The Trump Presidency

No one claimed that graph was Trump's doing. That was a rebuttal to iceaura's claim that minority incarceration explained the historically low minority unemployment, which would require their prison populations to be growing rather than shrinking. It has nothing to do with how Trump has boosted the economy. Try to follow along.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clinton was impeached on actual criminal charges, that could have been prosecuted in a court of law. Perjury and obstruction of justice (witness tampering).

The only "ample evidence" is in the fevered imaginings of leftists. Otherwise, at least one impeachment article would have been a statutory crime, rather than wholly political terms of art. The Founders clearly wanted there to be a nonpartisan agreement to oust a president, hence both houses of congress.

Silly leftist conspiracy theory.

The only delay here, aside from Trump exercising his legal rights, is Pelosi's delay of sending the articles to the Senate.

What you tell people doesn't have a good track record of according with reality. No, neither article of impeachment is a statutory crime, unlike Clinton's, which were.

Since you haven't shown a single statistician making that claim, this is just you trying to justify your own immoral claim. I guess lying is a minor thing after such an egregious and seemingly racist claim.

Trump has admitted no wrongdoing, he fired Comey for cause but didn't stop the Mueller investigation (the only possible motive for that firing being abuse of power...and not mentioned in the articles of impeachment), and SCOTUS has agreed that congressional subpoenas are not beyond legal challenge. Your "timeline of events, and so forth" is your vague leftist imaginings.
The Ukrainian president and several officials all said there was no such pressure, and the Ukrainian courts ruled that the Ukraine did meddle in the 2016 US election.

No, you're just talking out of your ass because you can't show a single credible economist who uses your nonsense "employment rate" as an economic metric.

Then you clearly don't know what claim you were making and obviously can't show anything to justify it. Not a single link to an article.

Only one who testified to hearing what was said. Again with the vague "reports", which you never cite, because they only exist in your befuddle grasp of the reality.

First you claimed it was a taped call:

Then after being corrected, you equivocated "recorded". And no, the transcript was not made "on the spot", as officials have said they reconstructed it from memory. So again, you've shown you're clueless of the facts. Much less your fever dream about Russian, Ukrainian, US electronic recordings.
Even citing ONE source might help you look a little less like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

Then cite a source, other than vague arm-waving about "intelligence pros", which includes demonstrably biased people like Strzok and Page.

No, you're dealing with your own economic illiteracy.
Obama, Clinton, and many others have used unemployment as an economic metric, and for good reason. But Obama used workforce participation to hide a net loss of jobs. At worst, Trump is only following the precedent set by Obama in reporting unemployment.
And since you've yet to cite a single source for using "employment rate" as an economic metric, I an only assume you have no clue and cannot even make a stab at having one.

Dem strategy to present the weakest case possible for impeachment? Well, no one claimed they were smart.
John Roberts has nothing to do with the impeachment decision. He will only preside over the Senate trial, and like Rehnquist said of Clinton's impeachment trial:

"On several occasions when asked what I did at the trial," Rehnquist wrote to a man in Carson City, Nevada, "I took a leaf out of [the Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera] Iolanthe and replied, 'I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.'" - https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/william-rehnquist-impeachment-trial-senate/index.html​

Even in a tie, which happened in one of Clinton's articles of impeachment in the Senate trial, the Chief Justice has no role. So whatever you think John Roberts may or may not do is out of your own ignorance. Presiding over the Senate trial has no hand in the ruling, which the Constitution says falls solely on the Senate. Why on earth would McConnell block Roberts from preforming a procedural duty? You obviously have no clue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

which clinton ?
bill ?
i thought he was impeached on some back door land sale transaction and was voted by congress to not impeach... ?

Miz world Candy-shag(movie title?)
The golfer who shagged me
little miss americas world
tiny golfer (theme song)

your ballz... ?(next!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

whos hole is this ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Bill Clinton was not impeached over Whitewater, and was impeached by the House.

 

And the FBI. And Gordon Sondland. And the entire State Department crew in Ukraine. And Trump himself, who keeps trying to silence witnesses.

No, it wouldn't.

So?

Because he doesn't want to follow procedure.

I'm old enough for that to be a synonym for "record". Sorry to have confused you.

"Officials" don't make transcripts. Few have the skills.
It's not a transcript, if it's reconstructed from memory. Since we are not allowed to listen to the recordings or read the supposed transcript, we don't know whether it's a transcript or not.
Russia, meanwhile, also recorded the call (according to US intelligence agency observers) - as did Ukraine, according to some. So maybe we can follow Trump's lead, and beg or bribe a copy from them.

Trump has admitted to firing Comey because Comey was continuing to investigate the Russian connections. (Trump has also admitted to pitching his hotels and resorts as places for visiting dignitaries to stay, and promised them personal contact with the President if if they did.)
In other words, Trump stated the cause of Comey's firing in public. He said he was trying to obstruct Comey's investigation. That's impeachable, whether he admits it or not. And we don't need Trump's permission to remove him from office.

Abuse of power is not a motive, it's a high crime for which Presidents can be impeached.
Abuse of power is mentioned in the articles of impeachment, and in the Constitution.

You depend on me for all your information?
I am posting in reply to somebody who apparently thinks slaves are counted as unemployed. There's a limit to the work I will do in that circumstance.

Not at all. There's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence - enough to launch a formal investigation of anyone except possibly a sitting President.

The impeachable articles include several statutory crimes, if the Senate is interested - from extortion to treason, obstruction of justice to violation of the Emoluments Clause.

Your link says that Obama used the unemployment rate (unlike the employment rate, it incorporates"workforce participation" and similar dubious numbers) to hide a net loss of jobs. That's one reason it's a poor measure of economic performance - it's easy to play games like that with it.

So?
As far as economic performance, Obama inherited the Second Republican Crash (remember it took Clinton eight years to dig out from under a milder Republican trashing of the economy, and he had help in Congress) - what's Trump's excuse?

Three claimed, two were not called to testify in public. They weren't needed.

No one can stop you from making idiotic assumptions with Google at your fingertips - or wants to.
I find them revealing, and useful. Like the rest of the bandarlog you are easier to deal with once you've made a few really blockheaded posts and defended them in public.
Republicans, Trump supporters, bothsiders in general, are - in fact, in general, on average, as repeatedly demonstrated whenever one can jack them out of the zone they have learned to handle by parroting - either wealthy psychos or very ignorant people. That's comforting - it means regular folks can be fooled by you guys for only so long. Reality's going to bite down on your shitshow - Mexico is not going to pay for Trump's wall (and the landowners on the border are already lawyered up), Putin is not going be a loyal friend, the murderous and autocratic and torture-employing regime of Erdogan the Turk is not going to make Trump's betrayal of the Kurds look good, the North Koreans are going to get their missile nukes up and running, the Iranians are going to acquire powerful friends and whatever nuclear weapons they actually want, the Chinese are going to flat out win this trade war (it's very difficult to win a trade war - usually everyone involved loses - but when your opponent is Trump anything's possible), and so forth.

We'll find out.
So far it's been good enough that McConnell is resorting to unprecedented and frankly desperate measures to keep it from being heard by the Senate.

And it pins John Roberts to a wall of simple and uncomplicated facts, with no way to fog the subject that will distract the people he wants respect from. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who is willing to look like a fool in public to protect perps like Donald Trump.

 

The FBI who abused the FISA courts and have direct evidence of several biased agents involved, Sondland who's only direct knowledge was of Trump literally saying "no quid pro quo", the DOS people who had zero direct knowledge, and Trump protecting his people from likely perjury traps. But just keep spinning your leftist delusions.

Yes, minority unemployment is currently at a historical low.

The jobless rate for Hispanics hit a record low of 3.9% in September, while African Americans maintained its lowest rate ever, 5.5%.
- https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/black-and-hispanic-unemployment-is-at-a-record-low.html​

So all your bullshit about John Roberts is ignorant rubbish.

Leftist conspiracy theory.

"Taped" was never a synonym for "written down".

And if you were even half-informed on the subject, you'd know that "transcript" is not, here, used in the literal sense of being verbatim. Too bad you never seem to read any legit sources to form your opinions. And you repeating your claims about Russian and Ukrainian recordings without ever citing a single source is just further evidence of the leftist conspiracy theories necessary to keep your ill-informed beliefs afloat.

Wrong again. Trump fired Comey because Comey would not publicly admit that Trump wasn't personally under investigation, although he later testified to Congress that he told Trump, three times, that he was not under personal investigation. Your claims are a muddled mess of leftist nonsense.

I know it can be hard to parse simple English when you intentional leave things out and fragment single sentences. Here, let me help you out:

Stopping the Mueller investigation, the one that took over what Comey was doing, would be the only motive to fire Comey that would possibly rise to an abuse of power. Stopping Mueller would be the motive, not your idiotic read of an intentionally out of context quote. Firing Comey is not mentioned in the impeachment articles. Again, simple English.

Deflection, because you obviously cannot come up with a single source to cite.
And now you're lying to cover for your immoral claim that slaves were merely employed. Slavery does not count as employed nor unemployed, and you trivializing it either way is sick. Saying a slave is either is as stupid as claiming your pocket watch is employed. Yes, it does work, but something considered property cannot hold a job, nor be counted as not holding a job. It's, all around, completely ignorant and suspiciously racist.
The limit to the work you will do to support or verify your own opinions seems to be absolutely zero. Even when you cite something, it seems to only be a pretense for a claim the citation doesn't support.

Circumstantial, like evidence that would not be allowed in a court of law. Enough to launch a wholly political and partisan witch hunt.

No, they don't. The articles nowhere mention extortion, emoluments, or obstruction of justice, and only mention bribery and treason while quoting the Constitution about the House's duty in impeachment. Again, you're only demonstrating your ignorance of things readily available. Here's a link to the full articles of impeachment, trying reading them for once: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...achme/5d0f5a8d150481cbb981/optimized/full.pdf

Again, no economist uses your ignorant "employment rate" and you've yet to cite a single source to show otherwise. But at least you seem to have given up on the lie that only "Trump and the Republicans are so fond of it". Apparently you were completely ignorant to Obama and Clinton using it before I told you.

Another leftist conspiracy theory. Somehow the whole economy was anemic until the moment Obama left office, but the boom was somehow Obama's doing and his eight-years of failure was somehow Bush's doing.

Then prove it. The best I can find is that witness talking about three Trump admin officials, not him and two other witnesses to the call. Again, you seem to lazily muddle the actual facts.

IOW, you have nothing and have to go to this length in the hopes of distracting from that obviously painful facts. If you had anything in reality, you'd simply cite it to "bite down" on me once and for all. That's all the proof anyone needs that you have nothing at all. Thanks for that!

Again, you're ill-informed. McConnell can't do anything until Pelosi quits delaying and sends the articles over to the Senate. Until she does that, the House's duty has not been met and Trump technically hasn't even been impeached. And for what, a vain and unconstitutional attempt by the House to dictate how the Senate operates? Delay until far enough into the primary to get the competition to Biden off the campaign trail? Who knows. She has no leverage and no obvious end-game.

Or maybe it's just so rubes will believe nonsense like McConnell is "keeping it from being heard".

Oh, and your repeated, and willful at this point, ignorance about Roberts having any say in the outcome.

 

McConnell has been doing everything he can, in apparent desperation.

You mean the rubes who listen to McConnell when he declares he will prevent witnesses from being heard?

Do your own homework.

Like what, specifically?

Irrelevant.
The FBI is packed with Republicans, including almost all of its upper level management, and has an uninterrupted decades long history of abusing liberals and leftists. That's the strongest bias we have any evidence of.

Announced policy, explicitly described by McConnell himself. That's your idea of a "leftist conspiracy theory"?

That's not what Trump said. Trump said he fired Comey for continuing to investigate the Russian election interference.

Enough to launch a formal SEC investigation of market manipulation - against anyone except a sitting President.

Never said it was.

It does not count as unemployed, then, which was the point. Finally. Did that hurt?

I can't help you. Try harder.

He oversees the procedure. That can - and possibly will - determine the effective outcome. Trump's Presidency probably cannot survive testimony under oath from his associates in the Ukraine shakedown or the related corrupt dealings with Turkey, for example - these are matters of treason, actually, betrayal of soldiers and field operatives in the intelligence agencies, and not even a Republican Senator wants that stench on them

Nothing like that has happened. Pelosi is simply waiting for the Senate to get its act together - dictating nothing.
Why do you suppose the Senate is having so much trouble handling this? The Reps claim to be in a hurry.

In response to your demands for stuff you've been told already, or should have checked out before posting flagrant error and ignorance, or demand from others while refusing to provide yourself, Google is your friend. I am not.

Uh, not really: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-annotated/

As Congress is the sole enforcer of the law against a sitting President, obstructing it in that role is obstruction of justice. That is the second Article of Impeachment.
In addition: not mentioning such crimes explicitly in great and confusing detail, as McConnell prefers, won't prevent them from appearing in witness testimony, as supporting the two more comprehensive articles voted on by the House. And if Trump testifies the risk is even greater - as one of his series of lawyers noted in an earlier context, Trump probably cannot avoid perjuring himself if he speaks under oath. He is apparently incapable of simultaneous truth and coherence.

McConnell clearly knows that - what other reason would there be for his announced strategy of refusing testimony from first hand witnesses and people directly involved, the people who could most easily and quickly exonerate Trump?
.

 

Which is absolutely nothing until Pelosi sends over the impeachment articles. What part of that don't you understand?

Chuck Schumer sure thought a simple vote to dismiss the charges was good enough when Clinton was impeached. Now he's changed his tune, and you fell for his blatant hypocrisy. And remember, Clinton was impeached on statutory crimes that would've held up in the judiciary.

Every time you shift the burden of your own claims, like telling someone to Google it, we all know you cannot support them and you're desperate to deflect. Even here, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked, but couldn't find anything. So you're obviously just lying.

Every claim you've made about Roberts pertaining to impeachment has been ignorant. If you can't remember any of them, that's between you and your own shame.

Projection, as your irrelevant and unsupported claims do not change the demonstrable facts about FISA court abuses.

The procedure is that the Senate decides its own procedure. Your fever dream of whatever you imagine he doesn't want to follow is just more ignorance. Again, a vote to dismiss was fine with Schumer for Clinton's impeachment.

Recounting his decision to dismiss Comey, Trump told NBC News, “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”
...
Later in the same interview, Trump said he had no intention of trying to stop or hinder the FBI’s Russia probe, which is examining whether any Trump associates coordinated with Russians to influence the election. Trump also said he wants the probe “to be absolutely done properly.”
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...384c9a-3669-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html​

He literally said it was because it was made up, as the Mueller report later verified, not because he was worried about it...which again would have been motive to end the Mueller investigation.

More unsupported claims. Yawn.

No, you just equivocated from "taped" to "recorded" to transcribed "on the spot"...none of which are accurate.

Complete straw man that I ever said otherwise, and apparently to deflect from the fact that you literally said something as despicable as slavery was employment in the hopes of wining an argument. Seriously, minimizing owning people as property to employment is a Richard Spencer-level euphemism. If you're proud of that, you're sick.

Of course you can't, since you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Even when all this ridicule could be decisively ended with one citation.

That's completely ignorant of his role, his predecessor's own words on that role, the Constitutional duties, and the Senate prerogatives. Turkey isn't part of the articles, hence immaterial to this trial. But keep dreaming irrelevancies to give yourself hope.

LOL, McConnell literally said she could keep them for all he cared. The House hasn't discharged its entire Constitutional duty until they've delivered the article to the Senate. And Pelosi has zero oversight of the Senate. She's trying to delay until the Republicans promise a fair trail, but she has zero leverage. The best she can do with this ploy is to time it so Biden's opponents are pulled away from campaigning at a critical time. Maybe right before the Iowa caucus. Either way it's dumb and pointless.

Not talking the word of a guy you constantly makes demonstrably false claims and patently refuses to ever support a single one.

Yes, really. Hell, I gave you a direct link to the actual articles and you went looking for one with in-line commentary you could conflate with the actual text of the articles. How intellectually dishonest can you be?

Not even close. Since SCOTUS agreed to hear appeals to the congressional subpoenas, the judiciary has agreed that it was a legal right and not obstruction of justice at all. Which is exactly why the Dems didn't charge obstruction of justice. They're the ones in a hurry who didn't want to wait on court rulings. So they made up a bullshit, political term of art in lieu of any actual statutory crime.

No one branch of US government has complete authority over any other, hence separate but equal. Learn some basics about your own government, man.

To call Dems on their own hypocrisy, first in demanding a fair trail when the House inquiry was a hatchet job, and second because they have obviously different standards for Republican and Democrat presidents. If most these people hadn't been in office so long, at least people who weren't there for Clinton's impeachment could claim ignorance.

 

It was not.
And it was not a trial.

Hearing an appeal is not the same as rendering a verdict - the verdict could as easily be that defying a legally issued Congressional subpoena is obstruction of justice, or contempt of Congress. It could also decide that refusal is legal for some (such as Trump's personal lawyer, protected by privilege) but not others (such as those not employed by Trump himself).
The most common legal analysis from independent sources seems to be that the Republicans are almost certain to lose the appeal, and are filing simply to delay and obstruct the impeachment. Trump has done that routinely, in many of the hundreds of legal claims laid against him, to increase the costs of litigation to the plaintiff.

They "made up" nothing.
We will discover the extent of Trump's statutory crimes when he leaves office, and not before - as a sitting President, he is immune. That's why this falls to Congress in the first place - the Constitution explicitly requires it.

Irrelevant.
Congress has impeachment powers over the Presidency, and therefore impeachment duties - just as the police have a duty to enforce the law, derived from their position as the body granted the power to do so.

They did not want to allow Trump to string them along, as is his (and many similar guys's) custom. Trump is getting full cooperation from his chosen Court, and the Dem strategy has to take that into account.

The upside of that is the possibility that the Dems will grow a pair, and impeach Trump later on the grounds Trump himself delayed past this go-round. There's no shortage of such grounds - the corrupt dealings with Turkey alone, via Flynn, appear to be able to support at least two impeachment hearings of which at least one would involve a charge of treason.

That's one indication that McConnell's tactics are desperation moves. He can only delay - he cannot dismiss.

 

If I say it is not ironic that ... does that make sense:

• It does not seem so ironic that those who complain of Constitution and circumstance trumping the whims of voters, such that we might hear the phrase, "legislating from the bench", have come 'round to be those who absolutely require that manner of "judicial activism" in order to keep their swindle afoot.​

But try building a thesis about this. Trump officials have also obstructed Congress by simply refusing to answer; not because they had executive privilege, or were pleading the Fifth, but, rather, they just didn't want to answer, so they didn't.

Because to the one, sure, the imprimatur of the Supreme Court enforcing the Constitution seems almost a reasonable expectation, even if I growl at the McGahn calendar. To the other, what do we expect of a weighted Court under Chief Justice Carveout? Are there actually conservatives truly hoping Roberts will lead a subversive majority to strike a portion of the Constitution proper? How is that not an insane prospect?

But, then, is it really in play? How can it possibly be?

And so on.

It's quite the spectacle. I wish this was the sort of thing a cup of tea, or a pint or three, could fix, but, well, right.

 

Yes, it was a hatchet job, and who said the House inquiry was a trial?

Again, you're speaking out of pure ignorance. An appeal is either upheld or denied. Upholding the subpoena does not make anyone guilt of obstruction. It only means they must comply with the subpoena. And it doesn't change the fact that they have a right to appeal a subpoena, especially where it's a conflict between two co-equal branches of government. A broad ruling that all such subpoenas must be complied with would be a huge violation of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

Again, even if the subpoenas are upheld, that is not a ruling of obstruction, as SCOTUS has already affirmed the right for the appeal to hear by simply agreeing to hear it. Due process means the accused have right too. And your "most common legal analysis from independent sources" is obviously bullshit you'll never support, as any first-year lawyer knows everything I've just told you.

No, this is the first impeachment to include zero statutory crimes. Executive immunity has nothing to do with what can be included in articles of impeachment, but not having any evidence of a statutory crime does. And the Dems would have likely gotten their witnesses, if they weren't in such a hurry...which included them just saying they didn't want to hear from Bolton, once he wanted the court's opinion.

No one said otherwise. And just like the police, no one is convicted without the opportunity for due process in a court of law. So your own silly analogy proves my point.

So the Dem strategy is to explicitly deny due process and then somehow claim wanting due process is, itself, impeachable. What utter bullshit. That people believe that nonsense is a huge indictment of public education and media.

Seeking due process, a Constitutional right, is the opposite of a crime. But we all know how Dems love to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits them.

Again, Pelosi is the only one delaying at this point.

You seem to display a similar ignorance to iceaura, which may explain why you're one of the very few I see buying his nonsense. "Legislating from the bench" is an explicit violation of the separation of powers. Anyone who thinks SCOTUS hearing appeals to congressional subpoenas, Roberts presiding over the Senate trial, etc., is "judicial activism" is completely uninformed, to be very generous. And it's a straw man that anyone is complaining about the "Constitution and circumstance trumping the whims of voters". Although it is telling that you say "whim" instead of "will". Some votes/elections somehow being more legit than others, based solely on your preferred outcome.

Did you whine about the makeup of SCOTUS when there were more leftists, or leftist's desire to pack the court? No one, other than leftists, want to strike portions of the Constitution, but like so many of your posts/claims, you never get around to detailing what you're talking about. Just some leftist shorthand, I guess.

 

Trump was asked to attend and he refused probably because he can not help himself but lie, and that would force another article of impeachment.
His administration will try everything to prevent Trump from testifying under oath simply because he can't. His mental health issues prevent him from telling the truth.

 

and the impeachment process is being ridiculed and compromised by who? You? Trump? Right wing USA?

 

More baseless leftist fantasy. Since the Dems have shown zero evidence of a statutory crime, wanting him to testify can only be a perjury trap with no underlying crime. The House Dems didn't allow Republicans to call their own witnesses. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...12-06-2019/h_66baa324dc12089ed4f57fa722d7220d

Leftist BS. There a difference between a legit impeachment with articles including statutory crimes and this one, the first in history to include zero statutory crimes. That's clear evidence of a partisan witch hunt.
The impeachment process is currently being compromised by Pelosi, who won't send the articles to the Senate. As long as she delays, nothing can be done in the Senate.

 

How long do you think it will take before Trump cracks it and adds a few more articles of impeachment to the list?
His twitter output has gone through the roof.

It would be interesting to read about "bar room" odds on whether Trump will hold it together for Nov. 2020

 

Thinking tweets will expose impeachable offenses is silly. Like the partisan articles of impeachment, there's no accusations of statutory crimes without actual evidence. It's all empty leftist fantasy.
A lot of people also net on Hillary winning. How did that go?

 

don't know...
She got more votes so most would have won somethin' I guess...even against Russian interference...he only has to expose the Pentagon though impulsive posting ( bragging) and well, you know what will happen don't you...
...and you trust this guy?
...but it would be still interesting

in regard to his capacity to stay on track...

 

Trumps tweets increase:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(WASHINGTON) — The always-prolific Tweeter-in-chief appears to have hit a new record.

The president’s @realDonaldTrump account had tweeted and retweeted 115 times by late Thursday night, marking what could be his most active day on the platform yet.
13th/12/2019​

https://time.com/5749996/trump-tweets-per-day/


Any idea how a POTUS has the time to tweet 115 tweets? I mean to say... that's an awful amount of posting by anyone's standards...
Even you have only 845 posts here at sciforums and how long have you been a member?

 

Irrelevant when popular vote doesn't elect a president. Trump beat her in battleground states with fewer votes than Romney won when he lost to Obama. That's how crappy a candidate she was...against a completely unproven and Democrat supporting guy.

 

like I wrote, most pundits would have won something...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!