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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Options
1…107108110112113…173

Comments

  • Options
    #3272
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    I wouldn't hang my case on that soundbyte. Remember, all of these fact witnesses can re-appear before the judiciary committee and the impeachment trial

    It's important testimony, Overheal. Dismissing it as a soundbyte won't make it any less so.

    Multiple times now he has said that Trump never directly told him there were conditions with regards to aid and also that he wanted no QPQs.

    You're fooling yourself if you think those comments are not crucial.


  • Options
    #3273
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    It's important testimony, Overheal. Dismissing it as a soundbyte won't make it any less so.

    Multiple times now he has said that Trump never directly told him there were conditions with regards to aid and also that he wanted no QPQs.

    You're fooling yourself if you think those comments are not crucial.

    No doubt, but also relevant is what there was some earlier consensus on: that Sondland is a witness of doubtful reliability.


  • Options
    #3274
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Exactly :P

    But he's the democrats best shot, given they don't have testimony from anyone else that had one one ones with Trump, such as Bolton, Mulveney, Pence or Pompeo.


  • Options
    #3275
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    Sondland is not a usual ambassador, he's an outside appointee and his priority is saving his ass, not anyone else or serve the country stuff


  • Options
    #3276
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    He has no self awareness. I 100% believe Bolton walked out of that meeting because of him.

    Fiona Hill had no time for him either, so be interesting to what she has to say.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3277
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ken Starr’s hot take today is that this is very bad for Trump and that articles of impeachment are inevitable now.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ken-starr-argues-sondland-testimony-doesnt-look-good-for-trump-there-will-be-articles-of-impeachment/


  • Options
    #3278
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    He has no self awareness. I 100% believe Bolton walked out of that meeting because of him.

    Fiona Hill had no time for him either, so be interesting to what she has to say.

    So this swamp then. Turns out it contains lots of competent civil servants, and that the outsiders are the flaky ones.

    Except Trump himself, I suppose?


  • Options
    #3279
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    Latest live
    https://twitter.com/BeautyBind/status/1197194146869579776?s=19


  • Options
    #3280
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    EJ1Prl1WoAMPW9f?format=png&name=small


  • Options
    #3281
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    Ken Starr’s hot take today is that this is very bad for Trump and that articles of impeachment are inevitable now.

    Ah come on, we didn't need Ken to tell us there would be articles of impeachment, sure Pelosi was even saying recently there very likely could be articles of impeachment related to the Mueller report.
    "What we're talking about now is taking us into a whole other class of objection to what the president has done. And there may be other — there were 11 obstruction of justice provisions in the Mueller report. Perhaps some of them will be part of this"

    They're going try anything given their goal is just to use the impeachment process as a way of dirting up a political opponent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3282
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Ah come on, we didn't need Ken to tell us there would be articles of impeachment, sure Pelosi was even saying recently there very likely could be articles of impeachment related to the Mueller report.

    This is the first, then, that Ken Starr agrees is an impeachable offense!


  • Options
    #3283
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Pompeo is in hot water, as Sondland's testimony implicates him in Obstruction: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-analysts-gordon-sondland-testimony-described-obstruction-of-justice-by-pompeo/?fbclid=IwAR3BcQQocZ0qLn25DZP0IAW-7sRTvtNpYp9P8R8ebnVCBUExaA1seNdBuIw

    https://twitter.com/Mimirocah1/status/1197176975179337733?s=20


  • Options
    #3284
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    Like his boss, Rudy would be well advised to stop tweeting and realise that it has long gone past the point of just keeping dirt on the president for insurance.

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1197212675853488128?s=19


  • Options
    #3285
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://twitter.com/ellievhall/status/1197195784422338561?s=21&fbclid=IwAR1spSrtADKUrN7uLYlOowQdwz4z5c7k4Ev1iRT0OgfZUfUiFQVzlxvLuOM


  • Options
    #3286
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Recall opening post of this thread

    And Now
    "Witness Intimidation Is A Crime"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6OSlR0aDM


  • Options
    #3287
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,114 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Jordan is simply playing a game for one, the POTUS.
    Sonlands recall of the 26th July is clearly wrong, if the other person at the table is correct. That seems to be a regular occurence. Sondland has proved to be weak and others have notes and recollections which are better than his.


  • Options
    #3288
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    If it were all above board Giuliani wouldn't have been involved. He was there to look after the personal business of Trump.


  • Options
    #3289
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If it were all above board Giuliani wouldn't have been involved. He was there to look after the personal business of Trump.

    Absolutely. Why was a private lawyer even involved in state business?

    Sondlands testimony will lead to impeachment, where he will most likely be pardoned by the senate but at what cost to the republican party?

    I still see trump supporters claiming he was interested in rooting out corruption in Ukraine. Sure, a man who ran a scam university gives a toss about corruption in the Ukraine... laughable.


  • Options
    #3290
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Excellent from Turner there. Sondland is just presuming.

    And he's right about Schiff, gave a presser in the break and CNN's header is bullshit.


  • Options
    #3291
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If it were all above board Giuliani wouldn't have been involved. He was there to look after the personal business of Trump.
    Indeed, it's a very obvious question but what was a personal lawyer doing in the Ukraine? Only sheer arrogance can suggest that he was bragging about it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3292
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,184 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Overheal wrote: »
    EJ1Prl1WoAMPW9f?format=png&name=small
    Zellinsky lol

    Does anyone else read Pete's posts in the voice of Saddam's former information minister?


  • Options
    #3293
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Excellent from Turner there. Sondland is just presuming.

    And he's right about Schiff, gave a presser in the break and CNN's header is bullshit.

    Honestly,

    It's clear to see that trump was trying to extort personal political favours for aid. It's painfully obvious.

    You're being willfully blind here.


  • Options
    #3294
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Billy Mays wrote: »
    Does anyone else read Pete's posts in the voice of Saddam's former information minister?

    If you want to talk about another user, maybe it's best to use the PM function instead.
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    It's clear to see that trump was trying to extort personal political favours for aid. It's painfully obvious.

    You're being willfully blind here.

    I'm referring to the evidence and that's what the Senate will be concerned with, not what's "painfully obvious" but yet just based on presumptions and inferences.


  • Options
    #3295
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    I'm sensing that Nunes is angling to become this generations Comical Ali.


  • Options
    #3296
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    I note there is nothing but personal attacks on the republicans from you all, I wonder why.
    Castor: Did the Presdent ever tell you personally about any pre-conditions for anything?

    Sondland: No.


  • Options
    #3297
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Some clips of testimony today (for anyone that missed it) which saw the undoing of the democrat's bribery narrative:


    https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1197208708721381376
    https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1197194302167928833
    https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1197181849484890113


  • Options
    #3298
    Bobtheman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,640 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Impeachment is political. In the end unless Republicans think Trump is a loss leader then they won't impeach him . It Was only when public opinion clearly shifted against nixon. that Republicans moved against him . That has yet to occur with Trump. Impeachment procedures are determined by the Senate. Not a normal criminal trial.


  • Options
    #3299
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    ...


    I'm referring to the evidence and that's what the Senate will be concerned with, not what's "painfully obvious" but yet just based on presumptions and inferences.

    What gangster says, "listen, I'm going to shake you down"?
    It takes some orange pile to make you feel sorry for the U.S.A.


  • Options
    #3300
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I note there is nothing but personal attacks on the republicans from you all, I wonder why.

    It's a climate created by Trump and his soulless Anti-American lackeys.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3301
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,641 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I note there is nothing but personal attacks on the republicans from you all, I wonder why.

    Oh noes the murderer didn’t exhibit his master plot like Goldfinger

    Don’t misconstrue his answer with a proof positive exoneration of the President. (Ask Rudy the same question :p) I suspect Giuliani would 5A or try to invoke executive privilege.


Advertisement