President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Wanderer78

randomspud wrote:

That was just another one of the litany of excuses that her supporters had for her loss.

Fairly spot I think, Clinton was extremely unpopular, and the dems left the door wide open, as they shafted sanders, leaving it an easy win for rocky himself. they're making it too easy for him again, he probably has enough to get a second round at it now

wildeside

wildeside wrote: »

I don't think Trump is great. I hate the man. But I also hate the MSM.

Where's Hunter? Nothing about the millions the Ukrainians paid him. Why aren't the MSM even mentioning this? His dad is the front runner for President FFS.

Imagine if it was Donald Trump Jr...

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1182870795556667394?s=09

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where's Hunter? Nothing about the millions the Ukrainians paid him. Why aren't the MSM even mentioning this? His dad is the front runner for President FFS.

Imagine if it was Donald Trump Jr...

As has been said ad nauseaum on thread.
Should the GOP wish to launch an investigation into either of the Biden's the can, in fact it's curious that if the transgression of both were so serious that they haven't already.
Especially given the length of time they controlled both houses.

It's not a defence when accused of a criminal act or malfeasance in office, to point at someone else and say "but look over there"

Even if the criminal act was undertaken with the intent of uncovering criminal activity by someone else, it is not excusable to use one act to "Trump" the other.

The timeline of the OMB hold on the Ukrainian money and the entire nonsense of the "No QPQ" call with Sondland after the fact point to either a criminal enterprise or incompetence followed by hurried arse covering.

It really points to criminal incompetence, and that as the theatre around this unfolds and more of the actual timeline of events and actions is released, it is becoming more obvious that it is stubbornness rather than trust that is keeping some folk banging the Trump is great drum.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine if it was Donald Trump Jr...

You mean the lad that took a meeting with some fairly dodgy Russians during the election at Trump Tower.

Can you imagine if Chelsea Clinton did that?

banie01

Boggles wrote: »

You mean the lad that took a meeting with some fairly dodgy Russians during the election at Trump Tower.

Can you imagine if Chelsea Clinton did that?

I know, its mad that the rules are different for Don isn't it?

Or had her dad pimp her book out whilst he was in Office?
Or got he Mother to do it, whilst she was in office?

It's ok for Don to break the law and tweet adverts whilst in office, how does that work?
Does he have a different rulebook?

My son, @DonaldJTrumpJr is coming out with a new book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us” – available tomorrow, November 5th! A great new book that I highly recommend for ALL to read. Go order it today!

Boggles

banie01 wrote: »

I know, its mad that the rules are different for Don isn't it?

Or had her dad pimp her book out whilst he was in Office?
Or got he Mother to do it, whilst she was in office?

It's ok for Don to break the law and tweet adverts whilst in office, how does that work?
Does he have a different rulebook?

Because the GOP the Party of "Law and Order" are no longer available for comment.

banie01

Boggles wrote: »

Because the GOP the Party of "Law and Order" are no longer available for comment.

Isn't mad how the GOP tend to either lose, or to rewrite that rulebook whenever it suits them?
Very much do as I say, not as I do.

Delicious irony in the "basement hearings" given how the precedent for them was set.

Boggles

"Americas Mayor" is been firmly positioned on the sidewalk and that big bus is coming.

"When I say insurance it's a joke".

No it isn't Rudy, you are well aware where Trumps last lawyer is currently and at 75 years old you have no intention of taking the fall.

wildeside

randomspud wrote: »

I wasn't being serious.

That was just another one of the litany of excuses that her supporters had for her loss.

Apologies. Didn't see the joke. Just so many bewildered people can't seem to fathom how Trump got elected!

wildeside

duploelabs wrote: »

Because you just contradicted yourself. Previously you said Russia isn't controlling anything (my initial reply) and now you're admitting that they are

I think you'll find I didn't contradict myself at all. What are Russia 'controlling' exactly?

wildeside

seamus wrote: »

So the idea of Russia interfering in other countries' politicial processes and public discourse, is paranoia and ridiculousness.

But the USA doing the exact same thing is a matter of fact?

Convenient, that.

It's almost like it suits you to think that only the USA is capable of such a thing

You're making a lot of inferences there from what I said. What I'm saying is that the idea that Russia is in some meaningful way controlling, interfering or influencing American society is Red Scare McCarthyism for the modern age.

And of course Russia is capable of the same things the USA/CIA are capable of. I have no doubt Russia tried to influence the American elections in 2016, that's an indisputable fact. But not on a scale that anyone should be losing sleep over.

And we certainly shouldn't be losing sleep over MSM hysterical Russophobia

[Edit: And no I don't read "The Advocate" Just a good image of Madcow Maddow!]

1800_Ladladlad

^^ She reminds me of the talking head from art attack for some reason.

y0ssar1an22

so its now with the judiciary? can the republicans call any witnesses yet?

for someone that is a little clueless, whats the story? can schiff be called as a witness, the bidens?

maybe pelosi will pray

banie01

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

so its now with the judiciary? can the republicans call any witnesses yet?

for someone that is a little clueless, whats the story? can schiff be called as a witness, the bidens?

maybe pelosi will pray

What knowledge of Trump's conduct and action around the actions in question would Schiff or indeed the Biden's be able to attest to?

I'm sure that the Biden's could be called, but the simple fact is that now we are at a position where the GOP accept Trump commited impeachable acts.
There has been no rebuttals of any evidence presented at the intelligence committee, and the actions of Mines and Jordan were directed towards muddying the process of the charges laid rather than disputing the actions taken.

Calling anyone outside of those directly related to the charges laid is something that will backfire on the GOP imo.
If they cannot square Trump's actions with being allowable in law, no amount of arm waving and pointing at the other guy will change the fact that he committed impeachable offences.

If Boden did similar when he was in office, that's not a defence for Trump.
It is a separate matter for a case against Biden to be drawn up.

The best way to do this impeachment or whatever it turns out to be, is investigate and judge Trump's actions.

The actions of others that are being pointed at can be investigated in due course.
There is no chain of causation between Biden and Trump nor should anyone allow the notion of one criminal act justifying another removed by years should be allowable.

y0ssar1an22

banie01 wrote: »

What knowledge of Trump's conduct and action around the actions in question would Schiff or indeed the Biden's be able to attest to?

I'm sure that the Biden's could be called, but the simple fact is that now we are at a position where the GOP accept Trump commited impeachable acts.
There has been no rebuttals of any evidence presented at the intelligence committee, and the actions of Mines and Jordan were directed towards muddying the process of the charges laid rather than disputing the actions taken.

Calling anyone outside of those directly related to the charges laid is something that will backfire on the GOP imo.
If they cannot square Trump's actions with being allowable in law, no amount of arm waving and pointing at the other guy will change the fact that he committed impeachable offences.

If Boden did similar when he was in office, that's not a defence for Trump.
It is a separate matter for a case against Biden to be drawn up.

The best way to do this impeachment or whatever it turns out to be, is investigate and judge Trump's actions.

The actions of others that are being pointed at can be investigated in due course.
There is no chain of causation between Biden and Trump nor should anyone allow the notion of one criminal act justifying another removed by years should be allowable.

no idea. just they want to call them but are not allowed

Gbear

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

no idea. just they want to call them but are not allowed

Because it's a nonsense and has nothing to do with the inquiry.

If they have any legitimate witnesses to call they will of course be allowed to.

y0ssar1an22

Gbear wrote: »

Because it's a nonsense and has nothing to do with the inquiry.

If they have any legitimate witnesses to call they will of course be allowed to.

who decides the legitimacy of the witnesses? if that person deems a witness not legitimate, do they have the power to prevent them appearing?

Gbear

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

who decides the legitimacy of the witnesses? if that person deems a witness not legitimate, do they have the power to prevent them appearing?

The chairman of the committee. In this case, Jerry Nadler.
I don't think it's a question of preventing, so much as having the final say on who appears and when. They will give approval.

What governs their actions is politics - whether their decisions fly politically to their own caucus and electorate.

The GOP are not approaching this inquiry in good faith, because the foundations of their position are lies, conspiracy theories and bull****.

The ones called to the Intelligence committe were the likes of Hunter Biden and Alexandra Chalupa (a former DNC staffer who was one of the earlier people blowing the whistle on Russian efforts to influence the election). Calling them was purely around nonsensical, Russian-orginated propganda about Ukraine actually being behind the 2016 election interference. It was to be used to muddy the waters around Trump's crimes.

y0ssar1an22

Gbear wrote: »

The chairman of the committee. In this case, Jerry Nadler.
I don't think it's a question of preventing, so much as having the final say on who appears and when. They will give approval.

What governs their actions is politics - whether their decisions fly politically to their own caucus and electorate.

The GOP are not approaching this inquiry in good faith, because the foundations of their position are lies, conspiracy theories and bull****.

The ones called to the Intelligence committe were the likes of Hunter Biden and Alexandra Chalupa (a former DNC staffer who was one of the earlier people blowing the whistle on Russian efforts to influence the election). Calling them was purely around nonsensical, Russian-orginated propganda about Ukraine actually being behind the 2016 election interference. It was to be used to muddy the waters around Trump's crimes.

you can at least appreciate the fact that nadler may be biased in what witnesses he allows? i mean, the 'prosecution' controlling what witnesses can appear. seems ludacris to me.

i dont know a whole lot about the previous 2 impeachments, but surely both sides were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wished?

banie01

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

you can at least appreciate the fact that nadler may be biased in what witnesses he allows? i mean, the 'prosecution' controlling what witnesses can appear. seems ludacris to me.

i dont know a whole lot about the previous 2 impeachments, but surely both sides were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wished?

The witness must hold information pertinent to the act in question.
It's not about calling people solely to impugne someone not under investigation.
If any of those people have knowledge of the events around Mr Trump's efforts to delay aid to Ukraine for a political favour then call them, of course.

However, they don't. They are being used as a distraction from potential illegal acts and the Bidens in particular have SFA to do with how Trump conducts his business.

If the GOP have Witnesses how can provide credible testimony and timeline that exculpates Trump?
Why were they not subpoenad already?

Why shout, scream and distract with whataboutery?
It really doesn't matter if Hunter Biden took money and peddled influence, that is a wholly and completely separate matter from Mr Trump doing so on record in an effort to smear a political rival.

If the Bidens are suspected of any such acts, they will be investigated and found out.
Do you not think it curious however that in the 2yrs the GOP controlled both houses and the DoJ that no evidence to warrant such an investigation was found?

Regarding witnesses though, if they have no knowledge of the action Trump took?
What possible reason is there for allowing them to be called?

Gbear

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

you can at least appreciate the fact that nadler may be biased in what witnesses he allows? i mean, the 'prosecution' controlling what witnesses can appear. seems ludacris to me.

i dont know a whole lot about the previous 2 impeachments, but surely both sides were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wished?

He might be - if the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure the Republicans would be utterly taking the piss, but the Democrats haven't been so far, and the witnesses have been material to the case and relevant.

If there was no limit on who could be called it would be easy for one side to force the process to descend into farce. They could call any number of people that have nothing at all to do with the process, until it's totally undermined in the eyes of the public. They could call their grandmother. Santa Claus. Whatever.

I can't see any better way than having the chair (via his caucus, and ultimately via the democratic mandate of the people that elected a majority in the house, one way or the other), to produce a process that isn't a shambles.

Edit: Also, this is not a prosecution. This is an investigation, led by the chair of the committee. I do not know what the process is like in the Senate, but perhaps it does involve giving a free hand to either side to call on whom they will. The Senate impeachment process is the one that is more like a prosecution, because at the end the President is either convicted or not. He cannot be convicted in the House.

duploelabs

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

you can at least appreciate the fact that nadler may be biased in what witnesses he allows? i mean, the 'prosecution' controlling what witnesses can appear. seems ludacris to me.

i dont know a whole lot about the previous 2 impeachments, but surely both sides were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wished?

I think you should familiarise with the process and stop making a false equivalency with a criminal civilian trial

DeconSheridan

Pelosi: "We must impeach him before he corrupts the next election"

Says it all really....


Pelosi calls for articles of impeachment

Timberrrrrrrr

North Korea trolling Trump :pac:


"North Korea threatens to resume calling President Trump a 'dotard'" https://twitter.com/i/events/1202605521921904640

1800_Ladladlad

DeconSheridan wrote: »

Pelosi: "We must impeach him before he corrupts the next election"

Says it all really....


Pelosi calls for articles of impeachment

It's just desperate.

duploelabs

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

It's just desperate.

How?

1800_Ladladlad

The third most powerful person in the US tells a reporter not to mess with her in a threatening way. This is an abuse of power?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1202622527924842497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1202622527924842497&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsummit.news%2F2019%2F12%2F05%2Fpelosi-snaps-dont-mess-with-me%2F

Claims to be Catholic but yet pro abortion.

Timberrrrrrrr

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The third most powerful person in the US tells a reporter not to mess with her in a threatening way. This is an abuse of power?

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1202622527924842497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1202622527924842497&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsummit.news%2F2019%2F12%2F05%2Fpelosi-snaps-dont-mess-with-me%2F

Claims to be Catholic but yet pro abortion.

Hundreds of thousands of Catholics recently voted for abortion in Ireland, you don't get to decide who is/isn't catholic.

mcmoustache

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

no idea. just they want to call them but are not allowed

They wanted the likes of Page, Strzok who had nothing whatsoever to do with what was being investigated so they were denied those witnesses. On the other hand, actual witnesses that were requested such as Volker were allowed since they were actually witnesses.

Igotadose

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

The third most powerful person in the US tells a reporter not to mess with her in a threatening way. This is an abuse of power?

Claims to be Catholic but yet pro abortion.

No, it's not an abuse of power. it's a clickbait stupidity from someone looking to rile up the anti-choice types that frequent twitter. She said, "Don't use the word hate with me." And was strong in her criticism of her questioner.

If you want to look at abuses of power, I refer you to the recent impeachment document from the House intelligence committee.

And good for Pelosi for calling that reporter up short. Without being abusive, yelling, turning a deep shade of orange, none of the things seen when Trump's in front of reporters for very long.

When was the last time Trump had a presser in front of the WH press corp? Nato doesn't count, that was international and he couldn't be as abusive as he normally is. Shouting over the chopper on the lawn is silliness as well, not a formal news conference.

Last Trump presser I recall he lost it at Jim Acosta.

And, does Stephanie Grisham actually exist? There's an occasional tweet.