Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

Serious question or trolling? It's based on the accusation that Trump and his close "entourage" decided to postpone the US government's bi-partisan decision to give Ukraine milliary aid and withheld said aid until the Ukrainian premier publicly announce that they are starting a public inquiry on Joe Biden's son who was working in Ukraine.

Serious question. I didn't follow that story at all. Thanks for answer. 10/10 will read again.
 
what is the impeachment based on? Only the Russia shit?

Wasn't it case closed?

It was case closed in that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Not that he was obviously guilty nor was he completely free of any potential blame. The underlying idea was that the house would need to consider impeachment as a remedy.

I find it hugely (yugely?) Ironic that the dems are turning this into a made for tv special. It really is a reality tv show.

Yeah, it truly is a bit much. We're well past justice or the impartial finding of facts. This is a traveling circus.

It's not surprising seeing as it's a process initiated by politicians but both sides should show more restraint.

If he gets impeached, can he run again? Is there a law specifically stating he can't?

If he's impeached by the house and found not guilty by the senate, he's obviously in the clear.

If he's impeached and found guilty, then he would be removed as president. The senate would then need to vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future.
If they don't hold that additional vote or don't vote in favour of it, then he would be able to run again.

source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...rump-from-office-but-let-him-run-again-228228
 
Last edited:
From the videos I have seen here and on social media, the dems are getting their ass handed to them.

It might be because I only see one side of the debate?

Correct me if i'm wrong
 
One of the thing that strikes me in most Republican's argument/counter inquiry, is how bad they are trying to throw the Ukraine's premier "under the bus". The Russians must be laughing their ass off...
 
One of the thing that strikes me in most Republican's argument/counter inquiry, is how bad they are trying to throw the Ukraine's premier "under the bus". The Russians must be laughing their ass off...

source.gif
 
One thing's for sure

If Trump gets reelected

I'll be laughing so hard I'm gonna have to empty an asthma pump
 
Anyone else remember Democrats and their supporters raging, demanding that Trump will have to accept the outcome of the 2016 election!? They are doing nothing but raging, not accepting the results themselves since day one. Sounds like a round 2 coming up and if that happens I'll be laughing again. The first time I laughed because I couldn't believe that he won, then again I was dumb enough to watch only leftist news and their BS made up poles and news.
 
Anyone else remember Democrats and their supporters raging, demanding that Trump will have to accept the outcome of the 2016 election!? They are doing nothing but raging, not accepting the results themselves since day one. Sounds like a round 2 coming up and if that happens I'll be laughing again. The first time I laughed because I couldn't believe that he won, then again I was dumb enough to watch only leftist news and their BS made up poles and news.

my thoughts exactly
 
Trump gets impeached
Pence becomes president
Pence pardons Trump
Trump gets reelected as VP
Pence resigns
Trump becomes president again

Lel


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
Trump gets impeached
Pence becomes president
Pence pardons Trump
Trump gets reelected as VP
Pence resigns
Trump becomes president again

Lel


Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

I know this scenario is meant to be a joke more than anything, but it doesn't make sense.

Trump would never accept to be second fiddle nor to fall in behind the Pence. This makes it an impossible situation.
You couldn't rely on Trump to push a platform or policy that isn't "his" Trump isn't about platforms, he's about his brand/image/core supporters.

Mr Trump, president Pence has stated (X) "Well, Mike is a great guy. True american Patriot. Good Christian. But I actually think (whatever is the opposite of X)"
 
Pelosi is spinning a novel definition of "bribery" Leverage and bribery are different IMO.


It's a joke dude
You should laugh once in a while

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk

I just think it's even more funny if he comes back as pres.
 
Last edited:
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.
"Nothing says I love you like a shakedown,"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/trump-south-korea-troops-price-hike/index.html

I think Trump has the right idea here, but the execution is where it's problematic. It's such a sudden hike I can't see the Koreans feeling too good about it.

They have benefited tremendously from U.S Force projection. They have some of the largest corporations in the world (Samsung, Hyundai etc.) and they shouldn't be dealt with as a charity case.
 
In the USA the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. You are innocent till proven guilty and not the other way around, Mueller can say it as many times he wants that he can't say that Trump is innocent, it makes no difference for people with the basic knowledge of the law.
 
In the USA the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is on the prosecution and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. You are innocent till proven guilty and not the other way around, Mueller can say it as many times he wants that he can't say that Trump is innocent, it makes no difference for people with the basic knowledge of the law.

You can be philosophical all you want, this is not about justice. This is about justice department's position that sitting president's can't be indicted. It's not about moral righteousness, it's about stability and safeguarding the office of the President (from itself I guess) even if it temporarily prevents justice being served in the short term.

There's a new D.A in California that won't prosecute people from defecating in the streets of San Francisco. Will you take up the cause of homeless people shitting everywhere as "innocent because they haven't been tried in a court of law" Surely stating anything bad about these people will be libel by nature?

Likewise, the U.S diplomat's wife can't be prosecuted for the traffic collision in the U.K that killed a man because she was covered by diplomatic immunity. Will you ask everyone to stop calling her a deplorable human being because she wasn't convicted in a court in the U.K. (Even if we know that will never happen?)


There's a lot more at play than a single man's innocence/guilt here. This is also about protecting institutions. This is about the system protecting itself.

To interpret this as vindication is dishonest.

There's a difference between pressing the pause button and the stop button.
 
Last edited:
The whole point of the Mueller report was to find out if he colluded with the Russians.
The result is a 300 page report saying that there isn't any conclusive evidence that he did. BUT he may have interfered with justice, which is not the scope of the report.
Mueller didn't specify anything clearly. It was a total fiasco. He said that he cannot indict the president. He didn't say there is a valid reason to. He just said he can't indict, which is correct. His report would be provided to congress who asked for the report, and they can do something about it.
That story has since ended. If the dems let it go, there's nothing there.
 
Back
Top