway, your statement adds nothing other than taking up space.

we should probably put a suicide watch on pete...this is not looking good for the deranged dems and despite pete's voluminous copy and pasting he hasn't swung a single senator...weird

we should probably put a suicide watch on pete...this is not looking good for the deranged dems and despite pete's voluminous copy and pasting he hasn't swung a single senator...weird

Said it early on, the senate will move on as fast as possible and I don’t think anyone felt the republican held senate would show that conman the door. If they vote for witnesses that might change the outlook, but even then I doubt anything will change.

we should probably put a suicide watch on pete...this is not looking good for the deranged dems and despite pete's voluminous copy and pasting he hasn't swung a single senator...weird

I wouldn't worry about me, the fun political games are just starting.

As Yogi Berra said "It's like deja vu all over again"

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Said it early on, the senate will move on as fast as possible and I don’t think anyone felt the republican held senate would show that conman the door. If they vote for witnesses that might change the outlook, but even then I doubt anything will change.

great job unearthing the obvious

I wouldn't worry about me, the fun political games are just starting.

As Yogi Berra said "It's like deja vu all over again"

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

keep hope alive

President's counsel apparently also has no idea who is making an undisclosed present to President Trump of hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees and travel expenses for Rudy Giuliani to plot in Ukraine.

👙🤐🤯
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Treasury Department announced earlier this week that it was lifting sanctions on three companies connected to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska is an ally of Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine loudly announced they would stop assisting in Manafort investigation shortly before Trump Admin greenlit supplying them with heavy weapons. I believe there was earlier quid pro quo (and when Ukraine got a new president, Trump used the same aid for a new quid pro quo)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yawn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Treasury Department announced earlier this week that it was lifting sanctions on three companies connected to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska is an ally of Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine loudly announced they would stop assisting in Manafort investigation shortly before Trump Admin greenlit supplying them with heavy weapons. I believe there was earlier quid pro quo (and when Ukraine got a new president, Trump used the same aid for a new quid pro quo)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ooooh....the ole' double quid pro quo.....or....the quid pro quo pro quo.....don't see that often...it's as rare as the Triple Lindy

Funny, that a Floridaman insider got a board position right after the US lifted sanctions on a Russian company.
Who funded Rudy's backchannel investigation and what did they get for it?