Schiff lost his marbles

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[spence]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[scottw]

dun dirt "cheep"

[Got Stripers]

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Got Stripers]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

he did the dirty dead

.

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

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

Musta Ben the cheetahs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[Pete F.]

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.”

[Got Stripers]

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]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[scottw]

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