Illinois Matmen Forums Illinois Matmen Forums

Go Back   Illinois Matmen Forums > Non-Wrestling > Non-Wrestling Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2019
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,873
Impeachment: Call to order!

As Sergeant at Arms of the ILLINOISMatmen House, I have been asked by the Speaker to conduct a Roll Call of votes on the issue of the Articles of Impeachment in the matter of ILLINOISMatmen House of Representatives versus President Donald J. Trump.

All those in favor of Impeachment signify by "Aye," all those opposed, say "Nay."

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2019
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,873
.
"As the Representative from the City of Myrtle Beach, I ask for a Point of Order, Speaker. It is my opinion that this was an outcome we should all have expected. Since we were little, sitting in front of our TVs on Saturday mornings, play-fighting with our siblings, or holding our favorite stuffed animal, we have been taught one over-arching lesson, to wit:

.


.


With that, the right honorable Gentleman from Myrtle Beach votes, 'AYE!'"
.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-26-2019
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,565
Can we read the articles of impeachment first?

I don't think Nancy is trying to speed up the impeachment process. I think she is trying to control it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-26-2019
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,873
A duly-elected member of the ILLINOISMatmen Parliament has requested a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Ergo, we shall read the Articles of Impeachment:

Article One: EMBEZZLEMENT/CHARITY FRAUD.

At this time, the State of New York is proceeding with a civil case against Trump and his family for his many charity frauds. This doesnít mean it cannot become a criminal case in the future. Moreover, it certainly doesnít mean it cannot be part of impeachment proceedings.

Marc S. Owens, a former head of the IRSís nonprofit division, called the suit ďan extraordinary catalogue of how not to run a private foundation. Thereís little else [Trump] could have done that would have made it worse.Ē

It is most likely that all of these crimes occurred before Trump assumed office. Does the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Clause of the Constitution allow for offenses committed prior to federal political or judicial office? The answer is yes.
New York would charge these crimes under their embezzlement/larceny statute, which requires the Government to prove the following elements per Section 155.05 of the New York Penal Law:

Quote:
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself ... he wrongfully takes ... such property from an owner thereof.

2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways:

(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as ... embezzlementÖ.
There would be a number of counts in the embezzlement from a Charity article of impeachment. One of the counts would involve Trump embezzling $100,000.00 from his Charity to settle a private lawsuit involving a fifty-foot-tall flagpole at Mar-a-Lago. This is one of those High Crimes and Misdemeanors that is already proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as Trump wrote out and then initialed his own confession:


The ďAllen WĒ referenced in Trumpís handwriting is Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organizationís CFO for many years. He also cut many of the checks for the Trump Foundation. What kind of Monster steals from Charity?

The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue Ö later.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-26-2019
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,873
Article Two: BRIBERY.

The Government must prove these elements of Bribery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ß 666, although reasonable inferences can be drawn:

Quote:
Whoever corruptly gives anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.
A spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi told the media that their office was reviewing the Trump University matter and deciding whether or not to pursue a criminal case. Six days later, Trumpís charity donated $25,000.00 to a political action committee formed to obtain donations for Bondiís reelection.

Bondi did not pursue criminal charges against Trump University.

The reasonable inference here is that Trump corruptly intended to influence the prosecutorial discretion of the Florida Attorney General. If there is a record of one communication between Trump and Bondi or Trump and the Bondi PAC during those six days (or shortly thereafter), the crime is basically proven.

Moreover, this is a two-fer! The president of your country used a check from his charity to pay off Bondi. Yes, he stole from his charity to bribe a politician! It's insane, but true, my friends. Here's the check:


The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue ...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-26-2019
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,565
I would like to call for a recess so I can review the documents and take a dump.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-26-2019
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,565
All of the document appear to be in order and indisputable. That gives us only one option...we must follow the precedent set by a previous congress and the honorable land swindler from the great state of Arizona (Harry Reed).

I, the honorable gentleman from the great estate of Kaczynski (in the woods) will vote nay on impeachment. Why doesn't anybody ever put toilet paper back on the holder? (((fawhooshhhhh)))

Last edited by MAL; 09-27-2019 at 08:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-27-2019
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,873
Article Three: VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is quite clear that an individual cannot donate more than $2,700.00 to a candidate for federal office during an election cycle, and that corporations cannot donate to an individual candidate for federal office. There are two felony counts that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based upon public information.

Stanford Law Professor and former Federal prosecutor David Sklansky takes over from here:

Quote:
The charges relate to secret payments Cohen facilitated to two women during the presidential election campaign in 2016, to keep them from disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump.... The payment to Karen McDougal came from the National Enquirer, with Cohenís encouragement and assistance. Cohen paid Clifford himself, and then got disguised reimbursements from the Trump Organization.

In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trumpís campaign: they were hush money designed to help Donald Trump get elected. And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations arenít allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns, and individuals canít contribute more than $2,700.

These violations can be established beyond a reasonable doubt because we can show the payments made and received, we have the testimony of some of the individuals involved, and, most importantly, the taped admissions from Donald Trump.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-27-2019
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
Article Three: VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is quite clear that an individual cannot donate more than $2,700.00 to a candidate for federal office during an election cycle, and that corporations cannot donate to an individual candidate for federal office. There are two felony counts that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based upon public information.

Stanford Law Professor and former Federal prosecutor David Sklansky takes over from here:




These violations can be established beyond a reasonable doubt because we can show the payments made and received, we have the testimony of some of the individuals involved, and, most importantly, the taped admissions from Donald Trump.
"This is just about sex"

For the record, if a president commits a crime trying to cover up a sexual encounter, that crime has previously been ruled, to not be high crimes or misdemeanors.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-28-2019
Blonjuan44's Avatar
Blonjuan44 Blonjuan44 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
"This is just about sex"

For the record, if a president commits a crime trying to cover up a sexual encounter, that crime has previously been ruled, to not be high crimes or misdemeanors.
wrong. The trial in the Senate began in January 1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton was acquitted of the charges against him, when the Senate failed to convict him on either of them by the necessary two-thirds majority vote.

That was a worse reason than the current bad reason.

Trump did not commit a convict-able crime, but showed horrible judgement and mis-guided priorities. It was just kind of weird that he would do that, after complaining for 2 years that it was horrible for the country - that he had done that prior. Just weird, we can do better. Hopefully we can escape this without being dragged into a war. It doesn't seam like it, but other countries don't care as much as we do about our soldier being killed - and that is an issue other countries like to test that theory at least, the next one could get real ugly. The US protects other countries - but that means we actually have to, we get paid to do it. How tempting is must be for someone with that ego to make himself look tougher through our military. He claims military school is the same as being in the military by the way.
__________________
There are two guys in that zebra costume! Very funny...

Last edited by Blonjuan44; 09-29-2019 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.