Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump impeachment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    did hillary report the money spent for breakfast the day of the second debate?
    Did she report the money she paid to Steel for his dossier?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
      You know perfectly we'll what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had deliberately violated campaign finance law to hide secrets.
      Who?

      And what difference does it make what someone else does?

      Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #18
        This is the problem with democracies, people get sold out to them and start thinking everything is a "right."

        Let's break it down: You don't have any rights.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
          Any money spent by a candidate or a campaign to effect the outcome of the election has to be reported. You or I can spend money to inuence the outcome of an election as long as we don't coordinate with the campaign about it, but the candidate cannot.
          How do you know he didn't pay off Stormy to keep his wife from finding out.

          The telling thing here is the fact that if this has been done officially through the campaign, it would probably have been legal. Candidates are allowed to donate as much of their own money to their campaigns as they want. All he would have had to do is make a donation to his campaign in his own name, and the law wouldn't have cared. But then, campaigns have reporting obligations.

          It is the secrecy that is the problem. Americans have a right to know some basic details about that candidates bidding to represent them.
          So, I'm guessing you spoke out demanding that Bill Clinton be removed from office for committing perjury? Or were you among those saying keeping your sex life private is no big deal? Before you answer let me remind you that, had Clinton not lied under oath, the Paula Jones case would not have been dismissed for "lack of evidence".

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
            ok, so where does this "right" come from?
            The laws enacted by Congress to protect the integrity of elections. Of course.
            Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
              The laws enacted by Congress to protect the integrity of elections. Of course.
              And Obama's secret police in the FBI and Justice Department did everything in their power to destroy the integrity of the last election. Of course.

              But just like everything else in the Obama administration they failed and Trump got elected!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                How do you know he didn't pay off Stormy to keep his wife from finding out.
                The timing is suggestive, and I suspect that Cohen will testify to the intentions during any legal action. But it is a question of fact that would have to be proven in any venue.

                Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                So, I'm guessing you spoke out demanding that Bill Clinton be removed from office for committing perjury? Or were you among those saying keeping your sex life private is no big deal? Before you answer let me remind you that, had Clinton not lied under oath, the Paula Jones case would not have been dismissed for "lack of evidence".
                I really wonder why all conservatives seem to assume I'm a big Bill Clinton fan. I'm not old enough to have ever voted for him.

                But anyway, an important detail is that campaign finance laws are designed to cover money spent, not the commission of other crimes. So, even if he were charged, it's hard to see how he could be charged under campaign finance law. Moreover, he committed perjury in 1998, after his last election. If it was an effort to impact the outcome of an election, which one? One in the past? One in which he wouldn't be running? Also, many of these limits weren't enacted until 2002, so they may not have applied. I'd have to do a more thorough review to figure out if anything relevant would still have applied.

                That leaves us with the question of whether an impeachment unrelated to holding or exercising the office is proper. I think that generally the answer would be 'no', which let's Clinton off the hook for impeachment. Trump, on the other hand, seems to have knowingly broken the law in order to illegitimately seize the office, which should be impeachable if it isn't already.
                Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                  Americans have a right to know some basic details about that candidates bidding to represent them.
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  can you point to anything in the constitution that enumerates a citizen's right to know about a candidate's sexual habits?
                  Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                  I didn't suggest there was such a provision in the Constitution, as you well know.
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  ok, so where does this "right" come from?
                  Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                  The laws enacted by Congress to protect the integrity of elections. Of course.

                  can you point to anything in the constitution that gives congress the power to make up new rights willy-nilly?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                    can you point to anything in the constitution that gives congress the power to make up new rights willy-nilly?
                    That would be Article I.
                    Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I assume it's in section 8, but i'm not seeing it

                      The Congress shall have power

                      To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
                      To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
                      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
                      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
                      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                      To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
                      To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
                      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
                      To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
                      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
                      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
                      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
                      To provide and maintain a Navy;
                      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
                      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
                      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
                      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
                      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                        The timing is suggestive, and I suspect that Cohen will testify to the intentions during any legal action. But it is a question of fact that would have to be proven in any venue.
                        Timing is sugggesive but far from probative. I too suspect that Cohen will testify the way you say. Not because it is necessarily true, but because they have him on tax evasion and he is trying to keep himself and his wife out of prison.

                        I really wonder why all conservatives seem to assume I'm a big Bill Clinton fan. I'm not old enough to have ever voted for him.

                        But anyway, an important detail is that campaign finance laws are designed to cover money spent,
                        campaign finance laws are designed to cover money spent on campaigns
                        not the commission of other crimes. So, even if he were charged, it's hard to see how he could be charged under campaign finance law. Moreover, he committed perjury in 1998, after his last election. If it was an effort to impact the outcome of an election, which one? One in the past? One in which he wouldn't be running? Also, many of these limits weren't enacted until 2002, so they may not have applied. I'd have to do a more thorough review to figure out if anything relevant would still have applied.

                        That leaves us with the question of whether an impeachment unrelated to holding or exercising the office is proper. I think that generally the answer would be 'no', which let's Clinton off the hook for impeachment. Trump, on the other hand, seems to have knowingly broken the law in order to illegitimately seize the office, which should be impeachable if it isn't already.
                        I never tried to imply that Clinton broke campaign laws Just that he broke the law. The idea that breach of campaign law is more serious than breaking any other law is just silly.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Who?

                          And what difference does it make what someone else does?

                          Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                          It makes all the difference to the Trumpeters. Donny's ego causes him to go after anyone and everyone he considers an enemy.
                          Well until he needs their support in the Senate. Now Lying Ted Cruz is a Trump favorite.
                          If Trump worked for you, you would fire him.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                            If you believe Donald Trump is not qualified to be president because he is an adulterous liar, I do agree. If you believe being an adulterous liar does not disqualify a President, but paying his bimbo to hide his adultery (with money that did not come from campaign funds) is a crime that justifies his removal from office,you are just being silly.
                            I thought Hell would freeze over before I saw Delmar defending a pro abortionist like Trump (Trump signed legislation fully funding Planned Parenthood 5 times in his first 16 months in office. Remember the pathological liar promised to defund PP).

                            The reason for impeachment won't be Trump's adulterous affairs, as liberals are known for that and the American public loves it (even supposed Christians look the other way if their candidate is involved) The reason will be his collusion with Russia and hence Trump's connections with the mass murdering former Colonel of the KGB and now President of Russia Vlad Putin.


                            https://swalwell.house.gov/sites/swa...Russia-4-4.png
                            The very long history of Donald Trump's pro homosexual and transgender activism, before and during his Presidency, can be found on page 141, post # 2113 and #2114.
                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5336963
                            http://theologyonline.com/showthread...=1#post5336964

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Trump.

                              Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                                I really wonder why all conservatives seem to assume I'm a big Bill Clinton fan. I'm not old enough to have ever voted for him.
                                i didn't vote for nixon or eisenhower, but I think they both were terrific presidents

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X