Odds on Trump's Impeachment

Since my post we have gone deeper in the rabbit hole. Every post since my last has been red or blue. Try and imagine this.


Common sense approaches to the top polarizing problems.

Gun laws that are in place that require ID and background checks, enforce them and close the gun show loopholes. That would satisfy the majority of Americans.

Abortion and the death penalty, western culture places a great value on life! So let's place greater restrictions and responsibilities on those who take lives leagly. There are tens of thousands DNA samples waiting for analyzation, that has been taken care to make sure we have the right people on death row. No automatic appeals proces, if they are on death row and don't care to pursue appeals. As for abortion, it is not a contraceptive! Late term abortions should only be allowed in cases danger to the mother, rape and incest. In the first trimester abortion, how about applying similar rules that we apply on death sentence situations or gun laws. Waiting periods and counseling. Anything puts a little more thought or weight to the decision. Right now it's like getting a haircut all you have to do is show up.

Immigration, again enforce the laws on the books. Guest workers visas for those already here but they would need to pass the same background check that gun owners would go through. A pathway to citizenship for "Deamers" and permanent green cards for those that came in illegally and and have committed no other crimes. Anyone coming illegally after that would have to be deported. Expand the number allowed in come to keep up with the demand for laborers. Pass and enforce E-verify.

Entitlement reforms, most were meant to be safety nets, not lifestyles. A lot complicated problems with this one. First and foremost cleaning up fraud and abuse! Let's face it, if at sixty five and worth let's say 20 million ( arbitrary number) this country has been very good to you! There is no need for you have a safety net! SS and Medicare were not designed with that in mind. If you are getting "safety net money" and not disabled there have to be enticements to move off the roles, and limits to how long you get them.

Curruption in government, term limits on all federally elected persons. Nobody wants to pay a lot for short term investment. No special rules just because in government.

The VA, Take the medical aspect away from the VA! Veterans get there medical care from whom ever they choose and it's underwritten VA. There are not enough VA doctors or facilities to accommodate Vets. We owe them the healthcare we dont get to decide where and when they get it.

If you're still reading this is option on the constitution, the language is antiquated the ideals are not. Amendments are the constitution's way of staying relevant and being modernized. But in order for the ideals to remain intact amendments go through arduous processes to keep the ideals in place.

The next sound you hear will be me getting of my soapbox!

Yes, regretfully, only to be consistent with the line of logic.

HOWEVER!

However, if there was a large problem with voting fraud, as I said before, I think voter ID's may be an appropriate measure.

As there is an issue with keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, the same courts that strike down voter ID laws don't take issue with the need for ID when purchasing guns.

The two issues, funny enough, are tied together very closely in history. Originally Posted by grean

2nd Amendment should be read to be a colle give right he,d by States for the purpose of forming militia, not as an individual right.

Well back to Trump.

He is being investigated for obstruction.

I'll concede that he himself more than likely did nothing wrong with Russia during or even after the campaign.

Just like Nixon, his big fuck up will be the attempt to cover upage anything done by anyone else.

2nd Amendment should be read to be a colle give right he,d by States for the purpose of forming militia, not as an individual right. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Because the founders obvious intention was to disarm the population, and then hand out weapons on a "as needed" basis. I guess they just never got around to it. That''s why it says ."The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Second Amendment

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Because the founders obvious intention was to disarm the population, and then hand out weapons on a "as needed" basis. I guess they just never got around to it. That''s why it says ."The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Second Amendment

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Originally Posted by goodolboy

Dude, seriously there is another thread all about this. Let's get back to the Trump love/hate fest in this one please.

Well back to Trump.

He is being investigated for obstruction.

I'll concede that he himself more than likely did nothing wrong with Russia during or even after the campaign.

Just like Nixon, his big fuck up will be the attempt to cover upage anything done by anyone else. Originally Posted by grean

there's no cover up because there was no initial crime. This entire thing is being used by the f*ckin libtards and the press (but I repeat myself) in an attempt to delegitimize a duly elected President. The wonderful Libtards put their precious ideology before their Country because, yes, this is damaging the Country. They don't give a f*ck about that. Now you've got guys taking shots at GOP representatives because of all the venom you've been spewing (but like a typical libtard it took 50 rounds to hit 1 person - if it comes to a civil war you're f*cked because BRM dudes).

Keep it up, fools, when you finally burn the last bridge you're going to regret what you've done.

there's no cover up because there was no initial crime. This entire thing is being used by the f*ckin libtards and the press (but I repeat myself) in an attempt to delegitimize a duly elected President. The wonderful Libtards put their precious ideology before their Country because, yes, this is damaging the Country. They don't give a f*ck about that. Now you've got guys taking shots at GOP representatives because of all the venom you've been spewing (but like a typical libtard it took 50 rounds to hit 1 person - if it comes to a civil war you're f*cked because BRM dudes).

Keep it up, fools, when you finally burn the last bridge you're going to regret what you've done. Originally Posted by texassapper

No, sir. Obstruction is a crime. Even if there is nothing to cover up, if you attempt to impeed an investigation to prove one way or the other, that's obstruction.

there's no cover up because there was no initial crime. Originally Posted by texassapper

I'll assume, without really believing, that you are genuinely ignorant instead of just lying through your teeth. One can be found guilty of obstruction of justice even if there is no underlying crime or if the investigation completely exonerated you. You'd think a 2nd grader could figure that out. Even if you didn't break the window, you lie to mom or dad about something related to it, you're in hot water.

Because the founders obvious intention was to disarm the population, and then hand out weapons on a "as needed" basis. I guess they just never got around to it. That''s why it says ."The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Second Amendment

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Originally Posted by goodolboy

I know the holding of Heller far better than you do. Itswringly devided, but will like,y be expanded in the future. We never learn. Just one more of many reasons I'm grateful I'm spending less and less time in the US.

Sigh.... Comey wrote in his memo to the FBI when exiting that the President has the Constitutional Authority to remove him from office. Period. Doing so cannot be obstruction of justice. And again this is simply an attempt by the libtards to delegitimize a duly elected President because they are crying little asshatted babies who can't believe their Old Nag didn't win.

You ought to be really careful about what you wish for. If you somehow manage to get Trump run out of office, the gloves are going to come off for the people that voted for him. If they realize that the ballot box doesn't matter, then the ammo box will.

Sigh.... Comey wrote in his memo to the FBI when exiting that the President has the Constitutional Authority to remove him from office. Period. Doing so cannot be obstruction of justice. And again this is simply an attempt by the libtards to delegitimize a duly elected President because they are crying little asshatted babies who can't believe their Old Nag didn't win.

You ought to be really careful about what you wish for. If you somehow manage to get Trump run out of office, the gloves are going to come off for the people that voted for him. If they realize that the ballot box doesn't matter, then the ammo box will. Originally Posted by texassapper

It has nothing do with Democrats losing. Believe me, I'm not heart broken at all that Hilary, didn't win. Gore lost to Bush too. While I didn't like many of Bush's policies, I think he genuinely gave a shit, and he also acted presidential. Trump is a joke and a dumbshit pompous asshole.

To you point of constitutional authority. Don't you think Obama wanted to fire Comey? Did Obama not have the same constitutional authority? Yes, he did.

However, he didn't fire him because Comey was investigating Hilary. Regardless of whether Obama fired him with just cause, it would be viewed as Obama obstructing justice to benefit Hilary who was a political ally.

The same thing holds true with Trump and Russia.

When a person is on trial, does his own knowledge of his innocence get to end the trial?

"Hey judge. Look here man. Let me save the court some time and the jurors. I'm innocent. So let's wrap this up and go home."

Let's say Trump or anyone else being investigated didn't do anything wrong and Trump knows that. The people simply cannot take him at his word. It must be investigated and proven to be true. If he does something that is seen a trying to stop that investigation, it is obstruction.

Gotta think you're in agreement and are just eggingon, to which I gotta say, you got me good, or you unable to grasp the concepts explained here.

You're mixing up the Constitutional authority of the President and politics. He has the right to shit can Comey. period, no debate. Motive does not for obstruction of justice make. He has to perform an act which constitutes obstruction of Justice. Since we know Trump wasn't under investigation (Comey said so) then there's zero wrong with Trump shit canning Comey. Again this is simply a temper tantrum by the dems. that was launched by Hillary. Keep it up, and you'll end up regreting the outcome.

You're mixing up the Constitutional authority of the President and politics. He has the right to shit can Comey. period, no debate. Motive does not for obstruction of justice make. He has to perform an act which constitutes obstruction of Justice. Since we know Trump wasn't under investigation (Comey said so) then there's zero wrong with Trump shit canning Comey. Again this is simply a temper tantrum by the dems. that was launched by Hillary. Keep it up, and you'll end up regreting the outcome. Originally Posted by texassapper

It is my understanding that as head of the executive branch President Trump also has the authority to tell Comey to drop the investigation, and pardon Flyn for any crime he may have committed


".Dershowitz wrote, “Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: “You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.”

It is my understanding that as head of the executive branch President Trump also has the authority to tell Comey to drop the investigation, and pardon Flyn for any crime he may have committed


".Dershowitz wrote, “Assume, for argument’s sake, that the president had said the following to Comey: “You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him." Would that exercise of the president's constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.” Originally Posted by goodolboy

But he cannot pardon himself from Obstruction....

But he cannot pardon himself from Obstruction.... Originally Posted by grean

But by the very definition of his authority, he cannot commit obstruction... he is the head of the executive branch, he can shit can someone even if they are investigating him. That's not obstruction but it may be viewed as a political crime in that a motivated Congress can impeach him.