Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DingoLingo

Process for impeaching trump started?

86 posts in this topic

If it can be shown that Trump knew of contacts with Russians, which seems likely but has still to be shown, then obstruction of justice will be a slam dunk. It just depends on how long the Republican party wants to wait before they realise that their political future is at stake.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1ikfqd.jpg

Well, not fake news per se. Its another Anti-Trump Nothing Burger. He's not going to be impeached. He's done nothing wrong. He's just unpopular and people don't have the emotional maturity to look at themselves and address their own personal problems, so they try to find fault in Trump. Hell, the guy announces that the wall is going to be lined with solar panels, making it the largest green energy plant on the planet and rather than hearing a blip about that they're going on with more clickbait. lol

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their political future is at stake right now. Just not for the reasons you suggest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they need 18 repubs to jump ship in order for the process to work and right now theyre probably 12-13 short of that. 

I think the 25th Amendment idea is much more fun :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the article suggests, I think impeachment will never happen. Even if they could prove Obstruction of Justice, which I don't believe they could, the President is immune to many kinds of charges. AND, even if Trump was impeached, there isn't any real way to make him step down, even if he has 3 more years. Also given that a bunch of the GOP Representatives would have to vote to impeach, I just don't see it happening.

This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Like the article suggests, I think impeachment will never happen. Even if they could prove Obstruction of Justice, which I don't believe they could, the President is immune to many kinds of charges. AND, even if Trump was impeached, there isn't any real way to make him step down, even if he has 3 more years. Also given that a bunch of the GOP Representatives would have to vote to impeach, I just don't see it happening.

This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

Yes and no.  President Trump is not likely to be impeached, but this is more than just publicity.  We are now coming up on six months in office and substantial campaign promises have not been fulfilled.  There was no honeymoon period.  This sort of press takes momentum away from President's actions. If a year then two pass with few significant actions,  fence sitters who voted for Trump will be looking elsewhere.  Also, I think the opposition and negative press takes a toll on the President's ego and emotions.  His state of mind has got to be more angry and hurt as time goes on.  If you were a cruel and  plotting  "Game of Thrones" type person, you could view this as a persistent effort to debilitate the president both physically and mentally.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah they need 18 repubs to jump ship in order for the process to work and right now theyre probably 12-13 short of that. 

I think the 25th Amendment idea is much more fun :lol:

oh no. the republicans prone to conspiracy theories on this forum will never allow the issue to rest. Just imagine all the vengeful posts. :D

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Reilly. said:

Nothing Burger. 

Do you guess really have to keep parroting your talking heads?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple.

As the representative in the video in the pretty much states. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 15.7.2017 at 8:10 AM, Reilly. said:

He's just unpopular and people don't have the emotional maturity to look at themselves and address their own personal problems, so they try to find fault in Trump.

Thats kitchen-psychology.

Quote

Hell, the guy announces that the wall is going to be lined with solar panels, making it the largest green energy plant on the planet and rather than hearing a blip about that they're going on with more clickbait. lol

It might be the largest green energy plant on the planet but its size is irrelevant. The magic term is ROI (Return-on-Investment):

Quote

  ,,,assuming all this and that the #solarwall was somehow completed by 2020, it would have paid for itself by the year ... 2168

link

 

Edited by toast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 7/15/2017 at 2:10 AM, Reilly. said:

Hell, the guy announces that the wall is going to be lined with solar panels, making it the largest green energy plant on the planet and rather than hearing a blip about that they're going on with more clickbait. lol

Ive been disturbed by the lack of coverage of the environmental impact of the wall as well.....Just not in the way you're thinking of. There are a TON of environmental factors such as migration patterns and endangered species habitat destruction which need to be examined closely before any wall gets put up.. 

Edited by Farmer77
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Ive been disturbed by the lack of coverage of the environmental impact of the wall as well.....Just not in the way you're thinking of. There are a TON of environmental factors such as migration patterns and endangered species habitat destruction which need to be examined closely before any wall gets put up.. 

I do agree on this point.  The Wall needs to be flexible enough to provide gaps that will funnel large animal migration patterns through.  I'm sure that there are researchers that already have a handle on these patterns.  these gaps will need to be manned 24x7x365.  You could use a fleet of silent drones that are constantly overhead that zero in on any motion.  Researchers would love this technology as they would be able to track the animals more closely as well as the two legged kind.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I do agree on this point.  The Wall needs to be flexible enough to provide gaps that will funnel large animal migration patterns through.  I'm sure that there are researchers that already have a handle on these patterns.  these gaps will need to be manned 24x7x365.  You could use a fleet of silent drones that are constantly overhead that zero in on any motion.  Researchers would love this technology as they would be able to track the animals more closely as well as the two legged kind.

I think it would be cheaper to fix a broken immigration system first. That would curtail a majority of the illegal crossings and free up resources to be applied toward the remaining undocumented flow. Simply building a wall that people will figure a way over, under, or around without addressing the systemic issues in our immigration policy will lead only to costlier solutions such as sensors, drones, more agents, all of which burden the taxpayer with a higher bill.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Ive been disturbed by the lack of coverage of the environmental impact of the wall as well.....Just not in the way you're thinking of. There are a TON of environmental factors such as migration patterns and endangered species habitat destruction which need to be examined closely before any wall gets put up.. 

That doesn't matter. People think way too highly of themselves if they think they can actually affect nature. Besides, as long as it keeps the browns out, it's all good!!

/sarcasm, i hope was blindingly obvious. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Besides, as long as it keeps the browns out, it's all good!!

I would prefer that it keep out the browns that do not belong here and protect the browns that do belong here.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I think it would be cheaper to fix a broken immigration system first. That would curtail a majority of the illegal crossings and free up resources to be applied toward the remaining undocumented flow. Simply building a wall that people will figure a way over, under, or around without addressing the systemic issues in our immigration policy will lead only to costlier solutions such as sensors, drones, more agents, all of which burden the taxpayer with a higher bill.

I'd prefer that the job is done right, not cheap.  We need both administrative controls *AND* physical controls now.  We need to cut welfare to illegals now and give them safe passage to the border and we need to come down on those that hire illegals with fines and forfeitures.  We need a defended border manned 24x7x365 with good old fashion manpower augmented with low and high tech surveillance systems.  Defending the border and keeping out illegals is less a burden on the tax payer than bolstering welfare programs for illegals and domestics.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I'd prefer that the job is done right, not cheap.  We need both administrative controls *AND* physical controls now.  We need to cut welfare to illegals now and give them safe passage to the border and we need to come down on those that hire illegals with fines and forfeitures.  We need a defended border manned 24x7x365 with good old fashion manpower augmented with low and high tech surveillance systems.  Defending the border and keeping out illegals is less a burden on the tax payer than bolstering welfare programs for illegals and domestics.

Doing something the expensive way does not mean it will be done correctly.

If by administrative controls you mean background checks to keep out criminal elements but eliminating the obstacles that makes it easier for a person to pay a cartel thousands of dollars U.S. to smuggle them across the border than to get a visa then I agree.

I also do not discount the need for physical barriers  (walls, fencing, etc) in strategic areas or some areas where a drone or sensor array may make sense.

I also do not have any issue punishing employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants. The fact that people may have to start mowing their own lawns, cleaning their own houses, or pay a bit more for the service does not bother me.

Curb the welfare benefits? I wholeheartedly agree. A person should not be able to receive child welfare benefits for the entire 18 years of their offsprings minority. Add education continuance, job training, and work requirements to any extended receipt of benefits. Offer mental health services (as needed) because many with mental health issues fall through the cracks and land needing the welfare programs but without proper help remain unable to free themselves from the need for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I would prefer that it keep out the browns that do not belong here and protect the browns that do belong here.

What's wrong with UPS? I sense a nefarious plot by Fed-Ex.

4 people like this

Share this post


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

Doing something the expensive way does not mean it will be done correctly.

But you do get what you pay for.

 

If by administrative controls you mean background checks to keep out criminal elements but eliminating the obstacles that makes it easier for a person to pay a cartel thousands of dollars U.S. to smuggle them across the border than to get a visa then I agree.

I mean establishing policy (immigration reform) which includes cutting welfare to illegals and going after those that hire them.  Background checks would be part of it.  If you are here illegally, you are a felon.  Allowing local authorities to ask people’s nationality and holding illegals for ICE.

 

I also do not discount the need for physical barriers  (walls, fencing, etc) in strategic areas or some areas where a drone or sensor array may make sense.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think we need a wall along the entire length.  However, given the choice between leaving our borders open and unsecured and having a wall the entire length, I’d prefer getting that wall up.  What should have happened should have been instead of fighting the proposal, they should have agree to it and worked out compromises to utilize natural terrain, fences, walls, earthworks, and what I have coined in the past as non-lethal killing zones which is a series of barriers that wear the infiltrator down so that patrols will have no problems picking them up.

 

I also do not have any issue punishing employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants. The fact that people may have to start mowing their own lawns, cleaning their own houses, or pay a bit more for the service does not bother me.

That’s not an issue.  But there are all sorts of Americans and legal workers that would do those jobs.  Or as I’ve mentioned before in other places to mobilize the Selective Service to do those jobs.

 

Curb the welfare benefits? I wholeheartedly agree. A person should not be able to receive child welfare benefits for the entire 18 years of their offsprings minority. Add education continuance, job training, and work requirements to any extended receipt of benefits. Offer mental health services (as needed) because many with mental health issues fall through the cracks and land needing the welfare programs but without proper help remain unable to free themselves from the need for them.

Not just curb them but eradicate them entirely as far as illegals go.  A friend of mine immigrated here from the Ukraine when he was in his teens.  He’s now in his forties.  When he first got here his family was not entitled to any kind of welfare for the first five years and he was a “legal” immigrant.  We need to return to those times.  The rules for domestic welfare must change as well.  Anyone needing welfare becomes a ward of the state and temporarily loses their citizenship until they can get back on their feet.  While a ward, they won’t be able to vote and they will be in line for work parties organized by the local or state governments.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Anyone needing welfare becomes a ward of the state and temporarily loses their citizenship until they can get back on their feet.  While a ward, they won’t be able to vote and they will be in line for work parties organized by the local or state governments.

So someone comes here, becomes a citizen and then gets hit with a disease, say parkinsons disease, and they can't work you want to strip their citizenship from them? 

Back to the days of debtor prisons and poor houses huh? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2017 at 1:04 AM, ExpandMyMind said:

If it can be shown that Trump knew of contacts with Russians, which seems likely but has still to be shown, then obstruction of justice will be a slam dunk. It just depends on how long the Republican party wants to wait before they realise that their political future is at stake.

I'm no attorney but I think that before one can be charged, let alone convicted of obstructing "justice", one has to be shown to have attempted to prevent investigation of criminal activity, no? According to Constitutional scholar and Civil Libertarian champion Alan Dershowitz, colluding or coordinating with a foreign government to effect the outcome of a U.S. election is NOT A CRIME.  As in, there is currently no legal statute that defines such activity as criminal therefore one can not be obstructionist by simply refusing to acknowledge collusion.  Crazy, what?    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/12/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-emails-legal-jeopardy

What does need to happen is that the Congress need to close that particular loophole.  As to Republicans wising up, good luck with that hope.  Republicans AND Democrats have one prime directive - RELECTION at all costs.  They are risk averse to the point of cowardice.  Finding a handful of Republicans who would vote to convict and remove is possible.  Finding 18 of them willing to go home after he was removed and try to explain their actions to a furious group of pro-Trump voters just isn't realistic.  The only way he even gets articles of Impeachment passed in the House will be if the Democrats regain the majority next November.  Then it will be a big political show just as Clinton's Impeachment was.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'm no attorney but I think that before one can be charged, let alone convicted of obstructing "justice", one has to be shown to have attempted to prevent investigation of criminal activity, no?

Well I too am no lawyer so maybe im off but Kushner lying on his security clearance forms is a crime, as is a campaign accepting anything of value from a foreign government. The lies on the security forms are about Russia, the same foreign government which Jr. and Kushner went to a meeting to get assistance from. Ergo criminal activity has been achieved. 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, and then said:

I'm no attorney but I think that before one can be charged, let alone convicted of obstructing "justice", one has to be shown to have attempted to prevent investigation of criminal activity, no? According to Constitutional scholar and Civil Libertarian champion Alan Dershowitz, colluding or coordinating with a foreign government to effect the outcome of a U.S. election is NOT A CRIME.  As in, there is currently no legal statute that defines such activity as criminal therefore one can not be obstructionist by simply refusing to acknowledge collusion.  Crazy, what?    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/12/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-emails-legal-jeopardy

What does need to happen is that the Congress need to close that particular loophole.  As to Republicans wising up, good luck with that hope.  Republicans AND Democrats have one prime directive - RELECTION at all costs.  They are risk averse to the point of cowardice.  Finding a handful of Republicans who would vote to convict and remove is possible.  Finding 18 of them willing to go home after he was removed and try to explain their actions to a furious group of pro-Trump voters just isn't realistic.  The only way he even gets articles of Impeachment passed in the House will be if the Democrats regain the majority next November.  Then it will be a big political show just as Clinton's Impeachment was.

I don't think the outcome of the investigation has any bearing on obstruction. If you obstruct a criminal investigation then that is a crime, and it can be punished before the investigation has even been completed, never mind if there was a crime committed.

And Alan Dershowitz is a tool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is a fair point Farmer77. But here's the thing... Kushner isn't president.

1 person likes this

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.