You don’t really believe your own prediction at 10 million to one, so calls into questionk your sincerity in making the prediction. I will offer you five to one if you put up fifty dollars. Then I’ll believe you’re serious.
Come up with some evidence of a crime.
If you can’t do that, at least come up with a better whine.
Regards,
Shodan
The odds have changed a lot in the last week.
Predictit went from 87% to 69% chance that he will be in office at the end of this year. Not even looking at a full term.
Ladbrokes is only paying $80 on $100 bets about making it a full term.
So he spent immense sums of his own money, traveled a backbreaking campaign schedule, declared that he might not accept the election results if he lost, debated Hillary three times on national television, ran ads, campaigned all across the country, gave speeches, held rallies…all because he ***didn’t ***want to win?
His money? Seriously? He made money on the campaign. He held rallies to feed his massive ego. He said lots of silly shit to get his name on the news. Every thing he did was either to feed his ego or fatten his wallet, preferably both.
He wanted to win, he just didn’t want to do the job of being President.
What do we know about the demographics of people who play those markets?
Are they dominated by people like me, who are engaging in wishful thinking?
Question: Certainly as a legal expert you’re aware that the Constitution states the grounds for impeachment fairly broadly.
You specify much more narrow criteria for you to support impeachment. Is this because you believe “High Crimes” are much more specific than laid out in the Constitution, or is it just that you think the bar should be much higher and more specific in this case?
A side factual question: Andrew Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act. How was violation of such act a crime? Was this act part of the criminal code of the United States as you used the definition upthread?
I’m happy to give you 5-to-1 then on a bet up to $50 for a July 1 target date.
I think it is you who is missing the point. I can show evidence that demonstrates the Emoluments Clause applies, but the determination must be made by an investigative body and then proceed to a prosecution – or in Trump’s case, an impeachment. How anyone can look at the evidence and then argue that there should not be further examination into the matter is beyond me.
Sale of Trump Property Raises Ethical Questions
Trump’s 250 Condos For Sale – Including to Foreign Interests
Trump’s Companies Benefit from Campaign Funds
Trump Sells Penthouse to a Consultant who Peddles Access to Powerful People
The Money-Laundering Hotel in Azerbaijan
Official Meetings Held at Mar a Lago, from which Trump Profits
The US Military Rents Space in Trump Tower
The International Red Cross Rents Space from Mar a Lago for Diamond Centennial Ball
Amid Calls to Divest, Trump Hotels Instead Call for Expansion in USA
That New Trump Hotel in Vancouver and its Ties to Malaysian Billionaires
That Troubling Debt to Deutsche Bank
Trump Supports Dakota Access Pipeline – While Investing In It
HUD Grants Pose Conflict of Interest for Trump
Trump Partner Offers to Rebuild FBI Headquarters at a Cost of Two Billion
There’s so much more, but I’m sick of doing this.
There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing and violations of the Emoluments Clause by Trump and Family. Granted, it’s not as sexy as colluding with Russians, or surrendering classified information given us by a foreign ally to the Russians while bragging on our Secret Squirrel capabilities, but it’s evidence of potentially impeachable offenses of the Emoluments Clause clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Further, there is evidence that Trump likely violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
If only we had a way to investigate…
Perhaps you can explain why the evidence shown above should not be investigated further. Or do you contend there is no evidence contained in the links about which to be concerned?
There is no way, even if they started right now, that they would get impeachment done before July 1.
I know. BobLibDem originally started this with a July 1 resignation prediction. I’m happy to entertain all possible methods of him no longer being president on July 1 for the purposes of the wager.
I think that none of your links show the slightest bit of evidence that the Emoluments Clause applies, and I think you are confused about what the Emoluments Clause prohibits.
I certainly get that, and I was of the opinion that he was violating it the moment he took the oath of office.
However, for at least the next couple of years, my opinion matters little on the national stage.
There is a continuum of possibilities for taking money from foreign powers. On the one hand, you may have a 401k or pension plan, that is invested a bit in overseas businesses. I would not consider that a violation of the clause, even if it technically would be, especially if it was a blind trust.
Being paid by foreign leaders to perform specific actions against the best interests of the country, for instance, taking money from putin to nuke Los Angeles, would be on the other side of the spectrum, and I would certainly hope that it would prompt the legislature to begin impeachment proceedings.
I am wondering where the line is, or if there even is one. According to bricker, while receiving money from foreign powers as a government representative is against the constitution, it is not actually illegal, however that works, as there is no actual criminal statute to violate, just the words written in the constitution.
I am beginning to think that the answer to that is no, no matter how egregious, no matter how quid pro quo money from foreign powers in exchange for presidential favors, that it will never actually rise to the level of actually being illegal.
Does that include pony stampede?
Oh, oh, I know this one! Pick one from list below:
- Fake news.
- Liberal media.
- Having clicked on none of your links, it’s my opinion that technically none of them are violations, under my personal interpretation of the law. That settles it.
When you sit down to play poker, look around the table and try to spot the sucker. If you can’t spot one, it’s you.
Regards,
Shodan
It is not in the criminal code and there is no punishment defined for it.
But the constitution is the supreme law of the land (says so in Article VI) so breaking the emoluments clause is breaking the law. I do not see how that would not be a good enough reason for impeachment (technically congress can impeach for any reason or no reason but this seems to be a good reason).
You forgot
- A Gish Gallop is no substitute for an argument.
Regards,
Shodan
Then I should think you would be eager to enlighten us, since many legal scholars disagree with you.
Be yourself.
Take the road less traveled.
Dare to be different.
It’s about the journey, not the end.
You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
It’s not over until the fat lady sings.
You can’t please everybody.
Take things one step at a time.
A watched pot never boils.
The present is all you have.
Old habits die hard.
The early bird gets the worm.
And finally, it takes one to know one.