President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you give examples when either of those two did it for personal gain?

Where have you been… It’s been in all the news? Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for the fake Steele dossier, with much of the intel coming from Russian, British and Australian operatives, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and then take down a duly elected president, which according to emails Obama was right in the thick of things. Done to try and win an election and maintain a president's legacy.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Where have you been… It’s been in all the news? Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for the fake Steele dossier, with much of the intel coming from Russian, British and Australian operatives, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and then take down a duly elected president, which according to emails Obama was right in the thick of things. Done to try and win an election and maintain a president's legacy.

so you dont have any examples then. didnt think so.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you dont have any examples then. didnt think so.

Whatever...

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Now Bolton has removed all doubt.

He has? Link?

Cause all all I can find is him saying that the calls between Zelensky and the POTUS were "warm and cordial" - which is certainly a strange thing for him to have said if he actually felt that Donald J was in fact trying to bribe Zelensky in what amounted to a mafia type shakedown, as Schiffy put it.

https://twitter.com/GKeile/status/1222548002008715264

eagle eye

Donald Trump is a horrible human being and that was the case long before he became POTUS.
The problem now is that we are seeing the ugliest side of the Democrats and many other people too.
I think this whole impeachment thing is something that would have never happened in similar circumstances before. I think social media where the stupid in society have a very strong voice is a huge part of this. I'm thinking that from here on that every POTUS will at least hear suggestions of his/her impeachment mentioned.
The Democrats should drop this imo and then go find a real candidate to beat Trump in the upcoming election.

notobtuse

Oh, boy!

With the Trump impeachment dragging on, and the cast of democrat characters vying to become POTUS all worse than Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton is saying she “feels the urge.”



If Clinton would (god forbid) become president, by today’s standards she would be impeached on day two of her presidency.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, boy!

With the Trump impeachment dragging on, and the cast of democrat characters vying to become POTUS all worse than Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton is saying she “feels the urge.”



If Clinton would (god forbid) become president, by today’s standards she would be impeached on day two of her presidency.

Annnnnd we’re back to Hillary.

woohoo!!!

Couple of things. If Trump does not want to release his tax returns, that is his perogative. I'm not up to speed on where courts are regarding this but it is a tradition, not an obligation for presidents to release their tax returns.

Second, as much as I would like to see the Senate remove him, there is simply insufficient evidence at this point. In the event that the vote for witnesses wins, then we know there is going to be court cases. I understand that Dems didn't want to go to court beforehand, fearing delays, but now that there's going to be court, then bring those witnesses they want to court and bring the WH etc to court to fight the executive privelege on withholding documents.

MeMen2_MoRi_

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, boy!

With the Trump impeachment dragging on, and the cast of democrat characters vying to become POTUS all worse than Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton is saying she “feels the urge.”



If Clinton would (god forbid) become president, by today’s standards she would be impeached on day two of her presidency.

Is the "feeling the urge"... Too pass wind or take a dump lol

Boggles

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Couple of things. If Trump does not want to release his tax returns, that is his perogative.

Not anymore.

A New York Grand Jury want them, 2 courts have agreed they should have them.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Where have you been… It’s been in all the news? Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for the fake Steele dossier, with much of the intel coming from Russian, British and Australian operatives, and used to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and then take down a duly elected president, which according to emails Obama was right in the thick of things. Done to try and win an election and maintain a president's legacy.

Just in case people haven't been paying attention, that is a conspiracy theory, debunked by Trumps own people.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Just in case people haven't been paying attention, that is a conspiracy theory, debunked by Trumps own people.

No it isn't and hasn't. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

No it isn't and hasn't. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

It has lad give it up.

Also the dossier has been proven to be correct on some key points.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, boy!

With the Trump impeachment dragging on, and the cast of democrat characters vying to become POTUS all worse than Michael Dukakis, Hillary Clinton is saying she “feels the urge.”


If Clinton would (god forbid) become president, by today’s standards she would be impeached on day two of her presidency.

Nice paraphrasing, omitting the key part of the quote, Fox and the Daily Caller would be proud.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a recent interview that she feels “the urge” to beat President Trump in the coming election, and pledged to do everything she can to “help elect the Democratic nominee” this year.

James Brown

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He has? Link?

Cause all all I can find is him saying that the calls between Zelensky and the POTUS were "warm and cordial" - which is certainly a strange thing for him to have said if he actually felt that Donald J was in fact trying to bribe Zelensky in what amounted to a mafia type shakedown, as Schiffy put it.

https://twitter.com/GKeile/status/1222548002008715264

If the republicans let him speak we'll hear all about how Trump said he wanted aid held until the Ukrainians helped him on the Bidens.
We are never going to have Trump confess you know.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He has? Link?

Cause all all I can find is him saying that the calls between Zelensky and the POTUS were "warm and cordial" - which is certainly a strange thing for him to have said if he actually felt that Donald J was in fact trying to bribe Zelensky in what amounted to a mafia type shakedown, as Schiffy put it.

That's exactly what is has said.

Do keep up.

It's okay though, because it's not impeachable.

All though you think it's a "complete game changer".

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Nice paraphrasing, omitting the key part of the quote, Fox and the Daily Caller would be proud.

I learned from you.

But the part I left out, and you keyed on, is crap talk on her part! Of course she will help the elected democrat nominee... AS SHE OBVIOUSLY THINKS IT IS GOING TO BE HER. Have you heard recently what she said and feels about Sanders and Gabbard? Some real support there... NOT! And I doubt you will find many who don't believe she would have her operatives orchestrate a smear campaign against Biden and Warren if she decides to get into the race.

(Hey, too bad we can't debate in the Politics forum.)

Boggles

White House has issued formal threat to Bolton to keep him from publishing book

Color me surprised.

:pac:

Outlaw Pete

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the republicans let him speak we'll hear all about how Trump said he wanted aid held until the Ukrainians helped him on the Bidens.

You're psychic now?

We are never going to have Trump confess you know.

But Schiff and Nadler said they already had proof. Don't tell me they lied to us.

Boggles wrote: »

That's exactly what is has said..

You said "Bolton has removed all doubt" and am asking you to back that statement up. Can you? As there is a big difference between saying that he might remove all doubt and that he has done so.

All though you think it's a "complete game changer".

Yes, because if Bolton gave evidence which supported the allegations which the democrats are making it would mean they suddenly have some actual first hand evidence and so course that would be a gamechanger. Anyone testifying that Trump told them he was trying to do what is alleged would be a gamechanger.

As it stands though, the democrats have diddly zip.

notobtuse

Lindsey Graham just noted his list of potential witnesses he’d like to call if the democrats want to go down the witness path… Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and a DNC staffer (who is believed to be Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American and contractor for the DNC who tried to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort). He said if they go down the road of witnesses, it's not going to be one, it's going to be many.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, because if Bolton gave evidence which supported the allegations which the democrats are making

So if he does, do you think Trump should be removed from office?

Or what exactly is a "game changer"?

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Just in case people haven't been paying attention, that is a conspiracy theory, debunked by Trumps own people.

Is this true? If so why is notobtuse trying to make out otherwise?

Timberrrrrrrr

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is this true? If so why is notobtuse trying to make out otherwise?

Because then he would have to admit that he was wrong and we can't be having that.

hetuzozaho

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because then he would have to admit that he was wrong and we can't be having that.

Who is he in this?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Color me surprised.

:pac:

Ohhhhhh... such a threat! :rolleyes:

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is this true? If so why is notobtuse trying to make out otherwise?

I've not heard or read anything about it other than mere fanciful statements such as his. It's not my job to prove the poster correct or incorrect. It's his job to provide viable sources to support his contention. Once he has presented his evidence I will respond.

woohoo!!!

notobtuse wrote: »

Lindsey Graham just noted his list of potential witnesses he’d like to call if the democrats want to go down the witness path… Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and a DNC staffer (who is believed to be Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American and contractor for the DNC who tried to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort). He said if they go down the road of witnesses, it's not going to be one, it's going to be many.

I think let the chief justice decide. I was watching CBS there, and their take away was with only 3 GOP senators for witnesses, this is ending this week. They then discussed whether the senate would like in the Clinton case, censure but not remove. It was interesting with both sides represented.

notobtuse

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because then he would have to admit that he was wrong and we can't be having that.

I believe I was wrong once back in 1998, but it's still under review. :)

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

I've not heard or read anything about it other than mere fanciful statements such as his. It's not my job to prove the poster correct or incorrect. It's his job to provide viable sources to support his contention. Once he has presented his evidence I will respond.

Fire on your evidence for your claim anyway. Thanks

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I think let the chief justice decide. I was watching CBS there, and their take away was with only 3 GOP senators for witnesses, this is ending this week. They then discussed whether the senate would like in the Clinton case, censure but not remove. It was interesting with both sides represented.

If Roberts takes an activist approach he could rule on requests for witnesses and documentary evidence directly, or he could just break 50-50 ties in the event that the Senate votes on something. I believe in the past two Senate impeachment trials the justice wasn’t much more than a plotted plant.