The Actual Laws Trump Has Broken?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Terry, the fact that you just typed all that, and never even thought of the bias in the MSM, the Impeach 45 rhetoric that has been around since about 40 minutes after the election, and the way Congress is playing this game leads me to believe that you are indeed very informed on what a cult might do to a person.

a reply to: network dude

Yes I am informed on cults, but no, I am not uninformed about the MSM and their biases. How could I be Dude after having been semi-active on ATS for all these years.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

and we both know you are a bit above that, yet, here you are. smfh.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Just now getting butthurt by the Obama years, I see.


It had to happen sometime.

a reply to: HanyManny

The Ukraine investigation is over quid pro quo. There was no quid pro quo and Schiff has said as much. Now they're trying to say it's election interference, but the timeline puts the action well before the primary, well before Biden announced he was going to run so that can't be a reason either.

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..

OK.

Was threatening to withhold aid prior to ,or after, the phone call?

Why isn't the whistleblower able to testify now?

If these are clear cut cases, why then isn't Pelosi and the Dems holding a formal inquiry? Especially if she knew what was in the call transcript before all this came out? She says there isn't one currently, and admits they would need to hold a vote in the house for one.

Its only been 2 years, 270 days and almost 5 hours of impeachment, I am sure soon (tm) he will be gone.

a reply to: olaru12

Are American taxpayers being forced to patronize his holdings? If the businesses are doing well on their own, then that's the general outcome of having a businessman for President instead of a lawyer with a Poli Sci degree.

a reply to: network dude
A bit above what? A bit above being suckered by a cult leader? Is that what you are saying?

a reply to: ketsuko
I get this Ket. You did not like Obama. Neither did I.

However as is often pointed out, Obama is not our current president, Trump is.
Trump is the current threat, not Obama.
Should Mrs. Obama run for potus in 2020 I will then call out the faults I see in her run, but for now, it's Trump who is and should be on the hot seat.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And if this is what puts Trump on the hot seat according to Democrats, then why wasn't Obama put there?! That's the point. If it's OK for Obama to do those things, then it's OK for Trump. If it's not OK, for one, then it sure as hell wasn't OK for the other and passing it off as "but Obama isn't president anymore" is a weak sauce excuse and you know it.

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 impeachment using the proper US legalese 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 organize a trail ] - and sit back to await their verdict

Exactly vote or get off the pot LOL.

Earlier this week according to Nancy P there will be no vote at this time LOL. Cause they don't have the votes and are doing it just for the spectacle of it all like dragging out Christy Blaise Ford. Get your ducks in a row then vote and send it to the Senate. Me thinks they don't have enough ducks to begin with and they just want to sit around and see who quacks the loudest.

a reply to: HanyManny

Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 12/22/2018) The Intercept

well, well, well, color me pink, a left rag fish wrapper saying trump broke the law.

that was the niceest report on them there are other that are worse.

a reply to: HanyManny




I hate seeing people cry. So instead of making you hangry, I'm going to hope you get your little wish and that Orange Bad Man goes away and stops hurting your fee-fees.



Buck up, little pony. Don't stop believing. . . . . . .

a reply to: ketsuko

Actually I don't know it. Would you have preferred to stop Obama for all his crap or just let him keep going because of ''look at Bush''. Or just let Bush run his course because '' of Clinton"?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Lysergic
When you guys assembling the guillotine?

When will Republicans show a little backbone and stand for the rule of law instead of always putting their party before country.

Perhaps when democrats stop bearing false witness against everyone they hate while claiming the moral high ground when they are in fact burying themselves in mountains of sin.

a reply to: HanyManny


HanyManny, I do believe you broke a dozen laws with your OP....

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.

You people are actually funny.

In your sick twisted minds you actually think you have got trump this time - it's only the 50th time you have thought that - were absolutely convinced of it, but NOTHING ever comes of it.

You really think Trump supporters are worried about the latest batch of BS. If we are so worried about it how come his approval rating has not changed at all. Here's a hint if it's going to change it is going up.

You fools are exposing yourself everyday to people not paying attention to politics to be insane.

originally posted by: HanyManny
Full title:

The Actual Laws Trump Has Broken, Just With the Ukraine and China Affairs, Could Land Him 10 Years in Prison

A variety of felony criminal statutes plainly implicate Trump’s behavior, and come with lengthy prison sentences — the types of sentences doled out for high crimes, to say nothing of misdemeanors. Indeed, many of them are straightforward. Altogether, if the impeachment inquiry is limited simply to Trump’s pressure on Ukraine, the charges could amount to more than 10 years in prison.

Take 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:

“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.”

As Trump’s envoys made clear in their since-disclosed text messages, Ukraine’s cooperation in the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden was driven by the promise of a White House visit for President Volodymyr Zelensky and the threat of withholding military aid. That’s not just wrong, as Carlson and Patel rightly acknowledge, it’s also a felony, as the president and other Ukrainians no doubt had “fear of injury.”

Then there is this gem, Trump has said that he will refuse to cooperate with lawful subpoenas

2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison.

Oh and what about Bill Taylor:

Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, reiterated in a text message to Trump official Gordon Sondland, strongly suggesting he was pursuing the strategy against his own wishes.

Sooo....

18 U.S. Code § 610, which covers that crime rather clearly under the title: “Coercion of political activity.”

“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 … to engage in … any political activity.” The sentence caps at three years.

It’s also illegal, according to 18 U.S. Code § 595, when a government official, “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.” That statute could add another year to the sentence.

and finally we have this:

A prosecutor who wanted to stack charges against Trump could ding him for 18 U.S. Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,” and 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” Essentially, it’s illegal to solicit contributions to your presidential campaign from the Oval Office and illegal to solicit from foreign nationals no matter where you do it from: “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President … to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election,

Many posters here have continually asked "what crimes did trump commit?"

Well, there ya have it folks.

Now it will be interesting to see the trump folks come out to try and deflect. Should we start will the Hillary? The deep state? aliens? Lizards?

What deflection shall they use?????



theintercept.com...

Tune into the Trump rally tonight...Look see what Americans think of your phony accusations...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Since your original post was more about political dishonesty than any actual impeachable offense, what do you want? If youw ant honest politicans, vote for them don't just squawk about dishonesty in a politician as a matter of political convenience, and you damn sure don't suddenly decide that the same political games every politician since ... ever has played are suddenly impeachable because you hate the president.