President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 04:58PM

GOP senators know they're putting their neck on the line for trump. The latest revelation re Bolton, really leaves them hanging, they were not kept in the loop.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=19

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:02PM

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Ok, but would you agree when I say that the whole spiel about "The Democrats spend their time doing nothing but focusing on the impeachment" is a total BS, proved by the pile of bills waiting to go to Senate?

It would be like me not approving the reports people send me and then telling everyone that people who work for me doing absolutely nothing, while I am the one holding their reports back. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:05PM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

GOP senators know they're putting their neck on the line for trump. The latest revelation re Bolton, really leaves them hanging, they were not kept in the loop.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=19

'Per sources' Never any names to go with the sensational headlines by the mealy mouthed weasels at the NYT. Without names I guess it gives the NYT cover when they once again are proved wrong.

Gwen Cooper · 27-01-2020 05:09PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

As a woman who had her life threatened, and as a friend of two women who survived a violent attack by their partner by pure chance, I have no other response to this than a confused stare that is asking you if you're serious.

How the hell is stopping people with history of abuse from buying a gun even debatable? Is this the real world? It's exactly like you said, gun control is more important to them than women. As long as people can buy their guns with minimum effort and as long as money keeps coming from NRA and similar organisations, nobody will give a damn about women.

woohoo!!! · 27-01-2020 05:11PM

notobtuse wrote: »

'Per sources' Never any names to go with the sensational headlines by the mealy mouthed weasels at the NYT. Without names I guess it gives the NYT cover when they once again are proved wrong.

The point is, they're under pressure. If Bolton testifies in accordance with the reports, that's a huge problem. So, Bolton as a villain theme is already doing the rounds.

Bolton and Rudy are the two we need to hear from.

Boggles · 27-01-2020 05:12PM

manual_man wrote: »

Obstruction of Congress is a bogus charge invented out of thin air. Democrats declined to issue a subpoena

Again back in reality, they issued several subpoenas, which were ignored.

No president in the history of the country has ever blanket refused to cooperate with an Impeachment inquiry.

Not even Nixon.

manual_man · 27-01-2020 05:13PM

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:13PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I laugh when you see the claim 'bi-partisan bills.' 4 or 5 votes out of some 200 is not really bi-partisan.

So you refuse to call it undemocratic?

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:14PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Not doing things that are effective is the same as doing nothing in my eyes.

Take The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example. If Democrats would have left it as it was it would have flown through the Senate. But they just had to stick in their sacred cow of gun control into the act. I guess gun control is more important to them than women.

Did this even go to a vote?

Dytalus · 27-01-2020 05:15PM

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

Merrick Garland.

And others.

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:15PM

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

Are you serious????:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You either have a short memory or playing ignorant, does the name Merrick Garland mean anything to you

Boggles · 27-01-2020 05:16PM

manual_man wrote: »

Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties

If you listen carefully I think you can hear Merrick Garland gut laughing!!!

:rolleyes:

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:21PM

manual_man wrote: »

There's an important factor that people choose to ignore - or perhaps are unaware of - in regards to Senate business: and that is judicial nominations. Traditionally these nominations have been approached in good faith by both parties and the nominations go through smoothly, except maybe in the case of what might seen to be an extremely controversial nomination. Since Trump has been in power, however, Senate Democrats have taken the unprecedented step of slow-walking almost all of Trump's nominations. This has not only taken up an inordinate amount of the Senate's time, but it has also (understandably) angered Senate Republicans. Democrats can shout and scream all they want, but their obstructive approach to judicial nominations all but ensured partisan hostility in the Senate.

This is the logic most normal people have to put with and try and argue with. Its laughable

Boggles · 27-01-2020 05:23PM

Collins says Bolton's book strengthens the case for witnesses.

manual_man · 27-01-2020 05:24PM

Boggles wrote: »

Again back in reality, they issued several subpoenas, which were ignored.

No president in the history of the country has ever blanket refused to cooperate with an Impeachment inquiry.

Not even Nixon.

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:24PM

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

As a woman who had her life threatened, and as a friend of two women who survived a violent attack by their partner by pure chance, I have no other response to this than a confused stare that is asking you if you're serious.

How the hell is stopping people with history of abuse from buying a gun even debatable? Is this the real world? It's exactly like you said, gun control is more important to them than women. As long as people can buy their guns with minimum effort and as long as money keeps coming from NRA and similar organisations, nobody will give a damn about women.

I know women who have been victims of abuse… my wife for one with her ex husband. I also know men who have had the lives upturned by vindictive women… me for one. Bottom line… ‘Federal law already bars convicted abusive spouses from purchasing guns, the new bill would take away Second Amendment rights for things that aren’t felonies and aren’t considered domestic violence.’ The new part of the bill dealing with protection orders would allow judges to effectively strip people’s rights away without proper due process. And I think most people know that some accusers lie and seldom are called to account for it or pay a price for it.

ohnonotgmail · 27-01-2020 05:30PM

notobtuse wrote: »

I know women who have been victims of abuse… my wife for one with her ex husband. I also know men who have had the lives upturned by vindictive women… me for one. Bottom line… ‘Federal law already bars convicted abusive spouses from purchasing guns, the new bill would take away Second Amendment rights for things that aren’t felonies and aren’t considered domestic violence.’ The new part of the bill dealing with protection orders would allow judges to effectively strip people’s rights away without proper due process. And I think most people know that some accusers lie and seldom are called to account for it or pay a price for it.

Explain to me how a judge can do anything without due process? they are due process.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:32PM

kilns wrote: »

Are you serious????:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

You either have a short memory or playing ignorant, does the name Merrick Garland mean anything to you

Big mistake on the part of the GOP, I admit. What goes around comes around. I’m sure the Democrats will be arguing a president who is impeached shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS judge, or if the impeachment trial goes on for awhile and the acquittal happens somewhat close to the election that trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate someone for retiring RBG this year so close to an election. Of course Midnight Mitch will ignore those calls, as it's just politics.

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:33PM

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

As of Nov 15 over 400 bills had been passed, how many subpeonas have been issued. if you going to state something dont lie

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:34PM

notobtuse wrote: »

Big mistake on the part of the GOP, I admit. What goes around comes around. I’m sure the Democrats will be arguing a president who is impeached shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS judge, or if the impeachment trial goes on for awhile and the acquittal happens somewhat close to the election that trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate someone for retiring RBG this year so close to an election. Of course Midnight Mitch will ignore those calls, as it's just politics.

It was a big mistake and it was a power play to stack the supreme court with opinions that do not represent the majority of Americans. Its as undemocratic as you can get

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:35PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain to me how a judge can do anything without due process? they are due process.

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

ohnonotgmail · 27-01-2020 05:36PM

notobtuse wrote: »

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

yeah that is exactly how it happens. as simple as that. :rolleyes:

DrumSteve · 27-01-2020 05:37PM

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

There are certain words or phrases that automatically make me completely disregard someones opinion.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah that is exactly how it happens. as simple as that. :rolleyes:

It would with what the Democrats stuck into the act.

Gwen Cooper · 27-01-2020 05:40PM

notobtuse wrote: »

A woman goes to court to get a restraining order by a liberal judge from an ex boyfriend just because she claims that she feels threatened. The judge issues the order merely on the word of the woman and a police officer goes to the man's house to take away any guns he might have, who knows nothing of what has transpired.

Have you ever heard of any of the many women who went to ask the authorities for help, saying that they are feeling threatened by their partner/ex-partner, were told that there's nothing that can be done until the partner actually does something, and within a few weeks these women are murdered? Because that's the stories I hear coming from the States, I don't think I've ever seen anyone getting as much as a restraining order just because they feel threatened.

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:40PM

kilns wrote: »

It was a big mistake and it was a power play to stack the supreme court with opinions that do not represent the majority of Americans. Its as undemocratic as you can get

LOL. Since the GOP had the majority they can make the rules. That is about as democratic as you can get.

Boggles · 27-01-2020 05:42PM

manual_man wrote: »

Subpoenas are subpoenas. House Democrats have issued more of them than they have passed legislation (a hilarious fact that speaks to their Trump Derangement Syndrome). What's important though is that whenever the administration has challenged them (as is their right), in almost every case the Democrats have withdrawn their subpoenas. Why, you ask? Well I think we know the answer. It's all been for show.

Sure if it's a fact, you'll have no problem backing it up.

In your own time.

manual_man · 27-01-2020 05:43PM

Republicans held a 54-46 Senate majority when Obama nominated Garland. He was never getting appointed to the Supreme Court. People can argue that McConnell shouldn't have denied the process, and that's fair enough, but either way the outcome was going to be the same. Instead both Parties were free to campaign on the upcoming election which was just 8 months away. And so that's what they did.

kilns · 27-01-2020 05:43PM

notobtuse wrote: »

LOL. Since the GOP had the majority they can make the rules. That is about as democratic as you can get.

As far as I understand a president nominates a judge for the SC, their application is then voted for by the senate. This is democratic, did it happen?

Lets not start on how democratic the actual make up of the senate is because that is a joke in itself

notobtuse · 27-01-2020 05:44PM

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Have you ever heard of any of the many women who went to ask the authorities for help, saying that they are feeling threatened by their partner/ex-partner, were told that there's nothing that can be done until the partner actually does something, and within a few weeks these women are murdered? Because that's the stories I hear coming from the States, I don't think I've ever seen anyone getting as much as a restraining order just because they feel threatened.

I've heard of both. Why not just reauthorize the bill and have protection given to women of abuse. But because Democrats feel more strongly about gun grabs then they do abused women the act will lapse.

Perhaps it is best to keep on impeachment and start another thread going forward of US Bills stuck in the Senate.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments