Why the Senate SHOULD vote to convict

[wdmso]

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday suggested that the United States has a “duty” to further probe a conspiracy theory promoted by President Trump alleging that Ukraine was responsible for the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

as CIA director Mike Pompeo claimed that US intelligence agencies believed Russian interference did not affect the results of the 2016 US presidential election.

only issue he made that part up


The CIA never came to that conclusion (did not affect the results) released a statement that clarified Pompeo's remarks.

and Ukraine is not mentioned as someone who also interfered in our elections.. until now

[Got Stripers]

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The house will likely impeach, no way the senate removes him (unless something new comes to light). I agree with you, this is pointless. Also no reason why Congress shouldn't vote now. Get it over with.

You are 100% correct.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Also no reason why Congress shouldn't vote now. Get it over with.

You're in an awful hurry for such an important occasion.

Usually for Republicans it only requires a blowjob and 3-4 years of investigation to start impeachment proceedings and that's with cooperation from the Presidents office, like actually testifying and even giving blood.

This President has provided ZERO documents and allowed no testimony, that is a first, a record and hopefully one that will never be permitted again. This one Floridaman honestly got.

In other word he has obstructed this investigation to the maximum extent possible, there is nothing else he could do.

Well except perhaps to investigate the investigators and he has done that.

These are the rules as written, the rest is up to Congress. They can choose to follow or ignore precedent, it's up to them.

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Show of hands, is there anyone on this board that believes Trump will not be impeached in the house? Is there anyone on this board that believes the Senate will not remove him? I’ve not participated much in this constant debate over right, wrong, is it impeachable or not, because I’d bet my life the house will impeach and the senate will not remove, so I don’t see much point in the merry go round I see here lately.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just like clinton

[Pete F.]

I think there is a good chance he will be removed and that he should be.

At this point the majority thought Nixon would not be either, his popularity waned two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

[Sea Dangles]

🤡🤡🍔🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;

b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;

c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;

d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;

e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;

f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;

g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;

h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;

k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;

l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;

m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;

n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;

o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;

p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;

q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;

r. Lying incessantly to the American people;

s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;

t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;

u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;

w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;

x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;

y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;

z. Engaging in a documented campaign of obstruction of a Special Counsel's investigation.

aa. Lying about a hush money payoff and omitting his debt to his attorney for that payoff from his financial disclosure report (which is a crime if done knowingly and willfully);

bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;

cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;

dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;

ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;

ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);

gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;

hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;

ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;

jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;

kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;

ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;

mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;

nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and

oo. Bypassing Congress through the use of "acting" heads of agencies and cabinets.

None of the Republican Senators defending Trump could say with a straight face that they would tolerate a Democratic president doing the same thing. But, given this dangerous precedent, they may have no choice if they ever lose control of the Senate. Is that what they want?

And this is only what Trump did while the remote threat of Congressional oversight existed. If the Senate acquits him, he will know for certain there is nothing that could ever lead to Congress removing him from office. And what he does next will similarly set precedents.

At this point, I would remind these unpatriotic Senators of the line "you have a republic if you can keep it," but a variation on this line may soon be more apt when Trump redoubles his attack on our election: You have a republic, if you can call this a republic.

Walter Michael Shaub Jr. (born February 20, 1971) is an American attorney specializing in government ethics who, from January 9, 2013 to July 19, 2017, was the director of the United States Office of Government Ethics.

Pace yourself, ya got 5 more years of Trump to get through.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You poor boy, claiming to be horrified and called deplorable like Floridaman does while calling others human scum.

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.

[PaulS]

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,

it's amazing how low the bar has bc with Repubs. and Pres.Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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 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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

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.