Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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

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

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

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

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