TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED

[subhub174014]

Americans, remember your Watergate history lesson and how long it takes to investigate

yes I do.... and this is far worse than Watergate
Watergate was about a cover up of all kinds of things
this is about a cover-up.... possible treason/corruption and so much more

Watergate had a few go to jail.... this one should involve a lot more!
I look for Sessions to be in serious trouble soon!
they have already said Flynn is now a criminal investigation!
and before those two get any jail time... I think they will squeal like a stuck pig!

 

[subhub174014]

 

[STIFFBBC]

View attachment 1308483
View attachment 1308484

At least the size of Trump's member can cause discomfort to Lady Liberty.

 

[mmbbc]

At least the size of Trump's member can cause discomfort to Lady Liberty.

If it's in the wrong hole even a "little prick" can cause discomfort!

 

[hoping hubby]

At least the size of Trump's member can cause discomfort to Lady Liberty.

Look how big his hands are!!!

 

[STIFFBBC]

If given some time I'd think Trump would do this to DAESH

 

[Deleted125623]

Why do republicans allow this to happen for Trump, but were disgusted at anyone else doing it when in office, or even thought about it in office? Hypocrites much?????????



Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states holders of public office cannot “without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state”.

Mr Nelson and Mr Bonifaz named 24 countries they said were involved in current or previous business deals with the President’s company, The Trump Organisation.

Read more

• Iran says Donald Trump showing the 'real face of America'
• Jeremy Corbyn backs Donald Trump being banned from Parliament
• Dozens of rabbis arrested following protest at Trump Tower
• Javid rebukes Bercow after his block on Trump speaking to Parliament

For example, the Qatari state airline and the state-owned Bank of China are both said to rent space at Trump Tower in New York, while government-owned media organisations in several countries reportedly to pay licence fees to produce versions of The Apprentice, Mr Trump’s reality TV show.

The embassies of a number of states, including Kuwait and Bahrain, have also reportedly held events at Mr Trump’s hotels, where room hire costs can run into many thousands of dollars. Mr Trump’s team has previously suggested he would donate the profits from such events to charity.

• More about:
• Donald Trump
• US Constitution
• Trump Organization

Reuse content



Comments

 

[subhub174014]

At least the size of Trump's member can cause discomfort to Lady Liberty

you know it is probably an attachment.... the only thing big about him is his ego!

 

[subhub174014]

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states holders of public office cannot “without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state”.

right now the right is letting him do what he wants..... but there are several private law suits against him on this issue!

 

[subhub174014]

 

[BigBlackBull76]

Just a simple question to my knowledgeable friends here especially @subhub174014, @bigblackbull76, and @MacNfries. You might have missed it at the end of my recent post:

( https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-27#post-1410949 )

but since it went unanswered I'll repose it: If you had a magic wand and you could remove Trump as POTUS this second, who alive today would you insert as POTUS in his place?

what up @STIFFBBC I answered that question before about who I would've like to seen been POTUS from the last batch of yah-hoos back on May 14th. Here is the post here:

https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-13#post-1388533

FACTS

In the aftermath of former FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, critics of President Donald Trump have argued that his interactions with Comey constitute obstruction of justice.

Specifically, critics have pointed to several statements Comey has said Trump made, including a request to end his investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor.

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go," Trump said during a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office in February, according to Comey's prepared testimony.

Comey added on Thursday that he understood Trump's comments to be an order.

"I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying, 'I hope this.' I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it," Comey said.


The notion that Trump's comments to Comey constitute obstruction of justice has been vehemently rejected by Trump's supporters. Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho argued during Comey's testimony that there is no legal basis to charge Trump for the comments Comey accused him of making.

"You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said," Risch responded. "He said, 'I hope' … You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something — is that a fair statement?" To which Comey replied he didn't.

But New York Times reporter Adam Liptak shared on Twitter an instance of a statement beginning with "I hope" being used by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 to form part of the basis for a sentence enhancement for obstructing justice.

"I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you," a defendant wrote to his girlfriend, who was a potential witness.

The defendant in the case, Collin McDonald, had pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery — during which he carried a concealed knife, according to his girlfriend's testimony — and was sentenced by a lower court to 175 months in prison, to be served consecutively to previous sentences he had been given by different courts.

The case reached the Eighth Circuit when McDonald challenged the consecutive sentences, arguing that the lower court should not have imposed a sentence enhancement due to his attempts to obstruct justice, in addition to several other charges.

McDonald argued that the obstruction of justice enhancement should not be imposed because his girlfriend's testimony was not credible. The Eighth Circuit held that the girlfriend's testimony had been "totally believable," and therefore the sentence enhancement warranted.

USA v. Collin McDonald is not an exact comparison to the situation with Trump and Comey — the Eighth Circuit's decision concerned sentencing minutiae for a convicted bank robber rather than an indictment against the president. Yet the case nevertheless sheds some light on how courts view statements that are perceived to be threatening.

The Times was also able to identify two other cases where a case for obstruction of justice was made, at least in part, by defendants' "I hope" statements.

"We have examples all the time in criminal law of people saying things only slightly subtly, where everyone understands what is meant — 'Nice pair of legs you got there; shame if something happened to them,'" Samuel Buell, a Duke University law professor and former federal prosecutor, told the Times.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-case-regarding-obstruction-of-justice-2017-6


As Donald Trump and company continue their audacious plan to humiliate each and every American with their constant incompetence, one man is pushing to find the truth about the president and his cronies' connections to Russia and their clumsy, foolish, shockingly transparent attempts to cover up any wrongdoing. That man is Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department to lead the investigation, and a new story from Politico paints an interesting portrait of the team Mueller is assembling. In fact, I'm pretty sure, if I were Donald Trump, that this news of this team would make me very, very nervous.

He already has picked three former colleagues from his last job as a partner at the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr law firm: Aaron Zebley, who also was Mueller’s FBI chief of staff; Jeannie Rhee, a former DOJ attorney; and Quarles, who got his start in Washington some four decades ago as an assistant Watergate prosecutor.


But Mueller’s biggest hire to date was [Andrew] Weissmann, who is taking a leave from his current post leading the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section. The two men have a long history together at the FBI, where Weissmann served as both the bureau’s general counsel from 2011 to 2013 and as Mueller’s special counsel in 2005.


Weissmann’s prosecution record includes overseeing the investigations into more than 30 people while running the Enron Task *******, including CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. And while working in the U.S. attorney’s office in the eastern district of New York, he tried more than 25 cases involving members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families.


Imagine being a president and a corrupt businessman who potentially is at the head of an immense conspiracy. Your life is full of paranoia. You don't know whom to trust. The people around you are constantly trying to manipulate you. You're out of your depth in most meetings. The media won't stop talking about the scandal you're at the center of, but you hope against hope that you'll wake up tomorrow and it'll just go away.

And then you find out the guys who are investigating you are people who have literally brought down presidents and corrupt businessmen. That's the situation our president finds himself in now. And if we've learned anything from the past two years of Donald Trump's political career, it's that there's nothing this guy handles worse than pressure. I have no doubt that we're only days away from a Twitter rant about how these guys are losers who should be deported for being FAKE NEWS or something equally stupid.

ref: http://www.gq.com/story/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-team

If He Were Doing Any Other Job, Trump Would Have Been Fired by Now

 

[STIFFBBC]

what up @STIFFBBC I answered that question before about who I would've like to seen been POTUS from the last batch of yah-hoos back on May 14th. Here is the post here:

https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-13#post-1388533

FACTS
View attachment 1310195
In the aftermath of former FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, critics of President Donald Trump have argued that his interactions with Comey constitute obstruction of justice.

Specifically, critics have pointed to several statements Comey has said Trump made, including a request to end his investigation into Michael Flynn, the former national security advisor.

"I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go," Trump said during a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office in February, according to Comey's prepared testimony.

Comey added on Thursday that he understood Trump's comments to be an order.

"I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying, 'I hope this.' I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it," Comey said.


The notion that Trump's comments to Comey constitute obstruction of justice has been vehemently rejected by Trump's supporters. Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho argued during Comey's testimony that there is no legal basis to charge Trump for the comments Comey accused him of making.

"You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said," Risch responded. "He said, 'I hope' … You don't know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something — is that a fair statement?" To which Comey replied he didn't.

But New York Times reporter Adam Liptak shared on Twitter an instance of a statement beginning with "I hope" being used by the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 to form part of the basis for a sentence enhancement for obstructing justice.

"I hope and pray to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you," a defendant wrote to his girlfriend, who was a potential witness.

The defendant in the case, Collin McDonald, had pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery — during which he carried a concealed knife, according to his girlfriend's testimony — and was sentenced by a lower court to 175 months in prison, to be served consecutively to previous sentences he had been given by different courts.

The case reached the Eighth Circuit when McDonald challenged the consecutive sentences, arguing that the lower court should not have imposed a sentence enhancement due to his attempts to obstruct justice, in addition to several other charges.

McDonald argued that the obstruction of justice enhancement should not be imposed because his girlfriend's testimony was not credible. The Eighth Circuit held that the girlfriend's testimony had been "totally believable," and therefore the sentence enhancement warranted.

USA v. Collin McDonald is not an exact comparison to the situation with Trump and Comey — the Eighth Circuit's decision concerned sentencing minutiae for a convicted bank robber rather than an indictment against the president. Yet the case nevertheless sheds some light on how courts view statements that are perceived to be threatening.

The Times was also able to identify two other cases where a case for obstruction of justice was made, at least in part, by defendants' "I hope" statements.

"We have examples all the time in criminal law of people saying things only slightly subtly, where everyone understands what is meant — 'Nice pair of legs you got there; shame if something happened to them,'" Samuel Buell, a Duke University law professor and former federal prosecutor, told the Times.

ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-case-regarding-obstruction-of-justice-2017-6

View attachment 1310210
As Donald Trump and company continue their audacious plan to humiliate each and every American with their constant incompetence, one man is pushing to find the truth about the president and his cronies' connections to Russia and their clumsy, foolish, shockingly transparent attempts to cover up any wrongdoing. That man is Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department to lead the investigation, and a new story from Politico paints an interesting portrait of the team Mueller is assembling. In fact, I'm pretty sure, if I were Donald Trump, that this news of this team would make me very, very nervous.

He already has picked three former colleagues from his last job as a partner at the Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr law firm: Aaron Zebley, who also was Mueller’s FBI chief of staff; Jeannie Rhee, a former DOJ attorney; and Quarles, who got his start in Washington some four decades ago as an assistant Watergate prosecutor.


But Mueller’s biggest hire to date was [Andrew] Weissmann, who is taking a leave from his current post leading the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section. The two men have a long history together at the FBI, where Weissmann served as both the bureau’s general counsel from 2011 to 2013 and as Mueller’s special counsel in 2005.


Weissmann’s prosecution record includes overseeing the investigations into more than 30 people while running the Enron Task *******, including CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. And while working in the U.S. attorney’s office in the eastern district of New York, he tried more than 25 cases involving members of the Genovese, Colombo and Gambino crime families.


Imagine being a president and a corrupt businessman who potentially is at the head of an immense conspiracy. Your life is full of paranoia. You don't know whom to trust. The people around you are constantly trying to manipulate you. You're out of your depth in most meetings. The media won't stop talking about the scandal you're at the center of, but you hope against hope that you'll wake up tomorrow and it'll just go away.

And then you find out the guys who are investigating you are people who have literally brought down presidents and corrupt businessmen. That's the situation our president finds himself in now. And if we've learned anything from the past two years of Donald Trump's political career, it's that there's nothing this guy handles worse than pressure. I have no doubt that we're only days away from a Twitter rant about how these guys are losers who should be deported for being FAKE NEWS or something equally stupid.

ref: http://www.gq.com/story/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-team

If He Were Doing Any Other Job, Trump Would Have Been Fired by Now

My bad I missed that post.

 

[BigBlackBull76]

You are 100% wrong on this, despite how much you claim to know about FOIA. When she comingled her government emails with her personal server, her private email server became federal government records, discoverable via FOIA. You can stomp your feet, cluck about your experience all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Here is proof....a unanimous decision on this very topic by a federal appeals court.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...2C985257FE7005038BD/$file/15-5128-1622973.pdf

Because we agree with plaintiff-appellant that an agency cannot shield its
records from search or disclosure under FOIA by the expedient
of storing them in a private email account controlled by the
agency head, we reverse the dismissal and remand the case for
further proceedings.

Ok I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you @hoping hubby as I stated up front Im about facts, not opinions or partisan spin so here is the final response to you. It was you who started off stating the following:

"Sorry, but it isn't treasonous to ask anyone foreign or not to release Hillary's emails which we all are legally entitled to see under the FOIA. Sorry, but your "FACT" here is really just your opinion....and it is wrong legally."

The statement you made quoted above can be referenced from the post here: https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-27#post-1413956

You said "it isn't treasonous to ask anyone foreign" and we all are legally entitled to see under the FOIA which is 100% FALSE. If no one had Hillary's emails to begin with which is why Trump called out to ask Russia to find them, and they did not reside on a Federal email system but her own private server therefore no one has any legal right to see them unless a crime was committed, she was tried, and the emails were collected by a US law enforcement agency which is 100% correct with what I wrote.

Don't you know you know your 4th amendment rights? Legally, Trump could theoretically be charged as a conspirator under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Trump was basically urging & conspiring with Russia to hack Hillary’s private server and release confidential information to the public. Its completely asinine to even try to come on here, rationalize, argue, and cover for that behavior as an American if you are one.

And even to this day, since Hillary was never convicted of a crime so go ahead file a FOIA and see what you get in response about those missing emails that Trump asked Russia to find - I bet not much.

So indeed my man I am very much legally, and factually 100% correct and it is you who started off with a statement which was 100% false which I simply corrected you with the proper way to go about obtaining her private emails. At the end of the day I do agree with you that she should be fully investigated and if found to be guilty put into 'an orange jumpsuit' as you had stated. I'm not trying to defend Shillary/illary I'm just about justice.

Bottomline: You need to ask a US law enforcement agency to seize the drives from her confidential servers, and recover the missing emails to use against her if a crime was committed not a foreign Government then you can try to file a FOIA after brought into Federal possession and the investigation was closed!

FACTS

 

[hoping hubby]

Ok I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you @hoping hubby as I stated up front Im about facts, not opinions or partisan spin so here is the final response to you. It was you who started off stating the following:

"Sorry, but it isn't treasonous to ask anyone foreign or not to release Hillary's emails which we all are legally entitled to see under the FOIA. Sorry, but your "FACT" here is really just your opinion....and it is wrong legally."

The statement you made quoted above can be referenced from the post here: https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-27#post-1413956

You said "it isn't treasonous to ask anyone foreign" and we all are legally entitled to see under the FOIA which is 100% FALSE. If no one had Hillary's emails to begin with which is why Trump called out to ask Russia to find them, and they did not reside on a Federal email system but her own private server therefore no one has any legal right to see them unless a crime was committed, she was tried, and the emails were collected by a US law enforcement agency which is 100% correct with what I wrote.

Don't you know you know your 4th amendment rights? Legally, Trump could theoretically be charged as a conspirator under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Trump was basically urging & conspiring with Russia to hack Hillary’s private server and release confidential information to the public. Its completely asinine to even try to come on here, rationalize, argue, and cover for that behavior as an American if you are one.

And even to this day, since Hillary was never convicted of a crime so go ahead file a FOIA and see what you get in response about those missing emails that Trump asked Russia to find - I bet not much.

So indeed my man I am very much legally, and factually 100% correct and it is you who started off with a statement which was 100% false which I simply corrected you with the proper way to go about obtaining her private emails. At the end of the day I do agree with you that she should be fully investigated and if found to be guilty put into 'an orange jumpsuit' as you had stated. I'm not trying to defend Shillary/illary I'm just about justice.

Bottomline: You need to ask a US law enforcement agency to seize the drives from her confidential servers, and recover the missing emails to use against her if a crime was committed not a foreign Government then you can try to file a FOIA after brought into Federal possession and the investigation was closed!

FACTS

Jesus H Christ, you must be a politician. Only someone of that ilk could write a 500 word filibuster arguing they weren't wrong when a US Federal Appeals court ruling CLEARLY said you were.

In your BS post, you just claimed yet again about her emails: "and they did not reside on a Federal email system but her own private server therefore no one has any legal right to see them unless a crime was committed"

This is 100% BULLSHIT PER THE US APPEALS COURT.

From LAW360.com on the case I cited: https://www.law360.com/articles/814483

A D.C. Circuit panel on Tuesday revived a political group's bid for emails that the White House’s science and technology chief allegedly kept on private servers, ruling an agency head's emails can be subject to the Freedom of Information Act no matter where they are.

I realize this isn't particularly pertinent to the topic of Trump, but when you refuse to admit you're wrong on something so obvious as this, it really undermines your whole credibility. Why should any of us believe any of your so called "FACTS" when you're proving you won't admit when shown to be wrong. Ironically given the thread topic, in a legal setting, since I've proved you wrong and you won't admit it, I have "impeached" you as a witness....and all of your testimony is subsequently worthless.

Further backup from the US COURT RULING which says your reasoning is BULLSHIT!:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...2C985257FE7005038BD/$file/15-5128-1622973.pdf

This was a case where John Holdren, Director of Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy tried to avoid disclosing work related emails under a FOIA request because they were held on a private email server. The US Appeals court unanimously rejected that claim. It's asinine to think otherwise. If the courts allowed this, the FOIA would be meaningless as anything the government wants to hide, they could just move to their personal email accounts and avoid FOIA. From the court ruling:

If the agency head controls what would otherwise be an agency record, then it is still an agency record and still must be searched or produced.

And also from the ruling:

If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose (FOIA) is hardly served. It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his *******’s house and then claiming that they are under her control.

 

[subhub174014]

when is the right going to get off the email thing?








AFTER the election we find out Gowdy and friends were guilty of "altering" her e-mails to begin with!
discovered by the CIA!

 

[subhub174014]

let me take a wild stab here and say HH is going to say something about my reading comprehension

my point is the right used the email thing when it benefitted them.... and turned a blind eye when it didn't.... well the email thing should be over....but again rather than face what's going wrong with their party/pres..... let's get back to the emails!

 

[STIFFBBC]

 

[STIFFBBC]

 

[STIFFBBC]

 

[subhub174014]

I really think ...under the guidance of his mom country Russia... this guy is trying to Take the country down!
at least now even some on the right are starting to whisper impeachment

Donald Trump condemned over bid to '*******' Obama law aimed at stopping another global financial crash

Democrats have condemned Donald Trump for championing a bid to “*******” regulations imposed on banks following the financial crisis in 2008.
The US President celebrated after Republicans in the House of Representatives approved the Financial Choice Act, which would end government bailouts for banking giants and ease restrictions on their investment activity.

The bill is designed to undo the Dodd-Frank Act, which was signed into law by former US President Barack Obama in 2010 in an attempt to reform Wall Street and protect consumers in the wake of the worst financial crash since the Great Depression.

It passed with 233-186 votes on Thursday, without any support from House Democrats.

Reacting to the news on Twitter, President Trump said: “Congratulations to Jeb Hensarling & Republicans on successful House vote to repeal major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law. GROWTH!”

The bill still faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where it must receive some Democratic support to pass.
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of House Democrats, tweeted: “It’s fitting that @realDonaldTrump is celebrating a bill that will harm service members, seniors, and families. #WrongChoiceAct”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-condemned-over-bid-120454376.html