The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
This bill itself is not reason for impeachment. He can't be impeached just for a claim that he lied when he said he wouldn't cut Medicaid. If it was established that he knowingly lied, then lying in those circumstances isn't treason and isn't a criminal offence either. But based on his previous behaviour patterns it's not impossible that Trump has done or will do something impeachable. The first step is investigation if he has. Or RFK if he has. Impeachment is a political process decided by legislators.
It's distinct from criminal cases seen by justices and a jury - there is no justice for impeachment and the Senators that hear the case are not expected to act like impartial jurors.
The bill is not a basis for a criminal case either. Congress has the right to pass laws and Trump as president has the right to sign them and if there is something unconstitutional in the law the law itself is challenged in the courts.
If Trump has done something criminal he can be taken through the courts like he was after his first term - normally after impeachment or after his term ends but can also happen theoretically while still president in some cases if not impeached and it's urgent.
That starts with investigations and those start in the House and Republicans won't start them. So that starts with the Democrats winning the House.
They have a decent chance of that as I explain here:
BLOG: Trump's Big Bill could help Democrats flip seats in the mid-terms if they are correct about its effects on Medicaid
— parallel with when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 but Dems flipped 40 seats in 2018
Then if they think Trump has done something impeachable, with control of the House they can start investigations, call witnesses etc. That is where it begins. Same for RFK. Then depending on the evidence it turns up then it can lead to impeachment in the House.
Then even with a Republican controlled ~Senate (the Senate likely only flips in 2026 with a big bluer wave) the Senate may be under strong pressure to take it to the floor if the evidence is strong enough. Then it would be a case of convincing enough Republican Senators that he can be impeached.
If he is impeached JD Vance takes his place to the end of the presidency - unless he has been impeached too in which case it goes to the leader of the House as temporary president to the end of the presidency if qualified as present and so on down the presidential chain of succession. Will add this to the linked blog post .
No I am not I'm just describing how the legal and political processes work in the USA. If a bill is unconstitutional then this is not dealt with as a criminal case against the framers of the bill. Rather it is taken to the courts who will rule it unconstitutional and strike out parts of the bill that go against the US constitution.
Then that's the end of it.
The reason is that it is Congress's job to make laws. It is the Judiciary's job to interpret the laws.
The laws as passed by Congress and signed into law by the president are the first step. They then have to be interpreted by the courts.
That happens during legal challenges of the laws by individuals, organisations or states. Challengers can challenge how the executive interprets a law or it can challenge the law itself and say it's unconstitutional.
Judges then hear those challenges. The judges also have power to issue an injunction to block enforcement of a potentially illegal or unconstitutional law while the case continues in the courts to a conclusion.
That is how it works.
So as lawyers go through the bill they may challenge it. I find two lawsuits already.
Planned Parenthood because of a provision that would defund them for one year
QUOTE STARTS
Planned Parenthood has vowed to take the Trump administration to court over a provision in the newly-passed megabill that would “defund” the nonprofit for up to one year.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the organization, said on Thursday the reconciliation bill is an “unlawful” and “targeted attack” on the organization and its patients.
Also gun owners opposed to a provision about silencers.
QUOTE GOA’s “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” will ask the courts to strike down the NFA’s absurd new $0 tax and registration scheme for certain suppressors and firearms with short barrels.
Other things are up to voters and to working with their representatives.
For instance it can still be modified by passing laws in Congress if there is enough support.
Democrats would likely vote to remove provisions - so if the Republicans decided to do so too influenced by public pressure it is easier to remove them than to add them.
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL SEPARATE POST I SET UP HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-1d2
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!
Call for impeachment
This bill itself is not reason for impeachment. He can't be impeached just for a claim that he lied when he said he wouldn't cut Medicaid. If it was established that he knowingly lied, then lying in those circumstances isn't treason and isn't a criminal offence either. But based on his previous behaviour patterns it's not impossible that Trump has done or will do something impeachable. The first step is investigation if he has. Or RFK if he has. Impeachment is a political process decided by legislators.
It's distinct from criminal cases seen by justices and a jury - there is no justice for impeachment and the Senators that hear the case are not expected to act like impartial jurors.
The bill is not a basis for a criminal case either. Congress has the right to pass laws and Trump as president has the right to sign them and if there is something unconstitutional in the law the law itself is challenged in the courts.
If Trump has done something criminal he can be taken through the courts like he was after his first term - normally after impeachment or after his term ends but can also happen theoretically while still president in some cases if not impeached and it's urgent.
That starts with investigations and those start in the House and Republicans won't start them. So that starts with the Democrats winning the House.
They have a decent chance of that as I explain here:
BLOG: Trump's Big Bill could help Democrats flip seats in the mid-terms if they are correct about its effects on Medicaid
— parallel with when Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 but Dems flipped 40 seats in 2018
READ HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/why-passing-trumps-big-bill-could
Then if they think Trump has done something impeachable, with control of the House they can start investigations, call witnesses etc. That is where it begins. Same for RFK. Then depending on the evidence it turns up then it can lead to impeachment in the House.
Then even with a Republican controlled ~Senate (the Senate likely only flips in 2026 with a big bluer wave) the Senate may be under strong pressure to take it to the floor if the evidence is strong enough. Then it would be a case of convincing enough Republican Senators that he can be impeached.
If he is impeached JD Vance takes his place to the end of the presidency - unless he has been impeached too in which case it goes to the leader of the House as temporary president to the end of the presidency if qualified as present and so on down the presidential chain of succession. Will add this to the linked blog post .
You defend criminals
This bill is null and void because it goes against the constitution, which is the supreme law.
You need to go find some truth about our REAL laws.
Clearly, you cannot see the overreach.
Impeach.
No I am not I'm just describing how the legal and political processes work in the USA. If a bill is unconstitutional then this is not dealt with as a criminal case against the framers of the bill. Rather it is taken to the courts who will rule it unconstitutional and strike out parts of the bill that go against the US constitution.
Then that's the end of it.
The reason is that it is Congress's job to make laws. It is the Judiciary's job to interpret the laws.
The laws as passed by Congress and signed into law by the president are the first step. They then have to be interpreted by the courts.
That happens during legal challenges of the laws by individuals, organisations or states. Challengers can challenge how the executive interprets a law or it can challenge the law itself and say it's unconstitutional.
Judges then hear those challenges. The judges also have power to issue an injunction to block enforcement of a potentially illegal or unconstitutional law while the case continues in the courts to a conclusion.
That is how it works.
So as lawyers go through the bill they may challenge it. I find two lawsuits already.
Planned Parenthood because of a provision that would defund them for one year
QUOTE STARTS
Planned Parenthood has vowed to take the Trump administration to court over a provision in the newly-passed megabill that would “defund” the nonprofit for up to one year.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the organization, said on Thursday the reconciliation bill is an “unlawful” and “targeted attack” on the organization and its patients.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/03/congress/planned-parenthood-trump-lawsuit-00439702
Also gun owners opposed to a provision about silencers.
QUOTE GOA’s “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” will ask the courts to strike down the NFA’s absurd new $0 tax and registration scheme for certain suppressors and firearms with short barrels.
https://www.gunowners.org/goa-to-file-one-big-beautiful-lawsuit-against-nfa-registry-as-one-big-beautiful-bill-heads-to-presidents-desk/
So that is how it works.
Other things are up to voters and to working with their representatives.
For instance it can still be modified by passing laws in Congress if there is enough support.
Democrats would likely vote to remove provisions - so if the Republicans decided to do so too influenced by public pressure it is easier to remove them than to add them.
You do not understand the supreme law of our land.
That bill is inconsistent with our constitution.
That bill is null and void.
You should look up KrisAnne Hall
She can teach you what you lack.
It's people like you that try to ruin our freedom with your willful ignoring of our laws.