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…34689…173

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Whatever your feelings on Trump, this is pretty light so far.

    They maybe should have gone for censure rather than impeachment.

    This isn't going to run to next year.

    Ted Cruz, a true shi7sack of a man still had a point when he said the Democrats were reducing themselves to the anti Trump party.

    They are going out of there way now to keep their own out of the news and him in it.

    Failure to impeachment will be seen as vindication.


  • Options
    #153
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,571 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Danzy wrote: »

    Ted Cruz, a true shi7sack of a man still had a point when he said the Democrats were reducing themselves to the anti Trump party.

    "Lying" Ted Cruz whose wife Trump absolutely and disgustingly ridiculed?

    The GOP is now the Trump party and that spineless fúcktard is one of the reasons.


  • Options
    #154
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Boggles wrote: »
    "Lying" Ted Cruz whose wife Trump absolutely and disgustingly ridiculed?

    The GOP is now the Trump party and that spineless fúcktard is one of the reasons.

    Don't disagree with that but he is correct in that the Dems are making their entire party about Trump and opposing him.

    Trumps re-election depends on the Dems as much as his own side, he'll be happy with both so far.


  • Options
    #155
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Boggles wrote: »
    You do know Schiff would be privy to a lot more information than you or your 12 toed twitter sources?
    Overheal wrote: »
    Again, no more egregious than lawmakers pretending theres No There There, or that the Mueller Report proved there was no evidence of obstruction of justice. I can't hold Schiff to a standard that doesn't exist for Republicans.

    Keep it up folks, loving all these posts from users bending over backwards trying to justify and excuse lies being told about a politician just because you don't like their political views.



    https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1177261315670384649


  • Options
    #156
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    Whatever your feelings on Trump, this is pretty light so far.

    They maybe should have gone for censure rather than impeachment.

    This isn't going to run to next year.

    Ted Cruz, a true shi7sack of a man still had a point when he said the Democrats were reducing themselves to the anti Trump party.

    They are going out of there way now to keep their own out of the news and him in it.

    Failure to impeachment will be seen as vindication.

    Saying that either party spends a great deal of its time opposing the other doesn't really say anything of meaningful value.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Overheal wrote: »
    Saying that either party spends a great deal of its time opposing the other doesn't really say anything of meaningful value.

    It is becoming their sole defining feature.

    Do they not feel any of their own policies stand on merit.


  • Options
    #158
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,571 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Keep it up folks, loving all these posts from users bending over backwards trying to justify and excuse lies being told about someone just because you don't like their political views.

    I couldn't give a bollix about their political views, I asked you a pretty simple question, care to give it an answer?

    Also if you could do it without dumping something from one of those cousins on Twitter I'd appreciate it.


  • Options
    #159
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Off the rail

    https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trump-attacks-scum-reporters-at-private-event-suggests-whistleblower-is-a-spy-and-should-be-punished-for-treason/

    Blatant witness tampering too. These are not the remarks of an innocent man.


  • Options
    #160
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,571 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    White House officials told me that they were "directed" by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

    Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

    Oh Oh.

    Plot thickens.


  • Options
    #161
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    This will blow up in the Democrat's faces. Nowhere near enough to impeach. The whistleblower is relying on what colleagues have told him. It's not even direct evidence. More anonymous sources. The Democrats really are a joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    Boggles wrote: »
    Oh Oh.

    Plot thickens.


    The only thing that thickens is MSNBC and CNN's advertising revenue as people like yourself tune in for the next year hoping for a "gotcha" moment. Meanwhile, the show goes on.


  • Options
    #163
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    This will blow up in the Democrat's faces. Nowhere near enough to impeach. The whistleblower is relying on what colleagues have told him. It's not even direct evidence. More anonymous sources. The Democrats really are a joke.

    It's light alright.

    Pelosi was never for impeachment but she had no choice but to go along with the troops.


  • Options
    #164
    keano_afc
    Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Open to correction here as I havent fully looked into this, but is it fair to say that the Democrats think Trump asking Ukraine to look into Biden using federal money to bribe them into bailing out his son, is an impeachable offence?


  • Options
    #165
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Open to correction here as I havent fully looked into this, but is it fair to say that the Democrats think Trump asking Ukraine to look into Biden using federal money to bribe them into bailing out his son, is an impeachable offence?

    I'd say blowing his nose without a tissue is an impeachable offence for them at the moment.

    If the impeachment does go ahead as you describe though, would a republican Senate convict him assuming what you wrote is true?

    I would hope so; but doubt it.


  • Options
    #166
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I'd say blowing his nose without a tissue is an impeachable offence for them at the moment.

    If the impeachment does go ahead as you describe though, would a republican Senate convict him assuming what you wrote is true?

    I would hope so; but doubt it.


    Which makes you wonder what the Democrats are at. Given the Russia collusion debacle, can they afford another failed witchhunt at this point with the primaries ramping up and the presidential election coming? I think all they might achieve here is to shine a light in places Joe Biden doesnt want it shined.


  • Options
    #167
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    It is becoming their sole defining feature.

    Do they not feel any of their own policies stand on merit.

    Not really though. Remember you’re trying to contrast them to a party that proudly made its mission undermining a president for 8 years, up to and including violating their oaths of office which stipulated they advise and consent on judicial nominees; they instead shut down the process just to spite partisan issues.


  • Options
    #168
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,571 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    The only thing that thickens is MSNBC and CNN's advertising revenue as people like yourself tune in for the next year hoping for a "gotcha" moment. Meanwhile, the show goes on.

    Remember lad, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. ;)

    Welcome to boards by the way.


  • Options
    #169
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Overheal wrote: »
    Not really though. Remember you’re trying to contrast them to a party that proudly made its mission undermining a president for 8 years, up to and including violating their oaths of office which stipulated they advise and consent on judicial nominees; they instead shut down the process just to spite partisan issues.

    No, while that was disgraceful I did not mean it.

    I was talking about the Dems and the Trump obsession.


  • Options
    #170
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,268 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Boggles wrote: »
    Remember lad, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover up. ;)

    Welcome to boards by the way.

    Unintended consequences.


  • Options
    #171
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Danzy wrote: »
    No, while that was disgraceful I did not mean it.

    I was talking about the Dems and the Trump obsession.

    Seems proportional to me. Republicans melted down over tan suits mustard and bicycle helmets.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The standard for libel shouldn't be lowered, just applied equally to everyone. The problem is the mainstream media and press won't stop their agenda driven lies and deception against Trump and republicans unless they're hit in the pocketbook, as things stand. The press knows they don't need to adhere to journalistic standards, as long as some old stupid Supreme Court ruling (that should be revisited) gives them free license to commit malice, libel and slander.

    The standard is higher for public figures and members of the press because they risk offending people all the time, that's why you must prove what they said was done with malice.

    You are advocating to remove this need to prove malice when dealing with these groups.(at least the judge you referenced was)
    This is far too slippery a slope to go down. I agree that clearly the likes of CNN MSNBC et al are doing these dirty tricks, and it obfuscating public discourse.

    But this is not the way to fix it... It will all come down to who has the biggest wallet and who can handle the most lawsuits.


  • Options
    #173
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The standard is higher for public figures and members of the press because they risk offending people all the time, that's why you must prove what they said was done with malice.

    You are advocating to remove this need to prove malice when dealing with these groups.(at least the judge you referenced was)
    This is far too slippery a slope to go down. I agree that clearly the likes of CNN MSNBC et al are doing these dirty tricks, and it obfuscating public discourse.

    But this is not the way to fix it... It will all come down to who has the biggest wallet and who can handle the most lawsuits.
    Can you see any other way of getting the media to report honestly and fairly? If not then drastic measures need to be taken to correct injustices.

    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
    #174
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can you see any other way of getting the media to report honestly and fairly? If not then drastic measures need to be taken to correct injustices.

    Do it without impinging 1A though.


  • Options
    #175
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,118 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    That American chap on newstalk predicted this about the whistleblower (mole) in the Whitehouse and said Trump would probably let out a story to expose them.
    If it was my Whitehouse I'd probably do the same. It would be niave to think Trump doesn't know who it is.


  • Options
    #176
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    That American chap on newstalk predicted this about the whistleblower (mole) in the Whitehouse and said Trump would probably let out a story to expose them.
    If it was my Whitehouse I'd probably do the same. It would be niave to think Trump doesn't know who it is.

    Welllllll that’s when you begin to run afoul of laws against witness tampering.


  • Options
    #177
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can you see any other way of getting the media to report honestly and fairly? If not then drastic measures need to be taken to correct injustices.

    The only way forward is for us as a species getting accustomed to digesting information without it being forced upon us. It will take time, as we are currently stuck with Vladimir Sukov's legacy, for the time being, until we start to wake up.
    The internet age has largely contributed to this.
    Changing our(your) laws regarding freedom of speech is not the way forward. The US is lucky to have the best rights to freedom of expression.
    In contemporary Russia, unlike the old USSR or present-day North Korea, the stage is constantly changing: the country is a dictatorship in the morning, a democracy at lunch, an oligarchy by suppertime, while, backstage, oil companies are expropriated, journalists killed, billions siphoned away. Surkov is at the centre of the show, sponsoring nationalist skinheads one moment, backing human rights groups the next. It's a strategy of power based on keeping any opposition there may be constantly confused, a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable because it's indefinable.

    — Peter Pomerantsev, in "Putin's Rasputin"


  • Options
    #178
    ebbsy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    This is exactly what Trump wants.

    Is anybody talking about the Democrat contest ?

    Nope.


  • Options
    #179
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,677 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ebbsy wrote: »
    This is exactly what Trump wants.

    Is anybody talking about the Democrat contest ?

    Nope.

    Primaries are months away, the election is over a year away - seems utterly ridiculous to suggest this is all some ploy to detract from the election.


  • Options
    #180
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    That American chap on newstalk predicted this about the whistleblower (mole) in the Whitehouse and said Trump would probably let out a story to expose them.
    If it was my Whitehouse I'd probably do the same. It would be niave to think Trump doesn't know who it is.
    The whistleblower law protects whistleblowers, not leakers.

    The whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump. The complainant is essentially a gossipmonger. The anonymous person had no direct knowledge of the call and their so-called concerns come from information that was not obtained during the course of their work. Therefore this person doesn’t fit the title of a whistleblower and could be subject to jail time.

    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!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The only way forward is for us as a species getting accustomed to digesting information without it being forced upon us. It will take time, as we are currently stuck with Vladimir Sukov's legacy, for the time being, until we start to wake up.
    The internet age has largely contributed to this.
    Changing our(your) laws regarding freedom of speech is not the way forward. The US is lucky to have the best rights to freedom of expression.

    A SC ruling tightening up the matter wouldn't affect freedom of the press, just ensure they don't make up lies and claim it's news or purposely report misleading stories to advance their own agenda. It would just keep them honest. And isn't that what we want from the press?

    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!



Advertisement