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.

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

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.

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?

Republicans of old did have concerns about debt.

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

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.

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.

Let the voters decide
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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...

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.

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

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"

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

Better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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