Reasons to impeach trump

[Crepitus]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank hanger4:


There are so many different reasons the impeach this *president* it's not even funny.

But you are right, they won't go anywhere.

Until we take back the house and senate.


Not being an arse, but that would be a good thread to start for discussion. List your reasons and mark it tPF so you can throw out the hacks/trash left and right. :thumbsup:

It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!

[hanger4]

"1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this." .........18 U.S.C. § 1503; Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, ......... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 .........I see no threats or force, or threatening communications in tweets or testimony (Comey's) that indicates obstruction of justice.

[resister]

I think the abusing the power of pardon is particulary ironic, coming from a liberal

FROM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

President Barack Obama issued Tuesday afternoon what will likely be his final commutations and pardons as commander in chief. The commutations were for 200 people, including Chelsea Manning, the army private and analyst sent to prison for revealing secret U.S. military and government information that effectively gave birth to WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website.Most of the commutations, or shortened prison sentences, were given to prisoners with nonviolent drug convictions. Obama also pardoned, or granted a reprieve, to 64 prisoners and their sentences. They include Oscar Lopez-Rivera of Chicago, an activist who fought for Puerto Rican independence through Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional, or FALN, a group that claimed it was behind more than 70 bombings in New York from 1974 and 1983. (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/509914267/pardon-sought-for-prisoner-who-fought-for-puerto-rican-independence)

[stjames1_53]

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

gotta love this one. Who has who threatened who first? And just who has been launching missiles at Japan, threatening to drop a few on the US? We'll damn sure use them in retaliation. not even close to a charge of impeachment. I sure hope you don't go pro se in any court. so, we should run from a bully? You would, I know......and some wonder how it is that we "appear" to be weak
The rest of your list is not verified information. You've just posted your opinion as fact...that's a big no no

[Bethere]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403):





It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!

7. Just for fun.

[Tahuyaman]

Elections matter.

[stjames1_53]

7. Just for fun.

you're only laughing for the sake of your buddies in here. You're having a meltdown inside

[resister]

The entire list is wishful thinking. If there was any merit to it, Mueller would already have charged him.

That is something worth your consideration.

[Tahuyaman]

They were talking impeachment on Election Day. Let them carry on and make fools of themselves.

[stjames1_53]

They were talking impeachment on Election Day. Let them carry on and make fools of themselves.

the ink wasn't even dry on the ballots................

[nathanbforrest45]

We should impeach President Donald Trump because we want to look like a Banana Republic that changes governments on a whim.

[hanger4]

"2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause" ........Emoluments; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office. ...... The fees paided to Trump Enterprises by foreign dignitaries (FD's) are for services rendered. If these FD's are being forced to avail themselves of these services then there'd be a point. If these FD'S were paying 2 - 4 - 6 or whatever, times the going rate then there'd be a point. If these trade deals benefited only Trump Enterprises then there'd be a point. I've seen nothing to indicate any of this happening.

[hanger4]

Question about #3 Crepitus, are you/they referring to the Russian lawyer with supposed incriminating evidence concerning HRC ??

[hanger4]

#4) President Trump gave no aid or comfort to white supremacists or neo-Nazis. The President condemned the violence of both sides. "Impeach Trump Now" is delving into the silly.

[hanger4]

"5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials" ........ Article II, Section 2; the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. ........ Where's the abuse ?? Unfortunately, just because one doesn't like or agree with who or why one was pardoned doesn't constitute abuse.

[Crepitus]

"1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this." .........18 U.S.C. § 1503; Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, ......... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 .........I see no threats or force, or threatening communications in tweets or testimony (Comey's) that indicates obstruction of justice.

And when the mob boss says "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse" that's not a threat either right?

It's all about who's got the power, and what they've been known to do with it in the past. I think it's pretty easy to see there were implied consequences to not doing as he suggested.

[Crepitus]

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

gotta love this one. Who has who threatened who first? And just who has been launching missiles at Japan, threatening to drop a few on the US? We'll damn sure use them in retaliation. not even close to a charge of impeachment. I sure hope you don't go pro se in any court. so, we should run from a bully? You would, I know......and some wonder how it is that we "appear" to be weak
The rest of your list is not verified information. You've just posted your opinion as fact...that's a big no no

Who threatened who first? Seriously? International diplomacy is not a grade school playground.

[Crepitus]

Elections matter.

Indeed they do. See #3.

[Crepitus]

The entire list is wishful thinking. If there was any merit to it, Mueller would already have charged him.

That is something worth your consideration.

These things take time. If all forms aren't observed, all Is dotted and all ts crossed, the whole thing could get derailed on a procedural snag.

The wishful thinking is on your part. No charges so far does not mean no charges ever.

[Crepitus]

7. Just for fun.

tPF thread, please contribute.

[Crepitus]

you're only laughing for the sake of your buddies in here. You're having a meltdown inside


They were talking impeachment on Election Day. Let them carry on and make fools of themselves.


the ink wasn't even dry on the ballots................

One warning. TPF thread. Contribute or get out.

[Crepitus]

We should impeach President Donald Trump because we want to look like a Banana Republic that changes governments on a whim.

Wrong, we should impeach trump because we don't want to look like a banana Republic that endorses things like using the Justice Department to get even with political rivals.

[Crepitus]

"2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause" ........Emoluments; a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office. ...... The fees paided to Trump Enterprises by foreign dignitaries (FD's) are for services rendered. If these FD's are being forced to avail themselves of these services then there'd be a point. If these FD'S were paying 2 - 4 - 6 or whatever, times the going rate then there'd be a point. If these trade deals benefited only Trump Enterprises then there'd be a point. I've seen nothing to indicate any of this happening.

These FDs are staying almost exclusively on trump properties to ingratiate themselves. There are also numerous instances of suspicious property deals and such.

[resister]

These things take time. If all forms aren't observed, all Is dotted and all ts crossed, the whole thing could get derailed on a procedural snag.

The wishful thinking is on your part. No charges so far does not mean no charges ever.

So...how much more time do you think it will take?

[Crepitus]

Question about #3 Crepitus, are you/they referring to the Russian lawyer with supposed incriminating evidence concerning HRC ??

Among other things like various omissions on paperwork, sessions "memory problems" and so on.

[Crepitus]

#4) President Trump gave no aid or comfort to white supremacists or neo-Nazis. The President condemned the violence of both sides. "Impeach Trump Now" is delving into the silly.

Unfortunately that isn't true. He pretty clearly supported the white supremacists. It's not just me who thinks so, the white supremacists do as well.

[resister]

Unfortunately that isn't true. He pretty clearly supported the white supremacists. It's not just me who thinks so, the white supremacists do as well.So what aid did he give them? You know, anything tangible.

[Crepitus]

So...how much more time do you think it will take?

However long it takes. I am not on the investigation team, not even a lawyer in fact. I have played the part of an investigator in my previous career, myself and my team worked for well over a year to get results and this was on a matter that was no where near as complex or important as what Mueller is dealing with.

[Crepitus]

So what aid did he give them? You know, anything tangible.

Legitimacy. Which is invaluable.

[resister]

However long it takes. I am not on the investigation team, not even a lawyer in fact. I have played the part of an investigator in my previous career, myself and my team worked for well over a year to get results and this was on a matter that was no where near as complex or important as what Mueller is dealing with.Well they had better hurry, he is already at the 25% mark of his first term.

[resister]

Legitimacy. Which is invaluable.
But nothing tangible. And, that is merely your opinion.

[Kalkin]

you're only laughing for the sake of your buddies in here. You're having a meltdown inside

True dat. It's funny to watch.

[suds00]

unable to perform duties of president

[Kalkin]

And when the mob boss says "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse" that's not a threat either right?
No, it's not. Sometimes offers are too good to refuse. Regardless, Trump never said that. Tighten up.

[Kalkin]

One warning. TPF thread. Contribute or get out.

Your pathetic desperation to control the narrative is as comical as it is impotent.

[Kalkin]

So...how much more time do you think it will take?

It should be concluded by 2024.

[hanger4]

#6) is just plain stupid. Presidents threaten hostile nations, whether outright or vailed all the time. Foreign diplomacy is at the behest of the President, not some government agencies.

[nic34]

Elections matter.

That's what Nixon thought....

[Tahuyaman]

One warning. TPF thread. Contribute or get out.
The Democrats were in fact talking impeachment on Election Day. That is a fact. It's not a smart position to take. That's another fact.

[Tahuyaman]

That's what Nixon thought.... Nixon wasn't impeached.

[nic34]

I think the abusing the power of pardon is particulary ironic, coming from a liberal

FROM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

President Barack Obama issued Tuesday afternoon what will likely be his final commutations and pardons as commander in chief. The commutations were for 200 people, including Chelsea Manning, the army private and analyst sent to prison for revealing secret U.S. military and government information that effectively gave birth to WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website.Most of the commutations, or shortened prison sentences, were given to prisoners with nonviolent drug convictions. Obama also pardoned, or granted a reprieve, to 64 prisoners and their sentences. They include Oscar Lopez-Rivera of Chicago, an activist who fought for Puerto Rican independence through Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional, or FALN, a group that claimed it was behind more than 70 bombings in New York from 1974 and 1983. (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/509914267/pardon-sought-for-prisoner-who-fought-for-puerto-rican-independence)

Whataboutism? It's all you got?

[MisterVeritis]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403):
It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!
This is a coup attempt re-energized. Be careful.

[hanger4]

And when the mob boss says "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse" that's not a threat either right?It's all about who's got the power, and what they've been known to do with it in the past. I think it's pretty easy to see there were implied consequences to not doing as he suggested.Sure, but we're talking legal and constitutional justifications here, not some analogy equating the Presidency to a crime lord mob boss.

[nic34]

Nixon wasn't impeached.

Right he quit right after he appointed the guy who was to pardon him.

What a deal.

[resister]

Whataboutism? It's all you got?
It is a fact, let us know when Trump pardons someone that went around NY planting bombs. The same people that claim he is abusing pardon power, were silent on that. Would you call that an appropriate use of pardons?

[Tahuyaman]

Wrong, we should impeach trump because we don't want to look like a banana Republic that endorses things like using the Justice Department to get even with political rivals.


The last administration set that precedent and you didn't seem to object then.

[resister]

The last administration set that precedent and you didn't seem to object then.
Did he ever receive justice for using the IRS to target political opponents. I did not hear any Democrats call for impeachment.

[hanger4]

These FDs are staying almost exclusively on trump properties to ingratiate themselves. There are also numerous instances of suspicious property deals and such.These FD's are not being forced to ingratiate themselves.

[Tahuyaman]

Right he quit right after he appointed the guy who was to pardon him.

What a deal.


It was not right after Ford's appointment to replace Agnew. Perhaps history isn't your strong point?

[Tahuyaman]

Did he ever receive justice for using the IRS to target political opponents. I did not hear any Democrats call for impeachment.


Everyone exerted their fifth amendment rights and the Republicans didn't have the guts to do anything about it.

[MisterVeritis]

They were talking impeachment on Election Day. Let them carry on and make fools of themselves.
Impeachment is a political process to solve a political problem. The Congress can impeach and try a president or judge for any reason or for no reason.

Given that we are discussing this I believe we have moved much closer to violence. This is a coup attempt. It has been revitalized. One must meet a coup attempt head on. The Congress can end this attack on the United States by defunding Mueller. But it won't. So what is left?

[hanger4]

Among other things like various omissions on paperwork, sessions "memory problems" and so on.If information is to be considered "a thing of value" then paying Fusion GPS for Steele's (a foreign national) dossier is the same. ........ "omissions on paperwork, sessions "memory problems" has no bearing on Trump's impeachment.

[MisterVeritis]

These things take time. If all forms aren't observed, all Is dotted and all ts crossed, the whole thing could get derailed on a procedural snag.

The wishful thinking is on your part. No charges so far does not mean no charges ever.
There will be no charges. There was no crime.

I agree this tyrannical abuse of power is designed to overthrow the people's elected government. Mueller's investigation is an unconstitutional abuse of power. It is intended to set up an impeachment if the Democrats win control of the Congress.

[Tahuyaman]

A president can't be impeached for just any reason. You can't impeach him because you don't like his posts on social media, his ideas on lowering tax rates or his position on securing our borders.

The talk of impeachnent is just partisan red meat intended to keep the hard left base in a state of outrage.

[hanger4]

Unfortunately that isn't true. He pretty clearly supported the white supremacists. It's not just me who thinks so, the white supremacists do as well.Trump clearly blamed both sides for the violence in Charlottesville and nothing you say or believe can ever change that documentation. Not to mention it has nothing to do with the impeachment of Trump.

[MisterVeritis]

A president can't be impeached for just any reason. You can't impeach him because you don't like his posts on social media, his ideas on lowering tax rates or his position on securing our borders.

The talk of impeachnent is just partisan red meat intended to keep the hard left base in a state of outrage.
This is incorrect. Anyone subject to impeachment under the Constitution may be impeached for any reason or no reason. It is a political act.

[hanger4]

This is incorrect. Anyone subject to impeachment under the Constitution may be impeached for any reason or no reason. It is a political act.The Constitution clearly states, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" therefore a reason is not just implied but stated.

[Tahuyaman]

This is incorrect. Anyone subject to impeachment under the Constitution may be impeached for any reason or no reason. It is a political act.
You can't impeach a president for no reason. I have no idea where you came up with that.

[MisterVeritis]

This is incorrect. Anyone subject to impeachment under the Constitution may be impeached for any reason or no reason. It is a political act.

The Constitution clearly states, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" therefore a reason is not just implied but stated.
High crimes and misdemeanors is a catch-all phrase. It means any reason the House agrees upon.

[MisterVeritis]

You can't impeach a president for no reason. I have no idea where you came up with that.
I read the Constitution. Would you like a link?

[stjames1_53]

And when the mob boss says "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse" that's not a threat either right?

It's all about who's got the power, and what they've been known to do with it in the past. I think it's pretty easy to see there were implied consequences to not doing as he suggested.
which mob is Trump associated with Polish mob, Philly mob, Sicilian, Irish, which mob?

[Crepitus]

But nothing tangible. And, that is merely your opinion.

Not merely my opinion, the white supremacist's opinion as well.

[stjames1_53]

Who threatened who first? Seriously? International diplomacy is not a grade school playground.

it is a fact. If you allow a bully to tell another nation what to do, under threat of nuclear attack, it is important to know who started the fight. maybe not to you, but to 99% it does.
WFT are you, a Fat Kim supporter?

[stjames1_53]

However long it takes. I am not on the investigation team, not even a lawyer in fact. I have played the part of an investigator in my previous career, myself and my team worked for well over a year to get results and this was on a matter that was no where near as complex or important as what Mueller is dealing with.

ahhh jeebus, here we go again...you've been a CIA agent, spy for Homeland security...............but sine you are no lawyer, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about
here it comes, I accept as an honor...you are as crazy as it gets

[Crepitus]

This is a coup attempt re-energized. Be careful.

One warning: play nice or get out.

Now would you care to address the OP?

[Adelaide]

Your pathetic desperation to control the narrative is as comical as it is impotent.

Thread banned by OP.

[Adelaide]

The Democrats were in fact talking impeachment on Election Day. That is a fact. It's not a smart position to take. That's another fact.


Thread banned by OP.

[resister]

Not merely my opinion, the white supremacist's opinion as well.
So, they have an opinion, big deal. That should not even be on the list. Impeach because an unfavorable group has a favorable opinion. Gonna need ALOT more than that!

[hanger4]

This is incorrect. Anyone subject to impeachment under the Constitution may be impeached for any reason or no reason. It is a political act.High crimes and misdemeanors is a catch-all phrase. It means any reason the House agrees upon.No arguments here, when the House agrees upon "any reason" there's your reason.

[MisterVeritis]

This is a coup attempt re-energized. Be careful.

One warning: play nice or get out.
Now would you care to address the OP?
I did address your post. It is a coup attempt. Go for it.

[countryboy]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank hanger4:





It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!

Holy crap, you forgot the most egregious high crimes and misdemeanors of all. Ketchup on the steak, and two scoops of ice cream.

[Agent Zero]

"1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this." .........18 U.S.C. § 1503; Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, ......... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503 .........I see no threats or force, or threatening communications in tweets or testimony (Comey's) that indicates obstruction of justice.
How about condoning violence against protesters at his campaign events? To the extent of offering to pay legal fees?

[Hoosier8]

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law.


Now that is pretty damning, against the Obama administration.

[Agent Zero]

unable to perform duties of president
Despite it’s brevity, this is succinctly the penultimate reason for impeachment.

Trump is both temperamentally and psychologically unfit to lead our nation.

The 25th Amendment is an appropriate tool to remove him from office.

[resister]

How about condoning violence against protesters at his campaign events? To the extent of offering to pay legal fees?
Forget about this?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/



Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/donald-trump/)
.

[Agent Zero]

This is a coup attempt re-energized. Be careful.

Ironically, there’s already been talk of a coup, but it didn’t come from Democrats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/546569/


. Already, Reince Priebus’s office was being flooded with panicked calls from GOP officials and donors urging the RNC chairman to get rid of Trump by whatever means necessary. One Republican senator called on the party to engage emergency protocols to nominate a new candidate. RNC lawyers huddled to explore an obscure legal mechanism by which they might force Trump off the ticket. Meanwhile, a small group of billionaires was trying to put together money for a “buyout”—even going so far as to ask a Trump associate how much money the candidate would require to walk away from the race. According to someone with knowledge of the talks, they were given an answer of $800 million. (It’s unclear whether Trump was aware of this discussion or whether the offer was actually made.) Republican donors and party leaders began buzzing about making Pence the nominee and drafting Condoleezza Rice as his running mate.

[hanger4]

#7) The President can direct or endeavore his AG all he wants, it doesn't hold the force of law. Besides it hasn't happened.

[Crepitus]

Sure, but we're talking legal and constitutional justifications here, not some analogy equating the Presidency to a crime lord mob boss.

Thats how he bahaves.

[hanger4]

How about condoning violence against protesters at his campaign events? To the extent of offering to pay legal fees?Your response has nothing to do with obstruction of justice.

[hanger4]

Thats how he bahaves.Fine, it still has nothing to do with the legal and constitutional justifications of obstruction of justice.

[Hoosier8]

Despite it’s brevity, this is succinctly the penultimate reason for impeachment.

Trump is both temperamentally and psychologically unfit to lead our nation.

The 25th Amendment is an appropriate tool to remove him from office.

Ah, now the armchair psychologist comes along with their 'wisdom'. LOL

[Captdon]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403):





It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!

What a load of nonsense. Only a liberal would read this and not laugh. There is nothing but junk here. Get a grip.

[Captdon]

7. Just for fun.

It's also not true.

[Captdon]

you're only laughing for the sake of your buddies in here. You're having a meltdown inside

I call it the Mental Mutant Meltdown. Has a nice ring to it.

[Captdon]

And when the mob boss says "I'm gonna make you an offer you can't refuse" that's not a threat either right?

It's all about who's got the power, and what they've been known to do with it in the past. I think it's pretty easy to see there were implied consequences to not doing as he suggested.

Comey was serving at the pleasure of the President. He was fired by not pleasing him. That's the way it is.

[Captdon]

Who threatened who first? Seriously? International diplomacy is not a grade school playground.

Threatening your enemy is neither reckless or an impeachable offense. Hell, just come out and say it- you will impeach him if you can for no reason at all.

[Captdon]

Wrong, we should impeach trump because we don't want to look like a banana Republic that endorses things like using the Justice Department to get even with political rivals.

Again, a lie.

[hanger4]

Despite it’s brevity, this is succinctly the penultimate reason for impeachment.Trump is both temperamentally and psychologically unfit to lead our nation.The 25th Amendment is an appropriate tool to remove him from office.Thank you for your medical insight Dr. Agent Zero. And what's most impressive is how you arrived at that medical diagnosis from afar without ever speaking with or questioning or personally meeting with your patient. :thumbsup:

[Captdon]

That's what Nixon thought....

It's what Obummer said.

[Captdon]

The Constitution clearly states, "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" therefore a reason is not just implied but stated.

The House can impeach for anything they say a President did. The Senate can convict with no evidence. there is no appeal for this.

[Captdon]

Not merely my opinion, the white supremacist's opinion as well.

Did not know you hung with them.

[Captdon]

One warning: play nice or get out.

Now would you care to address the OP?

I'm leaving this thread. You can't take what you dish out. You are a Mutant Meltdown Mench.

If i ever start a thread, stay away.

[hanger4]

Ironically, there’s already been talk of a coup, but it didn’t come from Democrats.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/546569/Actually that wouldn't be a coup or more properly a coup d'état, Trump wasn't President at that time.

[Chris]

So I keep coming to this thread expecting to find a reason to impeach, some high crime or misdemeanor and seem it comes up short.

[Safety]

Did not know you hung with them.

He's surrounded by them, it's a good thing he made it tPF so they can self-ban.

[Safety]

So I keep coming to this thread expecting to find a reason to impeach, some high crime or misdemeanor and seem it comes up short.

It would help to find those reasons by reading the first post. Did you omit it?

[Chris]

It would help to find those reasons by reading the first post. Did you omit it?

The accusations? Read, dismissed. Impeachment requires something more than mere partisan accusations.

Same with accusations of sexual harassment not being convictions.

[Safety]

The accusations? Read, dismissed. Impeachment requires something more than mere partisan accusations.

Same with accusations of sexual harassment not being convictions.

So next time, say you don't agree with the reasons presented for impeachment, not that they were not there. The impeachment process is a political one, not a criminal one, so while the right holds the house and senate, Trump isn't going anywhere.

[Chris]

So next time, say you don't agree with the reasons presented for impeachment, not that they were not there. The impeachment process is a political one, not a criminal one, so while the right holds the house and senate, Trump isn't going anywhere.

Implied it. Easily enough comprehended.

High crimes and misdemeanors are criminal acts.

[Safety]

Implied it. Easily enough comprehended.

High crimes and misdemeanors are criminal acts.

Words have meanings, when you say there are no reasons present, that means something totally different than "implying" it. Once again, the impeachment process for a president is a political one. Period.

[Chris]

Words have meanings, when you say there are no reasons present, that means something totally different than "implying" it. Once again, the impeachment process for a president is a political one. Period.

Wow, words have meanings.

What does it mean if we're sitting in a room with the window open and I say it's cold in here? It's a request to close the window even though I didn't say. But you would say yes it is cold.

Period for you, sure.

[Safety]

Wow, words have meanings.

Quick learner, good job.


What does it mean if we're sitting in a room with the window open and I say it's cold in here? It's a request to close the window even though I didn't say. But you would say yes it is cold.

It would probably mean that you were trying to change the subject because the conversation was not going the way you insist it does.


Period for you, sure.

wut?

[Peter1469]

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, the President likely can't violate obstruction of justice laws merely by removing political appointees (Comey) and tweeting. I suspect Trump's tweets influenced exactly zero FBI agents.


2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

I explained this before in a couple of different posts. The Emoluments Clause has nothing to do with the Presidents business interests. It has to do with accepting gifts that create the appearance of impropriety. In my last post on the topic I linked to an article from WAPO that described Washington's business dealings with all sorts of rich Europeans.


3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

It is doubtful that getting dirt on an opponent is a thing of value under the relevant statute. Opposition research is a mainstay of all political campaigns. When Bill Clinton got actual contributions from companies owned by the Chinese military, he provided us with an example of how to violate this statue.


4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

His statements violated no laws. Had they, he would have been charged long ago.

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

There is no such thing as abusing the pardon power. It is absolute.

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

Many of these statements are stupid, but violate no law or regulation. It serves as no basis for impeachment.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

There were genuine questions about that uranium deal and the subsequent donations to the Clinton Foundation. It is likely frustrating for the administration to see its team hit with charges for things done many times by team Clinton.

Ultimately impeachment is a political issue; the question now is whether the House will use these dubious allegations to force impeachment hearings. If they do, who is to say that presidents in the future won't be treated the same way. That will paralyze the government. But now that I think about it- that could be a good thing. :smiley:

[MisterVeritis]

Ironically, there’s already been talk of a coup, but it didn’t come from Democrats.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/546569/
The coup attempt comes from the Establishment. Oh, a coup occurs after an election, not before.

Nice try though. I suppose it is good enough for government work.

[MisterVeritis]

Despite it’s brevity, this is succinctly the penultimate reason for impeachment.
Trump is both temperamentally and psychologically unfit to lead our nation.
The 25th Amendment is an appropriate tool to remove him from office.
Please try. It would be amusing.

[gamewell45]

Crepitus, the one that strikes my interest in particular and may be a major violation is the Foreign emoluments clause and domestic emoluments clause. By virtue of the fact that Trump maintained business interests and did not put them into trusts of any kind and still maintained direct control over them, I believe if true, that could be a direct violation. I realize that there are other Presidents who've done more of less the same thing but they haven't benefited to the extent that Trump has.."stay in my hotels and I'll sign this treaty" as an example only.

Indeed, the case is being heard currently by the Federal Courts who will render a decision on it by the end of December, if it turns out that it is a violation of the emoluments clause, then that alone could spell doom for Trump. Either way we'll find out shortly whether or not he has committed a violation.

[Peter1469]

Despite it’s brevity, this is succinctly the penultimate reason for impeachment.

Trump is both temperamentally and psychologically unfit to lead our nation.

The 25th Amendment is an appropriate tool to remove him from office.
History is hard. Short answer, no it is not.

[MisterVeritis]

Implied it. Easily enough comprehended.
High crimes and misdemeanors are criminal acts.
This is untrue.

[Chris]

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, the President likely can't violate obstruction of justice laws merely by removing political appointees (Comey) and tweeting. I suspect Trump's tweets influenced exactly zero FBI agents.


2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

I explained this before in a couple of different posts. The Emoluments Clause has nothing to do with the Presidents business interests. It has to do with accepting gifts that create the appearance of impropriety. In my last post on the topic I linked to an article from WAPO that described Washington's business dealings with all sorts of rich Europeans.


3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

It is doubtful that getting dirt on an opponent is a thing of value under the relevant statute. Opposition research is a mainstay of all political campaigns. When Bill Clinton got actual contributions from companies owned by the Chinese military, he provided us with an example of how to violate this statue.


4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

His statements violated no laws. Had they, he would have been charged long ago.

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

There is no such thing as abusing the pardon power. It is absolute.

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

Many of these statements are stupid, but violate no law or regulation. It serves as no basis for impeachment.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

There were genuine questions about that uranium deal and the subsequent donations to the Clinton Foundation. It is likely frustrating for the administration to see its team hit with charges for things done many times by team Clinton.

Ultimately impeachment is a political issue; the question now is whether the House will use these dubious allegations to force impeachment hearings. If they do, who is to say that presidents in the future won't be treated the same way. That will paralyze the government. But now that I think about it- that could be a good thing. :smiley:



If impeachment shifts from being grounded in criminal offenses to purely political reasons, then the Presidency will be undermined and lose power--which would be a good thing, as noone should have that much power.

[MisterVeritis]

@Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345), the one that strikes my interest in particular and may be a major violation is the Foreign emoluments clause and domestic emoluments clause. By virtue of the fact that Trump maintained business interests and did not put them into trusts of any kind and still maintained direct control over them, I believe if true, that could be a direct violation. I realize that there are other Presidents who've done more of less the same thing but they haven't benefited to the extent that Trump has.."stay in my hotels and I'll sign this treaty" as an example only.

Indeed, the case is being heard currently by the Federal Courts who will render a decision on it by the end of December, if it turns out that it is a violation of the emoluments clause, then that alone could spell doom for Trump. Either way we'll find out shortly whether or not he has committed a violation.
This is amusing.

[MisterVeritis]

If impeachment shifts from being grounded in criminal offenses to purely political reasons, then the Presidency will be undermined and lose power--which would be a good thing, as noone should have that much power.
Treason and bribery are the two crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase that means the House can impeach for any reason.

This so-called investigation is an attack on our Constitution.

[Peter1469]

George Washington was the first president to stay in the real estate business (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/14/george-washington-was-the-first-president-to-stay-in-the-real-estate-business/?utm_term=.5fd4ab9d1045)


In today’s Wall Street Journal, I have anop-ed (https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-george-washington-take-emoluments-1492123033), “Did George Washington Take ‘Emoluments’ “? It examines the first president’s extensive and hands-on business affairs to get a better handle on the nature of constitutionally prohibited “foreign emoluments. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.0836f45e09e2)”He re’s an excerpt (article requires a subscription):



Mr. Trump is not the first president to have business dealings with foreigners. That was actually George Washington, whose conduct in office has been a model for every president.By the 1790s, Washington was wealthy primarily because of real estate — renting and selling his vast holdings. As with Mr. Trump’s hotels, Washington’s renters or purchasers could include foreigners.The president received constant reports from his nephew and subsequent managers and wrote to them at least monthly… This belies the notion that the Constitution limits a president’s management of, or benefit from, his existing business ventures.
***
One letter written by Washington deserves great attention in the current debate. On Dec. 12, 1793, Washington wrote to Arthur Young, an officer of the U.K. Board of Agriculture, an entity newly created and funded by Parliament at the initiative of William Pitt. The president asked for Young’s help in renting out his Mount Vernon lands to secure an income for his retirement. Not finding customers in America, he wondered if Young, with his agricultural connections, could find and organize some would-be farmers in his home country and send them over.


The op-ed is drawn from a larger research project on Washington’s business interests and the prohibition on emoluments. Here, I’ll take the space to address possible limitations to this evidence. In particular, Washington insisted that his December 1793 letter to Young be kept private. (Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman has presented (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=nulr_online) strong evidence of the allowance of business dealings from Washington’s public conduct (http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2017/03/business-transactions-for-value-are-not.html) in relation to the domestic emoluments clause.) He suggested that “in the opinion of others, there [may] be impropriety” in his solicitation but makes clear that he himself disagreed with that position.


In the context of Washington’s correspondence with Young, the “impropriety” is almost surely not constitutional in nature. Young and Washington had long exchanged agricultural observations about their respective countries. The former had repeatedly requested that he might reprint some of Washington’s decidedly apolitical musings in a respected series he published, “The Annals of Agriculture.” (Washington was happy to receive copies of the books as gifts, even as president.)

Crucially, evenbefore assuming the presidency, Washington vehemently insisted on keeping their rather banal exchanges strictly private. Given the great pains he took with his reputation, he explained, he would be chagrined of something “however distant itself from impropriety” would nonetheless “give occasion for one officious tongue to use my name with indelicacy.”

[Chris]

Treason and bribery are the two crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase that means the House can impeach for any reason.

This so-called investigation is an attack on our Constitution.

OK, am reading now about high crimes and misdeamenors: "As can be found in[5] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

[Peter1469]

OK, am reading now about high crimes and misdeamenors: "As can be found in[5] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as "for whatever reason whatsoever". @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

It is political not legal. But it is rarely used so as to not destroy the ability of the government to govern.

[Crepitus]

Did he ever receive justice for using the IRS to target political opponents. I did not hear any Democrats call for impeachment.

Please post links to president Obama's involvement.

[Peter1469]

Please post links to president Obama's involvement.

The buck stops below the President?

[Crepitus]

These FD's are not being forced to ingratiate themselves.

Now you begin to understand the reason for the emoluments rules.

[Peter1469]

Now you begin to understand the reason for the emoluments rules.

You got those rules wrong. See above.

[Crepitus]

If information is to be considered "a thing of value" then paying Fusion GPS for Steele's (a foreign national) dossier is the same. ........ "omissions on paperwork, sessions "memory problems" has no bearing on Trump's impeachment.

Of course they do. The omitted paperwork and sections of sessions memory are all about Trump's impeachment. Every one of those "memory lapses" is about Russian involvement.

[hanger4]

Now you begin to understand the reason for the emoluments rules.I'm reasonably certain I understand the emoluments clause. The ITN site offered absolutely no substantiation it's been violated. There claim was just because he owns businesses.

[Crepitus]

which mob is Trump associated with Polish mob, Philly mob, Sicilian, Irish, which mob?

Russian mafia.

[Crepitus]

ahhh jeebus, here we go again...you've been a CIA agent, spy for Homeland security...............but sine you are no lawyer, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about
here it comes, I accept as an honor...you are as crazy as it gets

Nope, none of the above.

[resister]

Russian mafia.
As this a TPF thread, I hope you can produce a credible link, right?

[hanger4]

Of course they do. The omitted paperwork and sections of sessions memory are all about Trump's impeachment. Every one of those "memory lapses" is about Russian involvement.Your assumptions do not an impeachment case make. Sorry

[Crepitus]

Holy crap, you forgot the most egregious high crimes and misdemeanors of all. Ketchup on the steak, and two scoops of ice cream.

Maybe those things bother you, but I couldn't care less about his diet, exercise habits or even that he likes to be urinated on. There are bigger fish to fry here.

[Crepitus]

Now that is pretty damning, against the Obama administration.

Please stick to the topic.

[Crepitus]

Fine, it still has nothing to do with the legal and constitutional justifications of obstruction of justice.

Sure it does. His words, mild as they were, could easily be said to contain unspoken threats of directors consequences.

[Crepitus]

What a load of nonsense. Only a liberal would read this and not laugh. There is nothing but junk here. Get a grip.

Would you care to address the content?

[Crepitus]

Again, a lie.

I wish it was, sadly it's true.

[Crepitus]

Did not know you hung with them.

Don't have to, they broadcast it pretty widely.

[resister]

Russian mafia.


Please stick to the topic.
When did the thread become about the Russian Mob, Crepitus?

[hanger4]

Sure it does. His words, mild as they were, could easily be said to contain unspoken threats of directors consequences.Riiiiiiight, a House and Senate full of lawyers will hammer down. Come on Crepitus, be realistic.

[Crepitus]

The buck stops below the President?

So You haven't got any?

[Crepitus]

As this a TPF thread, I hope you can produce a credible link, right?

Did you see the question I was answering?

[hanger4]

Sure it does. His words, mild as they were, could easily be said to contain unspoken threats of directors consequences.As an aside, is that sort a like 'you can grab' being interpreted as 'I did grab' ??

[Peter1469]

So You haven't got any?

It is very possible that Obama's minions directed the IRS to attack conservative groups without Obama's knowledge.

But that takes us back to where the buck stops.

[resister]

Did you see the question I was answering?
Not sure what that has to do with reasons to impeach Trump.

[Crepitus]

Your assumptions do not an impeachment case make. Sorry

Thats not an assumption. Take a look at the resubmitted paperwork. Listen to the newer session testimony.

[Crepitus]

When did the thread become about the Russian Mob, Crepitus?

Get back on topic or get outta the thread kid.

[Crepitus]

Riiiiiiight, a House and Senate full of lawyers will hammer down. Come on Crepitus, be realistic.

I could say the same to you. I think we will just have to wait and see here.

[resister]

Get back on topic or get outta the thread kid.
I am not a kid, when did the thread become about the Russian mafia, YOU bought it up. Care to answer?

[Crepitus]

As an aside, is that sort a like 'you can grab' being interpreted as 'I did grab' ??

More like "you second amendment people <nudge nudge wink wink> you second amendment people can solve the Clinton "problem"".

[Safety]

More like "you second amendment people <nudge nudge wink wink> you second amendment people can solve the Clinton "problem"".

Obviously that's different.

[Crepitus]

Not sure what that has to do with reasons to impeach Trump.

It was a silly question, I gave it a silly answer.

[hanger4]

Thats not an assumption. Take a look at the resubmitted paperwork. Listen to the newer session testimony.What were they discussing Crepitus, Sessions and the Russian/s ??

[Crepitus]

What were they discussing Crepitus, Sessions and the Russian/s ??

Why yes, yes they were. Why do you suppose that is?

[hanger4]

I could say the same to you. I think we will just have to wait and see here.If the ITN site was being realistic thay'd have offered evidence of their charges, they did not, reckon why ??

[resister]

It was a silly question, I gave it a silly answer.
I get it, you can go off topic and call people kid, now TB me and retreat into your, hypocrite safe space/echo chamber. Yet feel free to troll non TPF threads like you often do. Don't bother with the TPF thing, I have spoke my piece.

Enjoy your new found echo chamber, Kid.

[Safety]

:rofl:

[hanger4]

More like "you second amendment people you second amendment people can solve the Clinton "problem"".And they did, they voted. Imagine that.

[resister]

:rofl:
What are you laughing at, you have spent the day, serial, trolling threads. Like this thread, you get away with it, as a protected species.

[hanger4]

Why yes, yes they were. Why do you suppose that is?Allow me try again. What were Sessions and the Russian/s discussing Crepitus ??

[resister]

TPF threads are a joke, I was on topic until crep called me "kid" Now crep will bitch to get me TB'ed and I never insulted him. Then he will troll whatever he wants.

Funny how the OP can troll his own thread but give YOU the boot!
https://youtu.be/jNGZo5gn_tc

[Peter1469]

tPF threads are useful, but they are being abused more often than in the past.


TPF threads are a joke, I was on topic until crep called me "kid" Now crep will bitch to get me TB'ed and I never insulted him. Then he will troll whatever he wants.

Funny how the OP can troll his own thread but give YOU the boot!
https://youtu.be/jNGZo5gn_tc

[resister]

tPF threads are useful, but they are being abused more often than in the past.
This is an example of it, he can call me kid (and a troll can laugh at it) but he can TB me and go on to troll other threads.

TPF threads really should have more rules. They are being used to create, mini echo chambers.

[resister]

Just know this Crepitus I was civil and on topic until you went off topic and decided to call a 37 YO man "kid" I vote you should be TB'ed.

[hanger4]

Obviously that's different.
And they did, they voted. Imagine that.:rofl:

[Peter1469]

This is an example of it, he can call me kid (and a troll can laugh at it) but he can TB me and go on to troll other threads.

TPF threads really should have more rules. They are being used to create, mini echo chambers.
In the past some Mods would just toss an abusive tPF thread into Rants.

[hanger4]

TPF threads are a joke, I was on topic until crep called me "kid" Now crep will bitch to get me TB'ed and I never insulted him. Then he will troll whatever he wants.Funny how the OP can troll his own thread but give YOU the boot!
https://youtu.be/jNGZo5gn_tcLet them do it, stay on topic, allow them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Don't be distracted by diversions, insults or baiting. Be the better poster. Break the circle. :thumbsup:

[countryboy]

Maybe those things bother you, but I couldn't care less about his diet, exercise habits or even that he likes to be urinated on. There are bigger fish to fry here.
No actually, there aren't. Those are the biggest provable offenses you've got. Oh and, the urinating thing was also a lie. Russian propaganda brought home for the DNC by Michael Steele. That's three strikes, YER OUTTA THERE!

[resister]

Let them do it, stay on topic, allow them all the rope they need to hang themselves. Don't be distracted by diversions, insults or baiting. Be the better poster. Break the circle. :thumbsup:
I don't care at this point, TB me Crepitus. Just don't be surprised when you get it handed back to you.

[resister]

In the past some Mods would just toss an abusive tPF thread into Rants.
We need mods to return to it.

[Crepitus]

Just know this Crepitus I was civil and on topic until you went off topic and decided to call a 37 YO man "kid" I vote you should be TB'ed.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

[Crepitus]

If the ITN site was being realistic thay'd have offered evidence of their charges, they did not, reckon why ??

In this case it's common sense.

[Crepitus]

I get it, you can go off topic and call people kid, now TB me and retreat into your, hypocrite safe space/echo chamber. Yet feel free to troll non TPF threads like you often do. Don't bother with the TPF thing, I have spoke my piece.

Enjoy your new found echo chamber, Kid.

Last chance, stop derailing thread or be TBd.

[Crepitus]

And they did, they voted. Imagine that.

Thank you for making my point.

[Crepitus]

Allow me try again. What were Sessions and the Russian/s discussing Crepitus ??

At the moment all we know for sure is its something sessions didn't want to talk to Congress or the FBI about.

[Crepitus]

No actually, there aren't. Those are the biggest provable offenses you've got. Oh and, the urinating thing was also a lie. Russian propaganda brought home for the DNC by Michael Steele. That's three strikes, YER OUTTA THERE!

There are bigger fish to fry here.

[resister]

Stop trying to derail the thread.
I was civil and on topic for many pages, until YOU Crepitus called me a 37 YO man a "kid" YOU derailed your own thread. Be sure and mention that when you cry to TB me.

Only one TPF thread and you abuse it. TPF threads are not a license to troll your own thread in an echo chamber.

[resister]

Get back on topic or get outta the thread kid.


Last chance, stop derailing thread or be TBd.
TB me, just remember I was not the one to insult someone that was you​ kid, in a just world you would be TB too.

[hanger4]

In this case it's common sense.Impeachment requires documented evidence for any sort of legitimacy, common sense doesn't count.

[hanger4]

Thank you for making my point.If you say so Crepitus :rollseyes:

[resister]

Last chance, stop derailing thread or be TBd.
You started it "kid". I contributed to this thread in a mature manner, you ignored it and chose to call a 37YO man "kid" then hide behind the TPF thing.

So tell me, should you be TB;ed too?

[hanger4]

At the moment all we know for sure is its something sessions didn't want to talk to Congress or the FBI about.Like I said, you're assuming.

[countryboy]

There are bigger fish to fry here.
Lemme know if and when Mueller actually comes up with something. So far, he's got nothing.

[stjames1_53]

Lemme know if and when Mueller actually comes up with something. So far, he's got nothing.

maybe someone under Mueller's team has been leaking info on the case? BAD PUPPY!!!!!

[Bethere]

Russian mafia.

Felix Sater.

[Bethere]

Carryover from another thread, you can thank @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403):





It is obvious that short of being caught with a bloody knife in his hand (and maybe not even then!) trump will not be impeached by the current house and senate. That isn't what this is about. This is a discussion of possible grounds/reasons for hypothetical impeachment proceedings when the left/right mix in congress changes.


From The Case For Impeachment (https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/case-for-impeachment/) (used just because they have a nifty list that saved me a bunch of typing) the red is my input.

1. obstruction of justice; Comey firing and the recent Flynn/FBI related tweets are pretty clearly this.

2. violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; Everything from the DC hotel to trade deals.

3. conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; Do you really need me to explain this to you?

4. advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; Some good people there, they had a permit, I'll pay your legal bills, and other things

5. abusing the pardon power; and Arpaio's and other potentials

6. recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; "rocketman, fatboy, we have nukes why can't we use them.

7. directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law. Why are we investigating Clinton, Uranium None!!!

Discuss, Debunk, Rebunk, express your opinion.

This is a tPF thread, my very first, so be civil or begone!

Agreed on the list. I would list 4-7 as multiple counts of abuse of power.

[hanger4]

Agreed on the list. I would list 4-7 as multiple counts of abuse of power.I'm reasonably certain you won't, but it would be nice if you'd elaborate. Considering #5 falls within your stated purview and the Presidents power of pardon is Constitutionally absolute then obviously it's not an abuse of power. So I'm curious as to how justify the others.

[Crepitus]

Like I said, you're assuming.

OK, then you explain why Sessions selectively forgot to mention sever interaction with russian officials. And do give me that silly "I misunderstood the questions" nonsense.

[DGUtley]

Notice - resister TB'd at request of OP.

[Adelaide]

This is a coup attempt re-energized. Be careful.

I did address your post. It is a coup attempt. Go for it.

Thread banned by OP.

[hanger4]

OK, then you explain why Sessions selectively forgot to mention sever interaction with russian officials. And do give me that silly "I misunderstood the questions" nonsense.I don't know why Sessions misunderstood, didn't remember or lied about the meeting/s, nor do you. You're assuming something nefarious (without merit) then you're assuming it's concerning illegal collusion (without merit) then you're assuming Trump was/is involved in the nefarious collusion to taint the election results and then you're assuming all these assumptions are impeachable. Sorry, but that's just ludicrous.

[Crepitus]

I don't know why Sessions misunderstood, didn't remember or lied about the meeting/s, nor do you. You're assuming something nefarious (without merit) then you're assuming it's concerning illegal collusion (without merit) then you're assuming Trump was/is involved in the nefarious collusion to taint the election results and then you're assuming all these assumptions are impeachable. Sorry, but that's just ludicrous.

What do you mean "without merit"? It's an ongoing pattern among former members of the trump campaign and transition team. Kushner neglected to mention meetings with russians. Jr. negelected to mention meetings with russians. Flynn neglected to mention meetings with russians. so did manafort, stone, and a whole host of others. Several of them have now been indicted.

Suspecting Sessions of nefarious behavior as he follows the same pattern as the rest of them is hardly without merit.

[hanger4]

What do you mean "without merit"? It's an ongoing pattern among former members of the trump campaign and transition team. Kushner neglected to mention meetings with russians. Jr. negelected to mention meetings with russians. Flynn neglected to mention meetings with russians. so did manafort, stone, and a whole host of others. Several of them have now been indicted.Suspecting Sessions of nefarious behavior as he follows the same pattern as the rest of them is hardly without merit.without merit" meaning no evidence. And you're still running down the assumptions rabbit hole. You're assuming nefarious conversations and you and I just don't know.

[Crepitus]

without merit" meaning no evidence. And you're still running down the assumptions rabbit hole. You're assuming nefarious conversations and you and I just don't know.

Lol. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

[hanger4]

Lol. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck......Riiiiiiight, take that to the impeachment table. :rofl: