this, ya bunch of unamerican traitors
this, ya bunch of unamerican traitors
Runningart2004 wrote:
Simply committing a felony is not grounds for impeachment. Indictment yes, but impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Lying about hush money isn’t going to do it either.
Lying about ties to Russia or why you fired Comey or if that firing was an obstruction to prevent those ties from seeing the light. Yes those are impeachable.
. . .
Can you be impeached because you committed a felony BEFORE assuming office? You can’t.
Alan, it seems strange that you say (accurately) that impeachment is a political, not judicial, process . . . AND that you seem to think impeachment must somehow be limited to actions performed while in office.
The Constitution lists no such limitation. And, BECAUSE impeachment is a political process, an offense is impeachable if Congress says it is.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The sad thing is the alternatives to Trump are not that appealing.
Hard to argue with this--and I won't.
The Democrats don't seem to have anyone whom I find even moderately palatable, and the GOP alternative to Trump would be Pence--yikes!
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Both of those sentences are true, but they are strawman arguments.
There are certain things that only mentally handicapped people or mentally ill people or grossly ignorant people would believe to be ok.
Here are some things:
1) Charles Manson should have been free to go.
2) Ok to chop off my hand because it will grow back.
3) Ok to continue to support a President who federal prosecutors have said committed two felonies while running for President that directly affected the election. This is the same president who lies constantly, has been running a criminal enterprise for decades and has the walls closing in on him with regard to obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy against the United States, and then likely further down the road, money laundering, bank and/or wire fraud, and likely other crimes. There is no evidence coming out of the investigations that suggests Trump will be cleared of all of this and there IS evidence that he should be very worried.
You continue to support him for some reason, and that is baffling. Racists continue to support him, because he is a racist. So, while that could be it for you, I don't have evidence to say so, so I'll say no to that one. Do you like the wall he didn't build and that Mexico didn't pay for? Do you like Hillary walking around free when locking her up was a main part of his campaign? Do you like all the best people he said he would hire who have either been in trouble with the law or he has called "dumb as a rock" and other horrible things once they left? What is it? What about him makes you overlook his crookedness and incompetence?
Some things are inherently wrong, and supporting Trump at this point is one of those things. Faith should be reserved for one's religion, not a criminal political leader.
I once defended him as a good businessman here years before he ran. He had fooled me on that, but I now have more information and realize that he's a grifter and hasn't done really anything with the money his father left him. I was wrong about him, but faced with evidence, I saw the light. You need to do that.
Be careful, Iggy will accuse you of trying to be superior for having coherent thoughts and arguments!
It is more circuitous thought than coherent. It is a nation of laws, yet in your rationale the end justifies the means. Your political views color your conclusions rather than facts just as they did during the Kavanaugh hearings. That is the only point I find disturbing. I have no emotional attachment to either party and see both playing a game to stay in power rather than serve the people.
Trollminator wrote:
Slimy McConnell wrote:
The House should impeach Trump and send it over the Senate. Let McConnell refuse to allow a vote on impeachment. The GOP will be die in the 2020 elections. "But the judges," is not worth the destruction the GOP is doing to themselves keeping Trump around. Pence can manage. Trump is a throwaway.
He won’t be impeached on the grounds of campaign finance violations - because republicans won’t go along. But what that means is the republicans would acknowledge that this type of crime is ok. If they think that will go well with the public then fine, but we saw which side was hurt the most by the last nasty battle. It’s a lose lose for Republicans.
+1
The Republicans can only slow this disaster by impeaching Trump—country over party—and standing behind Pence as the president.
Trollminator wrote:
Make America Great Again wrote:
Who is ignorant here?
"For a criminal prosecution, the Justice Department must prove that a defendant knowingly violated campaign finance laws."
Dig further and think harder - that is ultimately referring to intent, which is easier to prove than you suspect. For example, if it is clear Trump ordered the stormy payment to be made so that it wouldn’t hurt his reputation, and given the timing of the payment, that can easily be used as support for him understanding that what he was doing wasn’t kosher. You don’t make payments through she’ll conpanies and ask someone else to do it unless you know you’d otherwise be violating the law. Sorry this wasn’t a slam dunk like your simpleton brain processed it.
If Trump was not running for president he would NOT have made the payoffs to Stormy or Karen. He would have gone his usual route—sue them if they talked about and get his lawyers to impose gag orders on them. But that process takes to long so the payments were necessary.
Trump none payment wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Dig further and think harder - that is ultimately referring to intent, which is easier to prove than you suspect. For example, if it is clear Trump ordered the stormy payment to be made so that it wouldn’t hurt his reputation, and given the timing of the payment, that can easily be used as support for him understanding that what he was doing wasn’t kosher. You don’t make payments through she’ll conpanies and ask someone else to do it unless you know you’d otherwise be violating the law. Sorry this wasn’t a slam dunk like your simpleton brain processed it.
If Trump was not running for president he would NOT have made the payoffs to Stormy or Karen. He would have gone his usual route—sue them if they talked about and get his lawyers to impose gag orders on them. But that process takes to long so the payments were necessary.
The only way a campaign finance charge sticks to trump is if cohen can provide some kind of proof spanks made the payments to help his campaign and that trump knew that was illegal. It's possible, but no better than 50/50.
Otherwise Trump says the payments were to save his marriage or business, and he's good to go.
I don't see the campaign finance charge a carrying much weight, unless there are tapes.
kibitzer wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The sad thing is the alternatives to Trump are not that appealing.
Hard to argue with this--and I won't.
The Democrats don't seem to have anyone whom I find even moderately palatable, and the GOP alternative to Trump would be Pence--yikes!
You two are delusional. There are reasonable people in both parties that would be WAY better than Trump. I agree Pence is not one of those people but there are many Republicans out there that would do a better job and who are not outright criminals.
As stated many times previously in this thread, not all people who voted for Trump are morons but only moron says continue to support Trump now.
Almost anyone would be better wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Hard to argue with this--and I won't.
The Democrats don't seem to have anyone whom I find even moderately palatable, and the GOP alternative to Trump would be Pence--yikes!
You two are delusional. There are reasonable people in both parties that would be WAY better than Trump. I agree Pence is not one of those people but there are many Republicans out there that would do a better job and who are not outright criminals.
As stated many times previously in this thread, not all people who voted for Trump are morons but only moron says continue to support Trump now.
And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Almost anyone would be better wrote:
You two are delusional. There are reasonable people in both parties that would be WAY better than Trump. I agree Pence is not one of those people but there are many Republicans out there that would do a better job and who are not outright criminals.
As stated many times previously in this thread, not all people who voted for Trump are morons but only moron says continue to support Trump now.
And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.
anyone who tries to make a parallel between a normal politician like HRC and the criminal, liar, incompetent Spanky McBonespurs is not making a real argument.
DJT is a failure and criminal like we have never seen in the white house. We literally elected the worst candidate in the field. HRC would have been obama2, which even if you are a R wouldn't be too bad.
kibitzer wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Simply committing a felony is not grounds for impeachment. Indictment yes, but impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Lying about hush money isn’t going to do it either.
Lying about ties to Russia or why you fired Comey or if that firing was an obstruction to prevent those ties from seeing the light. Yes those are impeachable.
. . .
Can you be impeached because you committed a felony BEFORE assuming office? You can’t.
Alan, it seems strange that you say (accurately) that impeachment is a political, not judicial, process . . . AND that you seem to think impeachment must somehow be limited to actions performed while in office.
The Constitution lists no such limitation. And, BECAUSE impeachment is a political process, an offense is impeachable if Congress says it is.
Hmmm... I’ll have to look it up. Technically I’m pretty sure impeachment is only for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by a president. I could be wrong but am sure I read that somewhere. I am sure the GOP will try to say “well he wasn’t president yet so it doesn’t apply”. McConnell would put anyone or anything in office so long that it follows his GOP agenda.
But you are right, it’s up to Congress. They tried to impeach Johnson because he disagreed with their policy.
Alan
Trollminator wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Yes, like the Yellow Vests or Antifa.
This is when thinking helps bud. Just like when right wingers and FOX said thousands of terrorist migrants are trying to invade the country because possibly 5 guys with a criminal record are trying to cross the border. I guess Yellow Vests and Antifa represent the majority of certain population groups now. Or it could be you just have no ideas WTH you are talking about. I’ll go with the latter.
Actually, 300k+ people marched in France to protest the high cost of living, including the gas tax that has since been "delayed." The yellow vests protests the last two weekends have been smaller, but over 1700 were arrested just last weekend. Although Macron's party holds a decisive majority in legislature, those protests are real problems over real concerns unlike Antifa or the migrant caravan.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
And you were most likely a moron that supported HRC throughout the 2016 campaign. So what does that mean? Come on move on. It is just your political view. Admit it.
anyone who tries to make a parallel between a normal politician like HRC and the criminal, liar, incompetent Spanky McBonespurs is not making a real argument.
DJT is a failure and criminal like we have never seen in the white house. We literally elected the worst candidate in the field. HRC would have been obama2, which even if you are a R wouldn't be too bad.
I would be ok with Pence cuz he’s an Indiana boy and his uber religious views would be kept in check.
Alan
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Both of those sentences are true, but they are strawman arguments.
There are certain things that only mentally handicapped people or mentally ill people or grossly ignorant people would believe to be ok.
Here are some things:
1) Charles Manson should have been free to go.
2) Ok to chop off my hand because it will grow back.
3) Ok to continue to support a President who federal prosecutors have said committed two felonies while running for President that directly affected the election. This is the same president who lies constantly, has been running a criminal enterprise for decades and has the walls closing in on him with regard to obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy against the United States, and then likely further down the road, money laundering, bank and/or wire fraud, and likely other crimes. There is no evidence coming out of the investigations that suggests Trump will be cleared of all of this and there IS evidence that he should be very worried.
You continue to support him for some reason, and that is baffling. Racists continue to support him, because he is a racist. So, while that could be it for you, I don't have evidence to say so, so I'll say no to that one. Do you like the wall he didn't build and that Mexico didn't pay for? Do you like Hillary walking around free when locking her up was a main part of his campaign? Do you like all the best people he said he would hire who have either been in trouble with the law or he has called "dumb as a rock" and other horrible things once they left? What is it? What about him makes you overlook his crookedness and incompetence?
Some things are inherently wrong, and supporting Trump at this point is one of those things. Faith should be reserved for one's religion, not a criminal political leader.
I once defended him as a good businessman here years before he ran. He had fooled me on that, but I now have more information and realize that he's a grifter and hasn't done really anything with the money his father left him. I was wrong about him, but faced with evidence, I saw the light. You need to do that.
Be careful, Iggy will accuse you of trying to be superior for having coherent thoughts and arguments!
Yeah...crazy really. There were legitimate reasons to give Trump a chance on election day, but we have learned so much more about his crookedness and his ineptitude since that it is beyond crazy to continue to support him. And despite what Iggy says, yes, that view is more valid than his; not just more valid, it is the correct view, and his is wrong. We have a man accused of committing two felonies in the White House. Unacceptable.
Runningart2004 wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
Alan, it seems strange that you say (accurately) that impeachment is a political, not judicial, process . . . AND that you seem to think impeachment must somehow be limited to actions performed while in office.
The Constitution lists no such limitation. And, BECAUSE impeachment is a political process, an offense is impeachable if Congress says it is.
Hmmm... I’ll have to look it up. Technically I’m pretty sure impeachment is only for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by a president. I could be wrong but am sure I read that somewhere. I am sure the GOP will try to say “well he wasn’t president yet so it doesn’t apply”. McConnell would put anyone or anything in office so long that it follows his GOP agenda.
But you are right, it’s up to Congress. They tried to impeach Johnson because he disagreed with their policy.
Alan
Congress can impeach for crimes committed before a prez takes office.
kibitzer wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
Simply committing a felony is not grounds for impeachment. Indictment yes, but impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Lying about hush money isn’t going to do it either.
Lying about ties to Russia or why you fired Comey or if that firing was an obstruction to prevent those ties from seeing the light. Yes those are impeachable.
. . .
Can you be impeached because you committed a felony BEFORE assuming office? You can’t.
Alan, it seems strange that you say (accurately) that impeachment is a political, not judicial, process . . . AND that you seem to think impeachment must somehow be limited to actions performed while in office.
The Constitution lists no such limitation. And, BECAUSE impeachment is a political process, an offense is impeachable if Congress says it is.
CORRECT!
kibitzer wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The sad thing is the alternatives to Trump are not that appealing.
Hard to argue with this--and I won't.
The Democrats don't seem to have anyone whom I find even moderately palatable, and the GOP alternative to Trump would be Pence--yikes!
Well, in the short term the GOP alternative would be Pence, but Trump has lowered the bar so low, that assuming Pence hasn't been dragged into criminality also, he would be better simply because he is not a compromised criminal.
I likely couldn't vote for a GOP candidate, but John Kasich would be a very good president. I could stomach Jeb Bush also.
On the Democrat side, Beto would be interesting, and I believe would still have some conservative and/or moderate stances as he would feel some allegiance to Texas.
ErwinS wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
CORRECT! We know now that Trump committed two felonies. Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Conspiracy against the United States of America is to follow, and perhaps witness tampering. Those are the things I believe will be involved in the impeachment process. Beyond that, either later from Mueller or from other DOJ offices will be money laundering, bank and/or wire fraud, and likely other financial crimes.
The Trump Organization will ultimately be labeled a criminal enterprise, and it will be dissolved...that may take a few years yet.
The totality of what Mueller presents will ultimately be too much for Senate Republicans to back.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Had I not seen the IranContra investigation go nowhere I would have agreed with you. But because I lived through that time, seeing crimes much worse than Watergate go unpunished (except for a few stooges at near the bottom) I do not expect any Trumps to go down for this. I admire you confidence in the American system. Enjoy it while you still have it because you are going to be vert dissatisfied this time next year.
This. History has shown us people are fine with a felon as president so long that he is either popular or the economy is doing great. It’s not right, and impeachment is not the right way to ensure accountability. A challenge could be made to the DOJs internal policy to not indict sitting presidents but that would make both sides sweat.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
ErwinS wrote:
Had I not seen the IranContra investigation go nowhere I would have agreed with you. But because I lived through that time, seeing crimes much worse than Watergate go unpunished (except for a few stooges at near the bottom) I do not expect any Trumps to go down for this. I admire you confidence in the American system. Enjoy it while you still have it because you are going to be vert dissatisfied this time next year.
This. History has shown us people are fine with a felon as president so long that he is either popular or the economy is doing great. It’s not right, and impeachment is not the right way to ensure accountability. A challenge could be made to the DOJs internal policy to not indict sitting presidents but that would make both sides sweat.
Alan
Alan, did you see my comment a few pages ago? It was a weight training question regarding Wendler's 5/3/1. I didn't want to start a separate thread