President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Danzy · 26-09-2019 6:33pm

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.

Boggles · 26-09-2019 6:36pm

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.

Danzy · 26-09-2019 6:41pm

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.

Outlaw Pete · 26-09-2019 6:41pm

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

Overheal · 26-09-2019 6:41pm

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.

Danzy · 26-09-2019 6:44pm

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.

Boggles · 26-09-2019 6:44pm

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.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 6:54pm

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.

Boggles · 26-09-2019 6:58pm

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.

SJW Lover · 26-09-2019 7:06pm

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.

SJW Lover · 26-09-2019 7:08pm

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.

Danzy · 26-09-2019 7:08pm

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.

keano_afc · 26-09-2019 7:13pm

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?

Veritas Libertas · 26-09-2019 7:16pm

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.

SJW Lover · 26-09-2019 7:20pm

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.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 7:21pm

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.

Boggles · 26-09-2019 7:27pm

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.

Danzy · 26-09-2019 8:08pm

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.

Danzy · 26-09-2019 8:09pm

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.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 8:15pm

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.

Veritas Libertas · 26-09-2019 8:20pm

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.

notobtuse · 26-09-2019 8:39pm

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.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 8:42pm

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.

drunkmonkey · 26-09-2019 8:43pm

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.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 8:50pm

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.

Veritas Libertas · 26-09-2019 8:57pm

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"

ebbsy · 26-09-2019 9:03pm

This is exactly what Trump wants.

Is anybody talking about the Democrat contest ?

Nope.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 9:18pm

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.

notobtuse · 26-09-2019 9:27pm

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.

notobtuse · 26-09-2019 9:30pm

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?

Veritas Libertas · 26-09-2019 9:33pm

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.

Like what Tyrion did with Marcella in GOT. He told his advisers different stories about her, whichever story leaked he knew who the mole was.

Overheal · 26-09-2019 10:11pm

notobtuse wrote: »

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.

That’s where that argument breaks apart, since the whistleblower a CIA operative who was detailed to the White House. No way in hell can you prop up an argument to say a CIA operative on station is somehow not doing his job by collecting all manner of intelligence (including evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors in the executive branch), that is sure as hell the course of their work. This is a CIA whistleblower who collected enough intel back in August to write in his whistleblower complaint a pretty dead on summary of what transpired on the President’s call to Zelensky. The whistleblower is not only credible and protected under the law but it’s literally their profession in the federal government and they are apparently an expert at it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

This is all but a slam dunk; the next few days and how the informational facts are disseminated, matter.

drunkmonkey · 27-09-2019 1:08am

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

Sworn statement of former Ukraine Prosecutor General

It's a slam dunk alright, gets Biden and the Spy.

Overheal · 27-09-2019 1:21am

Overheal wrote: »

This is the next step because the WH has for months stonewalled, with the legal argument that there is no “impeachment inquiry” to compel them to comply with congressional subpoenas (ie. They have been obstructing justice).

As for Americans I wouldn’t be surprised to find a large shift in polling data after the events of the last 48 hours, which none of the polling reported on recently, captures. Quinnipiac had 57% against impeachment last week, not out of bounds to see a flip this week on all that’s happened.

Most Americans didn’t support impeachment of Nixon either but he still pulled his cord and got put while he could still be pardoned for his crimes; once the House passes articles of impeachment it will be too late for that.

C a l l e d it.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-poll-support-for-trump-impeachment-swings-13-points-in-just-days/

1800_Ladladlad · 27-09-2019 1:28am

Overheal wrote: »

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.

The only thing I disagree with him on is the request of the whistleblower's info and that the ID of whistleblowers should be protected. They were acting off info given by the dems who are clinging to everything and anything to use as a reason to impeach. The poor fcuker of a whistleblower

Overheal · 27-09-2019 1:51am

2nd whistleblower in the Internal Revenue Service regarding the mandatory audit of the POTUS.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/looks-like-theres-a-second-whistleblower-alleging-trump-acted-improperly/

ebbsy · 27-09-2019 6:18am

It all doesn't matter because the numbers ain't there for impeachment.

AllGunsBlazing · 27-09-2019 11:15am

ebbsy wrote: »

It all doesn't matter because the numbers ain't there for impeachment.

And the more senior Democrats know this. But it might provide useful ammunition as America approaches an election year.

Privately, Nancy Pelosi has never favoured impeachment of Trump - not even over Russia. She knows it will drive both parties even further apart and that the Republicans will return the favour by making any future Democratic administration a living hell.

She wants rid of Trump - but not at any cost.

Boggles · 27-09-2019 11:31am

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

And the more senior Democrats know this. But it might provide useful ammunition as America approaches an election year.

Privately, Nancy Pelosi has never favoured impeachment of Trump - not even over Russia. She knows it will drive both parties even further apart and that the Republicans will return the favour by making any future Democratic administration a living hell.

She wants rid of Trump - but not at any cost.

Not bringing formal charges against Trump is the cost for the future.

If he is allowed go unchecked precedent is established going forward, which will logically only conclude in larger division.

It's chess not checkers.

JohnMc1 · 27-09-2019 11:40am

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

And the more senior Democrats know this. But it might provide useful ammunition as America approaches an election year.

Privately, Nancy Pelosi has never favoured impeachment of Trump - not even over Russia. She knows it will drive both parties even further apart and that the Republicans will return the favour by making any future Democratic administration a living hell.

She wants rid of Trump - but not at any cost.

They should return the favor. The Democrats behavior the last 3 years have been atrocious. Let them get a taste of their own medicine and they might come back to reality.

AllGunsBlazing · 27-09-2019 12:02pm

Boggles wrote: »

Not bringing formal charges against Trump is the cost for the future.

If he is allowed go unchecked precedent is established going forward, which will logically only conclude in larger division.

It's chess not checkers.

You're not getting an impeachment. Live with it.

Boggles · 27-09-2019 12:38pm

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

You're not getting an impeachment. Live with it.

I'm not getting anything, I'm not an American Citizen.

So your concern about division into the future was faux?

Good lad.

As you were.

Overheal · 27-09-2019 12:42pm

More disinformation from the spin couch

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/fox-friends-defends-white-house-using-special-computers-to-hide-ukraine-call-transcript/

Working hard to gloss over the fact the call was vaulted into a classified server system it had no business being in.

noel1980 · 27-09-2019 12:58pm

This whole impeachment thing is a disgrace. The democrats should be representing their constituents and addressing issues in their districts instead of wasting their time on this absolutely unjustified witch-hunt.

They're all going to get voted out in 2020 and replaced with republicans because their constituents are living in squalor.

The impeachment impeachment attempt will fail, but the demon-crats will drag it out for as long as they possibly can, so it gets as much press as possible and their media arm try to do as much damage as they can to orange cheeto man.

AllGunsBlazing · 27-09-2019 1:03pm

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not getting anything, I'm not an American Citizen.

So your concern about division into the future was faux?

Good lad.

As you were.

Fair enough.

Simply stating Pelosi's position. Maybe she prefers checkers to chess??

Anyhow, she will slowly chip away at Trump for the next year with this and avoid the 3 ring circus of an actual impeachment.

Boggles · 27-09-2019 1:06pm

noel1980 wrote: »

They're all going to get voted out in 2020 and replaced with republicans because their constituents are living in squalor.
.

Boggles · 27-09-2019 1:07pm

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Fair enough.

Simply stating Pelosi's position. Maybe she prefers checkers to chess??

Anyhow, she will slowly chip away at Trump for the next year with this and avoid the 3 ring circus of an actual impeachment.

Sure they may chose not to go ahead and file articles of impeachment.

Also if they do it may not go the full process.

Overheal · 27-09-2019 1:07pm

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Fair enough.

Simply stating Pelosi's position. Maybe she prefers checkers to chess??

Anyhow, she will slowly chip away at Trump for the next year with this and avoid the 3 ring circus of an actual impeachment.

More like the end of October/early November

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-impeachment-democrats.html

JohnMc1 · 27-09-2019 1:08pm

Boggles wrote: »

Not bringing formal charges against Trump is the cost for the future.

If he is allowed go unchecked precedent is established going forward, which will logically only conclude in larger division.

It's chess not checkers.

He has not done anything worth being impeached over. If Pelosi genuinely did she would have had the roll call instead of the horse and pony show for the cameras.

And you Lefties wonder why you're called NPCs now.

drunkmonkey · 27-09-2019 1:11pm

Overheal wrote: »

More disinformation from the spin couch

Working hard to gloss over the fact the call was vaulted into a classified server system it had no business being in.

Working hard to gloss over the fact Biden has a serious case to answer for. Why are the left oblivious to it. They really are dim, it's ok to impeach the current president but it's ok if the possible future present did a lot worse. There a compete basket case.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Comments