It ain't been pierced and no crime has been established. I believe the Court would have to decide, not you.

Didn't watch the entire thing but what I saw was freaking great.

You're dodging now.

Apparently Schiff is a good actor. Even Graham congratulated him on a well spoken presentation.

Of course, Graham would probably say that though the presentation was good in style, it was BS in substance.

Conjecture, obviously.

Just remember, Democrats don't know what the withheld documents say. Maybe they say it was a perfect call or there was no quid pro quo. But if you care about the truth, you'd want the documents released.

Maybe the truth has already been exposed. No need to keep beating a dead horse. Ahhhh . . . the maybe trail really has no end other than just stopping.

meanwhile we’re all broke because the GOP tax cuts gave everything to the Koch brothers. Grim times, indeed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With the way Trump is running up the debt, the country will be broke. But hey it is a Repub. admin. so who cares.

Uggghh . . . I know it has already been mentioned a few times, but . . . Congress is in charge of the debt. Just sayin.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it is the President who it usually is attributed to.

Trump did have a small part in lowering taxes which is reflected in the deficit.

Federal government revenues have gone up in spite of the tax cuts. Tax cuts were part of the total equation. They helped to greatly expand the whole economy, which resulted in greater government revenues. Can't believe that we constantly have to point this stuff out.

So, if revenues have gone up, it's Congress's duty to wisely spend, and it is its profligacy, not the tax cuts, that is the reason that the debt keeps rising.

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