Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[eddie13]

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.  

That may be the difference in out mindsets, as I do not think that Trump's positions are based on convenience, infact he has been quite consistent for decades..
I also do not think he is doing what he is doing to seek power at all costs and would throw away his morals to remain in power.. Or that he is for sale..
I genuinely believes he wants to do the best he can for America..

I don't think Trump has even been much anti LGBT, but even being generally pro LGBT rights does not mean that you have to be pro trans surgeries for children..

Romney could have made that vote simply to get his name on the news a bit.. Maybe he is pandering to certain voters.. Maybe he is too butthurt still.. Certainly not because he has firm Christian values..

"he took an oath to cast his vote without partisan motives"
If they all took that as an oath how do you explain the completely partisan split vote?

I also don't think it was wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the FACTS of any situation, including Biden/past US corruption..
Asking them to make up a false smear campaign would be bad, but not investigating truth..

[Spendulus]

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.  

That may be the difference in out mindsets, as I do not think that Trump's positions are based on convenience, infact he has been quite consistent for decades..
I also do not think he is doing what he is doing to seek power at all costs and would throw away his morals to remain in power.. Or that he is for sale..
I genuinely believes he wants to do the best he can for America..

I don't think Trump has even been much anti LGBT, but even being generally pro LGBT rights does not mean that you have to be pro trans surgeries for children..

Romney could have made that vote simply to get his name on the news a bit.. Maybe he is pandering to certain voters.. Maybe he is too butthurt still.. Certainly not because he has firm Christian values..

"he took an oath to cast his vote without partisan motives"
If they all took that as an oath how do you explain the completely partisan split vote?

I also don't think it was wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the FACTS of any situation, including Biden/past US corruption..
Asking them to make up a false smear campaign would be bad, but not investigating truth..

This I just saw which is quite curious.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/

But I have already admitted to just not liking Romney, so it's not exactly like I'm logically debating his merits or lack of. None the less, WTF? Pelosi's son and now someone close to Romney? How many "Jobs" are those guys handing out?

[eddie13]

This I just saw which is quite curious.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/

But I have already admitted to just not liking Romney, so it's not exactly like I'm logically debating his merits or lack of. None the less, WTF? Pelosi's son and now someone close to Romney? How many "Jobs" are those guys handing out?

Sshheeiiiiiitt bro..


Maybe that is why he cast the vote eh? Lol..
I can't believe it took me until just now to connect this DOT of Ukraine corruption to that speech..


F'n Romney was in on it... Duh..

[TwitchySeal]

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/

But I have already admitted to just not liking Romney, so it's not exactly like I'm logically debating his merits or lack of. None the less, WTF? Pelosi's son and now someone close to Romney? How many "Jobs" are those guys handing out?

Romney was MA Governer from 2003-2006.

Cofer Black worked on his 2008 and 2012 Presidential campaigns (he won the nominee once, the other was just primaries).

Cofer Joined Burisma in 2017, 5 years after Romneys most recent failed election and 11 years after he last held office.

Romney won Senate Seat in 2019.

I think the most likely scenario is Burisma was looking to expand internationally quickly in 2017 and they hired a bunch of people to help with the projects outside of Ukraine.  (Biden, a lawyer managing an international equity firm coming from the board of multi billion dollar company, Cofer was at the top of the CIA for years with lots of over seas private sector work).


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/former-cia-director-joins-burisma-and-it-is-good-news_b_58adf600e4b01f4ab51c75a4

[PrimeNumber7]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty. 

I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years.

I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign.

Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting.

[TwitchySeal]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  

I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years.

I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign.

Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting.

I believe that he was being sincere.  Obviously we can't prove what's in his heart, but, if he is being sincere, then good for him and shame on the attackers.

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of our Congress these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the president’s team presented three defenses, first that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime, second that the Bidens’ conduct justified the president’s actions, and third, that the judgment of the president’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they’re not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.

Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasked senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.

What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I’ve received numerous calls and texts. Many demanded, in their words, that I “stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind: You see, I support a great deal of what the president has done. I voted with him 80 percent of the time.

But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I’m aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters I will be vehemently denounced. I’m sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe that I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton, not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I’m convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We’ve come to different conclusions fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the president from office. The results of this Senate court will, in fact, be appealed to a higher court, the judgment of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the president’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate, but irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.

I will only be one name among many, no more, no less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the president did was wrong, grievously wrong. We are all footnotes at best in the annals of history, but in the most powerful nation on Earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that distinction is enough for any citizen.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

[PrimeNumber7]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty. 

I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years.

I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign.

Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting.

I believe that he was being sincere.  Obviously we can't prove what's in his heart, but, if he is being sincere, then good for him and shame on the attackers.

I have my doubts, but I would refer you back to his vote for additional witnesses. If he already had enough information to vote to convict, why ask for more witnesses? What else does he need to know?

<>
The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

The standard to start an investigation is very low, and does not require evidence of a crime. From a legal perspective, the Biden situation may or may not have been illegal, if it is not illegal, the Bidens (and from the looks of it, a fair number of other politicians) have found a loophole in public corruption laws. If the Bidens were to be investigated, law enforcement could look around, and ask questions, and if they uncover probable cause laws were broken, law enforcement can obtain warrants and if there is enough evidence to charge any of the Bidens of crimes, they can do so.

From a moral, ethical and political perspective, the Bidens situation is 100% wrong. From the looks of it, Hunter was selling the ability to make US foreign policy in Ukraine.

One additional thing that has not been mentioned is that one thing Trump ran on in 2016 was to "drain the swamp" which would include reducing/eliminating corruption. I think it is hard to dispute that the Biden situation was corrupt. If what he did was 100% legal, it would still probably not be a good idea to put someone with that history in as President.

[Spendulus]

Genuine to himself.

Exactly.  A higher loyalty.  

I am not sure about this. Romney has floped on a fairly high number of issues over the years.

I would also point out that Romney tried to get a job in the Trump administration, and accepted Trump's endorsement for his Senate campaign.

Romney's vote to convict did not do anything except harm the country, and harm Trump. It probably also ended his political career, at least as a Republican. I would say the same thing about Romney's vote for additional witnesses. The only thing additional witnesses had the potential to do is harm Trump, and if Romney did not have enough information to make a decision, he should not have voted to convict, he should have abstained from voting.

I believe that he was being sincere.  ....

I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody.

Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.

After the 3 1/2 years of juvenile nonsense the nation endured with the Democrats and Romney Trump-hate, taking the House back and re electing Donald Trump is not sufficient payback. THIS would even things out a bit.

The first female president?

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/05/16/dont-laugh-at-ivanka-2024/

By the time Ivanka's eight years are up in 2032, AI will be sufficiently advanced we'll have Trump-AIs born and running in the USA. And they'll run for POTUS. (No Russian produced Trump AIs will be allowed of course. No offense to our Russian friends, but the Constitution requires a POTUS to be a natural born citizen). The primary should be something to see, with a dozen Baron, Ivanka and Donald AI units battling it out.

(Pelosi-Bots will be busy in the corner, neurotically ripping up papers)

[TwitchySeal]

I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody.

If you believe he was being genuine, then he was putting his Oath and his faith over his loyalty to the republican party.  

Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this.  Voting to convict Trump didn't go against any conservative values, and assuming he doesn't resign or die, he'll be a US Senator until at least 2025 (which would also be the end of Trumps second term), which is a pretty important duty imo.

[dupeddonk]

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)

if a anti lgbtq agenda was most important then he would be much happier if mike pence was president.

i dont think thats why he did it though.  he believes trump was guilty of something that was serious enough to be removed from office.  so he voted to convict and refused to be intimidated or bullied by the president or the rest of his party.  that shows honor and integrity imo and there are conservatives that will respect him for it.

[Spendulus]

I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody.

If you believe he was being genuine, then he was putting his Oath and his faith over his loyalty to the republican party.  

Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this.  Voting to convict Trump didn't go against any conservative values, and assuming he doesn't resign or die, he'll be a US Senator until at least 2025 (which would also be the end of Trumps second term), which is a pretty important duty imo.

Thanks for your stand up defense of the guy. Of course, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said he was true to SELF. Then to determine if he did good, you have to look into what SELF is. Also,  for info on Romney, I'll rely on my Mormon friends.

Meanwhile, Pelosi really looks bad today, sort of incoherent rambling. What do you think? Her long, heroic struggle is wearing her down? I wouldn't be surprised if she resigns after the mess she's created.

And I hear Burisma's hiring.

[TwitchySeal]

I sort of agree with that, sincere to SELF. But this is rather meaningless. Hillary Clinton was "Sincere." NK's Rocket Man is "Sincere." Etc. This is a guy that claimed in his 2017 speech that "Trump was a con man." Then he and Trump reconciled. He has an angry, bitter demeanor that hints he thinks he's the one that should have been given the POTUS job. But nobody cares. Nobody.

If you believe he was being genuine, then he was putting his Oath and his faith over his loyalty to the republican party.  

Romney's done. He's got a couple years left in the Senate, and Utah will not vote him back in. Utah is highly conservative, and these actions were a direct insult to many people there. In the Senate, Romney only chairs the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism. That is so minor I wonder if they'll even bother to strip it from him. He'll have no important duties or responsibilities. None.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this.  Voting to convict Trump didn't go against any conservative values, and assuming he doesn't resign or die, he'll be a US Senator until at least 2025 (which would also be the end of Trumps second term), which is a pretty important duty imo.

Thanks for your stand up defense of the guy. Of course, you've misinterpreted what I said. I said he was true to SELF. Then to determine if he did good, you have to look into what SELF is. Also,  for info on Romney, I'll rely on my Mormon friends.

Meanwhile, Pelosi really looks bad today, sort of incoherent rambling. What do you think? Her long, heroic struggle is wearing her down? I wouldn't be surprised if she resigns after the mess she's created.

And I hear Burisma's hiring.

You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

[Spendulus]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

[TwitchySeal]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...

Some examples of what I consider unauthentic:

Every Senator that played the 'There isn't enough evidence, it's all hearsay' card, and then voted against receiving direct evidence.  If they thought the whole time it didn't matter at all whether he did it or not, why try to convince the country that maybe he didn't do it, and then back-peddle when given the power to decide on direct evidence?  Because they were just following orders, what they did or said was not a reflection of their actual opinion.

Especially Lindsay Graham who said "If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing" in October.

It's not a republican thing, it's a political thing, and I get that.  The democrats pull the same stunts.  It's very rare to see a politician stand up and basically sacrifice his political career and face an inevitable shit load of attacks from literally millions of people simply because it would violate his oath to the country not to, especially when it would be a million times easy to just shut up and fall in line.  But it seems like that's exactly what Romney did.  Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit and if he didn't have another 5 years left in his term things would be different...but I still don't see any personal upside to doing what he did, other than being able to sleep better.

[Spendulus]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...
....

I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious."

[TwitchySeal]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...
....

I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious."

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia

I don't see how voting to remove someone you believe is abusing their power to win an election makes you authoritarian.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you calling him 'liberal' as in it's just an insult you use, or do you actually think he is actually not a conservative?  

[Spendulus]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...
....

I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious."

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia

I don't see how voting to remove someone you believe is abusing their power to win an election makes you authoritarian.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you calling him 'liberal' as in it's just an insult you use, or do you actually think he is actually not a conservative?  

He's never been a conservative. Although you could conjecture that his stands are the result of a political trying to give something to voters of all persuasions.

But why do you want to keep talking about him? He is done, over with. I hear the Utah house is close to censoring him for that little display in Wash. DC. The story isn't over, but it's over as far as any nation wide relevance or impact.

[PrimeNumber7]

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.

You mean like the "Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia" Scandal that was a flop and then the "Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine" scandal that has been a flop?

I was thinking a better example of this would be calling anyone who disagrees with extremist liberal views a racist (or other '-ists'), or maybe when conservative commentators are the subject of constant smear campaigns, and serious attempts are made at silencing them by pressuring their advertisers into stopping advertising for the conservative commentators, and by putting pressure on social media platforms to banning, and de-monetizing their social media profiles.

What is probably the best example of an authoritarian at work is Hannity's reaction to Chris Cumo being called Fredo....oh wait...

[TwitchySeal]

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.

You mean like the "Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia" Scandal that was a flop

You mean the investigation that uncovered exactly how and who interfered in our election process, down to the bitcoin transactions and all of the different online identities the Russians used along with their real ones?  13 Russians, Trumps personal lawyer, his campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, National Security Advisor and a couple others that were part of his campaign were all indicted by grand juries and the Americans have either pled guilty or were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

How is that a flop?

The only reason anyone thinks it was a hoax or a scam is because Trump said so 10+ times a day for 2 years.  But it actually wasn't all about Trump the way he made it seem.  The investigation was into "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

[PrimeNumber7]

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.

You mean like the "Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia" Scandal that was a flop

You mean the investigation that uncovered exactly how and who interfered in our election process, down to the bitcoin transactions and all of the different online identities the Russians used along with their real ones?  13 Russians, Trumps personal lawyer, his campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, National Security Advisor and a couple others that were part of his campaign were all indicted by grand juries and the Americans have either pled guilty or were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

How is that a flop?

The only reason anyone thinks it was a hoax or a scam is because Trump said so 10+ times a day for 2 years.  But it actually wasn't all about Trump the way he made it seem.  The investigation was into "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

It has been argued that the average American commits 3 felonies per day.

It has been well known that Russia, among many other countries, Ukraine included, has been trying to meddle in American elections for generations (the same is true for the US meddling in other country's elections). What you describe is what happens when you have an aggressive prosecutor pursuing every last technicality, and throwing the book at defendants with the hope they will 'flip'.

These are actually many of the same prosecutors who gave Clinton associates immunity deals in exchange for frequently nothing in the Clinton email server investigation. If these prosecutors were not political, everyone who received an immunity agreement in the Clinton investigation may also have been similarly charged as those who were associated with Trump.