Topic: [US Only] Impeachment Vote (Read 937 times)

Most charities are somewhat fraudulent. What is a charity for? It is there to give gifts to the recipients of the charity.

So, you set up a one-day-a-year affair for benefiting kids... like Optimist Club International. You get a bunch of the local businesses to pay you to advertise for them in your one-day-a-year affair for benefiting kids. The benefit to the kids PLUS the advertising costs you $$$. You get $$$$$$$$$ from the businesses. You use $$$ to pay for the benefit expenses. You keep $$$$$$000.

I mean. That's what the charity is for, isn't it? To benefit someone, right?

 

Hmm... that's not quite what the article says...

But just to put this in focus, I'm very biased and suspicious of "charities," period.

So don't look for me to praise this one.

It's a stretch to call Ivanka a criminal.

The Trump foundation was obviously a fraudulently run charity though.

Yes.

Read the article. Shut down for charity fraud. Kinda crazy she can't even run a legit non-profit yet people think she can run a country.

Amazing that people are so blind. A bunch of sheep.

Ivanka isn't qualified, or she's another criminal?

Ahahaha,

It's funny because you people attacked Clinton for years. Literally years. But yeah, it's really funny you support another criminal for president.

Ivanka isn't even qualified to run a charity, let alone a country.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/trump-foundation-agrees-to-dissolve-under-judicial-supervision-.html

But yeah, keep electing criminals into office, good move

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there...
However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related

Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done.

I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet.

Do it. Please, just do it.

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony.  

Or just to see if the impeachment process still works.     

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

How about impeach the guy just for Being Trump?

I think the vote will look similar to the impeachment inquiry. Overall, it'll pass in the House but Republicans don't give a shit about the laws Trump breaks on a daily basis.

What would be quite interesting would be if the House voted for impeachment, and did not reach a majority.

Before then, with the public airings of the impeachment trial around the world. Should be an open and shut case.

November 22nd perhaps? For impeachment. Let's see.

There won't be any Trump impeachment!     

What ratio are we talking? 2 days specifically should have a ROI of like 1000 or so.

Wanna bet on that?

So, impeachment gonna happen soonish.

I'm assuming October 22nd or November 22nd.

There are times I have had to carry gun for protection.

But now I'm worried.

Should it have been "guns?"

Maybe so. If one is good three is better...

Ukraine didn't even know the funds were on hold when the call was made. Even if you believe the quid pro quo was implied, how does that work if there was no evident penalty or gain? Lets assume for a moment Biden is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Exactly how should Trump have asked for a legitimate investigation? Impeached for asking corruption be investigated? What "other acts?" Exactly how is he using taxpayer money and gaining personally and Biden not?

It is illegal to use taxpayer money to bribe a foreign government to try helping you in an election. Furthermore, it is embarrassing an act of desperation. This act alone is impeachable, and there are many other acts which only fuel the fire. Republicans have no excuse but to work with Democrats to impeach that guy for using taxpayer money to his own personal benefit.

I think bluefirecorp_ is figuring out that he needs to think a little more rather than just blab out some nonsense. Check other threads where he has posted, and the responses to his posts.

Pretty much to keep trolls at bay. BADecker is a good example of a foreign troll.

You said exactly what I was thinking. I have a feeling that crypto is far from trump's mind

^^^ Or when all the people realize that they want to carry guns for protection.

well lets see how us will do when it is financially disadvantaged like albania

what do you want to say with "us only" are foreigners not allowed to join the chat?

i personally consider the impeachment attempt as absurd trump will continue to be president and he will be reelected.

Silly troll doesn't really understand government

LOL! That's not the impeachment process. That's only what the Dems have been doing since before Trump took office... data gathering.

So, the formal process is beginning.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

Can't win a game of chess against a bird who just shits all over the board.

If you want to "argue", argue in good faith, you dipshit.

Winning arguments is easy when you delete anyone who contradicts you isn't it?

Still no impeachment yet. Silly speaker of the house.

Probably November 22nd 2019 is the impeachment date though.

Decreasing over longer trends. If you care to actually do the math.

=====

When we take the oath of office, we solemnly vow ‘to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ The Mueller report states unequivocally that Russia interfered in the 2016 election ‘in sweeping and systematic fashion.’ And the Intelligence Community informs us that Russia is working 24/7 to undermine our elections. This assault on our elections is a serious national security matter which the President chooses to ignore.

“The Mueller report and his testimony last week confirmed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out ten instances of the President’s obstruction of justice. The President’s more recent attempts to prevent us from finding the facts is further evidence of obstruction of justice.

“To protect our democracy and our Constitution, Democrats in the Congress continue to legislate, investigate and litigate.

Litigation:

Last week, Jerry Nadler, Chair of Judiciary, took a significant step when he filed a petition to obtain the grand jury testimony underlying the Mueller report, for the House to ‘have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’

Elijah Cummings, Chair of Oversight and Reform, is winning in court in the Mazars case, seeking the President’s financial statements and reports prepared by his accountant to determine financial conflicts, violations of the Emoluments Clause, and the truthfulness of representations contained in the President’s statutorily required financial disclosure forms; Maxine Waters, Chair of Financial Services and Adam Schiff, Chair of Intelligence are winning in court in the Deutsche Bank case, seeking the President’s bank account records to assist with the Committees’ investigation of unsafe banking practices, including money laundering, illicit transactions and foreign investments;

Richie Neal, Chair of Ways and Means, is pursuing the President’s tax returns to assist with the ongoing investigation of the IRS’s presidential tax audit program; Eliot Engel, Chair of Foreign Affairs, on another front, is investigating the Russia connection with hearings seeking the facts from the Trump-Putin meetings; In addition, last week, the House voted to reiterate its oversight authority, and ratified and affirmed the subpoenas already issued by the committees and any subpoenas to come. Responding to the subpoenas gives the President an opportunity to provide information that could exonerate him. If he has nothing to hide, he should cooperate with the subpoenas.

Investigation:

Our litigation has been strengthened by the months of work from our six committees which are engaged in the investigations. 54 percent of House Democrats serve on these committees engaged in hearings and investigations, and I am very proud of their work.

Legislation:

We have sent the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act to the Senate. However, Mitch McConnell refuses to take up this legislation or any other legislation to protect our democracy. Why do the President and the Republican Leader in the Senate choose to protect Russia rather than to protect the integrity of our elections? We will continue to lead a drumbeat across the country demanding the GOP Senate act.

“The assault on our elections and our Constitution is a grave national security issue. We owe it to our Founders to sustain our system of checks and balances and our democracy. We owe it to our heroic men and women in uniform who risk their lives for freedom to defend our democracy at home. We owe it to our children to ensure that no present or future president can dishonor the oath of office without being held accountable.

“In America, no one is above the law. The President will be held accountable.”

Uhh, living here, but because trolls posted charts comparing apples to oranges... I'm here to post the real charts...comparing US death rates since 2013-present.

year
--
fatalities|injured|total_victims

(bottom numbers are column totals)


Pulled numbers from: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/3/

(feel free to disprove a shooting).

We can see a sharp increase in incidents post-2016 (2017 was scary). 2018 is still pretty bad with 4x the killings as 2014. This year still has a few months left and we're already worse than 2014.

(Also, my math is wrong in year 2013. Feel free to add up the totals yourself.. cause I'm not doing *all* the work for you; just see if you read before you even post )

The USA only has the most mass shootings because we are the most populated country that allows gun ownership. When you break it down per-capita it is certainly not the top of the list.



Mind you this is only Europe and Canada. With the entire globe included the US ranks even lower.

Yeah right, trump is creating more mass shooters lol. "one study found that nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States"
"Everytown for Gun Safety, identified 110 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which at least four people were murdered with a firearm, between January 2009 and July 2014"

Where are you pulling your statistics from, your ass? The US has always been the country with most mass shootings since always basically.

Mass shootings sure have picked up steam after 2016. Pre-2016, we had one or two every year; now we're having them every couple of months.

A pattern of what? There are always a ton of mass and school shootings in the US, nothing really surprising. If you believe somehow these shootings are on purpose to make people "forget" about the non-existent possibility of impeachement after mueller report fiasco, then you have some serious mental problems. Now go ahead and delete this, also did you like the video i linked?

Another mass shooting today too. Wonder how long until we forget about impeachment.

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

The best part is actually this: https://youtu.be/iiT1uzlcvUE when he corrected himself and said they did not reach a conclusion whether the president commited a crime or not.

Hey man, you're not very familiar with the Clinton case. Anyway, Trump also perjuried himself and covered up the evidence. It's pretty clear case of obstruction.

The best part of the whole thing is Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.

Of course, you don't care about evidence. You just like your conspiracies

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not. The FISA warrant was based on manufactured evidence, the investigation was based on the FISA warrant, and the obstruction of justice charges were based on the resulting investigation. This was a fraud from start to finish.

I mean, if we would impeach him, we could charge him for obstruction now

Foot note 257; "stolen". Of course "stolen" implies theft...

----

“Director Mueller,” Nadler asked, “the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?”

“Correct,” Mueller replied. “That is not what the report said.”

Nadler quoted from a section of the report in which Mueller’s team wrote that it would have exonerated Trump on the question of obstruction if it could. But, the report says, it couldn’t.



“So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?” Nadler asked.

“That is correct,” Mueller replied.

“And what about total exoneration? Did you totally exonerate the president?” Nadler continued.

“No,” Mueller said.

“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.

“Yes,” Mueller replied.

Trump has also repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was meant to aid his own candidacy. (He also regularly rejects the idea that any Russian interference takes place, but that’s well-established by now.) Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller contradicted Trump’s claims.

“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.

It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?

“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”

When Mueller appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon, committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) walked through a number of the claims Trump has made in the past about Mueller and his probe.

Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied.

Schiff walked through several other claims that the president has made. Schiff noted that Mueller’s report identified outreach attempts from Russia to Trump’s campaign.

“The campaign welcomed the Russian help did they not?” Schiff asked.

“I think we report in the report indications that that occurred, yes,” Mueller said.

"When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?" Schiff asked later.

“True,” Mueller replied.

---

What you're saying directly contradicts what Mueller testified today. These are words directly out of the man's mouth. Not fake bullshit from Trump or some Republican congressperson.

Are we calling this a theft?

The guy literally got a username and password for a site and used it. I fail to see what was wrong here.

There was no collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians. It's pretty simple. Mueller even said this

Wait... what?

I linked to a .gov site. Not some random ass site. What sort of refutation is this? Sounds like some projection from your neck of the woods.

Also, I was wrong about the page number, Page 60 is where Trump Jr. gets the dirt from Wikileaks (aka, receiving stolen property).

Not sure if the PDF isn't allowed to be loaded in foreign nations, but this is page 60:

No, the real Mueller report, not the one you obtained from Alyssa Milano.  The one that actually states the date of the theft, while Obama was still president.  How does that incriminate a presidential candidate? 

Receiving stolen goods is illegal afaik? Check into page 48.

But I know for sure you haven't read the report because you wouldn't be saying this if you had.

It's obvious you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the report says.  Reading comprehension hasn't been your strong point, so I don't reckon you're going to change your mind even IF you were to read the report.

I dare you to point to one incriminating passage out of the Mueller report that a rational, unbiased individual will see as incriminating.  Lets see if you can curb your hate and have a rational, intellectual argument about the subject.

My friend. It's very obvious you didn't read the report if you believe that's what it said.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Please read it yourself. Unlike most Americans (which can't read past 5 pages), I believe that bitcoin members should have the ability to read into the report themselves.

I hate how the entire page highlighting Trump's profile is redacted (page 36 iirc) ;(

And the lack of congressional oversight in this specific matter is quite scary. The executive put themselves above the law effectively.

I corrected that for you, take a look!

Trump didn't collude, by the way, that's what the Mueller report was about. Mueller's testimony isn't going to deviate from the report, which is what he said as well.

Mueller's testimony is tomorrow. We'll see if that changes a few views. Overall, it's pretty obvious that he colluded with a foreign hostile entity to boost his election numbers. If you cheat to win, you shouldn't be rewarded with a victory.

Never. We will never see impeachment proceedings pass through the house.

I'm going to bet that most of the information present right now is it -- relating to the 'dirt' that they have on Trump. So that pretty much means that moderate Democrats and all Republicans aren't going to vote to impeach him.

Why is that? The public doesn't support impeaching and then removing this President from office. People may not like him, but removing a president from office requires a high crime to be committed and Trump hasn't hit that.

Plus people feel as if you're pulling away a democratically elected person because you don't like him -- which is BS as well.

I wonder when we'll see impeachment pass the House. Right now, it's a minority of Democratic representatives listed in the first post. Eventually, I think we'll see a lot more come over to the right side of history on this. 

My prediction is November 22, 2019.

What?

Do you truly think that Trump actually does care about BItcoin in the least? The answer to this question is NO, I doubt even he truly knows what Bitcoin is. Trump wanted to attach Facebook and Libra, and used Bitcoin as a way to do this.

If anyone is to care about Crypto it's going to be the federal regulators, instead of Trump himself -- and the IRS/SEC doesn't seem to think that BTC must be removed.

Edit: Admins editted my post. I linked to roll 483 and they changed it to some purple book shit. Fuck this site.


Inquiry has begun:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jerry-nadler-were-pursuing-a-de-facto-impeachment-inquiry

----

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll483.xml

People who voted for impeachment of the dude that's not a fan of cryptocurrencies:


If you want to remove the anti-bitcoin dude, then work on removing everyone else from that "aye" list from office... assuming you're American.