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
12467…173

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    TRUMP 202O KEEP MURICA GREAT.

    Opening an impeachment inquiry without having all the information is irresponsible.Pelosi’s decree changes absolutely nothing. Just claiming the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry doesn’t make it so. Until the full House votes to authorize an inquiry, nobody is conducting a formal inquiry. The dems have handed it to Trump.

    We're about to begin the 2020 Election Cycle. Dems were going to try this no matter what he said to the Ukrainian President. They've been promising this to the extremists of their base since the night Trump won the election. This is the equivalent of their Hail Mary play.

    This can end up burning the Democrats more than it will Trump and the GOP.


  • Options
    #93
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Overheal wrote: »
    Which video? You do hopefully realize that a video which circulated earlier this year purporting to show Nancy Pelosi slurring her words heavily was a deep fake

    I didn't realize that, but I wasn't referring to that. Those deepfakes are going to be a real bitch in the future eh?
    The video in the first post.



  • Options
    #94
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    We're about to begin the 2020 Election Cycle. Dems were going to try this no matter what he said to the Ukrainian President. They've been promising this to the extremists of their base since the night Trump won the election. This is the equivalent of their Hail Mary play.

    This can end up burning the Democrats more than it will Trump and the GOP.
    If you read the transcript of the phone call, and the portion that has the Democrat's panties in a bind, was merely Trump asking the Ukraine president to help with the DOJ probe of 2016 election interference.

    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
    #95
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If you read the transcript of the phone call, and the portion that has the Democrat's panties in a bind, was merely Trump asking the Ukraine president to help with the DOJ probe of 2016 election interference.

    As I thought then. A desperate attempt at getting votes for next year. Even the moderate Democrats have to be fed up of the parties behavior by now.


  • Options
    #96
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    TRUMP 202O KEEP MURICA GREAT.

    Opening an impeachment inquiry without having all the information is irresponsible.Pelosi’s decree changes absolutely nothing. Just claiming the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry doesn’t make it so. Until the full House votes to authorize an inquiry, nobody is conducting a formal inquiry. The dems have handed it to Trump.

    Having all the information before opening an inquiry defeats the entire purpose of an inquiry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    As I thought then. A desperate attempt at getting votes for next year. Even the moderate Democrats have to be fed up of the parties behavior by now.

    You’re downplaying it. He asked Ukraine to do him a favor regarding a political rival directly after they mentioned purchasing Javelin missiles.


  • Options
    #98
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    As I thought then. A desperate attempt at getting votes for next year. Even the moderate Democrats have to be fed up of the parties behavior by now.
    If she was serious about impeachment she would have had a roll call vote on the matter. But she couldn’t do that because it would expose vulnerable democrats in the next election as having gone on record. It’s nothing more than a political slime show on the part of democrats.

    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
    #99
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    whatawaster wrote: »
    LOL

    Trump is a career criminal, he should be in jail, not the White House
    dont start pulling at that thread, there wont be a politician left


  • Options
    #100
    omega man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,712 ✭✭✭omega man


    Watching his UN press conference now and the man is a complete bluffer and his grasp of the English language is shockingly poor for a statesman let alone for a US president.
    Sorry I know these things have been said before but I’ve rarely actually sat and listened carefully to what he has to say.


  • Options
    #101
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,097 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

    Sounds drunk but he's a tee totaller apparently.

    Drinks Diet Coke or an iced Tea, he lost his big brother to booze doesn't touch it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If she was serious about impeachment she would have had a roll call vote on the matter. But she couldn’t do that because it would expose vulnerable democrats in the next election as having gone on record. It’s nothing more than a political slime show on the part of democrats.

    Yep. This is just pandering to the extremes of the Democrat base. Just like all the grandstanding and ranting they do in their hearings ["I'm Spartacus" anyone?] She's doing this for the "See? We tried." and hoping there will be enough who bought this 3 year circus to re-elect them.


  • Options
    #103
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Yep. This is just pandering to the extremes of the Democrat base. Just like all the grandstanding and ranting they do in their hearings ["I'm Spartacus" anyone?] She's doing this for the "See? We tried." and hoping there will be enough who bought this 3 year circus to re-elect them.
    And with how the biased media has taken to making up lies about Trump and other GOP members (in epic proportions lately) let’s hope, for the good of the US and justice, that lawsuits commence and reach the Supreme Count so they can take another look over the matter and the press can be held accountable for defamation, slander or libel. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently criticized a landmark press freedom case, calling for a new look at the rule that public figures cannot successfully sue for libel unless they can demonstrate that a statement was made with actual malice. How’s notorious RBG’s health been lately?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-criticizes-supreme-court-landmark-press-freedom-ruling-n973176

    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
    #104
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Drinks Diet Coke or an iced Tea, he lost his big brother to booze doesn't touch it.

    Well the man has told over 12,000 lies since taking office so......


  • Options
    #105
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And with how the biased media has taken to making up lies about Trump and other GOP members (in epic proportions lately) let’s hope, for the good of the US and justice, that lawsuits commence and reach the Supreme Count so they can take another look over the matter and the press can be held accountable for defamation, slander or libel. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently criticized a landmark press freedom case, calling for a new look at the rule that public figures cannot successfully sue for libel unless they can demonstrate that a statement was made with actual malice. How’s notorious RBG’s health been lately?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-criticizes-supreme-court-landmark-press-freedom-ruling-n973176

    Would love to see the media organizations taken to task for their nonsense.


  • Options
    #106
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And with how the biased media has taken to making up lies about Trump and other GOP members (in epic proportions lately) let’s hope, for the good of the US and justice, that lawsuits commence and reach the Supreme Count so they can take another look over the matter and the press can be held accountable for defamation, slander or libel. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recently criticized a landmark press freedom case, calling for a new look at the rule that public figures cannot successfully sue for libel unless they can demonstrate that a statement was made with actual malice. How’s notorious RBG’s health been lately?

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-clarence-thomas-criticizes-supreme-court-landmark-press-freedom-ruling-n973176

    Thankfully as NBC news pointed out at the end 'No other justice joined his opinion."

    It's a ridiculous proposal to lower the standard of libel against public figures. They are the ones that should be most open to criticism.

    At present public figures can sue if they can demonstrate the false statement was made with actual malice. Why do we need to expand these laws?
    Imagine AOC got into power, and she sued you for trying to criticize her?:confused:


  • Options
    #107
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I didn't realize that, but I wasn't referring to that. Those deepfakes are going to be a real bitch in the future eh?
    The video in the first post.


    got a few seconds in I see what you mean and actually like Trump it sounds like a denture malfunction not a sobriety/fit-for-office matter.

    edit: yeah at 6:00 when shes closing up you can see here vigorously playing with her dentures using her lips. Unfortunate and distracting from an otherwise serious moment in govt.

    People get old and we all hate brushing and flossing; I can't blame either of them for that, George Washington allegedly had those wooden dentures dont ya know.

    edit2: though I did riff on some FB people who got super protective of Trump at the time :pac:


  • Options
    #108
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    whatawaster wrote: »
    These are facts. His claim during the campaign about being able to walk down avenue and shoot someone are absolutely true when it comes to the GOP and its supporters. They don't give a crap.

    Actually nothing has changed, you think it would be different if the parties involved were reversed?

    Clinton committed perjury on video for us all to see and the Democrats wouldn't impeach him and his supporters didn't care either.


  • Options
    #109
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »
    Damn, I wish my Dad was a dedicated political servant of the people. Their children seem to get all the best jobs. 50k per month for being on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company, among other gigs. Nice.

    Good run down of the whole thing here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49800181

    If I was trump I wouldn't be picking at that scab. The crap his own kids get up to.


  • Options
    #110
    begsbyOnaTrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 272 ✭✭begsbyOnaTrain


    Calhoun wrote: »
    If I was trump I wouldn't be picking at that scab. The crap his own kids get up to.

    Yeah but that's already been aired, and people are aware of them. Hunter getting the sweet gigs, not so much.


  • Options
    #111
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Democrats in the states are gas. The following clip about sums up the last two and half years.


    https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1176985213358002176


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Democrats in the states are gas. The following clip about sums up the last two and half years.


    https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1176985213358002176

    The memo of the transcript shows nothing, so do you think Trump will release the full and unredacted transcript?


  • Options
    #113
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,509 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Democrats in the states are gas. The following clip about sums up the last two and half years.


    https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1176985213358002176

    For people who don't spend their life on twitter believing badly spliced videos that end abruptly and sharing them as fact.

    Here is the full interview.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/msnbc/embedded-video/mmvo69892677530


  • Options
    #114
    mayordenis
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,604 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Democrats in the states are gas. The following clip about sums up the last two and half years.


    https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1176985213358002176

    You can't put up literally 2 words of someones response and try and fit it to a particular agenda and come out with any credibility.


  • Options
    #115
    AllGunsBlazing
    Registered Users Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭AllGunsBlazing


    Not a hope of him being kicked out of office over this. The only way to get rid of him is via the ballot box.

    Pelosi knows this perfectly well but also has to be seen to cause a fuss if only to keep the more extreme left wing of the party from going ballistic. She'll also hope to use this latest controversy and keep Trump off balance for as long as possible before the next election.


  • Options
    #116
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,184 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Well if the TrumpWarRoom twitter account says something then it must be true icon14.png


  • Options
    #117
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Thankfully as NBC news pointed out at the end 'No other justice joined his opinion."

    It's a ridiculous proposal to lower the standard of libel against public figures. They are the ones that should be most open to criticism.

    At present public figures can sue if they can demonstrate the false statement was made with actual malice. Why do we need to expand these laws?
    Imagine AOC got into power, and she sued you for trying to criticize her?:confused:
    She can sue me if I was making stuff up, lying, and being disingenuous which resulted in harm to her. Not so with the press if they did the same unless you can prove malice on their part... which they skirt by claiming 'oops' we'll make a correction buried somewhere on page B12 after the lies have been running on page 1 for days... hey, no malice intended (wink) (wink). The press should fall under the same laws as me.

    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
    #118
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    AllGunsBlazing wrote: »
    Not a hope of him being kicked out of office over this. The only way to get rid of him is via the ballot box.

    Pelosi knows this perfectly well but also has to be seen to cause a fuss if only to keep the more extreme left wing of the party from going ballistic. She'll also hope to use this latest controversy and keep Trump off balance for as long as possible before the next election.
    This impeachment ‘inquiry’ is merely the Democrat's double secret probation equivalent (Animal House reference). Democrats have moved forward with ‘impeachment’ on the basis of a complaint they had not seen, that described a call for which they had not read the transcript. This kind of thing won’t pass muster with the majority of the American people and the term witch-hunt seems all the more relevant. And nothing has changed because merely claiming the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry doesn’t make it so. Until the full House votes to authorize an inquiry, nobody will be conducting a formal inquiry.

    This entire sham is just another lame attempt by Democrats and their media handmaidens to take out a duly elected president on the basis of another non-issue.

    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
    #119
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,097 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Well the man has told over 12,000 lies since taking office so......

    Heard it first hand from a barman that's served him a few times. Ring doonbeg if you don't believe it. Go for a haircut in Kilrush and you'll probably find out a bit more about him.


  • Options
    #120
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,626 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    This impeachment ‘inquiry’ is merely the Democrat's double secret probation equivalent (Animal House reference). Democrats have moved forward with ‘impeachment’ on the basis of a complaint they had not seen, that described a call for which they had not read the transcript. This kind of thing won’t pass muster with the majority of the American people and the term witch-hunt seems all the more relevant. And nothing has changed because merely claiming the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry doesn’t make it so. Until the full House votes to authorize an inquiry, nobody will be conducting a formal inquiry.

    This entire sham is just another lame attempt by Democrats and their media handmaidens to take out a duly elected president on the basis of another non-issue.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,400 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Heard it first hand from a barman that's served him a few times. Ring doonbeg if you don't believe it. Go for a haircut in Kilrush and you'll probably find out a bit more about him.

    Anecdotal evidence. He could be a functioning alcoholic for all you know. Just because he doesn't drink in.public does not mean he doesn't drink at all.


Advertisement