President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Democrats will worry that attempting to impeach Trump will motivate his base to turn out in November, they might also prefer to face a scandal-hit Trump in 2020 than a new candidate. Also many are probably sensible enough to see the possible ramifications of it and be uneasy with removing a President without sufficient reason.

Plus there is the additional problem of having Pence instead.

[Chloé Palmas]

Hardly, he is a social conservative, opposed to abortion / gay marriage etc. We clearly need someone like him who was "never severely pro choice" at any point. Principle wins the day, every time. He is not a problem.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Hardly, he is a social conservative, opposed to abortion / gay marriage etc. We clearly need someone like him who was "never severely pro choice" at any point. Principle wins the day, every time. He is not a problem.

Well 'we', as in those who agree with pro choice and who understand science would beg to differ.

Never anyone else's business what choices someone else makes about their own body.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Hardly, he is a social conservative, opposed to abortion / gay marriage etc. We clearly need someone like him who was "never severely pro choice" at any point. Principle wins the day, every time. He is not a problem.

Others disagree - he won't dine alone with a woman other than his wife.

He's an Evangelical Christian who uses his religion to shape policy, and the Founders wanted them kept separate.

There's "social conservative" and there's "here comes Gilead...".

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Angua

Well 'we', as in those who agree with pro choice and who understand science would beg to differ.

You can beg all you want, won't make any difference to me...

Never anyone else's business what choices someone else makes about their own body.

Uh huh, you claim to know science and think that the baby's body is your own, do you?

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You can beg all you want, won't make any difference to me...



Uh huh, you claim to know science and think that the baby's body is your own, do you?

Strange how some "social conservatives" lose all interest in the baby's health and well being once it's born...

[Chloé Palmas]

Some, but I am not one of them. (Not sure about Pence) I don't believe in womb to tomb care Hugh, though I am glad to see a little support thrown the child's way. (Especially for those who need foster care / adoption and are not wanted by the mother). Certainly better to be alive than the barbarism of sticking a fork up your ho ha and dragging out a baby that has hit gestation / has viability.

I would not see myself as a heartless person who is opposed to welfare ; on the contrary I see myself as a compassionate conservative. On social issues and national security I lean way / far right but on the economy I am pretty down the middle.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

You can beg all you want, won't make any difference to me...



Uh huh, you claim to know science and think that the baby's body is your own, do you?

A foetus is the equivalent of a parasite until it can survive outside the womb. You would grant personhood to a foetus that may never make it past the first trimester, let alone develop a brain. Or force a woman to stay pregnant knowing that will kill her and probably the foetus she is carrying.

Sorry, but forced birthers make me so angry over their obsession with a potential life, whilst not caring so much about children who are alive now and really do need the help and support.

Forced birthers want slavery for women.

What is even worse, where abortion is restricted, more women have abortions and more children are left motherless. Where abortions are legal, women have fewer abortions and children get to keep their mothers.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Angua

A foetus is the equivalent of a parasite until it can survive outside the womb. You would grant personhood to a foetus that may never make it past the first trimester, let alone develop a brain. Or force a woman to stay pregnant knowing that will kill her and probably the foetus she is carrying.

I never said that I was in favor of personhood, do not put words in my mouth.

I am definitely opposed to allowing the mother to kill said child that she is carrying yes....you may see a foetus as a parasite, I don't. You may think that I was one when I was in the womb, you may think that you were one when you were in the womb, but you know jack shit about science if you think that.

As for forcing a woman to stay pregnant when she is carrying a child that may kill her...any real woman would die first than kill an innocent child she is carrying.

Sorry, but forced birthers make me so angry over their obsession with a potential life, whilst not caring so much about children who are alive now and really do need the help and support.

Like those unwanted who then get adopted...good job someone doesn't come in and gut them in the womb first, eh?

Of course in helping them later / in adult life here is the risk that someone like you will come along and call them a parasite (assuming that you know what it means by then) so defending them won't just stop after birth - they'll need a little protection from the likes of you for years to come.

Forced birthers want slavery for women.

Actually it was someone into eugenics (Margaret Sanger) who first whored her ass for Eugenics and ended up bringing about the modern abortion movement.

Interesting that...coz ummm...she argued that it was her body, and her right, and her right alone, correct? I mean it is my body, and my right...so if you got pregnant do I have a right to punch you in the womb / kill your child?

Ohhh...right that would be correct, it is only you that has the ownership of said child / body etc, right?

Remind me who is the slaveowner here again?

What is even worse, where abortion is restricted, more women have abortions and more children are left motherless. Where abortions are legal, women have fewer abortions and children get to keep their mothers.

What possible notion gave you that idea??

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I never said that I was in favor of personhood, do not put words in my mouth.

I am definitely opposed to allowing the mother to kill said child that she is carrying yes....you may see a foetus as a parasite, I don't. You may think that I was one when I was in the womb, you may think that you were one when you were in the womb, but you know jack shit about science if you think that.

As for forcing a woman to stay pregnant when she is carrying a child that may kill her...any real woman would die first than kill an innocent child she is carrying.


Like those unwanted who then get adopted...good job someone doesn't come in and gut them in the womb first, eh?

Of course in helping them later / in adult life here is the risk that someone like you will come along and call them a parasite (assuming that you know what it means by then) so defending them won't just stop after birth - they'll need a little protection from the likes of you for years to come.


Actually it was someone into eugenics (Margaret Sanger) who first whored her ass for Eugenics and ended up bringing about the modern abortion movement.

Interesting that...coz ummm...she argued that it was her body, and her right, and her right alone, correct? I mean it is my body, and my right...so if you got pregnant do I have a right to punch you in the womb / kill your child?

Ohhh...right that would be correct, it is only you that has the ownership of said child / body etc, right?

Remind me who is the slaveowner here again?


What possible notion gave you that idea??

What you choose to do with your womb is your business alone. Stay out of mine.

PS a foetus is not a child/baby or person until it has the ability to survive outside the womb. - It really is a simple as that. Anything else is putting the rights of a potential life as having greater value than actual life.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Others disagree - he won't dine alone with a woman other than his wife.

He's an Evangelical Christian who uses his religion to shape policy, and the Founders wanted them kept separate.

There's "social conservative" and there's "here comes Gilead...".

Yeah, that was pretty screwed up, I will admit. I am a pretty hot woman by the standards of most (not that I necessarily agree) but his views feel like it discriminates upon the likes of me. Granted, it is his right to do so, but I do kind of feel shafted lol. Pence does do things that would likely be seen as sound (in terms of what it says in the bible), so who am I to judge?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-w...ion-1535121992

Allen Weisselberg, President Trump’s longtime financial gatekeeper, was granted immunity by federal prosecutors for providing information about Michael Cohen in the criminal investigation into hush-money payments for two women during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Weisselberg was called to testify before a federal grand jury in the investigation earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal previously reported, citing people familiar with the investigation.

The decision by prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office to grant immunity to Mr. Weisselberg escalates the pressure on Mr. Trump, whom Mr. Weisselberg has served for decades as executive vice president and chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. After Mr. Trump was elected, he handed control of his financial assets and business interests to his two adult sons and Mr. Weisselberg.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/24/64149...=1535123705559

David Pecker, the chairman of American Media, Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, was granted immunity in exchange for giving prosecutors information about Cohen and Trump's knowledge of those payments, according to The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets.

The Enquirer allegedly used a tactic known as "catch-and-kill" — when a publication buys the rights to a damaging story for the purpose of sitting on it and keeping that story out of the news.

The Associated Press reported Friday that the magazine even had a location where records of these payments were stored: a safe full of documents, not only relating to Trump, but similar "catch-and-kill" deals with other celebrities.

"By keeping celebrities' embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return," the AP reports.

The CFO of the Trump organisation has also just been given immunity: https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/stat...02863314825216

DOW JONES: *Allen Weisselberg, Longtime Trump Organization CFO, Granted Immunity by U.S. Prosecutors in Cohen Investigation -- Sources

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Mick

You're forgetting, the President is the Commander and chief of the army. He could order them to stand down, are they obliged to obey?

If he was convicted by the Senate though, he would no longer be the actual President. The army would answer up the chain of command (JC / SECDEF / POTUS etc) but the President would be the incumbent VP who automatically becomes the President if the former President (current, at the time), is expelled having been convicted, by the Senate.

What's the actual process to physically removing the President from the White House/Power.... ?

After trial (and conviction for the scenario to play out) he would be guilty of a crime so would almost certainly be charged, and once expelled, the US Marshals office would take him into custody.

Are the Secret Service ordered to stand down, who gives them that order ?

Before 9/11 and the formation of DHS I can't remember who they answer to but since, they are part of the umbrella organization created under Ridge's watch but they will no longer serve to protect him. They would be there to protect Pence who would be the President. If Trump didn't surrender, he would just be a fugitive at that point.

All of this is just a hypothetical scenario though as it is never going to anywhere, impeachment is now a non issue.

Clinton was cleared by the Senate, so full impeachment was not fulfilled. Clinton survived.

Well technically Clinton did get impeached by the house, he was just acquitted by the Senate.

There was no need for some kind of civil unrest in either case because the removal process never actually took place.

So while Clinton was Impeached in House of Representatives, he was acquitted in the Senate because of the two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes needed — is a very high threshold that’s almost never achieved on any matter that’s remotely partisan, which is why Trump is in no danger, even if Democrats take ALL 10 Republican Senate Seats up for re-election after the Mid-terms, the numbers just are not there, there would have to be very damning evidence of a high crime for Trump to lose Republican Senators support.

Spot on - the Senate majority is going to increase one way or another in a few months...that is assuming that the Dems even take back the house. They're not going to run on an impeachment agenda for 2020 so Trump is safe until re-elect. Impeachment prospects are dead.

The Founding Fathers did not make it easy for Congress to remove a democratically elected president from power. Bill Clinton's Impeachment proceedings showed that, even after he was technically guilty of lying of having his affair.

True 'dat!

[Lutherf]

The obvious reason for those immunity deals is that SDNY is going after the Trump Foundation for electioneering. The obvious defense for that charge is that the payments to Daniels and McDougal were to protect the image of the Foundation, not just the campaign. Such a defense would be more concrete if other stories were shelved prior to the campaign but even if that's not the case it can still be argued that the campaign is what brought these accusers out of the woodwork thus necessitating the protections provided by the payments...still not a campaign violation.

That being said, such a prosecution would be a HUGE public relations win for the prosecution and that's really what all this "investigation" is about.