Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Options
1…4041434546…173

Comments

  • Options
    #1262
    Ihatewhahabies
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Ihatewhahabies


    Igotadose wrote: »
    lol. What utter garbage. The President colluded with foreign adversaries. It didn't meet the standard of prosecution but was deferred to Congress to determine whether it's chargeable. While investigating this, another attempt at collusion with a foreign power was dropped into Congress' lap by this same, compromised President. His defenders like yourself have nothing other than screeching about farcical conspiracies and the 'deep state' to defend this due process that Congress is following under the Constitution.

    And, for extra credit, here's a timeline of the President colluding with yet another foreign power, in this case Turkey. Do recall that the President's NSA chief went to jail as part of his corrupt lying about being a paid lobbyist for Turkey. This administration, with it's 80+ indictments, hordes of resignations from every level of government up to the Cabinet and convictions, is by far the most criminal in modern US history.


    Please see

    turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/larry-johnson-1/

    The central contention of article is that the "US goverment did not believe that Flynn lied. He was prosecuted in a deliberate frame up


  • Options
    #1263
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Ihatewhahabies wrote: »
    Please see

    turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/larry-johnson-1/

    The central contention of article is that the "US goverment did not believe that Flynn lied. He was prosecuted in a deliberate frame up

    No you're wrong. Here's a more credible link than the one you provided.

    http://www.superchristianpatriotmaga.news.me/blogs/someconspiracynut/obummer-aids-monkey-steals-your-guns.htm


  • Options
    #1264
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Penn wrote: »
    So you'd agree that the Trump administration should not be ignoring subpeonas or refusing to allow people to testify in front of Congress who are acting in their duties as a co-equal branch of government in enforcing those checks and balances, given the accusations and evidence of potential illegalities of the actions of the Trump administration?
    No, apparently Congress can impeach a ham sandwich for anything they come up with in their little minds, and due process be damned. Which is now the case with Democrats in Congress. Apparently a president in this matter is provided less rights than every other US citizen has in normal circumstances. If such abuses are allowed why not allow Trump to fight back with everything available in his arsenal?

    Trump said his refusal to answer House Democrats’ requests during the impeachment inquiry “probably ends up being a big Supreme Court case.” But he also said he was open to cooperating with House Democrats if they meet certain conditions. “We would, if they give us our rights,” he said. Trump and Republicans have criticized Democrats for not holding a vote to formally open their impeachment inquiry. Trump also wants Republicans the ability to ALSO question witnesses... not just Democrats. Democrats are making up the rules as they go along. Democrats have now started witness testimony behind closed doors, even though some... like acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire have testified publicly. And the reason is clear, and it stinks to high heaven... Democrats (and their media handmaidens) want to have absolute control of the dialog. In the case of Volker’s testimony the Democrats have released selective, biased and misleading testimony. Aren’t YOU pissed that the Democrats refuse to release the full transcript of Volker testimony? Republicans are calling for it as they feel this travesty of justice must stop. Senator Graham said “If this continues, I will call Volker before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify publicly to ensure the full story is told.”

    Trump's demands are not unreasonable!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1265
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    No you're wrong. Here's a more credible link than the one you provided.

    http://www.superchristianpatriotmaga.news.me/blogs/someconspiracynut/obummer-aids-monkey-steals-your-guns.htm
    You link does not work... which isn't surprising.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1266
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,174 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You link does not work... which isn't surprising.
    Uhh... did you think it was a serious link?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1267
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    That's how the whole US system has been set up. It's always been like that and nobody gets to be a whiny little bítch complaining about how unfair it is.
    Nonsense. Sure they can complain about how unfair it is... that's how the system has been set up... free speech and all.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1268
    Ihatewhahabies
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭Ihatewhahabies


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    No you're wrong. Here's a more credible link than the one you provided.

    [/QUOTE

    Sic semper tyranis is Pat Lang's site and Larry Johnston is the author of the article

    Both very credible people.


  • Options
    #1269
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,081 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    A president is allowed to ask for help from a foreign country if there is reason to believe crimes were committed. Biden running for president doesn't exempt him from the process if he participated in the apparent quid pro quo while he was VP. If it does then I guess I could rob a bank, run for president, then nobody can investigate me... right?

    If I would support Trump being impeached based on such flimsy evidence I would also have to support Hillary being impeached on day one if she became president... and have supported a Barack Obama impeachment, same with GW BUsh, and if Biden wins, his impeachment on day one. And if anything comes up on Warren if she wins I would have to support her impeachment because impeachable offenses seems to be anything Congress says they are.

    You're using Rudy talking points? Oh.

    It's really up to the State Department or the IC to handle those types of investigations. If any investigation came up where there was a conflict of interest Trump shouldn't have touched it, its radioactive. Refer it to the state department. That's it. Instead he got personally involved, ordered aid to be frozen, and sent Rudy out ahead of the call. It wasn't just the call: this went on for weeks. We know now there was communication in DC about forcing them to investigate Biden in exchange for a US visit. In truth, Trump sought something of value (an investigation against a political rival) and traded them something of value (unfrozen military aid, javelin missiles, a state visit that was contingent on the investigation).

    But it doesn't matter since there was no apparent quid pro quo that Biden did - his (and The GOP)(And the IMF)(and the EU)(And the State Department) WANTED Burisma investigated - it wasn't being investigated. The prosecutor was obstructing that investigation and other investigations including the frozen assets issue in London

    And only Trump rubes seem unaware of this. Seems to be why Biden has resurfaced in the polls that just came out and were run over the past week, while Trump's impeachability keeps climbing even among Republicans.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/biden-re-takes-lead-over-warren-in-polling-average-surges-with-black-voters-in-new-poll/

    Oh - and 2 Rudy associates were just arrested. Whoops

    https://www.mediaite.com/trump/breaking-two-giuliani-associates-connected-to-biden-ukraine-efforts-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges/

    2 ex-soviets who were instrumental in arranging the meeting between Rudy and fmr. prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko. Illegal donations to the Trump campaign. How about that! Follow the money! :)


  • Options
    #1270
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Uhh... did you think it was a serious link?
    I think most everything your side links to isn't serious. That doesn't stop me from reading them, though.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1271
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,174 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, apparently Congress can impeach a ham sandwich for anything they come up with in their little minds, and due process be damned. Which is now the case with Democrats in Congress. Apparently a president in this matter is provided less rights than every other US citizen has in normal circumstances. If such abuses are allowed why not allow Trump to fight back with everything available in his arsenal?
    Here's a simply-worded article for you that explains what's going on. Things change once the trial starts - but that's *after* the articles of impeachment are ratified and the trial happens. It's up to the House to expedite the impeachment articles, otherwise a possibly compromised, criminal POTUS will have ample time to make mischief (Kurds, Offspring in sinecures, selling off national parks, mandatory increases in pollution, stuff like that).

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/09/trump-impeachment-vote-charges-now-add-more-articles-later-column/3909558002/

    So, first come articles of impeachment. Then, the trial when the defense and prosecution can present witnesses. Sorry if Trump can't thwart the articles of impeachment being drafted. But, as it stands today, he will be impeached, and soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1272
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nonsense. Sure they can complain about how unfair it is... that's how the system has been set up... free speech and all.

    They can but it conjures up images of spoiled brats like Veruca Salt.


  • Options
    #1273
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You link does not work... which isn't surprising.

    Try https. They may have switched on SSL only with TLSv1.2 as a minimum.


  • Options
    #1274
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,081 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, apparently Congress can impeach a ham sandwich for anything they come up with in their little minds, and due process be damned. Which is now the case with Democrats in Congress. Apparently a president in this matter is provided less rights than every other US citizen has in normal circumstances. If such abuses are allowed why not allow Trump to fight back with everything available in his arsenal?
    Actually to be utterly pedantic, no they can't impeach a ham sandwich - not unless the sandwich is a federal officer.

    Let's break this down for you because you missed civics:

    The congress has the sole power to impeach.

    The party (i.e. Trump) is only subject to impeachment in an impeachment. It is not a "Due Process" matter.

    "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

    AFTER impeachment: Trump is entitled to due process like any other citizen under the law: subject to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment, according to the law.
    Trump said his refusal to answer House Democrats’ requests during the impeachment inquiry “probably ends up being a big Supreme Court case.” But he also said he was open to cooperating with House Democrats if they meet certain conditions. “We would, if they give us our rights,” he said. Trump and Republicans have criticized Democrats for not holding a vote to formally open their impeachment inquiry. Trump also wants Republicans the ability to ALSO question witnesses... not just Democrats. Democrats are making up the rules as they go along. Democrats have now started witness testimony behind closed doors, even though some... like acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire have testified publicly. And the reason is clear, and it stinks to high heaven... Democrats (and their media handmaidens) want to have absolute control of the dialog. In the case of Volker’s testimony the Democrats have released selective, biased and misleading testimony. Aren’t YOU pissed that the Democrats refuse to release the full transcript of Volker testimony? Republicans are calling for it as they feel this travesty of justice must stop. Senator Graham said “If this continues, I will call Volker before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify publicly to ensure the full story is told.”

    Trump's demands are not unreasonable!

    Which just substantiates the point: Trump is trying v. hard to drag this out. He'd love nothing more than to drag the SCOTUS into it, even though there's no case he can win there. And again, any set of rules he pretends he would follow will have to include unsealing of grand jury evidence to keep parity with other impeachment proceedings. He really doesn't want to do that though, because clearly the grand jury evidence is devastating to his case. He just wants lawyers to gum out the whole process for him. This isn't like when Clinton and Nixon cooperated with proceedings.


  • Options
    #1275
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,081 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Conservative Lawyers argue Trump's actions are "Fundamentally Incompatible" with the POTUS oath of office

    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/group-of-conservative-attorneys-trumps-conduct-is-fundamentally-incompatible-with-oath-of-office/


  • Options
    #1276
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Overheal wrote: »

    2 ex-soviets who were instrumental in arranging the meeting between Rudy and fmr. prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko. Illegal donations to the Trump campaign. How about that! Follow the money! :)

    They are Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas. Strangely enough, their lawyer said that they were assisting Giuliani in his representation of Trump. I don't know if that was a smart thing to say but "smart thing to say" isn't a phrase I would associate with Giuliani.

    Here's a page from the actual letter.

    Dowd2-620x792.jpeg


  • Options
    #1277
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    That doesn't stop me from reading them, though.

    Always, always, check the destination of a link. Especially if you're using Windows or a smartphone. I'm not joking here.


  • Options
    #1278
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Always, always, check the destination of a link. Especially if you're using Windows or a smartphone. I'm not joking here.
    Thanks. I’m still using Windows 98. You may find this hard to believe but I’m kinda stubborn and have a tendency towards resisting change. ;):)

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1279
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    A president is allowed to ask for help from a foreign country if there is reason to believe crimes were committed. Biden running for president doesn't exempt him from the process if he participated in the apparent quid pro quo while he was VP. If it does then I guess I could rob a bank, run for president, then nobody can investigate me... right?

    If I would support Trump being impeached based on such flimsy evidence I would also have to support Hillary being impeached on day one if she became president... and have supported a Barack Obama impeachment, same with GW BUsh, and if Biden wins, his impeachment on day one. And if anything comes up on Warren if she wins I would have to support her impeachment because impeachable offenses seems to be anything Congress says they are.

    Dismiss the press, dismiss congress members as anti-american, go to foreign states to get dirt on rivals, (for deals) and dismiss congress as regards impeachment as it acts on whims seemingly. Sounds like you're supporting the birth of a dictatorship comrade.

    So Trump can do what he likes based on the actions of others in a rival party. Nice. Great system of government you support there ;)


  • Options
    #1280
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Dismiss the press, dismiss congress members as anti-american, go to foreign states to get dirt on rivals, (for deals) and dismiss congress as regards impeachment as it acts on whims seemingly. Sounds like you're supporting the birth of a dictatorship comrade.

    So Trump can do what he likes based on the actions of others in a rival party. Nice. Great system of government you support there ;)
    Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn the actions being committed now that might be copied later?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1281
    hetuzozaho
    Registered Users Posts: 2,840 ✭✭✭hetuzozaho


    He's not happy with the Fox News poll saying he should be impeached. Embarrassing tweets IMO. Surely there must be an end in sight for all this.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1182281836363485185


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1282
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn the actions being committed now that might be copied later?

    It would make sense for the U.S.A. to have regulations and laws, then elected officials held accountable by those laws and regulations and ultimately by the people. The Trump administration is moving the goalposts and justifying taking apart piece by piece what constitutes the U.S.


  • Options
    #1283
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The Trump administration is moving the goalposts and justifying taking apart piece by piece what constitutes the U.S.
    The courts would determine if this is the case.

    But it’s looking more and more like the Democrats are using this impeachment inquiry nonsense to get Trump out of office as soon as possible before Durham’s report comes out. Democrats think they’re riding high because of recent poll data aided by nonstop outrage of their media handmaidens.

    Durham’s investigation of the provenance of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion has now expanded, and has reached into Italy, Australia and the UK.

    He no longer is just investigating what happened into the lead up to the 2016 election and to the inauguration, but now includes a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017.

    The Democratic Congress can impeach but the Department of Justice can indict people.

    Most of the public doesn't know the full story or anything close to what has happened. Eventually, though, the truth will come out.

    If Democrats think impeaching Trump and getting him removed from office will save their sorry asses from arrests they better think again. If they do impeach Trump and it turns out there was a coup plot or something close involving the CIA, the previous administration and other high ranking Democratic officials there will be hell to pay in this country. It will make what happened in the 1860s seem like child’s play.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1284
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The courts would determine if this is the case.

    ...


    If Democrats think impeaching Trump and getting him removed from office will save their sorry asses from arrests they better think again. If they do impeach Trump and it turns out there was a coup plot or something close involving the CIA, the previous administration and other high ranking Democratic officials there will be hell to pay in this country. It will make what happened in the 1860s seem like child’s play.

    Would this be the stacked Supreme court or compromised Barr? :rolleyes:

    Sounds like the coup is coming from Trump.
    You know all dictatorships start out with the leader claiming the system of government is so corrupt it needs a leader to take charge...just until things settle?


  • Options
    #1285
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Fancy that… apparently Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, and that the Trump administration was already aware of it. Reportedly the probe into Burisma also involved "unusual transactions" in the natural gas giant's accounts and alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board... and that investigators in Ukraine filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company."

    And apparently, according to Joe Biden’s spokesperson, Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma was approved by Barack Obama in 2014. So Joe is now dragging Barack into this mess. I bet Obama appreciates it.

    I guess there can be no quid pro quo if Ukraine had already started an investigation and Trump already knew about it, right?

    This situation is looking mighty bad for Joe Biden and the Democrat members of Congress rush to impeach.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1286
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Fancy that… apparently Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, and that the Trump administration was already aware of it. Reportedly the probe into Burisma also involved "unusual transactions" in the natural gas giant's accounts and alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board... and that investigators in Ukraine filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company."

    And apparently, according to Joe Biden’s spokesperson, Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma was approved by Barack Obama in 2014. So Joe is now dragging Barack into this mess. I bet Obama appreciates it.

    I guess there can be no quid pro quo if Ukraine had already started an investigation and Trump already knew about it, right?

    This situation is looking mighty bad for Joe Biden and the Democrat members of Congress rush to impeach.

    So Trump didn't ask them to do him a favour and look into Biden?
    All you are saying here is they were likely going to look into it, before Trump called asking them to look into it. Asked, even though he knew they were going to any way...sounds legit.
    Fair play, you really try.


  • Options
    #1287
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    So Trump didn't ask them to do him a favour and look into Biden?
    All you are saying here is they were likely going to look into it, before Trump called asking them to look into it. Asked, even though he knew they were going to any way...sounds legit.
    Fair play, you really try.
    How in the world did you get ‘they were likely going to look into it’ out of ‘Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call?’

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1288
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Fancy that… apparently Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, and that the Trump administration was already aware of it. Reportedly the probe into Burisma also involved "unusual transactions" in the natural gas giant's accounts and alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board... and that investigators in Ukraine filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company."

    And apparently, according to Joe Biden’s spokesperson, Hunter Biden’s position on the board of Burisma was approved by Barack Obama in 2014. So Joe is now dragging Barack into this mess. I bet Obama appreciates it.

    I guess there can be no quid pro quo if Ukraine had already started an investigation and Trump already knew about it, right?

    This situation is looking mighty bad for Joe Biden and the Democrat members of Congress rush to impeach.

    Who's reporting that?


  • Options
    #1289
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Who's reporting that?
    Well you certainly won't find any reporting on it from the Democrat's media handmaidens.

    John Solomon, investigative reporter, who won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1290
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,081 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Well you certainly won't find any reporting on it from the Democrat's media handmaidens.

    John Solomon, investigative reporter, who won a number of prestigious awards for his investigative journalism.

    So it’s “reportedly”

    you mean this guy

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-a-conservative-columnist-helped-push-a-flawed-ukraine-narrative/2019/09/26/1654026e-dee7-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

    not as impeccable as youd like him to be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1291
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    How in the world did you get ‘they were likely going to look into it’ out of ‘Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call?’

    Here:
    apparently Ukraine reopened the Burisma probe months before the Trump-Zelensky phone call, and that the Trump administration was already aware of it

    Why did Trump ask the favour if the WH 'knew' they were planing on doing it anyway?
    Seems odd even Trump would engage in such impeachable behaviour for no reason. Keep in mind, if true, doesn't cancel out or take away from Trump's request.


Advertisement