Will Trump Quit?

Well yes. They impeached Clinton on lieing about sex didn’t they? Removal from office is another story.

 

Pence the stooge is damaged good. He won’t even get the nomination.

 

Have you never heard the phrase 'will make your head explode' . It isn't a threat or an indication that someone wishes you come to harm.

 

Valid point - I hadn't thought of his background as one of 'quitting', but his history of convenient bankruptcy is exactly that!

If and when he quits, it will be elaborately orchestrated. Either it will be done to elicit sympathy or, I fear, one that will exacerbate the division.

 

Trump will not quit until or unless he gets a Nixon and impeachment is very clearly inevitable....his Ego will not allow it. He will however try to burn down the house on his way out the door and the carnage he has already left for Republicans will seem like a nosebleed. Unfortunately, they will hang in there till the end and become kindling.

 

My understanding was he was impeached for perjury, but yes, the perjury was for the lies about sex, that is why he was disbarred for it.
I have never yet understood why Ken Starr was not prosecuted to leaking the proceedings of a Grand Jury. Grand Juries are able to run roughshod right over most of a defendant's rights just because they are supposedly confidential. Clinton was made to incriminate himself quite clearly and Starr then purposely leaked all his info to the world.

 

Debunked, completely and irrevocably, many times on this forum. You LW need to leave the armchair lawyering alone, it does your credibility here no good at all.

1. FACT: About ~1-2% of Trump's many business ventures have used the restructuring provisions of Chapter 11 over the years. At least 98% of Trump's businesses have not utilized Chapter 11 Reorg or bankruptcy of any kind.
2. FACT: There is a huge difference between the various Chapters in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Referring to it as just "bankruptcy" is either a product of ignorance or specific intent to deceive. Chapter 11 Restructuring is vastly different than other Chapters, Chapter 7 Liquidation in particular, and is used regularly and extensively by businesses across the country as part of their negotiations with large, sophisticated creditors, both sides well-represented by legal counsel. It is used very frequently in the real estate industry, and I know of no large real estate company of the size of the Trump Organization that has not used this very common financial tool.
3. FACT: Trump has never declared Chapter 7 Liquidation bankruptcy. So in the way the layman public understands the term, Trump has -never- "gone bankrupt."

Now, continue to perpetuate this lie narrative, as you almost certainly will do, or educate yourselves. Choice is yours.

 

I am skeptical they will do that. Senators especially are canny critters and I think this election has given them some knowledge that Trump's base is not nearly as powerful as Trump thought. An incumbent who has a loyal constituency has little to fear from an ideologically based primary challenge even if the POTUS is behind it and while they must win the primary to run in the main, they must win the main overall.

 

Trump, of course, scammed investors and lenders repeatedly. He was eventually blacklisted by the major American lenders, and he then turned to questionable lending from desutschbank and capital from Russian criminal kleptocrats, once he completely ran out of both money and lenders who would not spit in his face. It will be interesting for those of us who understand lending, when his deustchbank records are subpoenaed. Hopefully they open the underwriting records as well.

Trump failed at legitimate real eatate development, and so turned to laundering criminal russian and central American Drug money through his projects and simply selling his "branding".

This will all be laid bare, eventually.

 

Unfortunately (for the GOP) the TrumpHunper contingent prevents the rational thought you imply from bleeding into the politics. I doubt much will change in the minds of these people until the base does, and that shows no signs of happening. This is the Kindling I mentioned.

 

All the above is just more mystical, magical hoodoo from the Church of TDS. Donald Trump has been endlessly scrutinized by the toughest, most hostile, local and state regulators in the country together with federal scrutiny, for decades. Spout more hot air conspiracy theories.

But surely -this time- it will be the END for Trump!

 

Overall, I agree with that and I was trying to say that Trump might be coming to see resignation as similar to what he has done before in Real Estate, where he starts and "brand's" a project and then turns it over to others. If it best preserves his "legacy", which is what all Presidents strive to do, why shouldn't he resign?

 

How many POTUS in U.S. history have resigned? and under what circumstances? How, exactly, did resigning "best preserve" Richard Nixon's legacy? It didn't.

It's not going to happen despite wishful thinking to the contrary, and the fact that anyone in power over anything as large as the Trump Organization delegates lots of power and responsibility does not evidence that it ever would.

 

I guess so, but Trump is a very unusual President and might end up doing things in a very unusual way. I think Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe is a proponent of this theory and I agree with it. Trump didn't really want to be President and I think the job has worn on him. I'm surprised that he's lasted this long really.

 

Thank you for your explanation of the legal process. You are correct, I don't know all the legalities of bankruptcy. But I didn't think we all needed to be experts in field to have discussions here.

This information - from Snopes - provided a little insight for me:

#1) Trump Taj Mahal (1991): The Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City opened in 1990, with Trump financing the completion of its construction with $675 million in junk bonds at 14% interest. By the following year the casino itself was in debt to the tune of $3 billion, while Trump himself owed some $900 million in personal liabilities.

In order to keep the Taj Mahal afloat, Trump struck a deal with his lenders in which he gave up half his ownership share and equity in the casino, sold his Trump Shuttle airline and his Trump Princess 220-foot yacht, and agreed to a bank-set limit on his personal spending in exchange for a lower interest rate and additional time to make his loan payments.

#2 and #3) Trump’s Castle and Trump Plaza Casinos (1992): Less than a year after the Taj Mahal bankruptcy Trump filed for Chapter 11 protection again for two more Atlantic City hotel-casinos, the Trump Plaza and Trump’s Castle, over their inability to make principal and interest payments on bonds. The Plaza ($550 million in debt) and the Castle ($338 million in debt) were competing against each other, as well as against the Taj Mahal, and Trump gave up a 50% share in exchange for more favorable terms on the debts.

#4) Trump Plaza Hotel (1992): Donald Trump filed for bankruptcy protection a third time in 1992 over the Trump Plaza Hotel on New York’s famous Fifth Avenue, overlooking Central Park in midtown Manhattan. Once again, Trump gave up a 49% stake in the property to secure more favorable terms from lenders on the luxury hotel’s debt of more than $550 million.

#5) Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts (2004): In 1995, Donald Trump established Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts as a publicly traded company, an entity that eventually consolidated his three Atlantic City casinos (Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Castle, and Trump Plaza), along with other properties, under one company. In 2004, Trump sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the company, with filings listing about $1.8 billion in debt. Yet again, Trump’s ownership in the business was reduced, from 47% to 27%, in order to obtain more favorable terms from lenders.

#6) Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009): After its 2004 bankruptcy, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts (TER), and that latter entity went Chapter 11 in 2009 with a debt of $1.2 billion. Trump fought with his board of directors over how to restructure the company and ended up reducing his ownership share of the business once again (to 10%) and resigning as chairman of the board.

Now - as to the question of bankruptcy. If, in fact, he never really went 'bankrupt', would that mean that not paying contractors was just a business decision?

 

We know the Trump cultist stance, thanks. We don't need you to regurgitate it for us. It is as predictable as the sunrise.

 

Of course being an expert is not necessary to have a discussion. But blithely parroting partisan-sourced narratives that turn out to be either gross distortions or out and out falsehoods, specifically crafted to deceive the public, is not "having discussions" but repeating political propaganda. Rest assured that the people who create these narratives know the difference in bankruptcy types full well, understand exactly what they are doing and why, whom they are trying to manipulate. Did they fool you?

Did Snopes happen to mention that the events you list in the early 90s were part of a broad crash in commercial real estate that affected the hospitality industry especially negatively and not just Trump-related businesses?

https://www.nreionline.com/finance-...arly-90s-differs-today-s-crash-important-ways

Did they go into detail about the deep, but relatively short-lived broader recession, compounded by overbuilding, Fed policy, end of the Cold War and the FSLIC crisis that affected the entire country at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession

If Snopes didn't mention that, why do you think they didn't? Of course, Trump could have shared blame for some of the dire problems facing him in the early 90s, but the broader economy is most definitely necessary context in assessing degrees of blame. All LW-Complex narratives on Trump's "bankruptcies" I've ever seen omit this necessary context intentionally towards disinformation.

Did Snopes go into detail about all the myriad general problems in Atlantic City that have been ongoing for decades, going back to when gambling was legalized there? Did Snopes go into the broader local and state governmental roles in that? Again, this is necessary context in assessing the various business failures and successes of Donald Trump. Did he share some or lots of blame? It's certainly a possibility. But omission of all the necessary context suggests that no intent to truthfully "discuss" is intended in these narratives, and rather an intent to deceive via lies of omission.

1. There are numerous lawsuits associated with almost every commercial real estate venture. More than you would ever believe. A great number of those disputes involve contractors and disputes over their performance and contractual obligations. There are two sides to each and every one of these disputes, so ask yourself why you rarely see both sides, or only lip-service paid to one side? Short answer, you are being lied to.

2. When you see these slanted media accounts of Trump or whomever "not paying contractors" you are very often being purposefully lied to in several ways. First, it's almost never that they just don't pay, so that's the first lie. Every state in the country provides for liens on behalf of contractors against construction work performed to spec. When there is no legitimate dispute involved, they either get paid or get a lien on the property that brings its completion or business to a screeching HALT, can even end up with them owning the whole property in some cases.

Second, to vastly oversimplify, if you hired a guy to paint your bedroom yellow and he painted it blue, would you pay him? If you hired a roofer to install a new roof on your house and they used cracked, old shingles sitting around for decades, would you pay them? If you owned a store with $5000 a day rent, and the contractor didn't finish the store out until two weeks after the contract opening date, would you just get out your checkbook? or would you attempt to cut the contractor's pay based on how much they cost your business? Now if the local newspaper did an article claiming you didn't pay the contractor without mentioning your blue bedroom or defective roof, how would you feel about that?

Third, they have to dig hard to find some sympathetic looking mom and pop shlubs as the "victims" of the evil developer in their propaganda articles. In many cases, those sympathetic "unpaid contractor" pictures are of multimillionaires with overalls on, represented by expensive lawyers who negotiated specific terms in complex agreements... that those innocent looking moms and pops violated and they KNOW they violated. There are very few contractors in these projects that aren't just as large, sophisticated and well-represented as the other side. Don't buy the "little guy with a saw that big bad developer didn't pay" tomfoolery.

Please don't be fooled by these types of lies. There is more than one side to every legal, financial story, and Trump is no exception. Am I carrying water for him? No, we never get to the point of figuring out what REALLY happened due to all the compound layers of lies over such narratives. Was Trump at fault or fiscally irresponsible in his few Chap 11 filings? Who knows? We never even get to the facts through all the bogus, dishonest narratives.

 

The crumbling Cult of Trump before our eyes.

 

Well, thank you for your thorough and detailed reporting. Consider me well and truly slapped down. By you. Unfortunately, your 'explanation' doesn't change a thing for me. Perhaps you can call me willfully misinformed or just not buying it.

 

Trump won't quit.

In Fact, if he loses in 2020:

He will refuse to accept the result, scream "Voter Fraud!", declare Martial Law and attempt to start WW3 (all the while waiting to be dragged kicking and screaming from the WH after the new POTUS is sworn in).

 

Who do you think I continue to 'support'? You cannot be referring to Donald Trump. I am dying to read a couple of examples of this 'posting history' to which you refer. I can't wait. Please repost.

 

I would prefer there not be anything like "slapping down" going on in polite political discussions, but rather to actually discuss the factual merits of this or that political policy. Here, as in so many other places, that is an impossibility... primarily due to the proliferation of gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex lie narratives, refusing to discuss anything in other than identity politics terms, and people blithely repeating these behaviors over and over.

That learning the truth doesn't change a thing for you is unfortunate, and something you can always address if you want. I'm not asking for people to turn their political views on their head, merely to be able to examine them in the context of facts instead of propaganda and hot air.

 

Nah he was found not guilty of perjury but was impeached for obstruction of justice then acquitted by the Senate.

Exceedingly difficult to get 67 Senators to agree on anything, let alone removal of the President from office. No party ever has close to 67 votes.

Even if McCain had been elected instead of Obama, the 60 Democrat Senate would still need to find 7 Republicans to vote to convict, no easy task.

Since impeachment only requires a majority in the House, and opposition held Houses are quite common (Boehner under Obama, Pelosi under Trump, Gingrich under Clinton, etc), impeachment is more a reflection of the fervour of that opposition majority.

 

My sincere apologies. . . . I had you confused with Battle3.

 

Impeachment is almost entirely political, entirely done by politicians. No legal bar for impeachment, that is, for politicians issuing the equivalent of an indictment, exists other than treason and bribery. High crimes and misdemeanors are undefined.

If there was enough political will and grass roots support, a president could be impeached for jay walking to Marine 1.