The Donald.

[mg4lotus]

Unless he is continuing to not pay taxes?

[Bibs]

1 hour ago, EldonZ said:

The tax evasion has not gone away. That is a problem in the state of NY

Is this not the reason he wants to move to Florida?

[EldonZ]

33 minutes ago, Bibs said:

Is this not the reason he wants to move to Florida?

He established Florida as his residence awhile ago. He still has interests in NY and is required to pay state taxes there. His main two headaches is that he reported to the government one statement of property worth and reported a different statement to the banks. His second headache is that we called some land around one of his property such that it gave him a $19M tax credit. That credit is in question if it was actually valid.

The reason all of this has dragged out is that he has been using his Presidential title as an excuse to not release his tax returns even though the courts told him that that is bogus.

Later,
Eldon

[100th_Idiot]

By the time this gets to the Senate it will be controlled by the Democrats so the chances of succesful impeachment rise.

[scotty435]

People saying what’s the point of impeachment when he is out of office in a weeks time the answer as to be it’s never to late to do the right thing.

[EldonZ]

1 hour ago, scotty435 said:

People saying what’s the point of impeachment when he is out of office in a weeks time the answer as to be it’s never to late to do the right thing.

One thing that most do not understand correctly, impeachment is not the end of the process but the beginning. We have had other Presidents impeached but not found guilty by the Senate. Either the President resigned or the Senate did not convict.

As long as the impeachment is approved by the House before the President leave office, he can still be convicted after his term is up. He cannot be removed from office but he can be stopped from running or holding another federally elected position.

Later,
Eldon

[comem47]

[pete]

https://www.facebook.com/UptownCollective/videos/3253669244743507/

[top-plumber]

There is no left in American Politics... 😳

And Trumps the clown? 
😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Techyd]

18 hours ago, Loquacious Lew said:

Neal's question is answered in Eldon's post, but to address it clearly, the law regarding the value of presidential self pardons  is untested or at least unclear as to what protection Trump obtains  if he pardons himself.

I thought the 'buck' of responsibility stops with the president, if it's possible to pardon yourself then where does that responsibility go?  It can't be God!

[top-plumber]

https://fb.watch/2-ZvrW7g3P/
 

my last contribution to this thread. 
 

[Loquacious Lew]

21 hours ago, 100th_Idiot said:

By the time this gets to the Senate it will be controlled by the Democrats so the chances of succesful impeachment rise.

That's true in that the Senate Majority Leader (Chuck Schumer) will be in charge of the procedures but unfortunately, the Senate requires a 2/3 vote to convict.  A simple majority won't do.  If that were the case (simple majority) there would be no question that he would be convicted.  Since the Senate is split 50/50,  the Republican party will be required to provide 17 votes to convict.  Are there 17 honest Republicans in the Senate who will openly consider the evidence and actions that lead up to the riots and sedition in Washington?  That's far from clear.   

 

Hey plumber, ever find any proof of Mandela being a murderer?  I remain open to such if you have it.  If you don't, your last contribution to this thread is received  as good news and an indication that Mandela isn't the monster you have made him out to be.  

[Loquacious Lew]

20 hours ago, EldonZ said:

One thing that most do not understand correctly, impeachment is not the end of the process but the beginning. We have had other Presidents impeached but not found guilty by the Senate. Either the President resigned or the Senate did not convict.

As long as the impeachment is approved by the House before the President leave office, he can still be convicted after his term is up. He cannot be removed from office but he can be stopped from running or holding another federally elected position.

Later,
Eldon

 

I believe he can be kept from office if he is convicted in the Senate, where the trial is actually heard.  The impeachment (as I understand it) is the formal declaration and levying of the charges.  I'm unclear if that alone keeps him from running for office in the future.  Open to correction as always, of course.  

[EldonZ]

16 minutes ago, Loquacious Lew said:

I believe he can be kept from office if he is convicted in the Senate, where the trial is actually heard.  The impeachment (as I understand it) is the formal declaration and levying of the charges.  I'm unclear if that alone keeps him from running for office in the future.  Open to correction as always, of course.  

From what I've heard, via the news, is that the conviction alone does not stop him from holding office. The senate will then have to have another vote that requires a simple majority that would prevent him from holding a federal office again.

Later,
Eldon

[comem47]

I'd like to see that not only can he not run again (stirring up more social unrest) ,but he is stripped of his post-president benefits (like secret service protection) That would happen with a conviction.

be gone satan !!!!

 

[pete]

[100th_Idiot]

1 hour ago, Loquacious Lew said:

That's true in that the Senate Majority Leader (Chuck Schumer) will be in charge of the procedures but unfortunately, the Senate requires a 2/3 vote to convict.  A simple majority won't do.  If that were the case (simple majority) there would be no question that he would be convicted.  Since the Senate is split 50/50,  the Republican party will be required to provide 17 votes to convict.  Are there 17 honest Republicans in the Senate who will openly consider the evidence and actions that lead up to the riots and sedition in Washington?  That's far from clear.   

 

Hey plumber, ever find any proof of Mandela being a murderer?  I remain open to such if you have it.  If you don't, your last contribution to this thread is received  as good news and an indication that Mandela isn't the monster you have made him out to be.  

Yes. I think a two thirds majority is unlikley. Some of the GOP won't want to close off the option and most of it won't want to be the party of the first convicted president.

[C8RKH]

On 13/01/2021 at 13:13, andydclements said:

Surely that's more of an immunity from prosecution

You can get a letter from Labour and Tony Blair for that. Not sure the cost these days but think fairly easy to get as a lot of them were just being thrown around seemingly willy-nilly not that long ago.

[andydclements]

This could be fun. Who would represent Trump if he's sued by his personal legal counsel? (picked up the story from Google news, just happened to be by the Guardian)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/14/trump-refusing-to-pay-rudy-giuliani-legal-fees-after-falling-out

[comem47]

Guiliani performed horribly (never presented any facts, just innuendo) and being a yes man to Trump. $20K/day. Absurd !!!  He deserves to get stiffed. A vampire !!!

 

[top-plumber]

3 hours ago, Loquacious Lew said:

That's true in that the Senate Majority Leader (Chuck Schumer) will be in charge of the procedures but unfortunately, the Senate requires a 2/3 vote to convict.  A simple majority won't do.  If that were the case (simple majority) there would be no question that he would be convicted.  Since the Senate is split 50/50,  the Republican party will be required to provide 17 votes to convict.  Are there 17 honest Republicans in the Senate who will openly consider the evidence and actions that lead up to the riots and sedition in Washington?  That's far from clear.   

 

Hey plumber, ever find any proof of Mandela being a murderer?  I remain open to such if you have it.  If you don't, your last contribution to this thread is received  as good news and an indication that Mandela isn't the monster you have made him out to be.  

Take another look. Wasn’t my post smart arse... 🖕

apology accepted...

[andydclements]

I think that description is fair, but I don't think he would have been in any position to state facts to support the various cases, since to date nobody seems to have found any materially relevant cases of fraud (not say there was any , not saying there was none, just that if a few were found in each state it really isn't going to alter the result).

I now cannot think of Trump without thinking of  a mix of Gollum and this (apologies to US members who may not be familiar with this series of films aka movies).

 

[Loquacious Lew]

5 hours ago, top-plumber said:

Take another look. Wasn’t my post smart arse... 🖕

apology accepted...

Sorry about that.  It sounded just like you and from here it's hard to see much difference.   Please forward my message to Barry if you'd be so kind as he said he won't be making any more contributions here.  I'll be just as pleased to be corrected about Mandela from him if he can find some evidence.    Now go back to your moaning chair, have a  seat by the fire and a nice hot cuppa.  With my ever so sincere apology  of course. 

[Loquacious Lew]

 

5 hours ago, andydclements said:

I think that description is fair, but I don't think he would have been in any position to state facts to support the various cases, since to date nobody seems to have found any materially relevant cases of fraud (not say there was any , not saying there was none, just that if a few were found in each state it really isn't going to alter the result).

I now cannot think of Trump without thinking of  a mix of Gollum and this (apologies to US members who may not be familiar with this series of films aka movies).

 

 

Not only did I see the movie, I read the books and can sing along with the anthem.  

 

 

[Loquacious Lew]

15 hours ago, Techyd said:

I thought the 'buck' of responsibility stops with the president, if it's possible to pardon yourself then where does that responsibility go?  It can't be God!

It isn't good and no man should have such unrestricted power.  I wonder if that will ever be addressed.  That's a constitutional power which means it would require an amendment to alter the scope of the thing.  Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition....or such a feckless and corrupted president. Big wake up call.