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…959698100101…173

Comments

  • Options
    #2912
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Randos on twitter, evidently.

    “Blue checks don’t lie”


  • Options
    #2913
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,428 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Nice deflection. I am not a Trump defender. I am a Truth defender, and as long sanctimonious liars continue to say Trump is something which the evidence is he is not, and that he has said and done things which he clearly has not, then I'll continue to point that out.

    Lots of users on Boards not from America that continually express their disdain and hatred for the man and yet I never see users like yourself confronting them, asking why they hate the orange man in the Oval so much. Odd that, that it's just those that are perceived to be his defenders you all have an issue with.



    lol. A good track record?? The New York Times have destroyed the reputation they once had, as has The Wapo. They are not impartial journalists they are activists. Sure the latter called Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar" and the former were recently caught planning their 'Trump is a racist narrative for 2020:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/new-york-times-chief-outlines-coverage-shift-from-trump-russia-to-trump-racism

    No wonder you swallowed the Russian-Trump collusion nonsense if you think they're the purveyors of truth. Only last week you were even posting one of their journalists' tweets which had a clip of Trump edited to make it appear as if he had been snubbed, but he'd been anything but. And you have the cheek to say others post tweets of questionable quality. Ha!



    Well, like CNN, they unfortunately have something of a monopoly, but he does what he can to hold the purveyors of agenda soaked lies to account and see that there are some consquences for their unprofessionalism and clear lack of integrity.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-tell-federal-agencies-to-cut-new-york-times-washington-post-subscriptions-11571937831

    Let's be honest, the tail now wags the dog at the NYT. Tail of course being the left::

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-changes-headline-on-trump-shooting-response-after-presidential-candidates-call-them-out

    Soooooo nothing to say about Trumps 12,000+ proven lies?


  • Options
    #2914
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,241 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Netstix wrote: »
    What is it about Trump people dislike so much?

    Personally I think he has good qualities and bad qualities. He can be very shrewd and good for the US economy, he has balls to say it like it is. However he can also be overly reactive and petulant which is a weakness.

    The raping.


  • Options
    #2915
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,853 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Netstix wrote:
    What is it about Trump people dislike so much?


    He's not particularly intelligent or well informed, particularly when it comes to complex issues. He's astonishingly ignorant, and shows little or no interest in trying to understand these complexities, and its disturbing to watch such as narcissistic individual be at the centre of global politics


  • Options
    #2916
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Netstix wrote: »
    he has balls to say it like it is.
    12,000+ proven lies
    NiftyMindlessGerenuk-size_restricted.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2917
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,853 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Netstix wrote:
    I think he is intelligent, I also think he has a better understanding of human nature than most. Of course there are topics where he will be lacking in knowledge, like everyone really. I sense it's in his cockiness that really bothers you.


    No, not really, he really is very unintelligent, and astonishingly ignorant, he has no real understanding of some of the fundamentals of politics and economics for that matter. He has largely no understanding of what he's at, but I will admit, he certainly understands how to manipulate people, and on a large scale, and not just in America. It's clearly obvious, he's a conman, and a damn good one. His 'cockiness' is clearly a complex disorder such as narcissistic personality disorder, you ll find, that's a bit more complex that just 'cockiness'.


  • Options
    #2918
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,853 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Netstix wrote:
    On what basis does he have no understanding of politics or economics?

    Such a leader should be trying to do many things at once, one of the main being, unity, he embodies the opposite, he's hell bent on causing division, this is causing extreme reactions and actions, he is accelerating instabilities, be prepared for the fallout which is being caused, it probably won't be good, on a global scale
    Netstix wrote:
    So what is this complex disorder he has and why is it an issue that concerns you so much?

    Be aware, I'm not a mental health professional, but he certainly shows signs of npd, the attributes of the disorder certainly doesn't bode well for such a leader, if he does have this disorder, be aware


  • Options
    #2919
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Netstix wrote: »
    On what basis does he have no understanding of politics or economics?


    One obvious one is that he thinks that countries like China pay the tariffs when the US slaps them on those countries. It was actually explained to him a few times early on but those around him have just given up on it.


    While one could be forgiven for not knowing something, a refusal to learn is not that forgivable.


  • Options
    #2920
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,160 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Netstix wrote: »
    Where are you getting this information from?

    Ultimately Trump knows that the Tariff war between the US and China harms both countries, but he knows that China has been taking advantage of the US, so the trade war is his Gambit to give the US better long term terms of trade with China .

    So killing off American farmers and manufacturers, who some have already gone out of business as a result of the tarrifs, are just collateral damage?


  • Options
    #2921
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,143 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Scaramucci calls Trump a traitor, on Reliable Sources CNN. A traitor to the American Constitution. Says what Trump has done is way worse than Nixon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2922
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Water John wrote: »
    Scaramucci calls Trump a traitor, on Reliable Sources CNN. A traitor to the American Constitution. Says what Trump has done is way worse than Nixon.


    Scaramucci's opinion depends on the way the wind blows ... That man has no integrity ... Probably the reason Trump hired him in the first place


  • Options
    #2923
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Truly amazes me how many people swallow that '12,000+ lies' bollox.
    "But, but, but ........ it was in the WaPo!"

    Oh well then, if they say so like.


  • Options
    #2924
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,853 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Truly amazes me how many people swallow that '12,000+ lies' bollox.



    Oh well then, if they say so like.

    hes full of sh1t


  • Options
    #2925
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,428 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Truly amazes me how many people swallow that '12,000+ lies' bollox.



    Oh well then, if they say so like.

    Are you claiming that this is false? How many lies has he told? 0? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?


  • Options
    #2926
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Netstix wrote: »
    Where are you getting this information from?

    Ultimately Trump knows that the Tariff war between the US and China harms both countries, but he knows that China has been taking advantage of the US, so the trade war is his Gambit to give the US better long term terms of trade with China .




    From AP, for example.

    TRUMP: “I think our tariffs are very good for us. We’re taking in tens of billions of dollars. China is paying for it.” — remarks Friday night to reporters before leaving for the Group of Seven summit in France.
    TRUMP: “It’s coming in by the billions. We never got 10 cents from China.” — remarks Sunday with the British prime minister at G-7 summit.
    TRUMP: “The tariffs have cost nothing, in my opinion. ...And we’re not paying for the tariffs; China is paying for the tariffs, for the one-hundredth time.” — remarks on Aug. 18 to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey.


    Whatever about the costs/benefits of tariffs, being that willfully ignorant isn't great.


  • Options
    #2927
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Netstix wrote: »
    Yes, it's tactical, short term pain for long term gain. He also paid them subsidies to help them.


    What long term gains exactly? If Trump is claiming long term gains, it's important to know that he doesn't even know how tariffs work.


  • Options
    #2928
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Truly amazes me how many people swallow that '12,000+ lies' bollox.



    Oh well then, if they say so like.


    Thankfully, you don't need to believe the WaPo or anyone. The lies came out of Trump's mouth in public on TV and they're preserved on the internet forever. Anyone with an internet connection can see for themselves.


  • Options
    #2929
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Netstix wrote: »
    Yes, it's tactical, short term pain for long term gain. He also paid them subsidies to help them. Trump believes the US can withstand more pain than China, so he believes they will eventually back down, then US will have better terms of trade and be better off long term.

    Trump didn't pay anyone, anything. The US Taxpayer paid. Billions of tax dollars used to subsidize farmers that didn't want them. Plus it seems that only the really big farmers got to take advantage of the bulk of this 'relief.'

    Since Trump's been in office, the US GDP has pretty much underperformed his predecessors, so his 'trade war' is having an impact beyond those immediately impacted, like farmers.

    Further, as for what's been made public about the proposed trade agreements, the real sticking issues are Chinese claims to US IP. Those remain unaddressed and are the biggest long-term impact item, not food prices or steel dumping.


  • Options
    #2930
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    who?

    These lot for a start.


  • Options
    #2931
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Thankfully, you don't need to believe the WaPo or anyone. The lies came out of Trump's mouth in public on TV and they're preserved on the internet forever. Anyone with an internet connection can see for themselves.

    A quick Google turned up this useful resource:
    https://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/

    It lists some 5200+ false statements made by Trump. Not all are necessarily lies.
    You can filter by subject. There are, for example, 250+ false statements made about Obama.

    Note that that list seems to have stopped being updated in May 2019.

    People like big round numbers so the 12000 number is appealing, but really what's important about there being thousands of false statements made is that virtually everything Trump says is untrustworthy, based on a large amount of empirical evidence.

    If you genuinely trust him to tell the truth at this point, you can only be described as deluded. Credulous doesn't even begin to cut it.

    I think more seem to reject truth impulsively, and would rather interpret a fantasy world from what they see around them than accept the truths that might damage their world view or their ego.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2932
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley: “It is not a good practice for us ever to ask a foreign country to investigate an American.” But “I don’t see it as impeachable.”

    Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.): “I believe that it is inappropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. ... I believe it was inappropriate. I don’t believe it was impeachable.”

    Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.): “What I am telling you is that, if it can be demonstrated that the president asked for and had the requisite state of mind, that the president asked for an investigation of a political rival, that’s over the line. ... But if he asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival, that’s not over the line.”

    Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.): “I think if you’re trying to get information on a political rival to use in a political campaign, it is not something a president or any official should be doing.”

    Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I thought it was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political opponent.” But “I also do not think it’s an impeachable offense.”

    Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.): “While the conversation reported in the memorandum relating to alleged Ukrainian corruption and Vice President Biden’s son was inappropriate, it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”

    Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): “By all appearances, the President’s brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.”
    Russia ambassador nominee John Sullivan: “Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent — I don’t think that would be in accord with our values.”

    European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland: “I believe I testified that it would be improper to do that.” Asked whether it would be illegal: “I’m not a lawyer, but I assume so.”

    Rep Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): “It is highly inappropriate if it was done.” (Kinzinger said this before the rough transcript of Trump’s call was released.)

    Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): Trump’s conduct with regard to Ukraine is “not OK.”

    Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.): “Hold up: Americans don’t look to Chinese commies for the truth. If the Biden kid broke laws by selling his name to Beijing, that’s a matter for American courts, not communist tyrants running torture camps.”

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine): “I thought the president made a big mistake by asking China to get involved in investigating a political opponent. It’s completely inappropriate.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/11/republicans-trump-appointees-who-have-indicated-his-ukraine-call-was-hardly-perfect/


  • Options
    #2933
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mediaite will be airing a live debate on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, moderated by ABC News Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams. This will be the first debate ever held at the renowned SiriusXM ‘Fishbowl’ event space which has hosted the biggest names in entertainment and politics from Hilary Clinton, to KISS, to Taylor Swift.

    Arguing the case for impeachment will be NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah. In addition to her work in news analysis, Rocah is also currently a distinguished fellow in criminal justice at Pace Law School.

    Before her current position, she worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 2001 to 2017.

    Arguing against impeachment will be Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel Pollak. Prior to his current role, Pollak worked as the site’s editor-in-chief and legal counsel and was recruited by founder Andrew Breitbart. Pollak also mounted a run for Congress in Illinois in 2010, winning the Republican nomination but losing in the general to Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsy.

    Pollak is also the author of several books and has a law degree from Harvard Law School.

    Rocah has laid out the following articles: Bribery, Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress.

    The debate will be a structured format with opening statements, rebuttals, Abrams questioning both attorneys on their arguments, the two guests directly questioning each other and final arguments.

    “The Great Impeachment Debate” will be live-streamed on both Mediaite and Law&Crime on Nov. 14 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. (EST) and will air live on Abrams’ radio show on SiriusXM’s P.O.T.U.S. Channel 124, which regularly airs The Dan Abrams Show.


  • Options
    #2934
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Laura Coopers newly published testimony reveals that Ukraine knew about the holdup of aid well before it was public knowledge in contradiction to WH defense. We also now know the Pentagon sought clarification for why the aid was withheld

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/11/11/bb1f0d60-0472-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html


  • Options
    #2935
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194035922066714625


  • Options
    #2936
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194035922066714625

    He hasn't even released the transcript of the July 25 call so I find his claim specious at best.

    Funny that the WH won't cooperate with the Inquiry but will continue to disclose information it thinks helps Trump. It demonstrates the WH has no inability to release these records and is further evidence of Obstruction of Justice.


  • Options
    #2937
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    Laura Coopers newly published testimony reveals that Ukraine knew about the holdup of aid well before it was public knowledge in contradiction to WH defense.

    You gotta stop relying on the parsing of the WaPo, as I'm afraid her testimony was yet more REO Speedwagon nonsense:
    image.png

    So just yet more 'Heard it from a friend who, heard it from another'.
    Overheal wrote: »
    He hasn't even released the transcript of the July 25 call so I find his claim specious at best.

    We did get the transcript of the call. The testimony of those that were on the call make that clear.


  • Options
    #2938
    relax carry on
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194035922066714625

    Just on that one point alone. How is he the most transparent president in history? What evidence has he or anyone provided that he is the most transparent president in history?


  • Options
    #2939
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You gotta stop relying on the parsing of the WaPo, as I'm afraid her testimony was yet more REO Speedwagon nonsense:


    So just yet more 'Heard it from a friend who, heard it from another'.
    Then it awaits further corroboration, which if there's truth to the statement won't be hard to acquire from questioning her associates at the Pentagon.

    We did get the transcript of the call. The testimony of those that were on the call make that clear.

    We have not gotten the transcript of the call - which has been secured as above top secret by the WH's lawyer. We got a memorandum of telephone conversation. Very decidedly not a transcript, and not verbatim as it clearly discloses to the reader.


  • Options
    #2940
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    We have not gotten the transcript of the call - which has been secured as above top secret by the WH's lawyer. We got a memorandum of telephone conversation. Very decidedly not a transcript, and not verbatim as it clearly discloses to the reader.

    As Vindman (who was on the call) said in his opening statement:

    vindman.png


    During his testimony which followed he was also asked was there anything significantly different from what was released and what he recollects (either from memory or his call notes) and the only two things he found were that once Zelensky had said 'Burisma' and not 'Company' (as is written in transcript) and also that Trump had also said "there are recordings" in reference to the Biden footage where he's 'bragging' where there are three ellipses.

    So all this talk of what we have of the transcript not actually being the transcript is simply not true. If there was something said on that call that was significant to what's being said of Trump, then you can be damn sure that Vindman (and others) would be raising holy hell over it, but they're not. On the contrary they are giving testimony that supports the White House and Trump's contention that what was said has been released.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2941
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,846 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    As Vindman (who was on the call) said in his opening statement:
    You're not that daft and you're not that obtuse - or, **** it, maybe you are, in which case here....

    EFUL2LdXkAInw4d?format=png&name=small

    Stop embarrassing yourself.
    During his testimony which followed he was also asked was there anything significantly different from what was released and what he recollects (either from memory or his call notes) and the only two things he found were that once Zelensky had said 'Burisma' and not 'Company' (as is written in transcript) and also that Trump had also said "there are recordings" in reference to the Biden footage where he's 'bragging' where there are three ellipses.

    So all this talk of what we have of the transcript not actually being the transcript is simply not true. If there was something said on that call that was significant to what's being said of Trump, then you can be damn sure that Vindman (and others) would be raising holy hell over it, but they're not. On the contrary they are giving testimony that supports the White House and Trump's contention that what was said has been released.
    Am I witnessesing doublethink?

    You say Vindman and others would be raising hell over the missing parts of the call - and, they, did. You just alluded to that fact. How are you using the fact that Vindman raised the fact that Trump mentioned Burisma and other direct Biden targeting to say that Vindman et all were not concerned by that?

    As the above notice from the document makes clear those omissions were deliberate via epillepses


Advertisement