The Actual Laws Trump Has Broken?

originally posted by: HanyManny
So far only Ad hominem fallacious argumentative strategies to deflect from the topic at hand .

Par for the course - when you have no counter argument, go after the messenger.

I expected as much from the slower folks around here..

Posting allegations is not a valid argument. That's why you are not getting a counter argument. Evidence is also required, ala burden of proof.

They dont print that in the trash you source from.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Goedhardt

hey are using it, to interfere in the 2020 election. Period.

No ''period'' make that a comma.

They are using it, to interfere in the 2020 election, or they are trying to utilize the US Constitution and lawfully attempting to impeach a maniac that has fooled a large portion of our citizens into believing that he had their best interests at heart when in reality all he wanted to do was to line his own pockets and bolster his own God-complex.

you said, it, now prove it. How is Trump lining his pockets? Please provide links with proof.

I don't know if this is proof but it looks very ugly when it's the taxpayers getting screwed by trump and his kids.

www.economist.com...

www.axios.com...

www.latimes.com...

a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: HanyManny

can you coherently explain - why no US legislator has presented articles of impeachment detailing the accusations of these " alledged crimes " to the house ?

it seems to me pretty simple :

select one or more of these alledge crimes

draw up one or more articles of impeachmement using the proper US legalease required

put it before the house for a vote [ be sure to have credible evidence if questioned ]

get the house to vote " impeach "

send the indictment to the senate [ they will organise a trail ] - and sit back to await thier verdict

Duh. it's all in process. You investigate, get all the info, and then you make the charges.

But the dems are currently only allowing ONE SIDE to investigate, making this event a complete sham on the People of America.

Your source?

I'll wait...

Those participating in the closed-door depositions generally say that these interviews are very professional and that both sides have operated under rules that were approved in January.

www.washingtonpost.com... 11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

Link to rules: www.congress.gov...

a reply to: HanyManny

What is going on anymore? I thought the answers to all your opening arguments were common knowledge at this point. Why are you making even those who didn't support President Trump defend him?

To Ukrainian Interference:

All parties involved said its a nothingburger. Ukraine didn't know funding was held (and for other reasons). If Trump did something wrong here, then Biden DEFINITELY did something worse, opening bragging about it. "But they investigated all that. Its also a nothingburger!" Except to make that pill even harder to swallow is that Ukraine had already reopened the investigation before the phone call. So Camp Biden is calling these accusations a conspiracy theory. I say again if Trump did something wrong here, then Biden DEF did worse. Therefore if WORSE isnt a crime, why change the standard. The whole thing screams a propaganda campaign, AT BEST.

To INTERFERENCE with Subpoenas:

Why all the closed doors and rumors of pressuring witnesses when no charge has been made? Everyone is saying, make the accusations formal or drop it. "Schiff for Brains" goes the other way and says they don't even need a Quid Pro Quo anymore AND we won't make formal accusations.

Good foe the goose, good for the gander
Quid Pro Quo = Quid Pro Joe

And to clairfy, if they charge Joe, then you'd have a little more of a case there.

Or just keep pandering to the fringes. They won't carrying you further than the next election though as the center carries the vote.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

a reply to: olaru12

Apparently donating His $400k salary is profiting?

Trump Donates Salary

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

a reply to: HanyManny

Oh, boy! someone actually gave me titles and codes! Let's have a look!

18 USC §872:

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Yep! Extortion is a felony! What's the definition of extortion?

Extortion is a crime in which one person forces another person to do something against his will, generally to give up money or other property, by threat of violence, property damage, damage to the person’s reputation, or extreme financial hardship. Extortion involves the victim’s consent to the crime, but that consent is obtained illegally.

So, where is the evidence Trump threatened to beat Zelensky up? I missed that...

Now, on to 2 USC §192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

Hmmm... misdemeanor, but yeah, that sounds bad. I wonder what the House Rules say about this?

Official House of Representatives Rules. Pay attention to Rule XI, clause 2.(m)(3)(C), page 19, third column, near the top:

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

So, 2 USC §192 applies as soon as the subpoena is enforceable by a House resolution. Wait, that is exactly what Trump is demanding to comply!

Well, maybe the next one will give us better luck - 18 USC §610:

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

So Trump cannot direct anyone in the Executive Branch to engage or not to engage in political activity. What is "political activity"? That is defined in 18 USC §2386:

“Political activity” means any activity the purpose or aim of which, or one of the purposes or aims of which, is the control by force or overthrow of the Government of the United States or a political subdivision thereof, or any State or political subdivision thereof;

There's that 'by force' statement again. Where did Trump talk about sending in the military to overthrow part of the US Government? I missed that.

Not looking good... how about 18 USC §595?

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution, establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization.

Wow... when did Hunter Biden declare his candidacy?

Beyond that, it is certainly not illegal for the Head Executive of the United States to pursue investigations into bona fide corruption allegations. We saw that when Hillary Clinton was investigated.

~continued~

~continued~

OK, last one... better be good! 18 USC §607 and 52 USC §30121 both state "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." The FEC has ruled that asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption is not a "thing of value." As such is certainly not either a "contribution" or "donation," that means neither of these statutes applies to the question over Ukraine.

FEC considers making "valuable information" a campaign contribution

This was published July 31, 2019, which is after the phone call in question was made on July 25. A law cannot be broken retroactively, and obviously there would be no reason to consider making "valuable information" a campaign contribution if it were already a campaign contribution.

Even of the new rule were imposed, this would exempt Trump:

The rule would also require that any person who receives “foreign information” and “compromising information" to notify the FEC in writing within three days, after which the FEC would be required to take the following steps "automatically and without a vote":

• Initiate an investigation.
  
• Provide a report to the FBI.
  
• And, in the case of "compromising information," provide a report to "every reasonably identifiable person against whom such information could be used, or whose private information is disclosed by such information."

That is exactly what Trump did. He did not try to hide any information received or even where he got that information. He even released the transcript of the phone call before it could be demanded. He asked for an investigation to see if criminal activity affecting the election process in the United States was occurring or had occurred in Ukraine. Isn't that what Robert Mueller spoent millions of dollars and almost three years doing?

Wasn't using information from a foreign national to affect public perception of an opponent exactly what Hillary Clinton did with the infamous Steele Dossier?

You guys really need to leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Every time you try to implicate Trump in something, you end up implicating either Clinton, Biden, or someone else in a Democratic leadership position. This is going to eventually catch up to y'all and everything you wanted to accomplish will be utterly destroyed. It may be too late as it is; I think there's an IG report due out tomorrow?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

a reply to: network dude
The member I relied to was emphatic in his assessment. He offered no links and no proof but was willing to claim his opinion as being the only viable position by his emphatic ''Period''. I had a differing assessment.

''Badges? Badges? I ain't got no badges. I don got to show you no stinkin badges........

And why to I quote Alfonso Bedoya here? Simply because there is no proof that will satisfy a partisan supporter. I could just as easily tell you to offer me proof that it is not true. Or that, as the earlier reply put forth that this is only being done to overturn the 2016 elections. Proof. Ha.

I could offer you what has the appearance of being proof to me and to so many others and you would shoot it all down. I could offer links such as our OP has done and most likely you would shoot that down as well.

For myself I have gathered enough ''information'' about this man for me to see him for the manic I contend him to be. But he is not being investigated for being a manic, he is being investigated for being a law breaker and possibly a traitor.
The proof or at best the verisimilitude of truth is what is being investigated right now by the House Judiciary Committee.
How the House votes on that and how the Senate then judges that information as being proof or not is the the question we should be looking for.

Why did he run for president. I say to line his pockets. My ''proof'' of that is this is his history. He has always been personal profit driven. This is the man he has proven himself to be. OR

He ran for president because he truly believes all the gibber jabber he has been feeding his base with. He truly believes that he is the only one who can fix America, as he has said on a number of occasions. That all of a sudden he has become interested in other people and justice and freedom and upholding the Constitution. All the stuff that his base believes him to stand for.

Even though he in his whole life has never demonstrated these tendencies before.

You and ,I and I would venture all the rest of us here on ATS, have little proof at all. What we have is access to information and more of it every day. We pick and choose what information to pay attention to and in so assemble as best we can a cogent mental construct of the world around us. This is the nature of consciousness.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

so nothing. cool. At least we not know it was opinion, and nothing close to a fact.

A guy who is a billionaire in his 70's, takes a $400K a year job, and donates his salary. Plus, you and yours, continue to believe and call him an idiot and imbecile. So how does a borderline retarded individual scam the entire nation? I'd say one of two things is true. Either he isn't as stupid as you say, or he isn't really trying scam the nation. But you stick to the hatoraide. It's orange, your favorite.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

so this is now proof? A few posts ago, it wasn't. integrity sure isn't something you concern yourself with, is it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

so this is now proof? A few posts ago, it wasn't. integrity sure isn't something you concern yourself with, is it.

Sorry to trigger you man. I know it must be a very stressful time for trump supporters.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

so this is now proof? A few posts ago, it wasn't. integrity sure isn't something you concern yourself with, is it.

Sorry to trigger you man. I know it must be a very stressful time for trump supporters.

Lol, how did that post trigger anyone?

I think you trigger yourself and that's not healthy.


Union proud.

🤡

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

so nothing. cool. At least we not know it was opinion, and nothing close to a fact.

A guy who is a billionaire in his 70's, takes a $400K a year job, and donates his salary. Plus, you and yours, continue to believe and call him an idiot and imbecile. So how does a borderline retarded individual scam the entire nation? I'd say one of two things is true. Either he isn't as stupid as you say, or he isn't really trying scam the nation. But you stick to the hatoraide. It's orange, your favorite.

First he has not scammed the entire nation. This should be obvious. He has scammed a lot of people who have valid grudges against the inadequacies of modern life. He has used their beliefs, their willingness to believe in numerous conspiraciy theories and strong conservative principles to manipulate their patriotism.

He has used well known cult techniques to do this. He plays to the highest hopes and principles of marginalized people who want to help make things better. From this he isolates them. In most cult cases this is done by isolating them into groups with little outside contact. But that is not necessary. The key to understanding that isolation is not so much in the physical isolation but rather in the mental isolation, the isolation from information that would deter from his message.

So he has isolated his followers from believing anything that counters what he is preaching. I has denigrated everything that offers information contrary to his dogma. The entire media except for his own chosen outlets. The entire Democrat Party who offer different positions. Anyone who crosses him. That is cult leader activity.

Add to that a profound sense of persecution. ''We are under attack''. We are right and all others are wrong. We are being picked on. All cult thinking.

If you cannot see thought the ''lost leader'' of his salary donations then you likely do not know much about sales.

www.google.com...

Hatoradie? Ohh, good one. That's new to me. Did you make that one up or did it come out of the conservative list of approved slurs.

"the Difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is, Trump made his Monies befor he went into Politics"

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

so this is now proof? A few posts ago, it wasn't. integrity sure isn't something you concern yourself with, is it.

Sorry to trigger you man. I know it must be a very stressful time for trump supporters.

Lol, how did that post trigger anyone?

I think you trigger yourself and that's not healthy.


Union proud.

🤡

I know the trump supporters are triggered when they have no response to the topic and go directly to insulting the members of ATS. Just like you did....You're correct, it's not healthy!

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Muninn

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: olaru12

So this argument is pretty old and doesnt gain much traction and for good reason

Regardless of the politics, Trump is everywhere. Now you're in the entertainment sector and know damn well that any publicity is good.

Of course his businesses will profit, just in the name recognition alone.

True but I'm not profiting off of the American taxpayers.

Umm... yes you are. That's how businesses work.


Maybe you meant profiting from taxes paid by Americans. Proof to that would be required.

Here ya go...

www.axios.com...

www.theguardian.com...

thinkprogress.org...

www.npr.org...

so this is now proof? A few posts ago, it wasn't. integrity sure isn't something you concern yourself with, is it.

Sorry to trigger you man. I know it must be a very stressful time for trump supporters.

Lol, how did that post trigger anyone?

I think you trigger yourself and that's not healthy.


Union proud.

🤡

I know the trump supporters are triggered when they have no response to the topic and go directly to insulting the members of ATS. Just like you did....You're correct, it's not healthy!

So.......when you do it it's not insulting but when someone else calls you out on it then it's insulting?


Is that about right?