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…114115117119120…173

Comments

  • Options
    #3482
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,417 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Psst - he's been Impeached.


  • Options
    #3483
    MrAbyss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭MrAbyss


    Overheal wrote: »
    Psst - he's been Impeached.




    and it means nothing and he'll win by a landslide in 2020.


  • Options
    #3484
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    There are several steps lefts
    https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-FR507_fallba_APP_20191213113107.jpg


  • Options
    #3485
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    The interesting thing is all Republicans backed Trump (except ex-party member Amash),
    but not all Democrats backed the impeachment (Drew and Peterson).
    Drew is even leaving the party over this whole mess.

    Tulsi Gabbard didn't choose a side, wisely.


  • Options
    #3486
    Dick_Swiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 83 ✭✭Dick_Swiveller


    Is this the longest sore losers' whinge in history? The democrats will stop at nothing to have Trump removed from office - all because they lost the last election.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3487
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,288 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Dick_Swiveller wrote: »
    Is this the longest sore losers' whinge in history? The democrats will stop at nothing to have Trump removed from office - all because they lost the last election.

    You truly think that's the sole motivation behind the impeachment?


  • Options
    #3488
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    biko wrote: »
    Tulsi Gabbard didn't choose a side, wisely.

    How was it wise?


  • Options
    #3489
    mattser
    Registered Users Posts: 2,222 ✭✭✭mattser


    duploelabs wrote: »
    You truly think that's the sole motivation behind the impeachment?

    May not be the sole one, but definitely the main one.


  • Options
    #3490
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Dick_Swiveller wrote: »
    Is this the longest sore losers' whinge in history? The democrats will stop at nothing to have Trump removed from office - all because they lost the last election.

    Which is why they let a bunch of previous Trump impeachable actions slide. Sounds legit. 🙄


  • Options
    #3491
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Dick_Swiveller wrote: »
    Is this the longest sore losers' whinge in history? The democrats will stop at nothing to have Trump removed from office - all because they lost the last election.

    And to help them in the upcoming election as well.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3492
    MrAbyss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭MrAbyss


    He will be president until 2024.


  • Options
    #3493
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    JRant wrote: »
    And to help them in the upcoming election as well.

    It won't. At best it will be a neutral act but it has the very real possibility of hurting the Democrats.

    The Senate will not find Donald guilty, numbers aren't there and the poll numbers are not shifting.

    They will find him not guilty, Trump gets to bleat he was completely exonerated from a witch hunt for the next 10 months or so as he does.

    It's the reason the top brass in the Democratic party were so against impeachment.

    In reality they had no choice, Trump impeached himself.

    There is no more facts in American politics though, just alternative ones.

    It's clusterfúcked.


  • Options
    #3494
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,308 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    MrAbyss wrote: »
    He will be president until 2024.

    Maybe he can go longer? Change the law and give himself an indefinite term? How about he is crowned like the King he is? His gold apartment in Manhattan is certainly befitting of one.


  • Options
    #3495
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Boggles wrote: »
    It won't. At best it will be a neutral act but it has the very real possibility of hurting the Democrats.

    The Senate will not find Donald guilty, numbers aren't there and the poll numbers are not shifting.

    They will find him not guilty, Trump gets to bleat he was completely exonerated from a witch hunt for the next 10 months or so as he does.

    It's the reason the top brass in the Democratic party were so against impeachment.

    In reality they had no choice, Trump impeached himself.

    There is no more facts in American politics though, just alternative ones.

    It's clusterfúcked.

    It really is SNAFU'd unfortunately.

    The Dems ran the show in the House. Now it's the GOP dog and pony show. All the while the American people are the real losers here.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #3496
    MrAbyss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 426 ✭✭MrAbyss


    JRant wrote: »
    All the while the American people are the real losers here.


    Take it from me, the absolutely adore him. Especially the working class.


  • Options
    #3497
    Winning_Stroke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 224 ✭✭Winning_Stroke


    So given that this was a big nothing, and we all knew it would be, what was the point? To make the Dems feel better?


  • Options
    #3498
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,636 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Winning_Stroke wrote: »
    So given that this was a big nothing, and we all knew it would be, what was the point? To make the Dems feel better?

    The point was to impeach Trump for an unimpeachable offence. The fact the Senate isnt going to do their job doesn't change that.


  • Options
    #3499
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The point was to impeach Trump for an unimpeachable offence. The fact the Senate isnt going to do their job doesn't change that.

    Not sure I follow?
    The Dems are refusing to pass the articles over to the Senate. Not much they can do with the Dems trying to obstruct them.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #3500
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    JRant wrote: »
    Not sure I follow?
    The Dems are refusing to pass the articles over to the Senate. Not much they can do with the Dems trying to obstruct them.

    Because at least two of the to-be-jurors have openly admitted that they refuse to be impartial about it. McConnell and Graham. And McConnell will be in charge of the whole thing as majority leader.

    If this were any other kind of trial, that admission would have serious repercussions. But not here, they can blatantly admit to not doing their jobs and nobody can do anything about it. Why should the Democrats send on the articles to a rigged trial?


  • Options
    #3501
    Winning_Stroke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 224 ✭✭Winning_Stroke


    They knew that it would pass easy to start with, I mean they've been looking at impeaching him since day one of the presidency, they knew the Reps in the Senate would block it... so what was the point? It make the Dems look weak, Trump's base don't care, it looks highly partisan... so yeah the only thing that comes from it is to make the Dems feel better about themselves


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3502
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Because at least two of the to-be-jurors have openly admitted that they refuse to be impartial about it. McConnell and Graham. And McConnell will be in charge of the whole thing as majority leader.

    If this were any other kind of trial, that admission would have serious repercussions. But not here, they can blatantly admit to not doing their jobs and nobody can do anything about it. Why should the Democrats send on the articles to a rigged trial?

    But sure Schiff and Nadlier have hardly been the bastion of impartiality. Schiff has been calling on Trump's guilt since before the investigation.

    It's hilarious that Trump is such a danger to the American public that the Dems had to rush through the investigation, only to now say they are going to sit on it. Anyway, they have absolutely no authority to withhold or demand anything of the Senate. This is looking terrible for them already.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #3503
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,288 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    JRant wrote: »
    But sure Schiff and Nadlier have hardly been the bastion of impartiality. Schiff has been calling on Trump's guilt since before the investigation.

    It's hilarious that Trump is such a danger to the American public that the Dems had to rush through the investigation, only to now say they are going to sit on it. Anyway, they have absolutely no authority to withhold or demand anything of the Senate. This is looking terrible for them already.

    That's complete and utter horsesh!t, they have absolute authority to hold on to the articles of impeachment until the rules of the senate trial are agreed. These are the procedures established by the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, so please save us the hand wringing


  • Options
    #3504
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    duploelabs wrote: »
    That's complete and utter horsesh!t, they have absolute authority to hold on to the articles of impeachment until the rules of the senate trial are agreed. These are the procedures established by the Republicans during the Clinton impeachment, so please save us the hand wringing

    No, try again. The Senate are completely separate and get to set their own rules.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #3505
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    JRant wrote: »
    No, try again. The Senate are completely separate and get to set their own rules.

    They don't get to set any rules if it's not handed over.

    Now I think Pelosi has boxed herself into a corner here, she said she will hand them over when she feels the trial will be fair, so if she does hand them over does that mean she thinks it will be fair? Or do they never get handed over?

    Anyway she is right in a way, not allowing key witnesses is laughable and obviously Trump and the party of law and order are shíttíng themselves at the prospect.


  • Options
    #3506
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,288 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    JRant wrote: »
    No, try again. The Senate are completely separate and get to set their own rules.

    In a bipartisan manner, as was established in the clinton trial. Like I said, the house have the discretion retain those articles until those agreements are made


  • Options
    #3507
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,608 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    This point was always coming - the point when he was impeached by Congress and the process was due to progress to the Senate. I wonder what the Democrat plan is from this point forward. I've never been able to guess what they actually want now.

    Do they want a trial in the Senate? I don't see a Senate trial ever forcing Trump out of office, because, lets not kids ourselves, there won't be any impartial jurors, even if they aren't as open about it as McConnell has been. So I don't see how the Democrats can 'win' that.

    Do they simply not progress further? What are the implications of that? The Republicans will be rightly criticising them for only doing the easy half of the job.

    Do they use the disagreement over trial regulations as a way to delay, and wait until closer to elections and mire Trump down in that?


  • Options
    #3508
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    There is no point proceeding to trial if there is no witnesses.

    It goes up a notch or 12 if they get the likes of Mulvaney and Bolton in though.

    If the democrats do have a strategy I imagine it's more chess than checkers.


  • Options
    #3509
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    osarusan wrote: »
    This point was always coming - the point when he was impeached by Congress and the process was due to progress to the Senate. I wonder what the Democrat plan is from this point forward. I've never been able to guess what they actually want now.

    Do they want a trial in the Senate? I don't see a Senate trial ever forcing Trump out of office, because, lets not kids ourselves, there won't be any impartial jurors, even if they aren't as open about it as McConnell has been. So I don't see how the Democrats can 'win' that.

    Do they simply not progress further? What are the implications of that? The Republicans will be rightly criticising them for only doing the easy half of the job.

    Do they use the disagreement over trial regulations as a way to delay, and wait until closer to elections and mire Trump down in that?

    Great question and it seems that technically Trump isn't legally impeached until the articles are actually sent to the Senate, see
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

    The ball is very much in the Dems court here. Hold on to the articles and Trump can claim he was never impeached. Send them across and the GOP in the Senate will quickly vote it down.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #3510
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Boggles wrote: »
    There is no point proceeding to trial if there is no witnesses.

    It goes up a notch or 12 if they get the likes of Mulvaney and Bolton in though.

    If the democrats do have a strategy I imagine it's more chess than checkers.

    They do have witnesses, they just want to call additional witnesses which the GOP are under no obligation to do. I mean, if it's the slam dunk the Pelosi is claiming then why the need for more witnesses etc?

    To me it seems they have painted themselves into a corner rather than having a grand strategy.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3511
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    JRant wrote: »
    They do have witnesses, they just want to call additional witnesses which the GOP are under no obligation to do. I mean, if it's the slam dunk the Pelosi is claiming then why the need for more witnesses etc?

    To me it seems they have painted themselves into a corner rather than having a grand strategy.

    4 key witnesses who have refused to testify.

    I don't think Pelosi has ever called getting a conviction in the Senate a slam dunk.

    But either way, if the GOP are so confident Trump did nothing wrong, why not let them have their witnesses?


Advertisement