President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

mad muffin wrote: »

Thank you everyone for proving that the whistleblower is as useful, and as reliable as a chocolate tea pot.

Attempt to discredit the whistleblower all you want but everything they reported turned out to be true

duploelabs

SJW Lover wrote: »

Wanna put some real money on it? I bet €1,000 with anyone who wants to put it up that Trump will not be removed from office on foot of the "Ukraine impeachment". No chance. Not a hope.

I wasn't making an assertion or predicting what will happen, so I don't know why you want to make a bet

SJW Lover wrote: »

Wanna put some real money on it? I bet €1,000 with anyone who wants to put it up that Trump will not be removed from office on foot of the "Ukraine impeachment". No chance. Not a hope.

Looks like you've not been on boards a month yet? Did you have previous accounts, might put people at ease

duploelabs wrote: »

I wasn't making an assertion or predicting what will happen, so I don't know why you want to make a bet

So that's a no then, smart man

SJW Lover wrote: »

So that's a no then, smart man

Headline: random person online won’t take impeachment bet; Democrat conspiracy unravels

- The Federalist

duploelabs

SJW Lover wrote: »

So that's a no then, smart man

Where was I predicting something?

duploelabs wrote: »

Yeah the problem here is that Trump can do all those things when the Impeachment trial begins, not before whilst the evidence is being gathered. Currently he'd blocking any investigation as he's asserting innocence, which are not the actions of an innocent man

That’s not correct. The house needs to take a vote to start an official impeachment inquiry. Once a vote is taken then the house minority and the White House can issue subpoenas, and call witnesses. Right now it’s entirely partisan. That was not the way an impeachment was designed.

Overheal wrote: »

Attempt to discredit the whistleblower all you want but everything they reported turned out to be true

Everything? Also it was you guys who have discredited the whistleblower not me.

Interesting responses to being asked to put your monies where your mouths are lads. You all know this aint going anywhere :pac:

SJW Lover wrote: »

Interesting responses to being asked to put your monies where your mouths are lads. You all know this aint going anywhere :pac:

That's a yes then I'll take it :pac:

Overheal wrote: »

Headline: random person online won’t take impeachment bet; Democrat conspiracy unravels

- The Federalist

Headline: Random person says Trump made a crazy,’ ‘frightening,’ and ‘completely lacking in substance related to national security.’” Call.

CNN

duploelabs

mad muffin wrote: »

That’s not correct. The house needs to take a vote to start an official impeachment inquiry. Once a vote is taken then the house minority and the White House can issue subpoenas, and call witnesses. Right now it’s entirely partisan. That was not the way an impeachment was designed.

It's partisan because that's how the house works. The democrats have the ruling majority, so therefore have control of the committees. Remember two years ago when the republicans had control of the house before they lost it?
Remember when Donny still couldn't pass anything?
And you've got your timeline/procedure incorrect, the house committees can issue their subpoenas, gather the evidence, and then the house votes on it to bring it to the senate. There you have the trial where the evidence is presented, witness' called etc.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

That's a yes then I'll take it :pac:

No previous accounts and happy for anyone to check. Not sure backseat modding is allowed either despite your above post being thanked by a mod.

Noteworthy response to being asked to put your money where your mouth is also

SJW Lover wrote: »

No previous accounts and happy for anyone to check. Not sure backseat modding is allowed either despite your above post being thanked by a mod.

Noteworthy response to being asked to put your money where your mouth is also

Where was my mouth?

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Where was my mouth?

And here we go off topic due to no response to what is put to you

You seem to not have full conviction in what your tv is telling you to think :pac:

mad muffin wrote: »

That’s not correct. The house needs to take a vote to start an official impeachment inquiry. Once a vote is taken then the house minority and the White House can issue subpoenas, and call witnesses. Right now it’s entirely partisan. That was not the way an impeachment was designed.

Then you can show us, where in the Constitution, the House must vote to commence an inquiry? Will wait, v. Curious, not holding breath tho.

SJW Lover wrote: »

And here we go off topic due to no response to what is put to you

You seem to not have full conviction in what your tv is telling you to think :pac:

I think your putting words in my mouth, mixed me up with someone else I think. No worries my friend

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think your putting words in my mouth, mixed me up with someone else I think. No worries my friend

Sure there's no point in falling out. God speed, my brother.

notobtuse

Oh boy, is Hillary thinking of running again on the heels of Trump’s impeachment woes? Tuesday night on PBS Clinton stated that 'maybe there does need to be a rematch; I mean, obviously, I can beat him again'.

So we might have a lying delusional crook who doesn't think laws apply to her, someone who suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease, a guy whose heart can’t take the pressure, and a full-blooded 1/2024 Native American on top of the DNC ticket. What can go wrong?

At least if Hillary runs she can reboot the Clinton Foundation and rake in millions of foreign dollars in walking around money again since donations mysteriously dried up when she lost the election.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh boy, is Hillary thinking of running again on the heels of Trump’s impeachment woes? Tuesday night on PBS Clinton stated that 'maybe there does need to be a rematch; I mean, obviously, I can beat him again'.

So we might have a lying delusional crook who doesn't think laws apply to her, someone who suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease, a guy whose heart can’t take the pressure, and a full-blooded 1/2024 Native American on top of the DNC ticket. What can go wrong?

At least if Hillary runs she can reboot the Clinton Foundation and rake in millions of foreign dollars in walking around money again since donations mysteriously dried up when she lost the election.

And funnily all would be far superior than trump.

Zubeneschamali

mad muffin wrote: »

Thank you everyone for proving that the whistleblower is as useful, and as reliable as a chocolate tea pot.

It may be quite true that the whistleblower is unreliable, that does not matter. The whistleblower does not claim to have witnessed the call. The accusation does not rely on the whistleblowers testimony.

The White House themselves released an incriminating summary of the call, and we have the names of people who were working on the criminal enterprise - Giuliani, Volker, Taylor, Sondland, Pompeo, Perry.

The House doesn't even need to question the whistleblower - question the people involved.

notobtuse wrote: »

So we might have a lying delusional crook who doesn't think laws apply to her, someone who suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease, a guy whose heart can’t take the pressure, and a full-blooded 1/2024 Native American on top of the DNC ticket. What can go wrong?

I think their odds are pretty good against a lying delusional crook who doesn’t think the laws apply to him, someone who suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease, a guy whose so scared of you finding out he’s chronically unwell he wrote his own doctors letter and who routinely claims a bogus ancestry

Overheal wrote: »

Then you can show us, where in the Constitution, the House must vote to commence an inquiry? Will wait, v. Curious, not holding breath tho.

You know full well that there are no set rules. There is the spirit, and the norms, and precedent of three other impeachment guidelines.

What Pelosi and Co. are doing is a farce. An absolute farce.

Cody montana

mad muffin wrote: »

You know full well that there are no set rules. There is the spirit, and the norms, and precedent of three other impeachment guidelines.

What Pelosi and Co. are doing is a farce. An absolute farce.

How so?

mad muffin wrote: »

You know full well that there are no set rules. There is the spirit, and the norms, and precedent of three other impeachment guidelines.

What Pelosi and Co. are doing is a farce. An absolute farce.

“They’re breaking the rules!”

What rules

“You know full well that there are no set rules!”

Merrick must be getting a good chuckle about now

notobtuse

Seems James Clapper (President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence) admitted, on camera, that Obama asked the ‘Deep State’ to investigate Trump.

So, it was Obama that ordered the Code Red against Presidential Candidate/President-Elect/President Trump?

‘Uh, I don’t know … I don’t think there was any wrongdoing. We just did what our Commander in Chief told us to do.’

I guess they can wrap this whole impeachment mess up now, right? Or should Obama be arrested and keep the impeachment inquiry ongoing?

Interesting what is starting to crawl out of the woodwork now that the Barr and Durham investigations will soon be available, and some might be looking at jail time.

notobtuse wrote: »

Seems James Clapper (President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence) admitted, on camera, that Obama asked the ‘Deep State’ to investigate Trump.

So, it was Obama that ordered the Code Red against Presidential Candidate/President-Elect/President Trump?

‘Uh, I don’t know … I don’t think there was any wrongdoing. We just did what our Commander in Chief told us to do.’

I guess they can wrap this whole impeachment mess up now, right? Or should Obama be arrested and keep the impeachment inquiry ongoing?

Interesting what is starting to crawl out of the woodwork now that the Barr and Durham investigations will soon be available, and some might be looking at jail time.

I'm struggling to keep up. But why does this effect the Ukraine thing?

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'm struggling to keep up. But why does this effect the Ukraine thing?

What is the Trump impeachment inquiry about? Attempts to dig up dirt on a presidential candidate, or something, I've been told.

notobtuse wrote: »

What is the Trump impeachment inquiry about? Attempts to dig up dirt on a presidential candidate, or something, I've been told.

OK, but dumb it down for me, are you saying Obama is involved in the Ukraine thing? I don't understand the Clapper thing.

Reading comments on r/the_donald now as it's front page there, but still lost.