*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3427
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10060 on: December 06, 2022, 09:53:30 PM »
The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

If it were found that the US President was a Deep Fake CGI creation by the Chinese Government, and that he was replaced at some point during his term, would Congress need to muster up the required amount of votes to impeach and remove him with the standard processes granted to a President? No.

That would make for a really interesting inauguration. How would a Chinese deep-fake CGI creation put his/her/its hand on the bible?

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10061 on: December 06, 2022, 10:03:19 PM »
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3427
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10062 on: December 06, 2022, 10:12:01 PM »
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/06/politics/trump-organization-fraud-trial-verdict/index.html

Chuckle.

$1.61 million in fines

Chuckle like a $5 tip

However, a felony conviction could impact its ability to do business or obtain loans or contracts.

Which would mean lost "income" that could well greatly exceed $1.6m fine. Often times it's not the felony penalty that gets you it's the implications going forward of being a felon.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7023
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10063 on: December 06, 2022, 11:13:12 PM »
Which would mean lost "income" that could well greatly exceed $1.6m fine. Often times it's not the felony penalty that gets you it's the implications going forward of being a felon.
Good luck getting any government contracts with a felony conviction.
    The U.S. government finalized regulations amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that will affect an estimated 350,000 federal contractors.

    The final rule prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts with corporations that have any unpaid federal tax liabilities or felony convictions, unless the agency has first considered suspension and debarment.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2979
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10064 on: December 07, 2022, 05:24:58 AM »
The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

This is contradictory. You're saying, "There is no distinction in the Constitution between legitimate and illegitimate presidents, and therefore the distinction is..."

Also, I really doubt that an upcoming Trump or DeSantis Administration will care about Trump's company legally being barred from receiving government contracts. They'll find a way to offer Trump business through a loophole, or maybe they'll blatantly defy the law and dare anyone to try and stop them.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10065 on: December 07, 2022, 06:04:33 AM »
The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

This is contradictory. You're saying, "There is no distinction in the Constitution between legitimate and illegitimate presidents, and therefore the distinction is..."

Also, I really doubt that an upcoming Trump or DeSantis Administration will care about Trump's company legally being barred from receiving government contracts. They'll find a way to offer Trump business through a loophole, or maybe they'll blatantly defy the law and dare anyone to try and stop them.

Does Trump even have federal contracts for his company?  Even while president?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10066 on: December 07, 2022, 10:53:59 AM »
Two outspoken liberals on tfes.org were unable to maintain the same narrative.

Flat-earthers here and flat-earthers on YouTube are unable to maintain the same narrative. The ones on YouTube cannot maintain consistency between themselves.

Looks like Flat Earth has failed.

Good luck on trying to make "liberal" into an insult or perjorative.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9899
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10067 on: December 08, 2022, 01:02:14 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/07/trump-tower-bedminster-records-search/

Hey, look who hadn’t given all the classified docs back!
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10068 on: December 08, 2022, 09:29:04 AM »
A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9899
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10069 on: December 08, 2022, 12:13:31 PM »
A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."

The problem being that they were asked for the documents for a year, insisted they didn’t have any, then when the MAL docs were found they signed an affidavit declaring that they had handed over everything. Trying really hard to appear compliant now is a way too late.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10070 on: December 08, 2022, 12:25:37 PM »
A non-paywall link..


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/classified-docs-found-trump-storage-unit-independent-search-1234643286/

So... Trump's lawyers hired a company to find any missing classified documents in all of Trump's holdings and found more...

Tell me.. is that really smart?  If I were a spy, I'd have jumped so hard on that search.  And something tells me the lawyers didn't hire the best, most secure people.

Still... This tells me that Trump's new lawyers know how much shit he's in and want to make it look good.  Like "hey!  Here's more we found.  See?  We're trying really hard now.  Please be leinient on my idiot client."

The problem being that they were asked for the documents for a year, insisted they didn’t have any, then when the MAL docs were found they signed an affidavit declaring that they had handed over everything. Trying really hard to appear compliant now is a way too late.
Better than having the FBI find more themselves.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3427
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10071 on: December 08, 2022, 06:37:12 PM »
Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9899
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10072 on: December 08, 2022, 09:36:23 PM »
Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10073 on: December 08, 2022, 09:54:22 PM »
Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.
Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9899
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10074 on: December 09, 2022, 12:11:02 AM »
Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.
Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."

I don’t think he’s getting the nomination at this point. Stop the steal candidates had Republicans voting for Democrats in a lot of cases. His business just received a fraud conviction, his legal team might be getting contempt charges over their mishandling/withholding/lying about classified documents possession under federal subpoena. If charges are laid before the convention he SHOULD be a dead duck.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7182
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10075 on: December 09, 2022, 07:51:10 AM »
Wasn't the initial argument that the Feds planted the docs?

Yeah, but they abandoned that for other shitty arguements almost instantly.
Yep.  And finally settled on "I'll just run for president and hope I'm President before this goes to trial."

I don’t think he’s getting the nomination at this point. Stop the steal candidates had Republicans voting for Democrats in a lot of cases. His business just received a fraud conviction, his legal team might be getting contempt charges over their mishandling/withholding/lying about classified documents possession under federal subpoena. If charges are laid before the convention he SHOULD be a dead duck.
He should have been a dead duck years ago.  I think we need to redefine possibilities. 

But as it is with the GOP slamming him, I doubt they'd give him the nomination if they can help it.  And all the republicans who tried to stop him from getting it in 2016 are probably enjoying a big, fat, 'I told you so.'
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10076 on: December 09, 2022, 06:02:08 PM »
The man attempts a coup and the GOP sticks with him.  I don't think a terrible midterm is going to change their minds.

Trump will threaten to run as an independent if he loses the midterm.  The GOP, being basically a party of nihilistic cowards, will give into this demands.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10230
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10077 on: December 10, 2022, 06:12:22 PM »
The impeachment process is a process granted to legitimate Presidents, not illegitimate ones. An illegitimate President would not be granted that process. The process of impeaching the President assumes by default that it is a legitimate President.

Nonsense.  Nowhere in the constitution does it say this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

pay attention to definition 2.

"to challenge the credibility or validity of"

That would be the purpose of impeachment in the case an election was found to be fraudulent.

Absolutely nowhere does the Constitution infer that at anytime an election would be cast out and the previous president be reinstated into the postition.  In the event that this were to actually happen, both the president and vice president would actually lose office and the Constitutionally spelled out succession would go to the speaker of the house until what time a new election could be held.

This is wrong. A politician who won via voter fraud does not need to be impeached. The process applies to a legitimate official, not an illegitimate one. Here is the US Senate's statement:

https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm

    "If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office."

"Federal official", of course, means a legitimate one. Fraud has occurred in the past and the official was not removed via impeachment. Here is an example of a state senator removed directly by a judge after a heinous Democrat vote fraud scheme:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201114182126/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1994-02-20-1994051024-story.html

    PHILADELPHIA -- Saying Philadelphia's election system had collapsed under "a massive scheme" by a Democratic candidate to steal a state Senate election in November, a federal judge took the rare step of invalidating the election and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

    In making such a sweeping move, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer of U.S. District Court in Philadelphia did for the Republicans what the election had not: enabled them to regain control of the state Senate, which they lost two years ago.

    Judge Newcomer ruled Friday that the Democratic candidate, William G. Stinson, had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia's 2nd Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason -- such as a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city -- to do so.

Philadelphia is in the state of Pennsylvania. If we look at the Pennsylvania Constitution we see that this state has an impeachment process similar to the US Congress:

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=6

    Power of impeachment.

    The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

    ...

     Trial of impeachments.

    All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose the Senators shall be upon oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.(May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)

So we have an example that you are wrong. The senator did not have to face the impeachment process by his political body. He was directly removed by a judge.

The US Constitution, as in State Constitutions, strongly implies that officials are expected to be "duly elected":

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-2-1/ALDE_00013580/

    Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, expressly grants each house of Congress the power to discipline its own Members for misconduct, including through expulsion. Expulsion is the process1 by which a house of Congress may remove one of its Members, after the Member has been duly elected and seated.2

The definition of "duly" is "in accordance with what is required or appropriate; following proper procedure or arrangement."

Clearly, you are thoroughly wrong.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2022, 06:53:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10078 on: December 10, 2022, 06:29:40 PM »
The Stinson incident was in .... wait for it .... 1994.

1994.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10230
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10079 on: December 10, 2022, 06:31:31 PM »
The Stinson incident was in .... wait for it .... 1994.

1994.

It's not too rare that judges will refer to precedents from the 1800's. 1994 is nothing.