THE LINCOLN PROJECT

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"Dec. 6, 2018 — At the White House annual Hannukah party, Parnas and Fruman hold a private meeting with President Trump and Giuliani, where Trump tasks Parnas and Fruman to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens, according to associates Parnas told.."

You gotta watch out for those associates told stuff. It could be a threat to our democracy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You gotta watch out for those associates told stuff. It could be a threat to our democracy.

It always traces back to Putin

Last week, prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan to revoke Parnas' bail. They said he had concealed information about his finances, including a $1 million payment he had received from an account in Russia in September.
The account into which the payment was deposited was in the name of Parnas' wife, Svetlana Parnas, government and defense lawyers said.
On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski said that the source of the payment was Firtash's lawyer. She said it was not plausible the payment was a loan to Parnas's wife, as he had said.

[Pete F.]

We went from a Republican "I'm not a crook" president to a "I'm a crook, so what?" Trumplican president.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We went from a Republican "I'm not a crook" president to a "I'm a crook, so what?" Trumplican president.

We went from a lot of good founding stuff to a lot of constitutional busting, anti-democratic, authoritarian stuff in the past 100 years. Your twisted fancifully contrived little "we went from" meme pays no attention to that more accurate truth. You have no foundation on which to base your ad hoc and ad hominem accusations and characterizations. Your mind swirls in the midst of conflicting and argumentative suppositions and disjointed "facts" that can be assembled into or forced into various possible jig saw puzzle pictures of "reality."

I realize that this verbiage doe not comport with your psyche. And I realize that you cannot possibly conceive that your self-conceived pristine psyche can have been led astray and corrupted by mere run of the mill, self aggrandizing, politicians.

It might be a SAD thing, but for the larger reality that neither you nor I really matter, except to those few who we love or hate.

[Pete F.]

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You speak of Trump losing it, and of someone else being a morally disordered person and lacking character, then you post something as vile as this? And you have a problem with Trump's letter which can't touch this for crudity or lack of factual basis?

Your psyche seems to be in a morally depraved, self-inflicted shambles.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You speak of Trump losing it, and of someone else being a morally disordered person and lacking character, then you post something as vile as this? And you have a problem with Trump's letter which can't touch this for crudity or lack of factual basis?

Your psyche seems to be in a morally depraved, self-inflicted shambles.

I found it quite Trumpian, sort of like grabbing body parts, teeth, choking and other covfefe said by the manboy who reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.
It’s time Americans say “You’re Fired” to Floridaman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I found it quite Trumpian, sort of like grabbing body parts, teeth, choking and other covfefe said by the manboy who reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain.
It’s time Americans say “You’re Fired” to Floridaman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're the one who posted it. You own the vileness in it. It is you.

[Pete F.]

I can't come close to Floridaman's actions and words.

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell succeeds in his public promise to ensure Trump’s acquittal regardless of the facts, the law, and the survival of our republic, we as Americans need to be prepared for a new normal, colored by a few de facto amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

When Electoral College votes are tallied, we can no longer be sure that the final count represents the will of the people, as we will have condoned the possibility of elections rigged by incumbents using their official powers to threaten foreign governments into interfering on their behalf.

If the president calls out troops to squelch a peaceful protest, deports American citizens because they were born in another country, or directs that certain people be arrested or imprisoned because of their political or religious views, we cannot turn to the U.S. Congress for consequences and accountability. Only the federal courts will remain as a branch with oversight over the executive, and even that recourse assumes that the president continues to honor the legitimacy of the judicial branch as a check on the presidency.

If the president employs the U.S. military abroad, we cannot be sure that he is doing it to serve the interests of the United States instead of his personal interests or those of a personal “ally,” such as Russian president Vladimir Putin. We must accept that our service members who take an oath to defend the Constitution could die defending a would-be monarch or his foreign ally whose interests conflict with those of the United States.

If the president taps a private lawyer, lobbyist, or corporation to undertake work as a substitute for official channels, and if that person or entity takes actions that harm Americans while serving the president’s personal interests, we will have no recourse through the Constitution, federal statutes imposing oversight on federal employees, or the Senate’s advice and consent authority for presidential appointees. We will have sanctioned a shadow government detached from legal oversight and electoral accountability, and there will be nowhere to turn within the confines of the law and the separation of powers if things go awry (which they will).

For federal employees, keeping their jobs and avoiding public humiliation and potential ruin will require abject loyalty to the man in office rather than to the rule of law. The same goes for our military.
If you think this is all hyperbole, read the report for yourself.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just watch the House
At this rate, by the end of this pointless debate, some Republican is going come to the podium with a giant dildo representing Trump’s penis and give their speech with it in their mouth to make sure that the president is particularly impressed by their devotion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is this how you show devotion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Is this how you show devotion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny you showed up.
There's always this weird, barely-repressed homosexuality thing going on with MAGA trolls like you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Funny you showed up.
There's always this weird, barely-repressed homosexuality thing going on with MAGA trolls like you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You say that like homosexuality is a bad thing. There is nothing weird about it,unless you feel it threatens your overflowing masculinity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

“the survival of our republic.”

despite the fact that you couldn’t name a
single core part of our republic, which is in danger thanks to Trump.

No hyperbole there, nope.

“president calls out troops
to squelch peaceful protests.”

When did he do anything like that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

TRUMP ON UKRAINE

2016: no aid unless Ukraine agrees to peace with Putin

2017: no aid unless Poroshenko takes Manafort case from NABU

2018: no aid unless Poroshenko agrees not to work with Mueller

2019: no aid until Zelensky agrees to Clinton/Crowdstrike & Biden/Burisma probes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

TRUMP ON UKRAINE

2016: no aid unless Ukraine agrees to peace with Putin

2017: no aid unless Poroshenko takes Manafort case from NABU

2018: no aid unless Poroshenko agrees not to work with Mueller

2019: no aid until Zelensky agrees to Clinton/Crowdstrike & Biden/Burisma probes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zelensky says there was no quid pro quo. No pressure. And the aid was given.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zelensky says there was no quid pro quo. No pressure. And the aid was given.

What would you say if you were he?
He knows Floridaman can throw him to the bear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What would you say if you were he?
He knows Floridaman can throw him to the bear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are conjecturing. The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo. There was no pressure. He said so after he got the money. He knows that Trump cannot stop the money. Trump cannot throw him anywhere.

You post article after article, opinion after opinion, conjecture after conjecture, hearsay after hearsay, all manner of second hand testimony as if they were the truth. But direct disclosure from the actual source you dismiss as a lie.

This whole impeachment thing, the Russian "collusion" thing, the obstruction of justice thing were all driven by the same piling on of conjectures driven by inconclusive circumstantial evidence as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) as well as withholding exculpatory evidence and actual falsifying of a document. It all has been a bunch of manufactured smoke with no actual fire.

And the so-called obstruction of Congress bit is total nonsense. Executive privilege has not been decided as unconstitutional. If the House wanted to challenge that in SCOTUS they could. But to assume (there's that assumption, conjecture, thing again) that the President asserting his rights is obstruction is turning the law and the Constitution on its head. The whole notion of separation of powers is exactly to create a tension between the branches of the federal government which prevents one from overpowering the other.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You are conjecturing.

everyone is lying except pelosi, schiff, comey, schumer, nadler, blumenthal, waters, etc......you know...those pillars of honesty and bi-partisan virtue that the democrats have so much faith in

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo.

and his aide insisted he never had the conversation that sondland claimed after revising his testimony that all of this hinges on...soooo

most pathetic impeachment ever but it's really what you'd expect from this bunch of democraps

it will get much worse for them before it gets better

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You are conjecturing. The fact is that Zelensky said that there was no quid pro quo. There was no pressure. He said so after he got the money. He knows that Trump cannot stop the money. Trump cannot throw him anywhere.

Ukraine needs the help and support now and in the foreseeable future. Your isolationist viewpoint will result in the spread of the corrupt Putin administration, quite interesting that you express concern about corruption.
Floridaman's actions at the meeting at the UN, in words afterwards and meeting Lavrov at the same time as Zelensky's meeting Putin for peace negotiations are very detrimental to the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. To claim that Zelensky's statements are made freely and without duress is obtuse, but it is the only defense Floridaman has.

You post article after article, opinion after opinion, conjecture after conjecture, hearsay after hearsay, all manner of second hand testimony as if they were the truth. But direct disclosure from the actual source you dismiss as a lie.

This whole impeachment thing, the Russian "collusion" thing, the obstruction of justice thing were all driven by the same piling on of conjectures driven by inconclusive circumstantial evidence (resulting in 34 indictments and 7 convictions with more expected) as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) (except Comeys "mistake" in announcing more info on Clintons emails days before the election, while not announcing the investigation into Russia and Floridaman) as well as withholding exculpatory evidence and actual falsifying of a document. It all has been a bunch of manufactured smoke with no actual fire.

You state quite simply, every mobsters defense against a RICO case

And the so-called obstruction of Congress bit is total nonsense. Executive privilege has not been decided as unconstitutional. If the House wanted to challenge that in SCOTUS they could. But to assume (there's that assumption, conjecture, thing again) that the President asserting his rights is obstruction is turning the law and the Constitution on its head. The whole notion of separation of powers is exactly to create a tension between the branches of the federal government which prevents one from overpowering the other.

You could be correct, but Floridaman blocked ALL testimony and evidence with the exception of a memcon of a conversation. Everything that the administration does is not subject to executive privilege and no reasonable person would think so. But once he is impeached it is likely null and void. Since you are a great fan of the Founding Fathers, here is some timely correspondence for you to consider. SCOTUS certainly will. Perhaps the House should wait to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate till it wades it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS decides.

Here are some key quotes (with emphasis added), from Washington’s Cabinet (whose advice he had requested) and several others:

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering (in an early draft of what would become Washington’s Message to the House):

“[I]n the case of a treaty, if there be any grounds for an impeachment, they will probably be found in the instrument itself. If at any time a treaty should present such grounds; and it should have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives; and a further enquiry should be necessary to discover the culpable person, or the degree of his offence; there being then a declared and ascertained object; I should deem it to be the duty of the President to furnish all the evidence which could be derived from the papers in his possession.”

Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott (in a letter to Washington on March 26, 1796):

“Except when an Impeachment is proposed & a formal enquiry instituted, I am of opinion that the House of Representatives has no right to demand papers relating to foreign negociations [sic] either pending or compleated [sic].”

Secretary of War James McHenry (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“But as the house of representatives are vested with ‘the sole power of impeachment’ has it not a right as an incident of that power to call for papers respecting a treaty when the object is impeachment? I would presume that it has; but to legitimate such a call the object ought to be explicitly and formally announced. Where it is not, it is not to be presumed.”

Attorney General Charles Lee (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“The house of representatives has generally from the nature of its functions a right to demand from the President such statements of the transactions in any of the executive departments as they shall conceive necessary or useful in forming their laws, and there may be occasions when the books and original papers should be produced: for instance to sustain an impeachment commenced or to discover whether there be any malversation in office which might require impeachment—But it does not therefore follow that this branch of Congress possesses a right to demand and possess without the consent of the President copies of all the instructions and documents in his custody relative to any subject whatsoever, whenever they shall be pleased to require them.”

It will surprise no one that, in addition to asking his Cabinet for advice, Washington also asked Alexander Hamilton for his thoughts. In response, on March 29, 1796, Hamilton sent back a draft message for Washington’s consideration. It included the following language:

“Even with reference to an animadversion on the conduct of the Agents who made the Treaty—the presumption of a criminal mismanagement of the interests of the U [sic] States ought first it is conceived to be deduced from the intrinsic nature of the Treaty & ought to be pronounced to exist previous to a further inquiry to ascertain the guilt or the guilty. Whenever the House of Representatives, proceeding upon any Treaty, shall have taken the ground that such a presumption exists in order to such an inquiry, their request to the Executive to cause to be laid before them papers which may contain information on the subject will rest on a foundation that cannot fail to secure to it due efficacy.”

In addition to all this, at some point in time, Washington’s papers came to contain a letter sent by the Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Ellsworth, on March 13, 1796, to Jonathan Trumbull, a member of the Senate and a former aid-de-camp of Washington’s. In this letter, Ellsworth wrote:

“[N]or does it appear from [the pending House resolution] that [the House has] before them any legitimate object of enquiry to which the papers can apply. They have indeed a right to impeach or to originate a declaration of war, and might for those purposes have possible use for some of the papers in the late negociation [sic], but neither of those objects are avowed by the House nor are they to be presumed.”

It bears emphasizing that this mulling over the possibility of impeachment was not theoretical. The Jay Treaty was a controversy that roiled the new Republic. It created a rift that would never close between James Madison and Washington. There had been popular outcry that Washington was a traitor or at best senile. And some had spoken openly of impeachment. This backdrop makes the unity of opinion regarding the House’s entitlement to documents in an impeachment proceeding all the more impressive.

These writings do not address the question of how the House is to initiate an official impeachment inquiry. We will leave that issue to others. But these writings do make plain that Washington’s line about impeachment in the Jay Treaty was a deliberate concession, a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom.

The above is quoted from Just Security

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Ukraine needs the help and support now and in the foreseeable future. Your isolationist viewpoint will result in the spread of the corrupt Putin administration, quite interesting that you express concern about corruption.

Ukraine got the money. And more aid, as well, than the previous administration gave it. Nor did the previous administration do anything substantial to correct Putin's spread of his power when he invaded Ukraine--which was the cause of it needing aid in the first place.

Floridaman's actions at the meeting at the UN, in words afterwards and meeting Lavrov at the same time as Zelensky's meeting Putin for peace negotiations are very detrimental to the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. To claim that Zelensky's statements are made freely and without duress is obtuse, but it is the only defense Floridaman has.

That's an opinion, not a fact. As for opinions, this: the survival of Ukraine depends first on Ukraine, then on all of its allies not just the US. The US is doing its share. Putin's annexation of the Crimea is a fact that can only be undone by war or negotiation. If the US is supposed to be responsible for the survival of Ukraine, then we were derelict during the past administration in reversing that annexation. To blame the current administration for not correcting that dereliction is political fodder. Putin tested us and Europe, and we all failed. And it will remain a failure unless we are all willing to militarily take back and return Crimea to Ukraine, or can, as Trump leans toward, negotiate a satisfactory resolution.

At this point, Putin doesn't seem willing to test a further expansion as we expect he would if he thought it was feasible. Perhaps you think that he is just doing Trump a favor. More likely, he recognizes that Trump would actually do more than the previous administration to push back against further Russian expansion. Trump offers negotiation, as well as military aid to Ukraine, as well as strengthening NATO by asking its European constituents to spending more on defense. As well Trump has strengthened our military and opened up our economy at the detriment of Russia's (especially in opening up our oil exploration and production). If you have a better way, put up or shut up.


(resulting in 34 indictments and 7 convictions with more expected) as well as many so called "mistakes" (all against Trump and no "mistakes" in his favor) (except Comeys "mistake" in announcing more info on Clintons emails days before the election, while not announcing the investigation into Russia and Floridaman)

Those indictments were peripheral, not germane to the "collusion" investigation. And the majority were of Russians who nothing can be tried without Russia's consent.

And Comey's announcement re Clinton was not a mistake. Did Horowitz say it was?

You state quite simply, every mobsters defense against a RICO case.

It is also and has many times been, quite correctly, the defense of many innocent defendants. It isn't a mobster defense. It is a valuable legal defense against prosecutorial misconduct.


You could be correct, but Floridaman blocked ALL testimony and evidence with the exception of a memcon of a conversation. Everything that the administration does is not subject to executive privilege and no reasonable person would think so. But once he is impeached it is likely null and void. Since you are a great fan of the Founding Fathers, here is some timely correspondence for you to consider. SCOTUS certainly will. Perhaps the House should wait to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate till it wades it's way thru the courts and SCOTUS decides.


Here are some key quotes (with emphasis added), from Washington’s Cabinet (whose advice he had requested) and several others:

Secretary of State Timothy Pickering (in an early draft of what would become Washington’s Message to the House):

“[I]n the case of a treaty, if there be any grounds for an impeachment, they will probably be found in the instrument itself. If at any time a treaty should present such grounds; and it should have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives; and a further enquiry should be necessary to discover the culpable person, or the degree of his offence; there being then a declared and ascertained object; I should deem it to be the duty of the President to furnish all the evidence which could be derived from the papers in his possession.”

Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott (in a letter to Washington on March 26, 1796):

“Except when an Impeachment is proposed & a formal enquiry instituted, I am of opinion that the House of Representatives has no right to demand papers relating to foreign negociations [sic] either pending or compleated [sic].”

Secretary of War James McHenry (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“But as the house of representatives are vested with ‘the sole power of impeachment’ has it not a right as an incident of that power to call for papers respecting a treaty when the object is impeachment? I would presume that it has; but to legitimate such a call the object ought to be explicitly and formally announced. Where it is not, it is not to be presumed.”

Attorney General Charles Lee (in a letter to Washington of March 26, 1796):

“The house of representatives has generally from the nature of its functions a right to demand from the President such statements of the transactions in any of the executive departments as they shall conceive necessary or useful in forming their laws, and there may be occasions when the books and original papers should be produced: for instance to sustain an impeachment commenced or to discover whether there be any malversation in office which might require impeachment—But it does not therefore follow that this branch of Congress possesses a right to demand and possess without the consent of the President copies of all the instructions and documents in his custody relative to any subject whatsoever, whenever they shall be pleased to require them.”

It will surprise no one that, in addition to asking his Cabinet for advice, Washington also asked Alexander Hamilton for his thoughts. In response, on March 29, 1796, Hamilton sent back a draft message for Washington’s consideration. It included the following language:

“Even with reference to an animadversion on the conduct of the Agents who made the Treaty—the presumption of a criminal mismanagement of the interests of the U [sic] States ought first it is conceived to be deduced from the intrinsic nature of the Treaty & ought to be pronounced to exist previous to a further inquiry to ascertain the guilt or the guilty. Whenever the House of Representatives, proceeding upon any Treaty, shall have taken the ground that such a presumption exists in order to such an inquiry, their request to the Executive to cause to be laid before them papers which may contain information on the subject will rest on a foundation that cannot fail to secure to it due efficacy.”

In addition to all this, at some point in time, Washington’s papers came to contain a letter sent by the Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Ellsworth, on March 13, 1796, to Jonathan Trumbull, a member of the Senate and a former aid-de-camp of Washington’s. In this letter, Ellsworth wrote:

“[N]or does it appear from [the pending House resolution] that [the House has] before them any legitimate object of enquiry to which the papers can apply. They have indeed a right to impeach or to originate a declaration of war, and might for those purposes have possible use for some of the papers in the late negociation [sic], but neither of those objects are avowed by the House nor are they to be presumed.”

It bears emphasizing that this mulling over the possibility of impeachment was not theoretical. The Jay Treaty was a controversy that roiled the new Republic. It created a rift that would never close between James Madison and Washington. There had been popular outcry that Washington was a traitor or at best senile. And some had spoken openly of impeachment. This backdrop makes the unity of opinion regarding the House’s entitlement to documents in an impeachment proceeding all the more impressive.

These writings do not address the question of how the House is to initiate an official impeachment inquiry. We will leave that issue to others. But these writings do make plain that Washington’s line about impeachment in the Jay Treaty was a deliberate concession, a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom.

The above is quoted from Just Security

Those were selected opinions with selected passages. Were there any rebuttals or contraries during those original discussions? I don't have the energy to research that. But, if you read carefully even in some of those of those selected above, there seem to be some reservations. The "unity of opinion" called for does not exist in this current case. The opinion is divided strictly on party lines. And the notion that these opinions are "a seed planted in history that only now has full occasion to blossom" is an acknowledgement that the question of Executive Privilege has not been formally, judicially acknowledged. That the Court may have to decide that.

But, if that is the case, then Trump cannot be charged with a crime that has not officially been defined as a crime. And any decision by the Court to say that Executive Privilege cannot be claimed in such situations, that would be a clarification from now on. But cannot fairly be applied ex post facto.

[Pete F.]

I think we will find out what SCOTUS thinks.
It looks to me that after Graham and the Turtle promised a sham trial with a guaranteed aquittal, Pelosi just might wait and let Floridaman play with his checkers.
The Igor and Lev show is starting to make it’s way into the news along with all the Rubles and who got them.
Plenty of Trumplicans don’t want to be stained with that.
Floridaman’s Russian money will show up.
His taxes will come out in this SCOTUS term.
The walls are closing in on him and soon it will be time to retire to Mar a Lago, aka the southern swamp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think we will find out what SCOTUS thinks.
It looks to me that after Graham and the Turtle promised a sham trial with a guaranteed aquittal, Pelosi just might wait and let Floridaman play with his checkers.
The Igor and Lev show is starting to make it’s way into the news along with all the Rubles and who got them.
Plenty of Trumplicans don’t want to be stained with that.
Floridaman’s Russian money will show up.
His taxes will come out in this SCOTUS term.
The walls are closing in on him and soon it will be time to retire to Mar a Lago, aka the southern swamp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't argue with Nostradamus Jr.

[Pete F.]

Ask Lindsey, Floridaman doesn’t need to be charged with a crime to be impeached or is that only Dems?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Ask Lindsey, Floridaman doesn’t need to be charged with a crime to be impeached or is that only Dems?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Need" and "should" often part ways. Graham's opinion parts ways with the Constitution here. I'll stick, consistently, with the Constitution. You can pick and choose which Graham opinions suit you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Need" and "should" often part ways. Graham's opinion parts ways with the Constitution here. I'll stick, consistently, with the Constitution. You can pick and choose which Graham opinions suit you.

If you insist, there are plenty of crimes to choose from and they all fall within the impeachment charges.

Campaign Finance Law

Bribery

Honest Services Fraud

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Hatch Act

Contempt of Congress

Impoundment Act

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

If you insist, there are plenty of crimes to choose from and they all fall within the impeachment charges.

Campaign Finance Law

Bribery

Honest Services Fraud

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Hatch Act

Contempt of Congress

Impoundment Act

Nancy must have missed these. You should send her a memo.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nancy must have missed these. You should send her a memo.

Don’t worry double jeopardy doesn’t apply to impeachments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Pete I applaud your zeal, but you are involved in a debate that can’t be won, there is NOTHING you can post that will change anyone’s mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Pete I applaud your zeal, but you are involved in a debate that can’t be won, there is NOTHING you can post that will change anyone’s mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's ok, I find the information interesting. And I have learned some interesting things. It's sort of like fishing, if you look at the time and money invested you're way better off buying fish.