Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That is what the Trumplicans are trying desperately to make it sound like, but while it sounds good it is not the truth.

Ukraine had met all the required corruption criteria and his administration had certified it to Congress May 23, 2019 prior to Floridaman's call to Zelensky and Colludy's meeting with Yermak in Madrid.

The certification is why Congress was asking why the funds had not been transferred.

Zelensky's administration was not the corrupt actor in this case, it was Trump's that attempted to corruptly bribe Ukraine with Congressional appropriated funds in return for the investigation of his political opponent.

Testimony and documents show that the Zelensky administration knew that the funding was being withheld prior to the second Trump-Zelensky call.

Perhaps he can use the excuse that he did not know what his administration was doing, that would be believable but hardly exculpatory.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Sounds like Ukraine extorted Trump. Trump had every right to assure that Ukraine would work to eliminate corruption before it received the money. Ukraine promised on the assumption that it would get the money if they did. Once they got the money, they reneged.

Originally Posted by detbuch

That precisely agrees with the Byron York article that I linked, and so with the York "theory."

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you assume the President had no idea of Whistleblower Report until September 9, 2019.

WB letter to Schiff & Burr is dated August 12, 2019.

The Acting DIA testified, when he learned of WB Report, he contacted WH Attorney & DOJ OLC, would have been before 9-9-19.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

You said that I assumed Byron York was correct, when I pointed out that I did not assume that, you slid out of that lie by claiming that my response was "nothing" and then wandered into the notion that one is defined by those he associates with implying that Trump was defined by those he knew and were indicted or went to prison.

When I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned, and that I had associated with some who had been, you replied that it was understandable since I supported Trump.

When I pointed out that your reply implied that all trump supporters were, per that association, the various deplorables that you characterize Trump to be, you deflect from that lie by throwing a quote back at me.

When I asked, then, "what were you understanding when you said "Totally understandable given your support for Floridaman?", you said that I claimed to be a victim.

When I debunked that lie, you switched to me claiming that I was horrified, which I never claimed--yet another usual lie by you.

That is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you. You keep sliding from lie to lie, into other narratives as escape routes, from one lie into another rather than having an honest conversation.

It is ironic, maybe projection, that you constantly refer to Trump as a liar.

You started with a story by York that has a possibility of being true and fits your narrative.
When I point out there is additional evidence that at a minimum casts doubt on the York tale, you erupt in a barrage of chaff-like verbiage and claim that you didn't believe or assume it was true but you liked it.
Like it all you want and generate as much smoke as you would like, sooner or later the cleansing rays of light will reach the Floridaman administration's machinations that seek to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. He is a con man and always will be.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Because the high bar on the other side cheated their way to Hillary. How did that piece of honesty work out for you. Now, after strategic planning ...years in the making. They are going to counter with_____ _______?

I can not wait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they’re going to counter with a freak who escaped from the Island Of Misfit Toys.

Four years of Trump, and this is the best they have to offer. One serious candidate, Biden, who is a little too far past his prime. The rest? Yeesh. Looking good for
Nikki Haley in 2024.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

they’re going to counter with a freak who escaped from the Island Of Misfit Toys.

Four years of Trump, and this is the best they have to offer. One serious candidate, Biden, who is a little too far past his prime. The rest? Yeesh. Looking good for
Nikki Haley in 2024.

they may have to get hilary or better yet, Michelle to run if they want to have a shot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You started with a story by York that has a possibility of being true and fits your narrative.

What's my narrative? I don't think I've expressed much of one re Trump. Towards you, it's mostly been a rebuttal or deconstruction of your portrayal of Trump. I am not committed to Trump per se. I am committed to opposing the Progressive destruction of our constitutional framework of government. That would be the only narrative that I totally believe in. And Trump is preferred by me rather than any Dem as assisting in that opposition.

The York story gave a simpler more reasonable, to me, account of what happened. I didn't swear by it being the true account. I don't know the total, true account. I don't for sure know if Trump is telling the whole truth. And I think the Dems are selecting a piece of what they think, or are fabricating, the truth to be. And I suspect that the reason for what they're doing is some desperate attempt to remove Trump or weaken him to help gain total control of the Federal government in 2020.

When I point out there is additional evidence that at a minimum casts doubt on the York tale, you erupt in a barrage of chaff-like verbiage and claim that you didn't believe or assume it was true but you liked it.

My verbiage may have chaffed you, understandably so since it pointed out your lies. The type of lying that you continue with this last post #61 to which I am responding. You left out some of my pertinent verbiage that would give the lie to what you are trying to represent here.

Like it all you want and generate as much smoke as you would like, sooner or later the cleansing rays of light will reach the Floridaman administration's machinations that seek to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. He is a con man and always will be.

That may be happen. I have no idea about all that. In the meantime, I try to shed some cleansing rays of light on your smoke.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump--response to quote originally Posted by detbuch: "I pointed out that most (actually the vast, vast, majority) of the people that Trump has associated with were not indicted nor imprisoned,"

Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Can you point out why my quote has lowered the bar?

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

go back and reread it. Pointing out that the vast majority of the people he associated with have not been indicted as if that's something to brag about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It wasn't bragging. It was a counterpoint to PeteF's notion that you are defined by those you associate with (ergo the few who Trump associated with and who were indicted supposedly defined Trump). If the vast majority of people you associate with are not criminals or liars or sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, or all-around vulgar, nasty people, how are you then defined by the vast minority of those who were indicted and you associated with?

On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Retreat to a whatabout, typical Trumplican/Putin tactic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What ??!! Are you serious? There is something wrong with your brain.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What ??!! Are you serious? There is something wrong with your brain.

As you blame
“On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As you blame
“On the other hand, before he ran for President, he did associate with a lot of folks like the Clintons, Schumer, New York polticians, Democrats, so, maybe some of their scumminess rubbed off on him.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What blame? I deferred, on the other hand, to your notion of Trump being defined by those he associated with to point out that the scumminess that you attribute to Trump might indeed have been a result of his association with those others. What is your problem with that? How is that a retreat? Are you retreating from your own notion?

[Pete F.]

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Just think, after Floridaman is impeached by the House he becomes one of two Presidents that CANNOT be pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Isn’t that something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Isn’t that something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pretty important to Individual #1

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So now you are switching from being defined by those you associate with to being defined by making your own choices. It is difficult to wade through the swamp of the way you think.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Floridaman has made his own choices.
Roy Cohn taught him how to play the game.
Follow his funding and you will be neck deep in the swamp he lives in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

So now you are switching from being defined by those you associate with to being defined by making your own choices. It is difficult to wade through the swamp of the way you think.

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.

[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.