Bruce, there is a short time between the election and when the new Congress takes over. Sending the Impeachment to the Senate during that period would not involve a different Congress. Of course, it wouldn't be effective unless the Senate did fall to the Democrats--the trial would probably have to wait until the new Congress was seated.

para, I'm not trying to be difficult (I know that I sometimes am), but I don't see any rules preventing such action.

flashguy

Ex-FBI official gets 7 days jail for accessing anti-Mueller activist’s emails

Mark Tolson had tried to derail eccentric Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman’s attempt to procure sexual misconduct allegations against Mueller.

https://www.politico.com/news/...k-tolson-jail-088787

A former FBI analyst was sentenced to seven days in jail and a $500 fine Friday for illegally accessing a neighbor’s email account in a bid to head off an apparent smear campaign against special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mark Tolson, 60, pleaded guilty in September to a single misdemeanor charge of computer fraud and abuse for his unusual effort last fall to derail eccentric Washington lobbyist Jack Burkman’s attempt to obtain information to be used in sexual misconduct allegations against Mueller.

Story Continued Below

Tolson admitted he unlawfully accessed Burkman’s emails in October 2018, after the conspiracy-minded lobbyist announced plans to hold a news conference to air sexual harassment allegations against Mueller.

Story Continued Below

After snooping through Burkman’s account, Tolson sent screenshots of the messages and offered the password to an unspecified journalist, court filings say.

Tolson’s wife, Sarah Gilbert Fox, facilitated the illicit access by providing Burkman’s email password, which she had obtained for work she’d previously done for him.

At Tolson’s sentencing Friday morning in Alexandria, Va., the longtime FBI employee told U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema that he acted out of a desire “to protect Director Mueller” from what Tolson believed were false allegations. “It was because of the press conference, your honor,” the ex-FBI official said.

“This is actually a very serious offense,” Brinkema said. “You’re lucky. Your wife is lucky. The government could have prosecuted her as well.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Berrang asked for a short prison term in the case, saying Tolson’s motives were not as pure as he’d suggested because his wife believed she was owed money and Tolson was personally annoyed with Burkman.

Berrang said Tolson’s decision to take the information first to a reporter rather than the FBI suggested the actions weren’t just about preventing harm to Mueller or his probe.

However, Tolson’s attorney, Edward MacMahon Jr., disputed that.

Story Continued Below

“There was no other motivation here other than to protect Mueller,” MacMahon said.

“The government makes a good point,” Brinkema replied. “Why wouldn’t you go to the FBI instead of the press?”

MacMahon said Tolson did tell the FBI what he’d done within a day or so, but was really focused on scuttling the planned news conference, which never took place.

The effort by Burkman and right-wing activist Jacob Wohl to target Mueller was widely condemned, particularly following reports that mysterious individuals were contacting Mueller’s female former colleagues and offering to pay them for damaging information.

The defense lawyer called Tolson’s actions “foolish,” but also urged the judge not to give Tolson jail time, saying the episode already caused Tolson to lose his job.

“He does not need to be punished any further,” MacMahon said.

Brinkema ultimately concluded that some incarceration was appropriate to send a message that illegally accessing others’ emails is wrong, particularly when those doing so work in government or law enforcement.

“You can’t just rummage through other people’s accounts,” said the judge, a Clinton appointee. “You had to have known better.”

Brinkema also had a word of praise for the unnamed journalist who decided not to act on the information and password offer Tolson relayed via an encrypted app.

“I would commend whoever the media people are who turned it down,” the judge said, before adding to Tolson that he might have faced more serious charges or punishment if emails from Burkman’s account had been published.

“You’re actually probably lucky you didn’t get an unethical media person,” Brinkema said, without being explicit about whether she thought it would have been improper for the press to publish the messages or just to use the password.

Brinkema said Tolson can serve the seven-day sentence after the holidays, but will also have to do 50 hours of community service and will be on probation for a year.

Burkman did not respond to a message seeking comment on the sentencing.

https://twitter.com/Jack_Burkm...n-pro-trump-activist

Jack Burkman
‏ @Jack_Burkman

What a disgrace our judicial system is. Mark Tolson gets 7 days. Can you imagine the jail time he would have gotten if I were a liberal?

The good news is that we will be suing him in federal court for extensive damages.
10:59 AM - 20 Dec 2019

"What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do."

What a crock of horseshit. Barack Obama was one of the most lawless, unconstitutional presidents ever to occupy the Oval Office. He managed to get away with it because the media covered his back nine ways to Sunday, and anyone who dared suggest he was acting illegally was immediately branded a racist.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
"What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do."

What a crock of horseshit. Barack Obama was one of the most lawless, unconstitutional presidents ever to occupy the Oval Office. He managed to get away with it because the media covered his back nine ways to Sunday, and anyone who dared suggest he was acting illegally was immediately branded a racist.

It's not like he gave guns to the caretels, sicked the IRS on political rivals, weaponized the intelligence community, or tried to divide the country based on race. Oh, wait, nevermind.

Nope not that guy. He was 110% scandal free. He never overstepped his authority once. Heck I don't think he's even killed a fly. That guy, he was absolutely perfect. He was after all a constitutional scholar.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
"What if President Barack Obama had engaged in precisely the same behavior? I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do."

What makes you think he didn't pull a bunch of behind the scenes stuff that was worse?

The leftist media is making a big deal about an editorial by Mark Galli in Christianity Today.

https://www.christianitytoday....ved-from-office.html

Here's a good rebuttal:

December 21, 2019

Christianity Today Betrays the Truth
By Bill Thomas

In a December 19, 2019 editorial, Mark Galli, the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, opines that President Trump should be “removed from office.” This conclusion by Christianity Today’s editorial board is disheartening and, in profound ways, does a disservice both to the Christian community and the nation as a whole.

Let’s be clear from the beginning. One does not have to support President Trump or the Republican party to be a Christian. One does not have to be an American to be a Christian. These truths ought to go without saying, but I think they need to be stated. Why? Because the truth matters. This editorial position is wrong, not because it is anti-Trump, but because it is anti-truth.

In the editorial, Galli acknowledges, “The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.”

These facts, cited by Galli, ought to matter. Yes, there is good reason to seriously doubt anything the Democrats throw up against this president and his administration. Yes, their motives may certainly be questioned. Furthermore, there wasn’t due process during any part of the so-called “hearings.” Galli acknowledges these truths. However, it’s at this point, that he and the editorial board abandon the truth.

The next line in the editorial shows CT’s betrayal of truth. Galli writes, “But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”

No, Mr. Galli, that is not a fact. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said there was no blackmail involved during a telephone call with President Trump. The Ukrainian president himself denied there was a “quid pro quo.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that President Trump sought to have the Ukraine harass or discredit Joe Biden. In fact, Zelensky has gone on record asserting the opposite. He says he was not pressured to investigate the Biden family during their now-controversial phone call over the summer and, when asked about it replied, “Nobody pushed me.”

Again, you don’t have to like the president or agree with this defense, but to assert that the facts are “unambiguous” is a lie.

In the next paragraph, Galli launches into a personal attack against the president. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion, as is the editorial board of CT. He then notes that much of the evangelical world supports what the president has done regarding the Supreme Court, the economy, and religious liberty.

His next two lines, once again, show CT’s abandonment of truth. “We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see.”

Unless you just accept the Democrat talking points line for line, these two statements make no sense. The Mueller investigation revealed nothing because there was nothing to reveal. The impeachment hearings revealed moral deficiencies, but not of the president.

Galli attempts to justify this editorial based on what CT wrote about Bill Clinton in 1998. The key phrase written in the 1998 CT editorial is “live by the law.” What law, Mr. Galli, did President Trump break? He doesn’t address it, because he can’t. There were no laws broken.

Galli then self-righteously derides evangelicals who support Trump and bemoans how anyone who claims to live for the gospel can support such a person. And, with that, elitism rears its head in evangelical Christianity.

Here’s the bottom line. Galli and the editorial board of CT can support whomever they want. As Christian Americans, we can, too. To not like President Trump is their right. To write about it in their magazine is their prerogative. It is also our prerogative to not like what they write. It is obvious that CT has abandoned the truth in an attempt to curry favor with the elitist left. They do so under a guise of winning them to the Gospel, but with what? The Gospel is based on truth. This editorial is not. It betrays the truth for popularity. Perhaps Galli and the members of the CT editorial board can go to their Christmas parties proud of how they told off the ignorant evangelicals. I don’t know. I don’t know what is gained by this foray into political spin, but somewhere a rooster must be crowing.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...h.html#ixzz68lZQWpQt

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The leftist media is making a big deal about an editorial by Mark Galli in Christianity Today.

https://www.christianitytoday....ved-from-office.html

Here's a good rebuttal:

Here's my rebuttal. Would HRC be a more moral leader? How about any of the people on stage at the debate the other night? Is Pete Buttigieg someone that Christians can get behind?

Yes Donald Trump is a flawed individual, we all are, even the most pious amongst us. Even the person at the pulpit every weekend is not without flaws or moral transgressions. So I say Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at him.

We are not dealing in binary terms here. He's not perfect, he has sinned as we all have. When evaluating him as a president, you need to look at his actions and what he's done. For all the scary talk from the left, he's not done one thing to limit anyone's right to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. Ask yourself the same of any of his contenders are they pledging to honor the Constitution or the Bible?

He's not a perfect man, but he's the perfect man for the job.

As a Christian (or fill in the blank) is a leader the ushers in prosperous times and freedom for all, the right choice, or a candidate that worships the false idols of inclusivity (not very inclusive), identity politics, LGBT rights (they already have the same rights as you and me), or Hollywood's values?

That article is crap, the attacks are crap, it's all politics. Don't try to sway your flock with these false attacks.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Bruce, there is a short time between the election and when the new Congress takes over. Sending the Impeachment to the Senate during that period would not involve a different Congress. Of course, it wouldn't be effective unless the Senate did fall to the Democrats--the trial would probably have to wait until the new Congress was seated.

para, I'm not trying to be difficult (I know that I sometimes am), but I don't see any rules preventing such action.

flashguy

Flashguy, you are TOTALLY WRONG.

Yes, a Congressional session from the time between the Election (Nov 3, 2020) and the time when the new Congress takes over (Jan 3, 2021) would be called a “lame-duck Congress” (Amendment XX, Section 1); and there could be legislative actions initiated and accomplished. BUT, the Congress (House of Reps & Senate) would be as is currently constituted, NOT those elected at the 2020 Election. And any actions initiated after the Election, but not completed before the new Congress assembles would DIE at the time of the end of that session of Congress (Jan 2, 2021); and new procedures would have to start from scratch—no carryover.

There is NO WAY IN HELL that the currently Republican-controlled Senate would vote to impeach Trump, especially if he is re-elected, landslide or otherwise. That action would precipitate such a Constitutional Crisis that has not been seen since December 20, 1860 (date South Carolina seceded). And you don’t want to go there!!!

Stop playing that “What If...” game.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 2BobTanner,

Does the Senate have the power to appoint an an "investigative committee"? If so can it supoena witnesses? Would it have any sanction powers?

Why not proceed with an aggressive inquiry into the impeachment allegations prior to taking any impeachment vote? Use this panel to call in all of the witnesses that were not allowed at the House circus.

Use the committee to call in Bidens, Schiff, the whistleblower, FBI agents and anyone else that is connected that will help the defence. Turn it into a public spectacle just like the House impeachment was.

The Republicans underestimate the value of perception and its effects on the public. Unfortunently, perception is often reality for many. Dems are winning the perception and propaganda war. The dems are aggressive and noisy. Match their aggressiveness.

The Repubs seem to be waiting for the AG and Justice Dept tp act. They well may, but the public will never hear the details of most of it. The AG will only indict when they have convincing proof. This is a war of insinuations and hearsay. It's about throwing mud. Throw mud!

Call in Comey to testify. Go through each of the 17 "lies" used in the FISA warrant. Use the word "lie" and "coup" frequently. Make it a painful and humiliating public spectacle for Comey, Schiff, , Bidens and as many players as possible. Expose them! Use bulldog prosecutorial tactics.

Do not allow Dems to call in witnesses, just like they prevented Repubs from calling in witnesses.

The Repubs seem to want someone else to do something. AG office may eventually indict a few, but the press will minimize and give minimal coverage.

Give us a full court press! Let it be known that there is a very public price to pay for an attempted coup! Portray each one as a liar, thief and conspirator.

This is a battle of perception! Don't sit back and hope someone else does something. Fight!

I realize that some of impeachment has blown back on the dems, but the repubs need to call up some testosterone and fight.

quote:

Originally posted by maxdog:
Does the Senate have the power to appoint an an "investigative committee"? If so can it supoena witnesses? Would it have any sanction powers?

Why not proceed with an aggressive inquiry into the impeachment allegations prior to taking any impeachment vote? Use this panel to call in all of the witnesses that were not allowed at the House circus.

Use the committee to call in Bidens, Schiff, the whistleblower, FBI agents and anyone else that is connected that will help the defence. Turn it into a public spectacle just like the House impeachment was.

The Republicans underestimate the value of perception and its effects on the public. Unfortunently, perception is often reality for many. Dems are winning the perception and propaganda war. The dems are aggressive and noisy. Match their aggressiveness.

The Repubs seem to be waiting for the AG and Justice Dept tp act. They well may, but the public will never hear the details of most of it. The AG will only indict when they have convincing proof. This is a war of insinuations and hearsay. It's about throwing mud. Throw mud!

Call in Comey to testify. Go through each of the 17 "lies" used in the FISA warrant. Use the word "lie" and "coup" frequently. Make it a painful and humiliating public spectacle for Comey, Schiff, , Bidens and as many players as possible. Expose them! Use bulldog prosecutorial tactics.

Do not allow Dems to call in witnesses, just like they prevented Repubs from calling in witnesses.

The Repubs seem to want someone else to do something. AG office may eventually indict a few, but the press will minimize and give minimal coverage.

Give us a full court press! Let it be known that there is a very public price to pay for an attempted coup! Portray each one as a liar, thief and conspirator.

This is a battle of perception! Don't sit back and hope someone else does something. Fight!

I realize that some of impeachment has blown back on the dems, but the repubs need to call up some testosterone and fight.

Why does everyone think all these witnesses will lay out a cogent story of lies and corruption for public consumption. The trial would be just like all things political, extremely long, boring with very few real insights.
Key witnesses would refuse to answer questions, the press would largely ignore any items that looked bad for the Democrats, and quite honestly, most people would just ignore it all to concentrate on reality TV.
There is nothing to be gained by a Senate trial. Get the prosecutions started for all the anti Trump traitors and people will start paying attention.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Stop playing that “What If...” game.

OK. I'm convinced. You all can stop now.

flashguy

I walked by the White House today while in DC. Somehow it seemed brighter, more inviting, at this season than it did during the BHO years. Waved at the Secret Service officers, etc. Some lights just can't be snuffed out too easily.

TSE, what I mean is not a trial, but an "inquiry" prior to a trial. Call up witnesses as described, put the spot light on them and then they can elect to have no trial as McConnell advocated might happen because of lack of evidence.

^^^^^^^^^^

That says it all! LOL


...and it just might prove to be the LARGEST landslide in US Presidential election history!

Best bustin out laugh I had in weeks Mikeyspizza..

That gif is just epic!

I can't stop laughing at that gif. My wife keeps calling me a child, but damn that's funny.

^^^ Hell yeah!