Decoy73

Thank you for contacting me about the impeachment trial for President Trump. As you know, Article One of the Constitution stipulates that impeachment proceedings must originate in the House of Representatives and grants the Senate with the sole power to try an impeachment. On December 18, 2019, following its inquiry, the House voted to approve the impeachment articles for President Donald Trump. The Senate begins every impeachment trial by voting on a set of rules to govern the proceedings. The rules for this trial were proposed in Senate Resolution 483, which was modeled after the procedures adopted during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999. The House managers and the president's defense team each had time equally divided to make their case. Senators also submitted questions in writing, which were read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. Each side spent two days answering the questions of the Senators. After closing arguments, Senators considered introducing additional evidence. I ultimately opposed this measure because senators had already received the same information the House used to pass the articles of impeachment. It is the responsibility of the House to conduct impeachment investigations -- to support specific charges with related evidence -- not the Senate's. The House managers presented 192 video clips containing testimony from 13 witnesses, and submitted more than 28,000 pages of documents. Additionally, senators were able to ask 180 questions of the House managers and the president's counsel for clarifications on their arguments. Furthermore, none of this evidence charged the president with a single crime. On February 5, 2020, the Senate voted on each article of impeachment, separately. I voted to acquit the president on both articles because the House managers failed to make a compelling case that the president should be removed from office. Fewer than two-thirds of senators voted to convict on each article of impeachment, which resulted in acquittal of the president. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to be an impartial juror during the trial. I have given fair and careful consideration to the evidence presented during this trial and engaged in the questioning process. It is time for Congress to move forward and return to the people's business. Again, thank you for contacting me. I am always ready to engage in a civil discourse on issues affecting Nebraskans and our nation. Accordingly, I believe it is important for Nebraskans, along with the rest of the country, to continue working toward reconciling tensions that persist and reuniting around our shared values as Americans. I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to advance policies that improve the daily lives of the people of Nebraska and this nation. Sincerely, Deb Fischer United States Senator

Still lots of time for misinformation to influence our nation of the gullible. I’m sure Trump has a plan to do just that.

I got that letter too. Makes her look one of two ways. Clearly a biased liar who’s unwilling to do anything to cross their dear leader and therefore puts the nation second or just simply horribly incompetent as a Senator. Could be both.

I was thinking he's not wrong more in the sense of our current course bankrupting us. As far as his analogy of the 95 year old, it's a tough one. No two situations will be alike. Will $20,000 of prostate CA therapy cure him? No. Will it prolong his life? Possibly. But where is his hypothetical family in this situation? Are they financially sound enough to pay for gramps care? Why should they not have some responsibility here? If they have little money, there are programs with drug companies that can help with providing low or no cost drugs. My point is why should Medicare, and thus taxpayers, keep throwing high cost dollars at someone, with no chance at a real cure, until the day they croak? I don't have all the answers, but I know we just can't sustain that.

He's not wrong. It might be hard for some to hear, but it's true.

Anand is taking this way out of context. Bloomberg is explaining how it can be learned. And yes it can. Farming is not easy, but also not rocket science.

On a positive note, it looks as if Christian Gaylord may be back for a final season. If nothing else, should help with depth and a veteran presence in the room. Good for him.

Good luck to the young man. Sounds like he has some struggles with depression and homesickness. Best for him to get closer to family.

It looks like the DOJ did just that and found no crime to charge him with.

I get what you’re saying and for the most part agree. I’m just to the point right now with Trump that I want him defeated by most any means necessary. If that happens because Bloomberg bought himself a presidency, so be it. I see it as easily the lesser of two evils.

Money buys politics. That’s nothing new. Bloomberg is buying “no more Trump” and I’m perfectly okay with that.

Only unpopular if you would vote for Trump instead of writing someone in or not voting at all.

Why do you think the Democratic nominee may influence the senate races?

I think Bloomberg wants Trump defeated and will support the nominee.

I was in that instance, speaking in general terms. But my whole point was that Vindman was fired for Vindictive reasons. The testimony he gave, which we have to assume is true, did make his boss look bad. But what was Vindman supposed to do? Lie? Refuse to testify? In the absence of any other incidents of “insubordination “ by Vindman to Trump, firing him for this was what an authoritarian leader would do. And that is most certainly NOT good leadership. Feel free to disagree, but I wouldn’t want to be employed under those conditions.

You’re veering off course here. We’re talking about Vindman. What did he do that fits one of the reasons you gave as examples?

Your link did nothing to bolster your case. Which one of those categories did Vindman fall under? So, to be clear, you think it’s good leadership to fire people who disagree with you?

There you go again. Distorting the truth. As much as I think a lot of us, myself included, appreciate you hanging around and debating these things, please stick to the actual facts. Not Trumper alternative facts. When did Col V say Trump is appalling and corrupt? He was subpoenaed, testified under oath and told the truth. And no, you don’t go around firing people who don’t like you or disagree with you. That’s most definitely NOT good leadership. That’s authoritarianism.

Excellent points.

Well, of course they would. I'm not arguing that, but just pointing out how others may see it.

I believe this official is retiring, thus his candidness.

I will say this about Sanders. Generally, I like the guy and will support him if he wins. But I feel his ideas on taxes, just from what I've seen, may be enough to turn off even people who don't really like Trump, but don't disdain him either. I think there are a lot of those just regular people, I used to be one of them, who don't pay much attention to what presidents do or all the political mudslinging in general. Maybe they've heard enough about Trump to decide it's probably time for a change. But..... then comes the whole taxes issue. Which, I feel is big for these types of voters. Because they do pay attention to their own finances. For example, I'm going to be selling a stock I've held for quite a while to pay for some unforeseen expenses. The capital gains are pretty good because of how long I've had it and the market is strong now. Under Biden's plan, my taxes on this sale would be exactly what they are now, under Trump. Under Sanders' plan the long-term capital gains taxes would be almost triple. Now, I would gladly pay that much more if it means getting Trump out of the White House. That difference may give a lot of other "regular people" something to think about though. I'm just pointing out why I don't think Sanders may be the best option to defeat Trump. Time will tell.

A HYPOTHETICAL question for you. Would you rather have Sanders at 50% chance at beating Trump or any other Dem at 70% be the nominee.

Ok I’ll try to explain my bad joke. I mentioned Trump should go to prison. I thought Pelosi, being a resident of San Francisco—specifically Pacific Heights (which has a nice view of the bay that includes Alcatraz), could keep an eye on him while he does his time at Alcatraz. I Was assuming people knew the geography. Probably shouldn’t have. I’m not sure how you thought I was suggesting Pelosi should join him in prison. Oh well. Carrying on...

She lives in the Pacific Heights part of San Francisco. It’s upon a hill overlooking the Bay and Alcatraz island.