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…118119121123124…173

Comments

  • Options
    #3602
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    do you really need a cite to tell you that you cannot take the law into your own hands and retaliate against people who attack your home? Do you understand what the word retaliate means?
    notobtuse wrote: »
    In the US you can. It’s called the Castle Doctrine.

    You can Defend (the whole "Stand your ground" thing - and not in every state either) , not Retaliate.

    So , If someone breaks into your house you can potentially use lethal force to defend yourself or your property.

    You cannot however chase him down the street and shoot him as he runs away.

    Nor can you follow him home and trash his place in retaliation - That would be a crime and make you a vigilante.


  • Options
    #3603
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    After having supported every act of Middle Eastern intervention and aggression under 8 years of Obama, the mainstream left and the media is suddenly 'anti-war'.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3604
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i'm well aware of what that is. it doesnt allow you to track the invader down and kill them.
    If the attacker is in my home, then yes I can. If the attacker is no longer in my home I can retaliate with other means by using the police and the criminal justice system to arrest, try and jail the perpetrator. And if the attacker resists arrest then the police might be justified in using deadly force.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3605
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If the attacker is in my home, then yes I can. If the attacker is no longer in my home I can retaliate with other means by using the police and the criminal justice system to arrest, try and jail the perpetrator. And if the attacker resists arrest then the police might be justified in using deadly force.

    your analogy is just total nonsense. that is probably the politest way i can put it.


  • Options
    #3606
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    You can Defend (the whole "Stand your ground" thing - and not in every state either) , not Retaliate.

    So , If someone breaks into your house you can potentially use lethal force to defend yourself or your property.

    You cannot however chase him down the street and shoot him as he runs away.

    Nor can you follow him home and trash his place in retaliation - That would be a crime and make you a vigilante.
    If the person attacked you in your home and killed a family member in the process you can chase him down the street and shoot him if he refuses to surrender. It most certainly would be a messy court battle but I believe in most cases (here anyway) you would be vindicated.

    In 2017, regarding the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs TX, in which a man killed 26 people and injured at least 20 more, another man chased down the killer and shot him.

    Law enforcement considered that man a hero.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3607
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If the person attacked you in your home and killed a family member in the process you can chase him down the street and shoot him if he refuses to surrender. It most certainly would be a messy court battle but I believe in most cases (here anyway) you would be vindicated.

    In 2017, regarding the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs TX, in which a man killed 26 people and injured at least 20 more, another man chased down the killer and shot him.

    Law enforcement considered that man a hero.

    your knowledge of events is exceptional as always. Willeford did chase down Kelley but Kelley was dead before he caught up with him. Willeford killed him as he in the process of committing a crime. Willeford killed him in defence of others. he did not fire on him after he left the scene. and none of the above has anything to do with the Castle Doctrine.


  • Options
    #3608
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,560 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    The original argument was that as the embassy was US territory, Trump was bound by the constitution to act. That argument has been proven wrong.

    Everything else, and about the castle doctrine is irrelevant, and we all know it.


  • Options
    #3609
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    osarusan wrote: »
    The original argument was that as the embassy was US territory, Trump was bound by the constitution to act. That argument has been proven wrong.

    Everything else, and about the castle doctrine is irrelevant, and we all know it.

    Indeed it is but as we subsequently found out they dont even understand what the castle doctrine actually entails.


  • Options
    #3610
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,159 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    osarusan wrote: »
    The original argument was that as the embassy was US territory, Trump was bound by the constitution to act. That argument has been proven wrong.

    Everything else, and about the castle doctrine is irrelevant, and we all know it.

    Trump is bound by the constitution to follow a lot of things, he's shown to not give a monkeys about it


  • Options
    #3611
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Apparently Mitch McConnell has locked up enough votes to use the 1999 Bill Clinton impeachment Senate trial rules, which were approved unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans I believe, for the impeachment of Donald Trump and has now begun preparations to pass them quickly.

    Anyone hear if Pelosi’s head has exploded?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3612
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,159 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Apparently Mitch McConnell has locked up enough votes to use the 1999 Bill Clinton impeachment Senate trial rules, which were approved unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans I believe, for the impeachment of Donald Trump and has now begun preparations to pass them quickly.

    Anyone hear if Pelosi’s head has exploded?

    Can you provide citation for that? What votes was he looking for and who was voting?


  • Options
    #3613
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Can you provide citation for that? What votes was he looking for and who was voting?
    I believe every Republican was voting for it including Collins, Romney and Murkowski with the 1999 Clinton impeachment rules as they were developed on a bipartisan basis. All Republicans give him the majority vote, and some Democrats will probably vote in favor of it also.

    I usually don't read anything from biased CNN but you guys seem to love it...

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-latest/index.html

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3614
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1215059690540994560


  • Options
    #3615
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe every Republican was voting for it including Collins, Romney and Murkowski with the 1999 Clinton impeachment rules as they were developed on a bipartisan basis. All Republicans give him the majority vote, and some Democrats will probably vote in favor of it also.

    I usually don't read anything from biased CNN but you guys seem to love it...
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-trial-latest/index.html

    pelosi hasn't submitted anything to the senate yet so this is moot. there will be an impeachment trial when she decides it will take place.


  • Options
    #3616
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    pelosi hasn't submitted anything to the senate yet so this is moot. there will be an impeachment trial when she decides it will take place.
    I believe Pelosi is stalling on the impeachment trial because she knows Democrats messed up big time, and she doesn’t know what to do to save face. Seems a number of Democrats agree and realize it will hurt them come November’s election. What was the purpose of rushing the impeachment process through if the charges might not even be sent to the Senate? She knows she cannot dictate rules for the Senate just as the Senate couldn’t dictate rules for the House in the impeachment process. Pelosi’s responsible for the mess Democrats are currently in and the delay isn't going to save her or her party.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3617
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe Pelosi is stalling on the impeachment trial because she knows Democrats messed up big time, and she doesn’t know what to do to save face. Seems a number of Democrats agree and realize it will hurt them come November’s election. What was the purpose of rushing the impeachment process through if the charges might not even be sent to the Senate? She knows she cannot dictate rules for the Senate just as the Senate couldn’t dictate rules for the House in the impeachment process. Pelosi’s responsible for the mess Democrats are currently in and the delay isn't going to save her or her party.

    LOL. THe GOP claim that is was rushed. so pelosi holds back so they can do more investigation and possibly bring more articles of impeachment. the GOP then bellyache that she wont submit the articles of impeachment. Pelosi has control of what happens next and it is pissing the GOP and Trump so fair play to her.


  • Options
    #3618
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    LOL. THe GOP claim that is was rushed. so pelosi holds back so they can do more investigation and possibly bring more articles of impeachment. the GOP then bellyache that she wont submit the articles of impeachment. Pelosi has control of what happens next and it is pissing the GOP and Trump so fair play to her.
    No, it's pissing off the US citizens who were sold a bill of goods from Pelosi that Trump was such a dire threat to the nation that he needed to be impeached before Christmas. Holding off on submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate only plays into the hands of the GOP, and almost guarantees a win for Trump in November and a possible takeover of the House by Republicans.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3619
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,183 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, it's pissing off the US citizens who were sold a bill of goods from Pelosi that Trump was such a dire threat to the nation that he needed to be impeached before Christmas. Holding off on submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate only plays into the hands of the GOP, and almost guarantees a win for Trump in November and a possible takeover of the House by Republicans.

    I haven't seen any uproar from anybody but the GOP about her holding back the articles of impeachment. then again i don't watch fox news.


  • Options
    #3620
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, "'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.'

    Seems McConnell has had enough of Pelosi’s childish antics.

    The majority leader warned Pelosi that if she continued to stall the articles, he would reject them out of hand. McConnell has enough votes to proceed without any type of deal with Speaker Pelosi.

    Apparently McConnell has signed on to Senate Resolution 463, which would change the Senate rules regarding impeachment.
    Under the resolution, if the House of Representatives passes articles of impeachment but does not forward those articles to the Senate within 25 calendar days, "such articles shall be deemed exhibited before the Senate and it shall be in order for any Senator to offer a motion to dismiss such articles with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles."

    One caveat though... although a motion to dismiss the articles would only require a majority vote to pass, Senate Resolution 463 would change the rules of the chamber, so it requires 67 votes to pass, therefore making it a tough slog in a hyper partisan Senate.

    So McConnell has threatens to nullify Trump’s impeachment if Pelosi doesn't deliver the articles, toot sweet. Although he may not get the 67 votes for the resolution, if it fails to pass it would prove to the voters that this impeachment witch-hunt is purely a political process on the part of Democrats and not one of Constitutional crisis as they have claimed, and that Democrats lied that Trump was some kind of imminent danger.

    Check and Mate?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3621
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Except it wouldn’t nullify the impeachment, it would nullify the need for a Senate trial of that impeachment. And it’s not going to get enough votes to pass. So it looks more like empty posturing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3622
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,158 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    What’s she waiting for? Senate republicans will acquit him regardless.


  • Options
    #3623
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,646 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    MadYaker wrote: »
    What’s she waiting for? Senate republicans will acquit him regardless.

    I'm sure they will, but it will be a lot harder to explain why, if key witnesses back up the charges.


  • Options
    #3624
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1215257566353264645


  • Options
    #3625
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Nancy caved. She’ll send the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week... or so she says.

    Looks like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bennet, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar will be off the presidential campaign trail and stuck in Washington, DC. Also, Joe Biden might have to appear if he’s called as a witness. That leave Pete Buttigieg all by his lonesome to drum up votes.

    It’s gonna get interesting and we’ll see why Pelosi didn’t want to go forward with impeachment, and I foretell a terrible opening presentation by the unfortunate democrats that have to give them.

    Grab the popcorn.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3626
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users Posts: 16,168 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Has Nancy given any actual reason for the delay? And of not, what do you guys think is the reason?


  • Options
    #3627
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Has Nancy given any actual reason for the delay? And of not, what do you guys think is the reason?
    Why? I’d say desperation and bad advice, and she needed to find some last ditch effort to appease her radical left on the losing proposition. “I did everything I possibly could, guys... come on, show me the love!”

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3628
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,646 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Has Nancy given any actual reason for the delay? And of not, what do you guys think is the reason?

    Yes, she wants Mitch to call witnesses. He won't.

    He has all ready decided the outcome and is taking his direction from the White House.

    Separation of powers anyone?

    I have been saying it for years, America needs a seriously revised constitution, this absolute fúck farce just further proves it.


  • Options
    #3629
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users Posts: 16,168 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Boggles wrote: »
    Yes, she wants Mitch to call witnesses. He won't.

    He has all ready decided the outcome and is taking his direction from the White House.

    Separation of powers anyone?

    I have been saying it for years, America needs a seriously revised constitution, this absolute fúck farce just further proves it.

    Why didn't she just call the witnesses?


  • Options
    #3630
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Why didn't she just call the witnesses?
    Good question... especially Bolton. Some democrats did call witnesses of whom the White House claimed 'executive privilege.' Seems rather strange they rushed impeachment through and couldn't wait for a court ruling on the executive privilege claim.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3631
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,646 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    y0ssar1an22 wrote: »
    Why didn't she just call the witnesses?

    She wasn't involved but they did, they refused to show up. But the they have "nothing to hide" apparently.

    It would have had to go to court which could have taken a long time giving the White House are pretty expert at drawing out the legal process, see Trumps tax returns.

    For the process to have even a tiny bit of merit all key Witnesses should be called, including Trump.


Advertisement