1602 posts 11/18/2016 11:09 pm
Last Read:
11/24/2016 9:16 pm
|
Why do you think Trump is paying his way out...
of his university woes?
I think it is because he doesn't want the situation to be used to start impeachment proceedings.
Not that he is a crooked businessman or anything like that Right!
Vive La Difference
|
41171 posts 11/19/2016 12:39 pm |
I think it's a cheap trick so his supporters can say, "Trump costs us nothing, and we just don't get one Trump we get the lot for nothing"!   
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 5:05 pm:
Talk about making it a family business.  |
|
32404 posts 11/19/2016 10:56 am |
probably.
and he can't enter the presidency with a conflict of interest that big.
You cannot conceive the many without the one.
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 5:04 pm:
I heard there are about 70 law suits against him, I don't know if they are all to do with that or other things. |
|
81699 posts 11/19/2016 10:03 am |
I think so hugs V
Become a blog watcher sweet_vm
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 10:39 am:
I'm hoping it will not stop the proceedings to come as he has lots of reasons to never be in an office in government. |
|
23580 posts 11/19/2016 5:53 am |
Of course he is. Unfortunately we set the bar very low in our legal system so crooks who disguise themselves as "businessmen" can squirm out.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 10:35 am:
There definitely is a serious discrepancy between what is a crime for the common folks and what is just an oopsy for the wealthy not to mention a big difference in the "prisons" they serve their time in should they actually get convicted. |
|
|
11/19/2016 5:26 am
|
I'd bet he's paying off so he can deduct it from this years taxes he's NOT going to pay! 
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 10:31 am:
I don't think you can deduct those kind of expenses but I'm sure that won't stop Trump. |
|
1626 posts 11/19/2016 12:42 am |
He didn't settle during the campaign because he didn't want to appear as if he did anything wrong. Same thing with the sexual assault accusations. His denials were good enough for his supporters, so why bother?
Now that the election is over, he can drop the ruse. He cheated them, they have a case, so he's settling. Do you actually think he's going to sue all of his accusers as he promised during the campaign? Their attorney, Gloria Allred, told him to bring it the fuck on.
He said what was necessary to get people's votes. Now we're seeing the real Trump.
Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 10:30 am:
I saw the real Trump long age, it's a shame that the ones that voted for him didn't see who he is but unfortunately I think all to many did. |
|
609 posts 11/18/2016 11:46 pm |
Impeachment? Please, between the Senate and the House, there isn't enough votes to get that going! Besides, you'd have to prove it was an impeachable offence; namely "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors".
Trump won, and he's going to win another term if the left keep acting like special snowflakes and allowing the sjw/pc/misandrists to be their role models.
All he has to do is deliver jobs, and already countries are lining up to kiss his ass.
tickles4us replies on 11/19/2016 10:29 am:
There are actually many reasons available now and I'm surre that the longer the closer we get to him being in office let alone once he is in office there will be many more reasons.
If you are mistakenly thinking that the Republican party wants Trump in office you are fooling yourself. They would love to ditch him and have Pence take over. You just set back and watch. The Republicans will likely vote him out quicker then the Democrats.
Countries extending curtesies to the future president of the United States has nothing to do with wanting to work with him the way he wants to work.
from, heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/100/standards-for-impeachment
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct. There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.
Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.
The word "impeachment" is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity. |
|
7262 posts 11/18/2016 11:10 pm |
Vive La Difference
|
