If Trump loses and refuses to leave

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

I am not dismissing out of hand that investigations may find some dirt on Hunter, he has had a somewhat checkered past. Pretty sure it won't link to pa Joe.

 

Meanwhile the whole Trump clan will be up to their ears in legal alligators when Trump Org criminal charges are files and Don steered Federal dollars to his Trump Org holdings which is a violation of the emulment law.

 

One has way more tangible links than the other and it was rather a short-sighted strategy by Trump to seek to undermine Biden via family illegal activities considering his own ilk and his more direct connections to Trump Org.

 

 

 

 

 

Other than the constitution, is  there an emoluments law that someone can be prosecuted for?  Are there statutory penalties? Is it a civil or a criminal offense?

 

Honest questions. 

 

[WideNine]

17 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Other than the constitution, is  there an emoluments law that someone can be prosecuted for?  Are there statutory penalties? Is it a civil or a criminal offense?

 

Honest questions. 

 

 

That is a good question. I have to look up how violations of the emulment clause can be prosecuted and when and get back to you.

 

I have to thank Trump for one thing, his shenanigans have forced me, and I think many other Americans, to dig deeper into constitional, and election law over the past few years.

 

Ok, it is an impeachable offense and Congress does have the power to impeach a former president which prevents him or her from holding government office again.

 

Apparently, those are the 2 powers of impeachment. Removal from current office and/or preventing future ability to hold office.

 

May be a worthy endeavor to firewall our government from any Trump future office runs.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by WideNine

[snafu]

1 hour ago, WideNine said:

 

That is a good question. I have to look up how violations of the emulment clause can be prosecuted and when and get back to you.

 

I have to thank Trump for one thing, his shenanigans have forced me, and I think many other Americans, to dig deeper into constitional, and election law over the past few years.

 

Ok, it is an impeachable offense and Congress does have the power to impeach a former president which prevents him or her from holding government office again.

 

Apparently, those are the 2 powers of impeachment. Removal from current office and/or preventing future ability to hold office.

 

May be a worthy endeavor to firewall our government from any Trump future office runs.

 

 

 

I wouldn’t worry about any future trump runs. Not at all. Impeached (and convicted) or otherwise. 

 

 

[shoshin]

Putin playing games.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-22/putin-says-he-s-not-ready-to-recognize-biden-as-u-s-president?fbclid=IwAR3dR5_pwKzb5Vz-Vi-3WZbwiX-U6USWhrBE4dAotrZwanasSv256Dqh9rk

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he’s ready to work with any U.S. leader, but still isn’t ready to recognize the election victory of Joe Biden.

 

“We will work with anyone who has the confidence of the American people,” Putin said on Russian state TV Sunday. “But that confidence can only be given to a candidate whose victory has been recognized by the opposing party, or after the results are confirmed in a legitimate, legal way.”

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I wouldn’t worry about any future trump runs. Not at all. Impeached (and convicted) or otherwise. 

 

 

 

Cruz is the heir apparent and Graham would like to be. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by shoshin

[Warcodered]

7 hours ago, Buddo said:

 

Hasn't that already been done though?

 

I would assume that they will have to pay for another recount themselves, i.e. the Trump campaign, as Georgia has already fulfilled its own oblligation to recount the votes once, due to the closeness of it in respect of percentages.

 

Another suit has been thrown out of court in Pennsylvania, as well.

No the first one was an audit where they had to check one of the elections and they chose the one for President. It doesn't count toward the recount Trump can ask for due to the margin, so he can and has asked for one which gets paid for by the state. I mean for all intents and purposes it's a second one which if even less likely to change anything than the last one.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Warcodered

[Backintheday544]

8 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

No the first one was an audit where they had to check one of the elections and they chose the one for President. It doesn't count toward the recount Trump can ask for do to the margin so he can and has asked for one which gets paid by the state. I mean for all intents and purposes it's a second one which if even less likely to change anything than the last one.

Let’s not forget that states are currently in a financial crisis due to COVID. Republicans even held up a stimulus bill due to states getting funds.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

You seem to only get busy when you can't answer a simple question.

This seems like as good a place as any to respond to a variety of posts.  

 

Generally speaking, I try to respond to every post where someone addresses me.  A quick glance at my profile reveals that, so I’m not sure if you’re a dullard (possible), a liar (possible) or both.   
 

I answered your post, and did so with clarity and brevity.  In response to a similar question a couple days back, i asked for a link in support of your position.  You never provided one, which we both know means you didn’t have one.  On this point, you’ve made two declarative statements on the Michigan situation, failed to provide any supporting documentation, and buttoned them up with a question mark.  
 

I repeat for the third time— instead of trying to score points with your posse, provide some context and I’ll address the issue.  Until then, your characterization of what occurred is irrelevant.  
 

Now, it does score points with @daz28 aka Pete the Pumber, now famous for one of the dopiest attempted put-downs ever.    
 

@WideNine is a different story.  He’s a prolific writer, a dedicated researcher and he has acknowledged a certain unseemly fascination with his own literary skills.  Be that as it may, when I answered the questions on a variety of subjects,  he agreed with me on Bush and the concept of President-Elect, he apologized for being kind of a dick on another, and claimed to have written voluminously on the outcome of the Mueller report.  When I asked that he provide a link proving any part of his claim regarding Mueller, he patted his proverbial internet pants pockets, indicated he didn’t have the proof on him, and sourced Wikipedia in an apparent attempt to tie Mueller’s time in Vietnam as proof positive of the outcome of his report from several decades later.  When I inquired multiple times thereafter, he stumbled, fumbled, and grumbled around and returned...nothing.  So far, his proof lies not in the nearly 500 word Heinz Mueller report, not Herr Mueller’s testimony, not in any legal charges being pursued thereafter.  No, so far it’s been a wiki article telling me that Donald Trump is a real estate investor and some people don’t like him.  
 

 Now, @WideNine has gone full on “Ross n Rachel” and has declared, a bit creepily that he is “over leh-nerd”.  No link to Mueller report, no citation of the aftermath of Mueller leading directly to DJT, no nothing except he’s “over leh-nerd” for using “circular logic” in asking him to demonstrate what he said he had written about but was ignored. 
 

I think when all is said and done, you’re just a crabby old guy who doesn’t have much experience in conversational English.  I’ll forgive you for that, maybe that sort of thing wasn’t necessary in the work you did, but my simple request is that if you’re going to make a point where you are alleging something, come prepared. 
 

As for @WideNine, well, I’m actually pretty disappointed in watching him fall this way.  I thought there might be something to learn, but in the end, it appears he’s just another empty vessel who pretends to know quite a bit but cracked when the teacher called on him.  
 

 

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

[shoshin]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

@WideNine is a different story.  He’s a prolific writer, a dedicated researcher and he has acknowledged a certain unseemly fascination with his own literary skills.  Be that as it may, when I answered the questions on a variety of subjects,  he agreed with me on Bush and the concept of President-Elect, he apologized for being kind of a dick on another, and claimed to have written voluminously on the outcome of the Mueller report.  When I asked that he provide a link proving any part of his claim regarding Mueller, he patted his proverbial internet pants pockets, indicated he didn’t have the proof on him, and sourced Wikipedia in an apparent attempt to tie Mueller’s time in Vietnam as proof positive of the outcome of his report from several decades later.  When I inquired multiple times thereafter, he stumbled, fumbled, and grumbled around and returned...nothing.  So far, his proof lies not in the nearly 500 word Heinz Mueller report, not Herr Mueller’s testimony, not in any legal charges being pursued thereafter.  No, so far it’s been a wiki article telling me that Donald Trump is a real estate investor and some people don’t like him.  
 

 Now, @WideNine has gone full on “Ross n Rachel” and has declared, a bit creepily that he is “over leh-nerd”.  No link to Mueller report, no citation of the aftermath of Mueller leading directly to DJT, no nothing except he’s “over leh-nerd” for using “circular logic” in asking him to demonstrate what he said he had written about but was ignored. 
 

I think when all is said and done, you’re just a crabby old guy who doesn’t have much experience in conversational English.  I’ll forgive you for that, maybe that sort of thing wasn’t necessary in the work you did, but my simple request is that if you’re going to make a point where you are alleging something, come prepared. 
 

As for @WideNine, well, I’m actually pretty disappointed in watching him fall this way.  I thought there might be something to learn, but in the end, it appears he’s just another empty vessel who pretends to know quite a bit but cracked when the teacher called on him.  

 

 

Why are you writing a character assassination attempt on a poster and not just responding to him? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Why are you writing a character assassination attempt on a poster and not just responding to him? 

There was nothing to respond to Homey.  He tapped out, wrote a character assassination attempt on a poster and didn’t just respond to me.

 

On the other hand, I tagged him so there was no uncertainty as to who said what. That’s mostly because there should be honor when all else fails.  
 

Speaking of honor, mediator of the good and just, when can I expect your post to Niner that says something like this:

 

Why are you writing a character assassination attempt on a poster and not just responding to him? 

Feel free to copy and paste.  This is an opportunity for us all to grow.  

 

 

 

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There was nothing to respond to Homey.  He tapped out, wrote a character assassination attempt on a poster and didn’t just respond to me.

 

On the other hand, I tagged him so there was no uncertainty as to who said what. That’s mostly because there should be honor when all else fails.  
 

Speaking of honor, mediator of the good and just, when can I expect your post to Niner that says something like this:

 

Why are you writing a character assassination attempt on a poster and not just responding to him? 

Feel free to copy and paste.  This is an opportunity for us all to grow.  

 

 

 

 

I don't catch everything but thanks for the deflection. 

[Q-baby!]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

😂😂😂

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

I don't catch everything but thanks for the deflection. 

Sure you do, or if you cared enough, you would have checked or inquired on the content of my post. 
 

Instead, you opted to play hall monitor and when brought up to speed, instead of stepping up and apologizing for being blissfully unaware of what transpired over a 5 post run, you’ve decided to double down and accuse me of “deflection”. 

Tell me, when I explained why I typed what I did, including my rationale for doing so, what exactly did I deflect?  
 

Tell me too, Shoshin the fair, when does Wide Nine get a stern talkin to? 

[shoshin]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Sure you do, or if you cared enough, you would have checked or inquired on the content of my post. 
 

Instead, you opted to play hall monitor and when brought up to speed, instead of stepping up and apologizing for being blissfully unaware of what transpired over a 5 post run, you’ve decided to double down and accuse me of “deflection”. 

Tell me, when I explained why I typed what I did, including my rationale for doing so, what exactly did I deflect?  
 

Tell me too, Shoshin the fair, when does Wide Nine get a stern talkin to? 

 

I didn't read his nonsense. I noticed yours. I called TB out earlier. We can all help make this place better...or not. 

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

 

Other than the constitution, is  there an emoluments law that someone can be prosecuted for?  Are there statutory penalties? Is it a civil or a criminal offense?

 

Honest questions. 

 

 

5 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

That is a good question. I have to look up how violations of the emulment clause can be prosecuted and when and get back to you.

 

I have to thank Trump for one thing, his shenanigans have forced me, and I think many other Americans, to dig deeper into constitional, and election law over the past few years.

 

Ok, it is an impeachable offense and Congress does have the power to impeach a former president which prevents him or her from holding government office again.

 

Apparently, those are the 2 powers of impeachment. Removal from current office and/or preventing future ability to hold office.

 

May be a worthy endeavor to firewall our government from any Trump future office runs.

 

 

 

More info on emoluments in the US Constitution:  Emoluments Clauses

[WideNine]

4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

 

More info on emoluments in the US Constitution:  Emoluments Clauses

 

Good read...took a while, but worthwhile.

 

Currently a political and judicial football as to enforcement. I think our democracy would be better served if the emulment clause particulars and enforcement details were worked out.

 

Considering the potential of domestic and international corporate financial leverage particularly where foreign governments are tied closely to corporate entities as is common in Russia and China and elsewhere, financial leverage over our elected leaders has the potential to subvert the very foundation  of "by the people for the people" it needs to be something we push our legislators to codify.

 

This potential exposure of our elected leaders to financial leverage was key to the points made by Senator Wyden in the last release of the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian election interference.

 

Even taking Trump specifically out of the equation, I found his arguments compelling. I will repost his comments (have posted them before in another context) as I believe they dovetail nicely into the intended purpose of the Emulment Clauses with the first step - transparency. Folks can read or ignore if too many words - its all good. The report itself was 699 pages long and heavily redacted so did not link to it.

 

 

 

(U) Follow the money 
(U) From day one, I said that the Committee must follow the money - that is, scrutinize Donald Trump's extensive financial entanglements with foreign adversaries. Following the money is, after all, Counterintelligence 101. The way to compromise people is through money. Donald Trump, had he been an applicant for a national' security position in the U.S. government, would never have obtained even the lowest level security clearance. What's more, no review of his suitability for a clearance would have ignored his finances. It is therefore derelict that the Committee, having set out to conduct an investigation of counterintelligence threats and vulnerabilities, would have failed to scrutinize so much information that would be relevant to any application for a security clearance. This must be the last time that the Committee gives short shrift to this issue.

 

(U) A thorough investigation into this threat would have required a review of Donald Trump's finances. In the House of Representatives, three committees issued subpoenas for financial records, including the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which did so for the express purpose of conducting an investigation into foreign influence. In the Mazars case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered these subpoenas and upheld the principle that Congress may subpoena information, including the president's personal information, if it is related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of the Congress. Given that the Committee has undertaken this counterintelligence investigation as a legitimate task of Congress and that counterintelligence investigations indisputably encompass financial entanglements, I regret that the Committee did not pursue the records sought by the House. 

 

(U) By remanding the cases, the Supreme Court effectively delayed the House's access to these documents until after the 2020 election, thereby preventing Congress and the voting public from fully considering the counterintelligence threat posed by the incumbent. On a matter of such urgency, one that implicates the national security of the United States and the defense of its democracy, this delay is unacceptable. Congress must therefore pursue additional means to obtain and release financial information, including S. 20, the Presidential Tax Return Bill, which codifies the long-standing practice of presidents and presidential candidates releasing their finances to the public. Congress should also pass legislation that would reveal foreign influence efforts behind financial transactions, such as S.1978, the Corporate Transparency Act, which prevents the use of anonymous shell companies for illicit activities.

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by WideNine

[Kemp]

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/orwell-difference-between-patriotism-and-nationalism/

 

Some Trump supporters think they are patriots because they carry around the flag.

 

Now, these "patriots" want to stage a coup.

[jrober38]

On 11/22/2020 at 7:25 AM, snafu said:

 

There is an open FBI investigation. It was opened in 2019. 

 

 

Didn't a few different agencies say they looked into it and there was nothing there?

[shoshin]

Trump had two wins in court going into today. 

 

Now he has one. PA Supreme Court overturned one of his wins. 

 

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-118E-2020oajc - 104614191120569290.pdf?cb=1

 

 

 

 

[jrober38]

7 minutes ago, shoshin said:

Trump had two wins in court going into today. 

 

Now he has one. PA Supreme Court overturned one of his wins. 

 

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-118E-2020oajc - 104614191120569290.pdf?cb=1

 

The Trump legal arguments in here are just nonsensical. 

 

Trump is going to go down as the biggest sore loser of all time.