Jump to content
TroyinEwa/Perv

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

The Lincoln Project,  the group of Republicans that want Trump out of the part that includes Kelley Conway's husband is doing a lot of damage to vulnerable Republicans. Lets be accurate. The Republican party has been co-opted. The leadership never wanted Trump. Yes, the masses within the party voted for him. This includes people who rarely or never voted before and came out. Such as far right fringe groups including the alt right and white supremacist minded people. Richard Spencer, David Duke and others never endorsed candidates before but the Republican party candidates tried to, at least in rhetoric if not in act, build bridges. Trump was tearing them down. 

If there was a secret ballot he's lose the impeachment trial and that is not emphasized enough. He operates out of fear to an elected Republican membership who are basically cowards who fear losing their seat over their own morals, ethics and the law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least two people who will be destroying their own legacy and what ever positive fame they have are:

1. Rudy Guiliani. He's done. He's a NYer and has ended any popularity he has there as well as be ostracized socially. 

2. Alan Dershowitz. Same as well. He's done. He was very tight with the New York jewish social set and that's evaporated. He's a pariah. 

Both are old and are looking for one more big chance to be relevant and be on people's lips. But in the process they have left the last part of their wiki page as being controversial. There are others as well. There are some who will not lose much from association with Trump to be fair, like football star QB Tom Brady who has been a long time friend. But overall, its a wrap for the above. The NY high society set is a small group and everyone knows each other. Bloomberg for example has known both for decades and the NY social set (what Republicans like to name the coastal elite) is tough to crack. My guess is if Harvard had a way to get rid of Dershowitz they would. A sidenote about this 'global elite' or 'coastal elite' dog whistle Republicans say. When they use the term 'global elite' they are specifically talking about rich Jews who are primarily liberal / Democratic party supporting. Ann Coulter already pulled the cover off that. 

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/ann-coulter-tweetstorm-targeting-globalist-jews-sparks-outrage-1.5890157

Geraldo Rivera has salvaged some of his lost prestige as well

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-geraldo-rivera-laments-171648770.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts said that Bill Clinton did something wrong too, but it wasn't impeachable.

The question in my mind is will the rival parties now adopt impeachment as a standard policy every time they think it will be to their advantage?  Can we expect to see many more impeachments in the future? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Flashermac said:

Because Melania doesn't have a fat behind and varicose veins. :)

Compared to Hilary maybe, but I haven't seen any recent nudes,  so I'll reserve judgement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Flashermac said:

The facts said that Bill Clinton did something wrong too, but it wasn't impeachable.

The question in my mind is will the rival parties now adopt impeachment as a standard policy every time they think it will be to their advantage?  Can we expect to see many more impeachments in the future? 

Bill Clinton was impeached.  He wasn't removed from office.

Trump has been impeached. Prolly, on the odds, as of today, won't be removed from office.

As to; will impeachment become a quick political tool? turn that on it's head, wot if a future President goes around, literally robbing banks and shooting people and sending the army to invade states that didn't vote for him? 

Not impeachable? it's all wrong but not impeachable? 

You, as an English practitioner should understand the meaning of the words "High crimes and misdemeanours",  even if your ill-educated moron countrymen don't.

I like to think that the current fracas, may raise the standard of future Politicians, but then I'm usually wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL presidents have done something wrong. What the debate is what wrongs are impeachable. For example. If a President drove drove his car through a red light, caught on camera. Is that impeachable? If it was discovered a president committed a felony before he was President, is that impeachable? Nobody would agree either was impeachable. He didn't use the power of his office to drive through the red light in his private car. It was impossible for him to use the power of his office to commit the felony prior to becoming president. 

What made the Clinton and Trump (as well as Nixon's) impeachments different is this. It's clear, unequivocally that the framers meant for a President who used the power of the office to commit a crime for personal gain. They gave examples. Bribes. A president took a bribe that requires using the powers vested in him as president. A bribe to sign a bill for example. Its perfectly within his right to sign a bill but its not in his right to sign a bill because he was paid to do it. He took a bribe to veto a bill. Or he took a bribe to make an appointment, etc. Those are impeachable and no one of any note would argue otherwise. 

Treason. That's obvious. He gives states secrets to a foreign power. How did he get the state secrets. He obtained them as President because his position gave him access to such information he would not have been able to obtain otherwise. 

"Other high crimes and misdemeanors" is where the framers made vague because 1. there are too many other variances to name and 2. they anticipated changes in the country, culture, etc. They gave examples and left it open after that but the examples set the tone and scope. 

Clinton lied under oath, perjured himself in a civil lawsuit. That was a crime. Perjuring yourself is a criminal act without question. The question becomes is how is that connected to his presidency. How did he use his presidency and office to commit this act? There is none. He perjured himself as a private citizen. The president is 2 persons, 2 states. One is the office and the other is a private citizen. In his private time, he is a private citizen. The lawsuit was brought against his private state. It was totally unconnected to his duties and powers as president. There are even 2 precedents to support this. 

Burr vs. Hamilton duel. Burr was the current vice President at the time of the duel and Hamilton was the current secretary of the Treasury. They had a PRIVATE dispute of honor. They had a duel in New Jersey where dueling is outlawed. We all know the story, Burr killed Hamilton. Afterwards, Burr went to back to Washington DC to continue his duties as VP. The VP and the President are covered by the impeachment statures. Friends of Hamilton in New Jersey had the state charge Burr with murder. Dueling was outlawed, so the killing was murder by law. The state of NJ sent the Congress a warrant to arrest Burr and extradite him to New Jersey for trial. The Congress dismissed the warrant for lack of standing. The Congress said Burr was representing himself as a private citizen on his honor as a gentleman and was NOT in New Jersey on business as VP, or representing the office in any way or form. Therefore, it is not impeachable. But also the Congress had no business being part of it. 

Nixon. Nixon was found to have evaded taxes while president. The Democrats originally drafted tax evasion as one of the articles of impeachment. He broke a law. The Republicans successfully argued to have tax evasion removed. They successfully asked, how did Nixon abuse his office, use his office in any way, shape of form to evade taxes? All citizens have to file taxes by law. Nixon filed his as a private citizen. How was his office or the powers of his office used to evade taxes? The Democrats could not successfully counter it so it was removed. 

Trump used the power of his office to do both impeachment articles. Hence the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, more understanding, for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this little snippet, just in;

Trumps defence team are trying to make the concept, of "can't impeach a President if he's running for re-election",  not only an argument, but for the yokels, they are talking about it, like it is part the constitution.

And the thrust of their minimal response so far is that, " let's have an election and abandon all this impeachment bullshit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and now there's a tape, purportedly from Lev Parnas, purportedly, revealing Trump ordering the firing of Yovanovitch in 2018, before he even knew her name.... et cetera

The Whitehouse response? nothing, 0, crickets...

edit: Lev Parnas provided the tape, but it was his mate Igor Fruman who made the recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have to wonder, if Lev Parnas/Igor Fruman (who Trump doesn't know and has never met...) has tapes of all their interactions with Trump, going back to at least 2018, who are Lev and Igor working for?  (Russians? local pizza place?)

And if these tapes can surface at an appropriate moment, what else is in the Kompromat library?

I'll put $10 on the existence of a piss tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...