WalkingOrders

Full text of Letter from the President of the United States Donald J. Trump, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi:

https://www.scribd.com/document/440152477/Letter-From-President-Trump

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

https://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-rich/  His current estimated Networth is quoted from Forbes at this link , as well as how he began and all his setbacks.  I think people can read and decided for themselves is his current estimated networth ( high or low) would indicate a man who has squandered a fortune. Some would call him more then moderately successful.

Let's suppose there was a order from Trump like this: DAMMIT I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS I NEED THAT LOOKED INTO AND A STATEMENT PUBLICLY OR NO AID, lets suppose Trump said that (even though he clearly did not) just for argument sake.

So what! Now it needs to be proved that Trump wanting to have Biden investigated, as well as having any involvement in 2016 election meddling investigated, or even the crowdstrike Server(s) (conspiracy theory or not), was not in the best interests in the United States of America, and opposed to something that favored Trump alone.

It has to be shown that the President was motivated only out of self interest, and NOT because Biden publicly bragged about having Burisma Prosecutor fired, and all the subsequent reporting that came to Trump's attention. Is it possible that Donald Trump actually saw that as corruption? Obviously if Biden's are corrupt that would affect Joe Biden's campaign but so what? So how is the President's motivation in his decision making going to be proved? One way or the other? The impeachment is on very weak ground, and it really does leave the door open for subsequent retaliations like this for "abuse of power" for decades to come. That is sad.

Abuse of Power? Every President is called out by the opposition for abuse of power. Every single one.

Obstruction of Congress? For refusing to honor Congressional subpoena? Then you go to the courts for relief. 

So what's left? Nothing

It is very bad what the Democrats have done here. Bad for the United States of America. In short term and long term.

What happened to all the arguments about Bribery? That were so eloquently made on this board?

The best thing for Democrats now is that this ends quickly without witnesses being called. Let the GOP vote it down and without to much argument in the Senate or the result could be Biden(s) Schiff + Staff, the so called whistle blower Eric Ciarammella and all his contacts, all testifying, and the exposure of all of that could be rough for the Democrats. 

30 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

I'm not sure if anyone is still following this thread but I have several followup questions.  First and easiest, BK Bank NY states that I need to provide the address of my Thai BK bank address.  Is this address the main branch in Bangkok or a small branch that I utilize?  There are numerous branches in the Pattaya area and would like to clear that 'first' hurdle.

I provided my local bank but I don't think it matters. Bangkok bank is Bangkok bank in any of their addresses. Out of curiousity why are you dealing with Bangkok bank NY? You use their routing number but never really have to deal directly with them at all. Example my check is direct deposited from Uncle Sam direct to bangkok bank NY route but no need to ever talk to NY. One thing to be aware of - maybe you already know but that if its going direct from US GOV to Bangkok bank its a direct deposit account - no debit card issued, and you have to pick up funds at the counter yourself. You can then deposit them while at the counter into another Bangkok bank account with a debit card attached, but this has to be done at the counter. 

On 12/13/2019 at 4:54 PM, snoop1130 said:

the top historic greenhouse gas emitter

I suppose that a more precient statement would be to consider the current day emission percentages of the United States along with the current percentages of everyone else. For intelligent conversation on climate issues see:

Judithcurry.com

On 12/13/2019 at 6:12 PM, kiteman9 said:

Because the US embassy is no longer doing the notarized affidavit letter to verify my income.

The new method for income is bank statements and cover letter from bank showing deposits from foreign source, and bring updated bankbook of current day.

There has been someone who has discussed the Presidents Tax returns or financials. Even though recent previous Presidents have disclosed their tax returns there is no U.S. law that requires them to do so. In general the 4th Ammendment of the United States provides protections against such things as Government compelling a citizen to release tax returns without cause.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. It will be interesting. How the define (narrowly or broadly) and how the rule on this case.

It has to be remembered that aside from the talk of potential illegalities claimed, that Donald Trump may have all the same sorts of reasons for not disclosing tax returns as would a normal citizen. They have not become invalid because he is President. 

But I don't think this topic really relates to the impeachment in any way but I see the subject was brought up.

Some talk here about avoiding a trial. As Mitch McConnell has said he does not think it possible to avoid taking this up. But once opened, he can move to dismiss, but the Supreme Court plays a roll in this. Despite the conservative makeup of the Court, its possible that the conservative behavior that they show may be to error on the side of caution. They may want this to appear as fair as possible, OR they may view being as fair as possible to be staying out of it as much as possible. As there have only been two such trials in US History its rather difficult to make predictions, but I don't think that it can be just dismissed out of hand without opening the Trial. There are reasons that both sides may not wish for this to drag on. 

12 hours ago, candide said:

When one shows facts or substantial arguments, Trumpers usually lose any interest in the subject matter.

I support Donad J Trump ONLY because of his policy positions. I would be more then willing to engage in a debate with you regarding ANY of those positions. That of course would require you to develop your own point of view.

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Regarding using executive power to withhold funds until corruption suspicions are resolved; don't you think it suspicious that the only two suspected areas of corruption of interest to Trump are ones that had nothing to do with the military aid, but would discredit the conclusions of multiple intelligence agencies and investigations and would help Trump in the 2020 election?

Just out of curiousity. Pretend the the man Donald J Trump does not exist for a moment. Do you wonder what Hunter Biden did for $85,000.00 a month while on the board of Burisma? I disagree with your characterization of the call discrediting conclusions of multiple intelligence agencies. I don't think it suspicious, I think that the topic was a news item made pretty obvious by Biden. I consider it personally to be the largest case of its kind I have ever seen. I want to know. So again you have zero curiousity about what Hunter Biden was doing to get paid $85,000.00 a month from Burisma? And please enough trying to convict Trump that is up to the Senate IF IT EVEN GETS THAT FAR! So allow me to repeat myself again, Hunter Biden? 85K that seems normal to you? Try to analyze that question by removing Trump completely from your mind. Pretend Obama is President if it make it easier for you to ponder Hunter Biden's role.

11 hours ago, candide said:

The facts are as follows:

In this instance I think you must have been aware of the sarcasm?  Yes? No? 

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

The majority of Americans (and, I suspect, the majority of posters on this forum) don't know basic facts about the US government:

And where are you from?

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

And I want to know why the only bank that would do business with Trump after his multiple bankruptcies is a bank notorious for criminal money laundering. 

 

IF you are making allegations of Trump for Money laundering, that would be a new charge. Call NYPD if you have some evidence. AND .... you did not answer my question.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

When one shows facts or substantial arguments, Trumpers usually lose any interest in the subject matter.

The facts are as follows: (1) The Democrat impeachment process may not make it to the Senate. Disagree? Fine , and (2)  if it does they do not have the votes in the Senate to convict and remove from office. AND (3) the Democrat field of candidates seems to be falling to pieces.  If you choose to contest these 3 points feel free. Can you do that? No one cares here about either of our claims as to the President being guilty of some crime. We are not the ones who decide. 

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

No one from the Trump administration has been able to point to any legal authority that allowed Trump to withhold the funding for the length of time and in the manner that he did.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. 

What does that mean to you Executive Power? It means the power the execute the laws of the United States of America. That would include the President asking about corruption prior to the releasing of any foreign aid. The defense department has to certify lack of corruption before release, and they did. But does the President have the power to override such a release? "EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED..." Now, we get into some serious arguments. Was Trump acting out of SELF or was he acting in the Interests of the United States?  Of course before they get to that argument they need to prove that he held up the aid at all for that reason. Even that may be a stretch

Let's you and I not argue about what the President was thinking. Let's not pretend we know more then the Senate or the Supreme court of the United States. If this makes it to a Senate trial all the facts related to the Bidens and Burisma, and any Democrat DNC operatives in Ukraine in 2016 is all going to be part of the evidence that will be considered. None of which was looked at in the Kangaroo House.

Now, yes you can take the other side and say it was all fair, never the less it will all come out in the Senate. A High crime or misdemeanor? The removal of a President that the same opposition has been trying to remove in front of the American people since he arrived. Not happening.

21 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Actually 3 Republican senators support impeachment; Romney, Murkowski and one other, at this point.

See how they vote should it get that far. And one more time: The President will NOT be removed from Office I am 100 percent sure. I am not even going to bother with arguing with you as it has no bearing on the way this is going to play out. You do not understand the process. According to the article here read it again. Are they supporting impeachment? Or refusing to outright denounce the impeachment effort in the house?  Read carefully there is a difference: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/only-3-senate-republicans-aren-t-defending-trump-impeachment-inquiry-n1078906 and even they are political in their choices here as they are more centrist in their states.

23 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Remember the USA has 3 branches of government and POTUS is in charge of just one branch.

You are talking to a retired US Navy Chief are you seriously saying that I need to "remember that in the USA we have 3 branches of Government"? This is a basic fact for a child. Show some respect for those you are speaking to on this argument man. Do you know what that is like for me? You some non-American saying to me that I need to remember what I learned in when I was 6 years old? You don't even have any skin in the game here yet you want to argue that you know something about the impeachment process of the United States? And make statements like "Remember we have 3 branches of Government" Come on man. 

And you have decided he is guilty? Of what? what you read? Therefore you believe it? There are matters of timing related to the President and his attorney's not participating in this sham. Do some reading. Try going to fox news, or other conservative outlets. Don't believe them if you choose, but at least you will learn the other side of the issue. What Country are you from? It's like me saying to you Knowing you are from Sweden and saying "Remember your Capital city is Stockholm. A trial will be held in the Senate of the United States as you know. Not one vote will be against the President if it gets that far. Romney would be signing the end of his career in one stroke. 

Wherever you are from, answer this question and be honest? What was Hunter Biden's job over there at Burisma? What did he do for his $85,000 a month? Let's stop playing games here. You have been reading news for 3 years on Trump being impeached, or being a Russian agent etc. What happened to all that? 

3 hours ago, car720 said:

China actually has greater equal rights than the west when it comes to the genders.

https://www.scmp.com/article/1006063/one-child-policy-violates-rights

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You don't get the difference between good and services, do you?

how does the differentiation between a good and service matter in relation to his quote regarding Products? 

7 minutes ago, candide said:

My point is that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is based on lies (call it false information if you like).

Not important to me - didn't I say this already? I do not have the time to research it fully. I have not even had the time to understand what the fully developed conspiracy theories are on the subject. I have questions. I still do. I still find things do not make sense. I refuse to believe that I have to be forced to accept someone elses view on this if its okay with you. I have other things to ponder.

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As for this

"You can only frame things in terms of if Trump supports something it must be bad."

 it's an empty generalization. But could it apply to you? I've never read anything by you that's remotely critical of Trump. But I prefer to stick to specific cases and not make empty generalizations.

I have repeatedly tried to frame this to the truth of this: Trump is being opposed primarily over policy not personality. Personality is simply used. I have spoke volumes on US policy go back and read man. I have even said that I am not so much a supporter of Trump as I am in total opposition to the Democrat party, the former Neo-con Neo-liberal consensus between Republicans and Democrats and so on. Even now Notice how I state my position. Yet again. Not a single time have I heard you say how you stand on immigration, on Russia, Ukraine, China, spending, debt, National defense, I think you mentioned climate change once (by saying Trump was anti-science so I assume that is what you meant). But anyway this is all about policy positions for me, and absolute unwillingness I have to forgive the democrat party for all of these shinanigans. And that is all this is as far as I am concerned. Bring the impeachment to the Senate. Lets get it over with. An election is coming lets get that over with to. But I am tired of all this so called resistance <deleted> by children. I am not sure if you are an American, if not, you don't have any skin in this game anyway and its just one big troll exercise for you. Can you vote? Vote against Trump. Can't vote? Isn't there a UK politics board for you? Brexit topic or something? Maybe I am wrong on you in that respect. I have posted numerous posts on policy differences I have with the Democrat party. I am a paleoconservative that is my philosophy and that is how I vote.