House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
The guy is 70 years old. Whatever he was going to become, he became long ago. If his ego really were fragile, it would have shattered in 2000, if not before. I think the more likely problem is that Trump's ego is more or less impervious to damage.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're still spreading this fallacy??

"He was going to become President in 2017, therefore he became President long ago!"

"He is now senile and suffering from dementia, therefore he became senile and started suffering from dementia long ago!"

Not to mention it is well known that dementia can change a person's personality.

Some people are incapable of learning.

LMFAO!!!
 
Marcus said:
Also unlikely that he did any money laundering.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? It's pretty obvious he's been engaged in shady financial practices for decades, including close dealings with an organization (Duetsche Bank) that's been shown to engage in massive amounts of money laundering.
 
ArchSas said:
Why do you think that? It's pretty obvious he's been engaged in shady financial practices for decades, including close dealings with an organization (Duetsche Bank) that's been shown to engage in massive amounts of money laundering.
Click to expand...
I think Trump, personally, really wasn't on the ball enough to notice where the money was coming from. Or you could say he "turned a blind eye". Probably enough to establish plausible deniability.
 
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
 
Delvo said:
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the moment from one of the presidential debate a few years ago, when Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was possible Trump hadn't paid taxes in years and tried to shame him. His response was "that makes me smart."

I've always seen him as clearly a guy that's aware of the possibility of financial shenanigans, knows he's been involved in such activities for some time, and sees it as necessary and good. Yes, he's probably always been somewhat clueless as to what people he hires to manage his money do with it (after all, that's why he pays them), but he knows enough to know that keeping it requires some shady things. Which is why he hires them in the first place; that's something people that rich just do - hire people to figure out how to maximize the amount of money they can hoard. If that happens through laundering, it doesn't really matter if he didn't do it personally, it was still done in his interest, and with his say-so.
 
ArchSas said:
I'm reminded of the moment from one of the presidential debate a few years ago, when Hillary Clinton pointed out that it was possible Trump hadn't paid taxes in years and tried to shame him. His response was "that makes me smart."

I've always seen him as clearly a guy that's aware of the possibility of financial shenanigans, knows he's been involved in such activities for some time, and sees it as necessary and good. Yes, he's probably always been somewhat clueless as to what people he hires to manage his money do with it (after all, that's why he pays them), but he knows enough to know that keeping it requires some shady things. Which is why he hires them in the first place; that's something people that rich just do - hire people to figure out how to maximize the amount of money they can hoard. If that happens through laundering, it doesn't really matter if he didn't do it personally, it was still done in his interest, and with his say-so.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "doesn't really matter". If the question is will he end up in prison for it ( after his term or terms are over) the answer is probably not.
 
Delvo said:
We can't use his current lack of awareness of anything happening around him as a sign that he wasn't aware of stuff his company did years ago. He wasn't always like this.
Click to expand...

Laundering money with a wilful blindness that that's what you're doing is just as illegal as laundering money knowingly. Companies in the US have to take steps to ensure that they're not laundering money.
 
theprestige said:
Exactly in the way I intended, actually.
Click to expand...

You intended to mean that some people never seem to learn the fact that other people can change who they are in old age??? Nonsense. Indeed, you were the specific one claiming people don't change who they are in old age. I've instructed you on how you were wrong on this before, yet obviously you never learned that in spite of my teaching you. That's what my words intended; your words obviously intended something quite different (and wrong).
 
And let's also be sure to note the difference in quantifiers between what I intended versus what theprestige intended:

theprestige said:
The guy is 70 years old. Whatever he was going to become, he became long ago. If his ego really were fragile, it would have shattered in 2000, if not before. I think the more likely problem is that Trump's ego is more or less impervious to damage.
Click to expand...

It seems rather clear to me there is an implicit universal quantifier in the highlighted portion, which can be paraphrased as follows: Anybody that is 70 years old became what they are long ago.

In fact, it's specifically the quantifier that I quibble with: It's quite clearly not universally true, as I explained in a previous post. I would agree it's true of some people, certainly. Indeed, in the quote of mine that is being focused on I explicitly used an existential quantifier:

Cabbage said:
Some people are incapable of learning.
Click to expand...


So, in addition to the distinction between my intended meaning and theprestige's intended meaning that I've already covered we also have a distinction in our use of quantifiers: I correctly used an existential quantifier, as opposed to the improper use of the universal by theprestige.

LOL!
 
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
 
Craig4 said:
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
Click to expand...

Which "post-election congress"? There's a session between the election and the new term starting on Jan. 2 (or thereabouts) which is termed the "lame duck" session because members who won't be in place later are still there. That would mean it's constituted the same as today.
Or if it's the new congress in January, why bother? Either Trump will have been defeated and will be gone in three weeks; or if he's won he'll undoubtedly have continued control of the House of McConnell.

Or did you mean last year's Christmas recess? I'm confused.
 
Craig4 said:
It's still too early. There's a risk of scandal fatigue and the hearings losing impact before the election. They should have started after the Christmas recess. That way they could time it so the trial in the Senate would be held by the post election congress.
Click to expand...
That puts paid to any notion that an impeachment hearing is about justice.
 
angrysoba said:
Quick question.

What charge should Trump be impeached on?

Collusion or obstruction?

Or both?
Click to expand...
How about corruption to the nth degree, money laundering, trying to manipulate interest rates to benefit himself and his family and obstruction.
 
psionl0 said:
That puts paid to any notion that an impeachment hearing is about justice.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not about justice since it's not a judicial process - that can come after an Impeachment.
All that Impeachment requires is a majority of Congress agreeing that what the President is doing is something a President shouldn't do - a Misdemeanor, according to the Constitution, is sufficient to justify the process.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Because this is all political, Trump is an angel.
Click to expand...
You are half right. Trump is no angel though I can't tell if he is more dishonest than past presidents - just more blatant.

It seems that the purpose of the impeachment is simply to give him unfavourable publicity and hopefully make him lose the election. Making him face legal sanctions for his wrong doings seems almost irrelevant.
 
psionl0 said:
You are half right. Trump is no angel though I can't tell if he is more dishonest than past presidents - just more blatant.

It seems that the purpose of the impeachment is simply to give him unfavourable publicity and hopefully make him lose the election. Making him face legal sanctions for his wrong doings seems almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Strong disagree.

Trump got into the race to make money. Running for President has been a way to quickly raise cash and get free publicity for many election cycles.

The only way to dissuade future profiteers from seeking high political office is to make it costly for them by holding them legally accountable for their crimes.
We won't get another Trump if as a result of the Investigations Trump loses all his wealth.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Strong disagree.

Trump got into the race to make money. Running for President has been a way to quickly raise cash and get free publicity for many election cycles.

The only way to dissuade future profiteers from seeking high political office is to make it costly for them by holding them legally accountable for their crimes.
We won't get another Trump if as a result of the Investigations Trump loses all his wealth.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try. Many ex-presidents have to go on the speaking circuit in order to service the debt they incurred from running for office.

Trump doesn't have to spend a dime on his defence. The Senate wouldn't vote against Trump if they had video footage of every crime that Trump was accused of.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
That puts paid to any notion that an impeachment hearing is about justice.
Click to expand...

Justice can come once he's out of office. Right now, for the good of the country, we just need him out office without regard to right or wrong. Any legal means to remove Trump from office should be applied without regard to fairness, decency or any sense of morality. The ends justify the means.
 
psionl0 said:
You are half right. Trump is no angel though I can't tell if he is more dishonest than past presidents - just more blatant.

It seems that the purpose of the impeachment is simply to give him unfavourable publicity and hopefully make him lose the election. Making him face legal sanctions for his wrong doings seems almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...

He can be indicted once out of office. They aren't mutually exclusive.
 
There is the post-White House era for Trump, when State Prosecutors can unload on him for everything 10min-President Pence didn't pardon him for.
And Trump IS making money being POTUS, as the fact that his Washington Hotel hasn't folded yet proves.
 
psionl0 said:
You are half right. Trump is no angel though I can't tell if he is more dishonest than past presidents - just more blatant.

It seems that the purpose of the impeachment is simply to give him unfavourable publicity and hopefully make him lose the election. Making him face legal sanctions for his wrong doings seems almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Oh, in that case you're simply not paying attention. That's your problem right there.
 
psionl0 said:
Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try. Many ex-presidents have to go on the speaking circuit in order to service the debt they incurred from running for office.

Trump doesn't have to spend a dime on his defence. The Senate wouldn't vote against Trump if they had video footage of every crime that Trump was accused of.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, most definitely not paying attention.
 
psionl0 said:
Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try.
Click to expand...

Were you asleep during 2015-2016? Trump never wanted to become president.

He spent barely any of his own money on it. He got most of his publicity through the free media coverage for being the joke celebrity candidate. His plan was to start his own media company, Trump TV, banking on his exposure from being a former presidential candidate.

Why else do you think he prepared so hard for his own loss with claims of election fraud and had absolutely no plans in place for if he won?
 
psionl0 said:
Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try. Many ex-presidents have to go on the speaking circuit in order to service the debt they incurred from running for office.
Click to expand...

Uhm, huh? The secret service had to rent out space that was previously not rented in Trump Tower to monitor his family in New York. He repeatedly flies to his own properties on the weekends and charges the secret service to stay there, full price, along with his staff. Foreign individuals visiting the White House are staying at his actual hotels, as previously mentioned. There is an investigation that's started by the military to find out why they are, all of a sudden, landing at random airports just to stay at Trump resorts.

I believe you meant to say "there SHOULDN'T be profit" in becoming POTUS. As Trump has shown you absolutely can profit a lot off of being POTUS.

psionl0 said:
Trump doesn't have to spend a dime on his defence. The Senate wouldn't vote against Trump if they had video footage of every crime that Trump was accused of.
Click to expand...

That's awesome, sometimes that isn't always the goal. Get them on record having to defend Trump's various crimes and several of those people that are fencesitters might not be so comfortable sitting anymore.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Where did you get this rubbish from?

There is no profit in becoming POTUS. It is extremely costly to run and this is the main reason why only the seriously wealthy can afford to try. Many ex-presidents have to go on the speaking circuit in order to service the debt they incurred from running for office.
Trump doesn't have to spend a dime on his defence. The Senate wouldn't vote against Trump if they had video footage of every crime that Trump was accused of.
Click to expand...

No president since the 1970's had failed to divest himself from his business (like Carter selling his peanut farm) and/or put his properties into a blind trust. Trump failed to do either. To say he is not making money from being POTUS is both false and illogical. It's naive to think he is not still intimately involved in his companies through his children. IMO, his extreme narcissism would not allow him to give up his control and his pathological lying prevents any denial from him that he is not involved from being believed.

Trump could honor the name law* by doing what every president since the 1970s has done voluntarily: sell off his assets, in particular his interests in his brand, and replace them with holdings in a blind trust, the contents of which would remain unknown to him; or he could replace them with Treasury bills and index funds whose value he couldn’t affect in any direct way, as President Obama has done.
Click to expand...

*
Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior “noncareer officer” of the government from permitting his or her name to be “used” by any firm that “provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.” While the conflict-of-interest statutes exempt the president, the text of the use-of-name law does not, though its use in court would require the repeal of a 25-year-old executive-branch regulation that does exempt the president and vice president. As important, Congress explicitly said this statute was meant to ban the use of an officer’s name not only in traditional fiduciary-based firms, such as law partnerships, but in a range of other ventures including “real estate, consulting and advising, [and] architecture.”
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-holdings-conflict-of-interest/503333/
 
Lawsuit against Trump enrichment moves forward

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Friday breathed new life into a lawsuit claiming that President Donald Trump's profiting from restaurants and hotels patronized by government officials violates the Constitution.

In late 2017, a judge threw the case out, concluding that the groups behind the lawsuit did not have a legal right to bring the challenge over a violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which forbids a president to receive financial benefits from foreign or domestic governments.

But by a 2-1 vote, a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the judge was wrong to dismiss the case and sent it back with instructions to continue with the lawsuit. It was brought by a group of restaurant and hotel owners who say that both foreign and state government officials patronize Trump hotels and restaurants to curry favor from the president, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and hurting their businesses.

"The president's establishments offer government patrons something that the plaintiffs cannot: the opportunity, by enriching the president, to obtain favorable governmental treatment from the president and the executive branch," the appeals court said.
Click to expand...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...it-against-trump-over-his-businesses-n1054231
 
Stacyhs said:
That he is directly, personally, secretly involved in the running of his businesses through his children et al.
Click to expand...

There's nothing secret about it. If he were out of the business entirely, he wouldn't have pitched his bedbug infested resort in Florida at the G-7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom