Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by K51000, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:12 PM.
Ah, that's right. He resigned before they could get it done.
How about "constitutional crisis"?
Fucktard Shumer uses that one daily.
Lowest unemployment #'s in forever
Best GDP #'s in a long time
Excellent Stock Market Performance
Handled the North Korea deal
Cut down on illegal immigration
He’s got to go!!!!
I’m guessing this list is flawed because much of it is quantifiable and doesn’t deal with feelings?
Anyone wants to provide a comparable list of Obama's accomplishments so I can understand why he was so fantastic I'd love to see it...
Well, for starters, my health insurance premiums are through the fuckin roof. To the point that it changes my plans for a whole decade of my life. So, I guess you could back into it that Bamajelly increased employment well into the future.
To answer the OPs question, the best case for an impeachable offence would be a violation of the Emoluments clause in the US Constitution. The cases for obstruction of Justice (firing Comey because of the Russian investigation) and campaign finance laws are thinner, but that won't necessarily stop the Democrats for using them for impeachment if they want.
For those that need a lesson, impeachment by the House is roughly the equivalence of a Grand Jury indictment. The burden of proof is much lower at that stage. To remove the President from office, the Senate would need to convict him. I do not see there being sufficient evidence for the Senate to convict him.
My best guess: The House Democrats will wait for the Muller investigation to complete. If it doesn't find violation of the law by the President, they will then go after him for the Emoluments clause. Moving before the investigation is complete would be a mistake on their part and enough of them know this that I am betting they will hold off. The other more radical folks on the left will continue to make noise about Impeachment in the mean time to keep the media stirred up.
He did a ton for the people that pull the strings:
Made a federal law guaranteeing record profits for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Managed to turn two victories in the middle east into quagmires guaranteeing MIC profits for years to come.
Enabled the destruction of three relatively stable governments, allowing ISIS to fill the power vacuum (Syria, Egypt, and Libya).
Emboldened and strengthened Russia by being an overall pussy.
Funneled billions to fake "green" companies, most of which went straight into his supporters pockets.
Is that a good start?
Haha...and all true.
Greatest fucking con man in American history.
Thief and liar to his core. Guess we can take solace in the fact that we escaped the only person who could have one upped him....Hillary.
Don't forget his impact on firearm sales.
Oh, and let me add:
Somehow jumped from kid of a poor single mom, to ivy league student, to Senator, to President, with little to no experience.
Also went from broke, to a net worth of $40 million, on a government salary.
LOL! You beat me to this. I was about to say gun salesman of the millennium...
Yes, but that's a different conversation. And we're all guilty of that. Us suckers fall for that con hook line and sinker. The firearm industry LOVES them some democrats!!! If those guys were true patriots, they wouldn't be playing into the hype and ratcheting up prices at every hint of a dem victory.
I believe attempts to impeach will destroy dems chances of a win in 2020. They will likely make overtures to appease their batshit crazy radical wing but in the end, they wont impeach in a election year.
Yup. Proof positive that he was just a puppet planted by the masters that really run things. He was completely and totally unqualified to even run for president, let alone win. Dude was a "community organizer" a few years prior to be elected president. Yeah, ok. Let's go with this dude. SMH.
That's what scares me about Beto O'Rourke. Smooth talking, good looking puppet to resurrect their next Hope and Change campaign.
Is there evidence that he took anything from another government?
Clearly, Mueller is now a re-election poison pill for Trump. He's not going away. I bet he comes up with something just before the election to try to throw public opinion. In effect, conspiring to rig the election results. The irony.
He's not that strong....he's.....a white male. Big liability. Brak won because of the novelty of being The First. The public still wants another First.
His hotels take payments from foreign governments all the time and since he didn't divest, he benefits from that.
On the Domestic side, his frequenting of his golf courses / clubs as a government official could definitely be benefiting those businesses.
The sticky part comes down to if you interpret he Emoluments clause to include those or not. That is a matter of opinion, or rather politics in this case.
It's no different than Bush going to his ranch.
Was Bush running a hotel or B & B at his ranch during his presidency and I didn't hear about it? While I think that is unlikely, it is of course possible. If so that would be an equivalency on the domestic side, but it isn't close on foreign government paying to stay at Trumps properties side of things.
The Democrats may be treading lightly on this stuff, as they know if might be a slippery slope and a bunch of them could go down if they follow that path.
Treading lightly is a close cousin to hypocrisy.
I'm sure Bush's ranch is set up as a money making enterprise. The time spent and work done while there would increase the value, as would all of the improvements necessary to provide for the SS staff and other presidential security. You realize, these guys get SS protection until they die, right? If you're going to hit Trump for staying at his own hotel, you'd have to hit every other president for staying at their own homes, and from profiting from selling their memoirs, speaking engagements, etc. That's just not what the Emoluments clause is about. You have to remember that these guys were essentially responding to common English practices such as granting land and title to win favor (and ultimately gain control) of lands (Scotland, Ireland, and major swaths of North America).
Separate names with a comma.