Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[Viper1]

The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because

In what way did they entrap him?

Here is a general article on the matter. Note McCabe and Strzuk's involvement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-entrapment-11544658915

Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.

So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?

He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?

If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.

[Spendulus]

The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because

In what way did they entrap him?

Here is a general article on the matter. Note McCabe and Strzuk's involvement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-entrapment-11544658915

Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.

So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?

He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?

If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.

Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbis-entrapment-of-general-flynn-was-despicable

FBI's entrapment of Gen. Flynn was despicable
by Quin Hillyer
 | December 14, 2018 01:48 PM

Investigators into Russian attempts to subvert American democracy grievously mistreated Gen. Michael Flynn, now convicted of perjury related to the investigation. Some of the prosecutors should themselves face professional punishment for their misbehavior.

As this site’s resident defender of special counsel Robert Mueller, I am obligated to insist that the investigators themselves uphold the same standards they would apply to others. Without excusing Flynn’s lies to investigators, a fair-minded observer can call foul on an obviously unfair, and perhaps unlawful, perjury trap.

Federal district judge Emmet Sullivan likewise seems quite perturbed by the latest information about the Flynn case. With Flynn’s sentencing imminent, Sullivan suddenly ordered prosecutors to produce any existent memoranda regarding their conduct of the interview in which Flynn lied.
And for good reason. The investigators’ treatment of Flynn, as described in a memo filed with the court by Flynn’s lawyers, looks like a textbook case of unethical entrapment.

The interview was set up directly via a phone call to Flynn from Andrew McCabe, who then was deputy director of the FBI. McCabe, by his own account, made it sound like an ordinary national-security-related briefing of the sort Flynn was accustomed to giving the FBI. Even though McCabe clearly knew that Flynn was a potential subject of investigation, he deliberately dissuaded Flynn from having attorneys present.
Moreover, when the agents arrived, they and Flynn both treated the meeting as rather informal, even “jocular,” and “the agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement … before, during, or after the interview.” The agents’ decision not to so inform Flynn was made at the direct behest of McCabe because “they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.”
This is an absolute outrage.

Granted, it’s not certain that the ordinary requirement for a “ Miranda warning” were applicable in this situation because Flynn had not been detained by, nor was in the custody of, law enforcement. Yet in commonsense terms, what McCabe and his agents did was obviously entrapment. It may even have crossed the official legal line of entrapment to the effect that Flynn’s conviction might be thrown out. At first perusal, it appears to have done so.

Let’s be clear what this FBI perfidy does and doesn’t mean. First, it does not have any bearing on Mueller’s conduct of the investigation: The interview with Flynn occurred months before Mueller was appointed. And Mueller, pleased with Flynn’s cooperation, has recommended no jail time for the general. Flynn’s case is only a small part of Mueller’s overall investigation, which has been conducted “by the book” (as the expression goes). Second, it does nothing to invalidate, or make legally unusable, any other information Flynn provided Mueller’s team while cooperating. If Flynn provided evidence implicating others in misdeeds, that evidence is still good.

Third, though, this entrapment provides even more reason for McCabe himself to be investigated for wrongdoing. Again and again, it has been shown that McCabe acted not as the impartial enforcer of justice that a top FBI official should be, but rather as a partisan or ideological hack against conservatives in general or against Trump’s team in particular.
Fourth and finally, this might remove the status of “felon” from Flynn’s permanent record. A man with a distinguished military career, whose lie did not involve conduct that in itself was criminal and was less self-protective than it was a matter of political ham-handedness, perhaps merits some slack anyway. His reputation already has suffered; must his legal status also be permanently scarred?

Either way, McCabe’s behavior here appears shameful, well deserving of fierce condemnation.

[Viper1]

The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because

In what way did they entrap him?

Here is a general article on the matter. Note McCabe and Strzuk's involvement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flynn-entrapment-11544658915

Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.

So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?

He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?

If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.

Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case.

<snip>

You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. Strzok and McCabe have no bearing on whether or not it was entrapment.

That article says what I said. Doesn't appear to be anything illegal about it.  They don't like it. Want to look at the FBI as bad boys cause that's what the cool kids all do these days. Ok. "Feelings" don't matter. "Commonsense terms" are immaterial... Just facts and the law matter and the facts so far seems to be that what they did was legal. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what the judge says though but from what I was looking at it seems to be that the laws in this area are far too broad and controversial in which case it's the fault of the law makers, not the FBI.

If you want to call it entrapment in order to paint the FBI as part of the "deep state".. or "corrupt".. or "out to get Trump", then fine. Just say that you choose to view it all like that. But that doesn't actually make it entrapment from a legal standpoint.

[Spendulus]

...
Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.

So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?

He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?

If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.

Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case.

<snip>

You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. ....
If you want to call it entrapment in order to paint the FBI ....

There is no need to impute motive to me when many articles use the phrase to describe the FBI actions. You are now making things up. From the article.

Yet in commonsense terms, what McCabe and his agents did was obviously entrapment. It may even have crossed the official legal line of entrapment to the effect that Flynn’s conviction might be thrown out. At first perusal, it appears to have done so.

...
You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. ...

How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs".

OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine.

[TwitchySeal]

Flynn worked out a plea deal to *only* be charged with a single count of lying to the FBI.

He was acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey, he discussed sanctions with Russia after he was named National Security Advisor but while Obama was still president, and then he lied about to the Vice President and the FBI.  When he found out he was being investigated, he filed some FARA documents that also had lies in them.

If he would've been charged with all the crimes he admitted to (under penalty of perjury) , he would be facing spending the rest of his life in prison.

Defending him is like defending a guy who was speeding and drunk getting pulled over and let off with only a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs".

OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine.

Why would your recitation of opinions be relevant?

I'm gonna delete any posts that say stuff like this from now on to keep the thread from going to shit.  Please stop.

Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.

This works great.  Install it and most sites with paywalls just work.
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

[dupeddonk]

mitt romney says hes voting to convict.  maybe the only republican with a spine.  maybe political suicide in the short term but hes in the senate till 2024.

[TwitchySeal]

That's a wrap for the trial.

Article 1: 52-48, (52 Republicans voted Not Guilty, 47 Democrats and 1 Republican voted Guilty)
Article 2: 53-47 (Party Lines)

Romneys speech about why he thinks Trump should be removed is worth a watch: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1225138172977459202


Don Jr. is mad.

[Spendulus]

That's a wrap for the trial.

Article 1: 52-48, (52 Republicans voted Not Guilty, 47 Democrats and 1 Republican voted Guilty)
Article 2: 53-47 (Party Lines)

Romneys speech about why he thinks Trump should be removed is worth a watch: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1225138172977459202


Don Jr. is mad.

So...Donald Trump has been Unimpeached. What's Next? (Serious Discussion!)

Pelosi is mad (both meanings. Angry, and a lunatic)

Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors.

[TwitchySeal]

Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors.

Watch his speech.  I think he was being genuine.

[PrimeNumber7]

Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors.

Watch his speech.  I think he was being genuine.

I would not call Romney the enemy of the people, but I do think he is voting against trump for the sake of voting against Trump. Similar to how democrats refuse to applause for trump saying that unemployment is at multi decade lows.

I think he is wanting to harm Trump, even if doing so hurts his country and party.

[Spendulus]

Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors.

Watch his speech.  I think he was being genuine.

I would not call Romney the enemy of the people, but I do think he is voting against trump for the sake of voting against Trump. Similar to how democrats refuse to applause for trump saying that unemployment is at multi decade lows.

I think he is wanting to harm Trump, even if doing so hurts his country and party.

Genuine to himself. And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I

[TwitchySeal]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath.  I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney.

And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I

That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too.  Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values.  I'm sure there are GOP Senators who agree with him privately but decided to fall in line instead of being open about it.  There are certainly plenty of them outside of Congress that have been speaking up.

"He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss."

"But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it"

"[...]Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity."

[eddie13]

"He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss."

"But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it"

"[...]Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity."

Disagree on all points, lol.

The left uses these immigrants to flood the polls and they are not always net-positive on our economy, democracy, or crime statistics..
Maybe some terrorist leaders should be "tortured" a bit..
Mr. Terrorist if you don't want your family bombed right along with you then don't be a terrorist or get them to safety rather than using them as a shield..
Violent antifa protesters smashing up cars and storefronts should be hosed off the street..
The "press" is fake news and should be called out as such..

Trump's business success is not inherited, lmao.. Also you don't win em all..

Trump's temperament has the power of America feared and respected across the world.. Rightfully so..
That disabled reporter should be mocked equally with other reporters just as he has..
A man in Trump's position could have all the women he wants.. Just a few that he has had shows great restraint.. Atleast he isn't that biden child bragging about strippers and blow..
Trump tells it like it is in his speeches.. Atleast he isn't constantly talking about those mentally ill with gender dysphoria as if their sexually depraved delusions are reality all day..


Acquitted..
Nice try overturning an election lefties.. We see what you really think of our republican democracy.. They'd wipe their ass with it when things don't go their way.. "By any means necessary"

[TwitchySeal]

"He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture. He calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss."

"But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it"

"[...]Donald Trump lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity."

Disagree on all points, lol.

The left uses these immigrants to flood the polls and they are not always net-positive on our economy, democracy, or crime statistics..
Maybe some terrorist leaders should be "tortured" a bit..
Mr. Terrorist if you don't want your family bombed right along with you then don't be a terrorist or get them to safety rather than using them as a shield..
Violent antifa protesters smashing up cars and storefronts should be hosed off the street..
The "press" is fake news and should be called out as such..

Trump's business success is not inherited, lmao.. Also you don't win em all..

Trump's temperament has the power of America feared and respected across the world.. Rightfully so..
That disabled reporter should be mocked equally with other reporters just as he has..
A man in Trump's position could have all the women he wants.. Just a few that he has had shows great restraint.. Atleast he isn't that biden child bragging about strippers and blow..
Trump tells it like it is in his speeches.. Atleast he isn't constantly talking about those mentally ill with gender dysphoria as if their sexually depraved delusions are reality all day..


Acquitted..
Nice try overturning an election lefties.. We see what you really think of our republican democracy.. They'd wipe their ass with it when things don't go their way.. "By any means necessary"

Totally fair to disagree with him, my point is that his opinions on Trump are mostly aligned with the stance Christian Conservatives have had for decades.  He's more loyal to his personal beliefs than Trump, which he is what he said he would do when running for Senate.

[Spendulus]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath.  I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney.

And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I

That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too.  Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values......

A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. Those are those little funny looking guys on bicycles dressed in 19th century clothes. Just saying.

Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect. He is 100% in line with staunch left wing nutcase Hate-Trump weirdness. He's with you, Twitch. It's that overpowering, drug-like hate that takes control of all reason and emotion and makes one a virtual slave to the Hate-Trump. To those afflicted, they see it in the clouds in the morning, and they see it in the stars at night. It is quite a thing, really, to behold the tremoring, shaking with hate of those afflicted.

There is no known cure for this well known, psychological disorder. However, if you want to discuss Trump-hate, please, no sensational news articles. Just pure science. Searching with Google Scholar is a good method.

[dupeddonk]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath.  I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney.

And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I

That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too.  Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values......

A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. Those are those little funny looking guys on bicycles dressed in 19th century clothes. Just saying.

Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect. He is 100% in line with staunch left wing nutcase Hate-Trump weirdness. He's with you, Twitch. It's that overpowering, drug-like hate that takes control of all reason and emotion and makes one a virtual slave to the Hate-Trump. To those afflicted, they see it in the clouds in the morning, and they see it in the stars at night. It is quite a thing, really, to behold the tremoring, shaking with hate of those afflicted.

There is no known cure for this well known, psychological disorder. However, if you want to discuss Trump-hate, please, no sensational news articles. Just pure science. Searching with Google Scholar is a good method.

im brought up christian conservative and still consider myself a conservative though less christian than i used to be.  are you just insulting him because he voted against trump, or because you see so many people attacking him now, or do you actually think Romney is not a christian conservative?  all 3 are pretty ignorant but i cant think of any other reason.  if he voted for trump and supported him would you defend him?

[TwitchySeal]

A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative.

Mormons are Christian.  It's common among many different types of Christianity (and religions in general) for the youth to go on a mission to help the less fortunate and spread whatever religion they are.

Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect.

Please see op and knock it off with the name calling.

Disagree with an opinion, cool.  That doesn't make it wrong.

[Spendulus]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath.  I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney.

And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I

That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too.  Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values......

A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. Those are those little funny looking guys on bicycles dressed in 19th century clothes. Just saying.

Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect. He is 100% in line with staunch left wing nutcase Hate-Trump weirdness. He's with you, Twitch. It's that overpowering, drug-like hate that takes control of all reason and emotion and makes one a virtual slave to the Hate-Trump. To those afflicted, they see it in the clouds in the morning, and they see it in the stars at night. It is quite a thing, really, to behold the tremoring, shaking with hate of those afflicted.

There is no known cure for this well known, psychological disorder. However, if you want to discuss Trump-hate, please, no sensational news articles. Just pure science. Searching with Google Scholar is a good method.

im brought up christian conservative and still consider myself a conservative though less christian than i used to be.  are you just insulting him because he voted against trump, or because you see so many people attacking him now, or do you actually think Romney is not a christian conservative?  all 3 are pretty ignorant but i cant think of any other reason.  if he voted for trump and supported him would you defend him?

I have never liked him. Including when he ran for President. It's his appearance, his method of presentation, and what I perceive as a condescending manner of talking. I don't consider him a christian conservative, but a person who hides behind that label.

But those are just my opinions and I'm replying to your question - not pushing them on anyone.

[eddie13]

I don't care what he is..
I have a problem with him hindering the fight against left extremism, of which he is supposed to be an ally.. (Romney)

If he was really a Christian he wouldn't let his disagreement with Trump distract him from battling the LGBT agenda with the extreme perverted sexualization of everything they can imagine to relate, including sexualizing children with promotion and acceptance of "theybes", non-binary children, using hormone blockers on children, trans surgeries for children, child drag dancing, and generally exposing children to the topics of such filth in general, teaching children that being queer or especially TRANS is normal or acceptable and should be promoted..
Newsflas, Transexualism is not normal and should not be encouraged.. Look at the suicide rates.. You want that for your child?
Forcing Christians to make gay wedding cakes.. Forcing Christians to pay for, via their tax dollars, free abortions as plan B for sluts.. Late term abortions up to the day of birth..
On and on..

If he was battling for his "Christian Principles" then Trump would just be a minor annoyance to him compared to his actual enemies of the faith.. (which I don't see him raising much of a fuss about)

[TwitchySeal]

I don't care what he is..
I have a problem with him hindering the fight against left extremism, of which he is supposed to be an ally.. (Romney)

If he was really a Christian he wouldn't let his disagreement with Trump distract him from battling the LGBT agenda with the extreme perverted sexualization of everything they can imagine to relate, including sexualizing children with promotion and acceptance of "theybes", non-binary children, using hormone blockers on children, trans surgeries for children, child drag dancing, and generally exposing children to the topics of such filth in general, teaching children that being queer or especially TRANS is normal or acceptable and should be promoted..
Newsflas, Transexualism is not normal and should not be encouraged.. Look at the suicide rates.. You want that for your child?
Forcing Christians to make gay wedding cakes.. Forcing Christians to pay for, via their tax dollars, free abortions as plan B for sluts.. Late term abortions up to the day of birth..
On and on..

If he was battling for his "Christian Principles" then Trump would just be a minor annoyance to him compared to his actual enemies of the faith.. (which I don't see him raising much of a fuss about)

He made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe Trump is fighting for any sort of agenda other than gaining more power and staying in office.  and the conservative stances he's taken aren't because of his moral compass, they're because they are the most convenient at that moment.  There's no reason to believe Trump wouldn't change them at any moment if he believed it would give him a better shot at staying in power, whether it be foreign policy, social, or economic issues.

Example:

I dont think any of that motivated him to vote guilty though, I think he did it because he believed Trump did what he was accused of, he would do it again without with potentially much more at risk national security wise, and he took an oath to cast his vote without partisan motives.