Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1182461)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182476)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above is quoted from Just Security

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182488)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182489)

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

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1182491)

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

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1182493)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182494)

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

Campaign Finance Law

Bribery

Honest Services Fraud

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Hatch Act

Contempt of Congress

Impoundment Act

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1182496)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182500)

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

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1182501)

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1182503)

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

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1182501)

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

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1182508)

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1182503)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1182533)

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

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1182539)

classy. You're no better than Trump.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1182542)

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

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

Lighten up, Francis.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182550)

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1182552)

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

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

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

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

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

Any of that wrong?

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles (Post 1182560)

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

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1182559)

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1182568)

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

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

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

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

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

Your response was a weak dodge.