America under President Trump

[Cannucklehead]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

The point that was made is that Trump is less guilty than people like Biden and Clinton who are absolutely known to have committed serious crimes, or even bragged about them, and yet remain completely immune to prosecution. 

I'll talk about Trump's issues with clarity and perspective all day, it's the partisan hyperbole that needs to be held in check.

As long as you want to stand there and act like Trump is worse than other people, when there's no shortage of evidence that you are lying, this is going nowhere.

Why didn't you reply to my comparison of Hunter Biden and the Trump kids Rue? Because your taking point was completely obliterated. So you just move on and make more accusations elsewhere. Step up. Raise the level of your game Rue. 

 

He should not be held to the same standards as anyone else, he should be held to a higher one.  His behaviour lessens the position he holds and makes it more of a clown show.  

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

 Y'all were screaming and whining just because the H of Rep recommends an impeachment doesn't make it one without a conviction, then when it comes to Clinton without him being convicted by a Senate trial you falsely claim he was impeached. He was never impeached.

 

Wrong....President Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 1998 for lying under oath and obstruction of justice (2/4 Articles of Impeachment).   Clinton was acquitted at trial in the U.S. Senate.

History will always record that Bill Clinton was impeached, no matter what Trump haters think.

[Rue]

27 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Wrong....President Bill Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 1998 for lying under oath and obstruction of justice (2/4 Articles of Impeachment).   Clinton was acquitted at trial in the U.S. Senate.

History will always record that Bill Clinton was impeached, no matter what Trump haters think.

No without a conviction thee was no impeachment just a recommendation to conduct a trial to impeach..no different than a grand jury can rule there is sufficient info to proceed with a trial but can't find anyone guilty of a crime. Clinton was never removed from office. Stating he was impeached without being convicted and removed from office which you acknowledge never happened is nonsensical. You live in a fantasy world of subjective denial of reality when it suits your need to worship Trump as your saviour. He is not a Messiah  just a douche bag.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

No without a conviction thee was no impeachment just a recommendation to conduct a trial to impeach..no different than a grand jury can rule there is sufficient info to proceed with a trial but can't find anyone guilty of a crime. Clinton was never removed from office. Stating he was impeached without being convicted and removed from office which you acknowledge never happened is nonsensical. You live in a fantasy world of subjective denial of reality when it suits your need to worship Trump as your saviour. He is not a Messiah  just a douche bag.

 

More nonsense...I didn't even vote for Trump.

 

[Rue]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Every politician lies (none as much as Clinton and Schiff). They all gain massive wealth while they're doing jobs that pay them just a small fraction of what they accumulate. Stop acting like Trump is any different from Obama or Sanders. "I wrote a book and I became an instant multi-multi-multi-millionaire! Now I own a bunch of houses and I fly on private jets while I pontificate to the idiotic masses about global warming!"

Trudeau and his fiends will all get wealthier too. 

The difference is that Americans are getting ahead by leaps and bounds while Trump is President, Canadians are looking at a huge dumpster fire. 

You continue to engage in the absurd argument that Trump being an immoral liar is acceptable because other people lie. What Adolph Hitler did was o.k. because Stalin did it too. How about you step up your game and stop with such absurd attempts to justify Trump being an immoral sack of crap.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

More nonsense...I didn't even vote for Trump.

 

 and

A headline...that is your attempt to pretend an impeachment happened without a conviction and removal from office? It says right in the friggin head line they recommend charges. Clinton was not impeached all that happened is they recommended the second part of the impeachment process proceed. Th headline should have read Congress recommended an impeachment trial  because that is all it did as the headline and story went on to say.

The second part of the headline shows the second part of the process was not yet completed making impeachment impossible and so fully contradicting the actual large print headline. The large headline should have said  the H of R recommended impeachment because without the Senate conviction there was no impeachment.

What a lame attempt to pretend without a Senate conviction and legal order of rental from office Clinton was impeached. You rely on a clearly erroneous contradicted headline to create legal fantasy..please continue..

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

The second part of the headline shows the second part of the process was not yet completed making impeachment impossible and so fully contradicting the actual large print headline. The large headline should have said  the H of R recommended impeachment because without the Senate conviction there was no impeachment.

 

Wrong again...this is fun !

 

[Rue]

On 11/6/2019 at 10:50 AM, Yzermandius19 said:

Those were the words printed in the 1991 promotional booklet, easily readable from the link provided. If you move the goalposts, or parade any more fallacies in this argument in bad faith, you will receive no further responses.

Are you kidding? Prove Obama wrote, approved or supports the words you produced. You first stated he stated he was born in Kenya. Then you back tracked and admitted he never wrote the reference to Kenya but then you claimed he supported or approved the Kenyan reference. Provide your basis for concluding he approved or supported the Kenyan reference. Simply producing words he never wrote and not providing any basis for  claiming he approved the reference does not proved what you assert.

Please provide the basis for your claim he approved the wording referring to him as being born in Kenya. It does not exist. I suggest you subjectively infer that assumption with no actual objective evidence.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[Rue]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Wrong again...this is fun !

 

So now your reasoning is an impeachment trial that does not convict and order removal from office none the less is an impeachment...please continue..and I am happy you are having fun...me too!

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Rue said:

So now your reasoning is an impeachment trial that does not convict and order removal from office none the less is an impeachment...please continue..and I am happy you are having fun...me too!

 

Of course it's an impeachment...even Hillary knows that Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998.  

Some people just want to remain in denial because of TDS.     Trump has even distorted their understanding of history.

 

 

[Rue]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Of course it's an impeachment...even Hillary knows that Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998.  

Some people just want to remain in denial because of TDS.     Trump has even distorted their understanding of history.

 

 

According to you an impeachment needs no Senate conviction or legal order of rental based on that  convctiontion to impeach the President simply asking for an impeachment trial is an impeachment....sorry but you have a selective take on the actual impeachment process. It has 2 stages not 1.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

According to you an impeachment needs no Senate conviction or legal order of rental based on that  convctiontion to impeach the President simply asking for an impeachment trial is an impeachment....sorry but you have a selective take on the actual impeachment process. It has 2 stages not 1.

 

 

Very incorrect...have been over this many times.

"Stage 1" in the House is the impeachment, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, which matters a lot more than your opinion from Canada.

President Trump has not been impeached...yet.   Only hearings......

 

[godzilla]

I think Clinton was impeached.

"Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official. "

Impeachment

[Rue]

1. The process of impeachment is established by the U.S. Constitution.

2-The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.

3-If passed by the House, the Articles of Impeachment are considered by the Senate in a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the 100 Senators serving as the jury.

4-If the Senate votes in favor of conviction by a 2/3 supermajority vote (67 votes), the Senate will then vote to remove the official from office. 

5-The House of Representatives in fact recommends an impeachment trial.

6-The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House by the Senate.

7-The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.The trial will be held with the president represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members serves as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

8-The Senate meets in private session to debate a verdict.

9-The Senate, in open session, votes on a verdict.

10-A 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.

11-The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

12-The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

You use the word impeachment to refer to the exercise of the House of Representatives recommending a trial for charges against the President for  with a crime or misconduct  In your use,  impeachment is the first step in removing an officer from office and you stop there with the use of the word.

Unlike you I go further  because I do not adopt incorrect incomplete definitions of legal processes that  as you engage in stop prematurely  half way through the actual impeachment process. To me that is inaccurate and as you prove becomes a game of misleading semantics. The impeachment process is in the House of Representatives is legally meaningless without its second stage in the Senate and that is why Clinton stayed in power.

The fact that you Ms. BC and many other Americans misappropriate the word impeachment to refer only to recommending charges be tried in the Senate does not and can not change the actual full process of impeachment and its origins.

With due respect Ms. BC you Yankees have never appreciated nor taken the time to understand the British rule of law you rebelled from. This would explain why you elect who you do and why your country has become a travesty in terms of how it runs itself. In its actual true definition, impeachment started by the British for their parliamentary system which the Americans then copied, was  a process in which the parliament of Britain BOTH prosecuted AND tried, not simply prosecuted, holders of public office.

You remove it from its full context and processes.. 

I am aware the first impeachment process in fact TRIED the 4th Baron William Latimer in 1376 thank you. It was then last used on the 1st Viscount Melville, Henry Dundas in 1806. It most certainly referred not to just the recommendation of a trial of impeachment but the conviction and removal from office of a public official.

In its original and accurate sense and context  it was always used to refer to removing from office  by legal order as a result of a conviction a public official.

In fact you might want to look at your own constitutional process of impeachment, impeachment has no meaning legally, i.e., it does not definine culpability or guilt unless a conviction and/or removal of office by legal order is rendered. Until that conviction or removal, the presumption of innocence remains no different than based on the finding of  a Preliminary Inquiry in Canada or a Grand Jury in the US  in that they are limited to determining sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial and can not render any verdict as to guilt or innocence.

Articles of impeachment  do not impeach in the US , they in fact  provide and recommend grounds or charges be considered at a Senate Impeachment Trial. These articles  still have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to render a conviction and therefore have any meaning in law.

When the House of Lords received articles of impeachment, i.e., recommendations of what charges to try to determine if a peer should be removed there was no order of removal until the final determination rendered a verdict requiring a removal, i.e., high treason. This is no different in the US.

To pretend the impeachment process is only a one step phenomena and you can refer to someone as "impeached" when they have not been removed from office  is inaccurate and renders the true point of the process meaningless. Impeachment is about removing someone from office for a crime or unreasonable conduct not simply suggesting a trial be convened to determine if they did.  It has always been a two stage process and remains incomplete and therefore without legal meaning until the verdict was and is reached.

Your engagement of semantics to try call someone "impeached" is misleading and inaccurate. Its an inappropriate and incomplete reference to the two stage process

 Trump will never me removed from office using your term impeached. In my world until he is removed from office based on a legal order based on a conviction from the US Senate he has not been impeached. Most lawyers like me use the term the way I do because we know without a conviction any  names used mislead and lead to improper conclusions about guilt and confuse people into believing being impeached the way you use it also means someone is guilty of misconduct or a crime.

In conclusion Trump is a lying immoral stain and puppet used by Putin to humiliate the US and its time the US take back their nation from Putin and Erdogan.

You need a revolution. I am sending Justin to liberate you. Dear lady you Yanks will never be free if you insist on placing people with hair the colour of urine in your highest office.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bill Clinton was impeached by the GOP in less than 90 days (Oct - Dec 1998).    Slam...bam...thank-you Ma'm.

Pelosi and her Democratic gang that can't shoot straight are still fumbling and bumbling to get the job done against President Trump.   

This could easily drag on into 2020.  

[godzilla]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

President Bill Clinton was impeached by the GOP in less than 90 days (Oct - Dec 1998).    Slam...bam...thank-you Ma'm.

Pelosi and her Democratic gang that can't shoot straight are still fumbling and bumbling to get the job done against President Trump.   

This could easily drag on into 2020.  

geesh, Clinton got a blowjob. how can you compare that to the big D!? hahahaa! its totally understandable why the House could easily take years doing what its doing because just about everything Don touches lights on fire. campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, federal election law, impoundment control act... etc.. etc... lets face it, the Iran-Contra scandal and Watergate are so light weight!

[godzilla]

man, the public impeaching hearings are going to be killer fun! god I hope Fiona Hill is on the ticket.. check out her testimony to date:

Fiona Hill shuts Republicans up

In particular, Jim Jordans star staffer getting shut down by Fiona! thata girl! 

Edited November 9, 2019 by godzilla

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, godzilla said:

geesh, Clinton got a blowjob. how can you compare that to the big D!? hahahaa! its totally understandable why the House could easily take years doing what its doing because just about everything Don touches lights on fire. campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, federal election law, impoundment control act... etc.. etc... lets face it, the Iran-Contra scandal and Watergate are so light weight!

 

Bill Clinton lied under oath in a federal deposition, and obstructed justice.    So he payed the political price...impeachment is a political process...not criminal.  

The Democrats are taking so long because they already got burned with the Mueller Report, which only made Trump stronger.

The only way to beat Trump is to defeat him in an election as long as the Senate has his back.

Current odds are that the Democrats cannot beat Trump in 2020.

[godzilla]

14 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Bill Clinton lied under oath in a federal deposition, and obstructed justice.    So he payed the political price...impeachment is a political process...not criminal.  

The Democrats are taking so long because they already got burned with the Mueller Report, which only made Trump stronger.

The only way to beat Trump is to defeat him in an election as long as the Senate has his back.

Current odds are that the Democrats cannot beat Trump in 2020.

we get your point that you make consistently. Trump can shoot someone on 5th avenue and there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do about it. and that people like you will make sure of it.

you keep making out that no ones getting hurt. but then just recently Trump had a phone call and suddenly Kurdish children were getting their body parts separated.

not really sure if you just completely lack any form of ethics, morals or... you're some kind of political volunteer or you're paid to do this. I mean, this is a Canadian political forum for Canadians, right?

Edited November 9, 2019 by godzilla

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, godzilla said:

we get your point that you make consistently. Trump can shoot someone on 5th avenue and there isn't a damn thing that anyone can do about it. and that people like you will make sure of it.

 

I didn't make up the rules...see "Constitution of the United States of America".

If it makes you feel any better, Vice President Spiro Agnew went to prison for tax evasion after he was removed from office (resigned).

So the Trump haters will just have to do it the hard way...same as any other president.

 

Quote

you keep making out that no ones getting hurt. but then just recently Trump had a phone call and suddenly Kurdish children were getting their body parts separated.

 

I never said nobody is getting hurt...just no more than under previous presidents, and in Trump's case, probably far less.   Have you ever seen what a Hellfire missile does to body parts (Bush / Obama) ?

 

Quote

not really sure if you just completely lack any form of ethics, morals or... you're some kind of political volunteer or you're paid to do this. I mean, this is a Canadian political forum for Canadians, right?

 

Not really...American politics and topics also dominate, reflecting Canada's longstanding obsession with the USA. 

Most Americans just ignore Canada.

[godzilla]

maybe you could do us a favor and ignore us too then. cause most Canadians don't think its cool to blow up children. doesn't matter who it is. you just justify it because you've been doing it so long. right? so you're down with it.

Edited November 9, 2019 by godzilla

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

maybe you could do us a favor and ignore us too then. cause most Canadians don't think its cool to blow up children. doesn't matter who it is. you just justify it because you've been doing it so long. right? so you're down with it.

 

Then why didn't most Canadians hate on Obama for doing it ?

I get it....OK for Obama..not OK for Trump....because...politics.

And that's all Trump deserves as well...his elected turn at bat.

 

[Yzermandius19]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Then why didn't most Canadians hate on Obama for doing it ?

I get it....OK for Obama..not OK for Trump....because...politics.

And that's all Trump deserves as well...his elected turn at bat.

 

These clowns want to compare Trump to imaginary politicians that never tell a lie and are saints with perfect moral conduct, as if there was anybody running against him who fit that description. They want to pretend like politics isn't politics and that it's actually possible to hold politicians to an imaginary standard that no politician will ever meet. They don't want Trump against his actual competition, because that would make him look good.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[godzilla]

how would you know anything about "most Canadians"? Trump deserves to have his share of children slaughtered?

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

how would you know anything about "most Canadians"? Trump deserves to have his share of children slaughtered?

Trump is doing a better job of creating less collateral damage than other presidents. Comparing Trump to a mythical unicorn candidate who will never get elected is not a useful comparison, you are suppose to judge politicians against other politicians, not saints.

Edited November 9, 2019 by Yzermandius19