Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

Just now, Enginerd said:

The point is to send a message to anyone thinking about whistleblowing; shut up or we’ll do to you what we’re doing to him

 

Of course that's the message. That's what criminals do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

 

If you've read any of the testimony, you would know it was much more than a single phone call.  It was a coordinated effort to pressure Zelensky

 

Attorney General Declined Trump Request to Declare Nothing Illegal in Ukraine Call  https://nyti.ms/33oPtEf

President Trump asked Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference stating that no laws were broken in his call with Ukraine’s president. Mr. Barr declined.

 

@Ram23, you do know what was released by the the Whitehouse was not the full transcript, it was the redacted version. Just like the redacted version of the Mueller Report, which consequent, the Republican I mean US. Attorney’s office is appealing to have the full redacted version turned over as part of the impeachment inquiry. If nothing to hide, why not hand over the report and transcripts for all to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prez is cracking up.  He obv can have giuliani there. 

@realDonaldTrump: It was just explained to me that for next weeks Fake Hearing (trial) in the House, as they interview Never Trumpers and others, I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS. It is a Pelosi, Schiff, Scam against the Republican Party and me. This Witch Hunt should not be allowed to proceed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, audidave said:

Prez is cracking up.  He obv can have giuliani there. 

@realDonaldTrump: It was just explained to me that for next weeks Fake Hearing (trial) in the House, as they interview Never Trumpers and others, I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS. It is a Pelosi, Schiff, Scam against the Republican Party and me. This Witch Hunt should not be allowed to proceed!

Why would the President's lawyer be in a deposition of witnesses?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

Why would the President's lawyer be in a deposition of witnesses?  

He is a witness and could testify that every thing he did for the prez was just peachy. That would get trump’s defense out there. 

 How would that not be must see tv?!?

Edited by audidave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Just speaking pragmatically - when does withholding aid to an ally on the precondition that they investigate a political rival become illegal... 

 

Because when this is President (Insert Dem) and they're doing the same thing to Israel.... 

Also, I know why we’re doing it...but trying to define or look for the presidents actions, particularly in this case, to be illegal is not the right move. For a large amount of the criminal code it isn’t illegal when the president does it. 
 

What he’s done here is a clear violation of abuse of office (using the mechanisms of the United States to his own benefit and not the country’s own national security). That’s where the goalposts need to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, audidave said:

We are talking extortion by the president and he basically admitted that is how he runs his foreign policy. 

 

"Hypothetical crimes committed by a person who can never be President would be bad, so I'm ok with letting the current criminal President off the hook" is...certainly a position.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

Just speaking pragmatically - when does withholding aid to an ally on the precondition that they investigate a political rival become illegal... 

 

It's illegal on two fronts, if not more.  1) The executive branch does not have Constitutional authority to decide when and how money is spent if it's been approved by Congress and signed off by the President.  No conditions were attached to the bill which authorized the military aid to Ukraine.  2) I'm a broken record, but https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Yea, they are future thinkers.  Scary dark foreign looking people might become president and make the US abide by international law that was never sanctioned by the American people. Therefore we must blow up the constitution to become more like South Africa and rule as a minority white party and become friends with Russia because they get us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, audidave said:

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  From my understanding, the judge is the chief justice and the jury is the senate in impeachment hearings.  Are you trying to make up some fantasy about how the constitution would change radically in a President Ilhan regime?

  We are talking extortion by the president and he basically admitted that is how he runs his foreign policy. 

 

That is incorrect, and I'm also not making up a fantasy about how the Constitution would change radically under a President Omar (though, as has been pointed out, she can't run unless the Constitution is changed first, but that was a separate point).

 

The Senate is not merely the jury in an impeachment trial and the chief justice does not preside over it in the way a trial judge presides over a criminal trial.  That was exactly my point, and it doesn't sound like you "have no idea what I'm talking about here," it sounds like you disagree with it.

 

In the first presidential impeachment trial, Chief Justice Chase made some procedural rulings and the Senate overruled him.  Needless to say, a jury can't do that to a judge.  And in a regular trial, the judge has the ability to enter a directed verdict, basically overriding the jury.  Needless to say again, the chief justice cannot do that in an impeachment trial.  (And, of course, the judge in a regular trial also has a significant role to play in building the record for appeal, which is irrelevant in an impeachment trial when there is no appeal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It is a political/constitutional trial. Did the president uphold the laws and ideals of his sworn duty to the constitution?

  I have no problem with the Chief Justice acting as an arbitrator.  You make it sound like it is a kangaroo court where there is no way for trump to get a fair hearing. There is no “executioner”. The prez merely loses his job and is replaced by the VP. 

  Maybe you want the US to be called a kingdom? Trump kingdom.  As a federalist, you should be a lil more appreciative of the whole constitution and not just the 2nd amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

she can't run unless the Constitution is changed first

 

Ted Cruz ran, so I'm not sure Omar couldn't. Both of them would face some legal challenges, were they to win. But they could probably play some Trump-style games and stay in office so long as the Senate didn't want to boot them out, regardless of the unconstitutionality of their election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

That is incorrect, and I'm also not making up a fantasy about how the Constitution would change radically under a President Omar (though, as has been pointed out, she can't run unless the Constitution is changed first, but that was a separate point).

 

The Senate is not merely the jury in an impeachment trial and the chief justice does not preside over it in the way a trial judge presides over a criminal trial.  That was exactly my point, and it doesn't sound like you "have no idea what I'm talking about here," it sounds like you disagree with it.

 

In the first presidential impeachment trial, Chief Justice Chase made some procedural rulings and the Senate overruled him.  Needless to say, a jury can't do that to a judge.  And in a regular trial, the judge has the ability to enter a directed verdict, basically overriding the jury.  Needless to say again, the chief justice cannot do that in an impeachment trial.  (And, of course, the judge in a regular trial also has a significant role to play in building the record for appeal, which is irrelevant in an impeachment trial when there is no appeal.)

 

 

Spot on Gram - 

 

And to that end... this weakens the sh** out of any due process arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many more criminal proceedings do we have to go through with the orange goon in office?

@NewYorkStateAG: BREAKING: We’ve secured a court order forcing President Trump to pay $2M in damages after admitting to illegally using the Trump Foundation to help him intervene in the 2016 presidential election and further his own political interests.

No one is above the law.

 

There really should be a RICO charge against Trump org.  The trump foundation, the trump university, trump’s casinos, trump’s condos where they have lied about their sales in order to get people to buy. These are all fraudulently run companies. 

This would help get to the bottom of all the hundreds of Russians and mobsters that have holed up in his Florida and NYC condos that have paid cash for their condos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So Donnie misused charity funds for personal gain. He certainly wouldn't use treasury funds to further his campaign.  that would be completely out of character. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

The whistleblower is irrelevant at this point, the story has been corroborated by more than a few Trump appointees  deep state agents in testimony.

 

 

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We knew when the whistleblower complaint came out that the whistleblower had opposing political leaning to the president.  The ICIG (Trump appointee) still consider the report to be credible and urgent.  We are now seeing that the IGs assessment was accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

whew, I'm glad the whistleblower is so noble and pure, otherwise he might be subject to the kind of partisan influences that all of his Democrat connections might suggest 😂

 

 

Donations to:

- Nancy Pelosi

- Chuck Schumer 

- Hillary Clinton 

- DNC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... that's Donald Trump, btw. Political involvement, for ACKSHUAL patriots, doesn't impair their ability to decipher right from wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q: What was Ambassador Taylor's reaction to this whole conversation?

 

(George Kent) A: He told me he indicated to Gordon, he said.  This is wrong.  That's what I recall him saying to me, again, orally reading out of a conversation of which I was not a part.  And Gordon had told him, Tim, and Tim told Bill Taylor, that he, Gordon, had talked to the President, POTUS in sort of shorthand, and POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden, and Clinton.

 

tRuMp cArEs aBoUt cOrRuPtIon


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Bolton is apparently waiting for a court decision to allow him to testify, according to sources.  What he knows is described as damaging to the President.

 

Lemme go heat this popcorn up.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the spineless GOP senate does not convict trump with the overwhelming evidence there will be a massive pushback on the Senators that don’t vote for conviction. The GOP will lose the Senate. If trump is still somehow elected through the electoral college he will be a super lame duck and Congress will put ever more control over what he may do. 

   I think the stain of impeachment will put the final nail in the coffin for trump but you never know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

John Bolton is apparently waiting for a court decision to allow him to testify, according to sources.  What he knows is described as damaging to the President.

 

Lemme go heat this popcorn up.

 

I hope you haven't started that popcorn yet :classic_sad:

 

Former National Security Advisor Bolton a No-Show For Impeachment Inquiry Interview

 

https://time.com/5721670/bolton-impeachment-inquiry-panel/

 

(WASHINGTON) — Former national security adviser John Bolton failed to appear for an interview with impeachment investigators Thursday, making it unlikely that he will provide testimony to the House about President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to have popcorn ready on Wednesday when the open testimony starts. Trump will probably be very distracted and will probably rant wildly when he has his presser with Erdogan. That should be fun watching Erdogan’s face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Donations to:

- Nancy Pelosi

- Chuck Schumer 

- Hillary Clinton 

- DNC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... that's Donald Trump, btw. Political involvement, for ACKSHUAL patriots, doesn't impair their ability to decipher right from wrong

 

Amazing comment. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

it's not looking good for the Democrats if even liberal Salon is worried that Trump will win again😮

 

 

Well, there's some really interesting pro and anti Trump stats out there for 2020.

 

Anti

- No President has ever polled as low as Trump does nationally and won an election. He trails the top 5 Dems by at least 4 pts nationally. 

- He has lost massive support in suburbs. 'Burbs make up substantial portions of the population in PA, WI, Mi, and OH

 

Pro

- He actually didn't have an excellent voter turnout in 2020. For instance, in Wisconsin in 2016, 600,000 working class white males stayed home and didn't vote at all. Those votes will certainly be targeted by the Trump team and, if tapped, could help him to victory in these swing states. 

- With Bloomberg in the race, there's a decent chance it will be base vs. base in the general, and this will limit Trump's needs and allow him to focus intensely on mobilizing votes in a way the Dems may not be able to, given the infighting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

- No President has ever polled as low as Trump does nationally and won an election. He trails the top 5 Dems by at least 4 pts nationally. 

 

Can we take a minute to appreciate that despite a humming economy and wage growth, that a sitting president is polling this low...  All the guy has to do is shut up and his poll numbers will increase, but he craves attention and it's to his detriment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, audidave said:

How many more criminal proceedings do we have to go through with the orange goon in office?

@NewYorkStateAG: BREAKING: We’ve secured a court order forcing President Trump to pay $2M in damages after admitting to illegally using the Trump Foundation to help him intervene in the 2016 presidential election and further his own political interests.

No one is above the law.

 

There really should be a RICO charge against Trump org.  The trump foundation, the trump university, trump’s casinos, trump’s condos where they have lied about their sales in order to get people to buy. These are all fraudulently run companies. 

This would help get to the bottom of all the hundreds of Russians and mobsters that have holed up in his Florida and NYC condos that have paid cash for their condos. 

 

This would be a giant scandal in any other presidency, but Trump is such a swirl of criminality and corruption that it barely got any coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, X said:

 

This would be a giant scandal in any other presidency, but Trump is such a swirl of criminality and corruption that it barely got any coverage.

 

A scandal? Eh... like most of the Trump outrage, it's feigned and blown out of proportion. Trump's statement spells it out pretty well:

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIzygZtWwAA4pN3.jpg

 

EIzygZtWwAA4pN3.jpg

Edited by Ram23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Right.  Let's just buy into his statement and not the facts as to why the Judge ORDERED he pay out.

 

source.gif


OR that he admitted to it:

Judge orders Trump to pay $2 million for misusing his foundation

The money raised "was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff," the judge noted.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1078306

 

The settlement also included an admission from Trump that he personally misused foundation funds and called for mandatory training requirements for the now-defunct foundation's directors — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump.

 

Your posts truly crack me up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...