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…116117119121122…173

Comments

  • Options
    #3542
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    wildeside wrote: »
    Trump was never going to be removed from office because the Senate are just not going to do that.

    So can someone please explain to me how this sh1tshow will not end up benefitting Trump in 2020?

    I mean seriously, you don't have to be a gifted political strategist to see how Trump is going to beat the Dems over the head with this and Russia-gate (the prequel).

    It 'king laughable. Trump will win in 2020 now and the Dems and their cheerleaders will only have themselves to blame.

    Unless Bernie/Tulsi can do a job on him, which I hope they do. But the DNC will try and destroy them because they're not bought and paid for establishment tools.

    How’s Trump going to use this exactly? The democrats in Congress own this. It’s nothing to do with Biden or the other candidates (despite trumps best efforts) and that’s who trump will be up against. I don’t think it’s hurt trumps chances much but there’s no evidence to to suggest it helped him. He’s significantly more unpopular at this point of his presidency than Obama was according to aggregate polls but I think that’s because of trump himself as opposed to the investigation.


  • Options
    #3543
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    The Nixon ruling makes for some interesting times ahead. The SC found in favour of 9-0 that the Senate has sole power to try impeachment whatever way they see fit.

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



  • Options
    #3544
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    There’s no way the senate will convict. I thought maybe the democrats would have an explosive witness but they didn’t really. The former ambassador to Ukraine gave the most damaging testimony. Would have been interesting if Bolton testified.


  • Options
    #3545
    boring accountant
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭boring accountant


    Penn wrote: »
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-can-t-be-prosecuted-ukraine-call-about-biden-rudy-ncna1058196


    ^^^crimes


    It could be argued that as long as the investigation itself was warranted that Trump was within his legal rights to demand an investigation. I highly doubt this was the first time a US president witheld aid in return for some quid pro quo.

    The question is, is this quid pro quo exclusively with candidate Trump (who wants to win an election) or President Trump (who wants to promote the interests of the US). The US has a public interest in ensuring its citizens do not engage in corruption abroad.

    If Hunter Biden was just an average citizen would it have been a crime? If not, then Trump may have a legal leg to stand on.

    As long as the act itself was a legal act I think Trump is in the clear on this one. Especially since there was no subsequent investigation.


  • Options
    #3546
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    boring accountant wrote: »
    It could be argued that as long as the investigation itself was warranted that Trump was within his legal rights to demand an investigation. I highly doubt this was the first time a US president witheld aid in return for some quid pro quo.

    The question is, is this quid pro quo exclusively with candidate Trump (who wants to win an election) or President Trump (who wants to promote the interests of the US). The US has a public interest in ensuring its citizens do not engage in corruption abroad.

    If Hunter Biden was just an average citizen would it have been a crime? If not, then Trump may have a legal leg to stand on.

    I think its settled that Trump clearly wasn't promoting the interests of the US. The only people who believe that he was are people who believe he built the wall. The Hunter Biden stuff is a red herring in all of this, as has been pointed out a million times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3547
    boring accountant
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭boring accountant


    JRant wrote: »
    Based on watching him over this past few weeks. He's seriously struggling to string a sentence together lately and is being managed very carefully by his handlers. The stress and physical exertion might be too much for him.


    If you're waiting for Trump to break down from the stress you'll be waiting a long time. The process of running for president is so grueling that anyone who makes it through is probably impervious to stress related fatigue.


  • Options
    #3548
    boring accountant
    Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭boring accountant


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I think its settled that Trump clearly wasn't promoting the interests of the US. The only people who believe that he was are people who believe he built the wall. The Hunter Biden stuff is a red herring in all of this, as has been pointed out a million times.


    How is it settled?


  • Options
    #3549
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,442 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    boring accountant wrote: »
    If you're waiting for Trump to break down from the stress you'll be waiting a long time. The process of running for president is so grueling that anyone who makes it through is probably impervious to stress related fatigue.

    I think he was talking about Biden, but Trump does struggle to speak coherently already, so it would be a terrible gauge of his state.


  • Options
    #3550
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    Such an obsession with someone and something that has sod all to do with Ireland. Amazing how one man can get your backs up without lifting an atom.

    I think he is the dogs bollox and long may he continue winding all of the hysterical sheep up.


  • Options
    #3551
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Boredstiff666 wrote: »
    Such an obsession with someone and something that has sod all to do with Ireland. Amazing how one man can get your backs up without lifting an atom.

    I think he is the dogs bollox and long may he continue winding you load of hysterical sheep up.

    BUILD THAT WALL MAGA 2020 I bet you have one of them hats (id actually like one for a laugh)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3552
    Boredstiff666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Boredstiff666


    MadYaker wrote: »
    BUILD THAT WALL MAGA 2020 I bet you have one of them hats (id actually like one for a laugh)

    How many bottles have you emptied?


  • Options
    #3553
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,180 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Canadian TV trying to get The Onion closed down :pac:


    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1210193582386229251

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #3554
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    “Any fair process would be consulting the White House, because it’s the president who’s the defendant, and due process would guarantee him fairness.” That was current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer back in 1999 regarding the Clinton impeachment Senate trial. Schumer also argued at the time that there was no need to call witnesses and the American people wanted the Senate to just move on and get back to doing their jobs.

    But that was then and this is now. Just goes to show the Trump impeachment nonsense, with no real crime unlike Clinton, is nothing more than a political game for 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
    #3555
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    “Any fair process would be consulting the White House, because it’s the president who’s the defendant, and due process would guarantee him fairness.” That was current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer back in 1999 regarding the Clinton impeachment Senate trial. Schumer also argued at the time that there was no need to call witnesses and the American people wanted the Senate to just move on and get back to doing their jobs.

    But that was then and this is now. Just goes to show the Trump impeachment nonsense, with no real crime unlike Clinton, is nothing more than a political game for Democrats.

    What crime did Clinton commit?


  • Options
    #3556
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    What crime did Clinton commit?

    Clinton was impeached for two crimes... 1) Lying under oath and 2) Obstruction of justice. At the time I didn’t think they rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and he shouldn’t have been impeached. I thought the most that should have been done to Clinton was to be censured. Although he was not found guilty in the Senate, he was disbarred.

    The two charges for Trump's impeachment are 1) Abuse of power and 2) obstruction of Congress, which aren’t even crimes.

    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
    #3557
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    notobtuse wrote: »

    The two charges for Trump's impeachment are 1) Abuse of power and 2) obstruction of Congress, which aren’t even crimes.

    Defense 4: Abuse of power is not even a crime. Response: Impeachable conduct may be criminal conduct, but need not be. A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

    Trump committed a 'crime' (or crimes in this case) against his oath of office, if that helps you understand it better


  • Options
    #3558
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    duploelabs wrote: »
    . A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

    That's all he does though isn't it, when he's not embarrassing his country on twitter or hitting the golf course on the taxpayers money.


  • Options
    #3559
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Nintendo Lite wrote: »
    The US trade deficit is at it's lowest level since 2016, this is due to Trump's trade war and initial deal with China. Expect him to use this in his arsenal for reelection.

    It isn't really helping his "base" apparently, based on the following provided in another thread.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1211693554067738626?s=19


  • Options
    #3560
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,454 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Nintendo Lite wrote: »
    The US trade deficit is at it's lowest level since 2016, this is due to Trump's trade war and initial deal with China. Expect him to use this in his arsenal for reelection.

    U.S. trade deficit in 2019 still on track to be largest in 11 years. Much ado about nothing.


  • Options
    #3561
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Defense 4: Abuse of power is not even a crime. Response: Impeachable conduct may be criminal conduct, but need not be. A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

    Trump committed a 'crime' (or crimes in this case) against his oath of office, if that helps you understand it better
    That’s merely an opinion on your part. And if that is reason for impeachment then impeachment could have been used against every past president (except for maybe William Henry Harrison) and every future president. A sad state of affairs the Democrats have put this country in because they can’t accept Trump winning the 2016 election.

    Alexander Hamilton warned us of a great danger in the impeachment process, and that was the impeachment process becoming too political, which would result in the outcome being unjust. He said not ensuring due process for a president because of strong political polarization was "the greatest danger" in the impeachment process. The Democrats are guilty of the very danger Hamilton worried about.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

    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
    #3562
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    notobtuse wrote: »
    That’s merely an opinion on your part. And if that is reason for impeachment then impeachment could have been used against every past president (except for maybe William Henry Harrison) and every future president. A sad state of affairs the Democrats have put this country in because they can’t accept Trump winning the 2016 election.

    Alexander Hamilton warned us of a great danger in the impeachment process, and that was the impeachment process becoming too political, which would result in the outcome being unjust. He said not ensuring due process for a president because of strong political polarization was "the greatest danger" in the impeachment process. The Democrats are guilty of the very danger Hamilton worried about.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

    It's not my opinion, these are the codes violated.


    18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.”

    2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,”

    18 U.S. Code § 610, “Coercion of political activity.”

    52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.”


    Amongst others


  • Options
    #3563
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    None of which have been proven though.

    Why else would the House Dems be crying about the need for further witnesses to be called in the Senate? They had an opportunity to do that it in the House committees and couldn't be bothered waiting for the courts ruling on whether some witness actually had to provide testimony. It was a matter of national importance that they couldn't wait, but are happy enough to sit on the articles now mind you.

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



  • Options
    #3564
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    JRant wrote: »
    None of which have been proven though.

    Why else would the House Dems be crying about the need for further witnesses to be called in the Senate? They had an opportunity to do that it in the House committees and couldn't be bothered waiting for the courts ruling on whether some witness actually had to provide testimony. It was a matter of national importance that they couldn't wait, but are happy enough to sit on the articles now mind you.
    It's called tactics and part of that is to point out obstruction and refusal of his henchmen to attend and give witness statements. And the next oligarch type of either party can follow the route that Trump has established. For now Trump is left stewing and it's driving the poor snow flake bonkers.


  • Options
    #3565
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    JRant wrote: »
    None of which have been proven though.

    Why else would the House Dems be crying about the need for further witnesses to be called in the Senate? They had an opportunity to do that it in the House committees and couldn't be bothered waiting for the courts ruling on whether some witness actually had to provide testimony. It was a matter of national importance that they couldn't wait, but are happy enough to sit on the articles now mind you.

    It has been proven, that's what the house vote was about


  • Options
    #3566
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    woohoo!!! wrote: »
    It's called tactics and part of that is to point out obstruction and refusal of his henchmen to attend and give witness statements. And the next oligarch type of either party can follow the route that Trump has established. For now Trump is left stewing and it's driving the poor snow flake bonkers.

    It's called separation of powers. The legislature branch disagrees with the executive so it's then in the hands of the judicial branch.

    Hencemen is hardly any appropriate term to be using either.

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



  • Options
    #3567
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    duploelabs wrote: »
    It has been proven, that's what the house vote was about

    It most certainly has not been proven. The Senate are the sole arbitrary body responsible for decide what's proven or not.

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



  • Options
    #3568
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    JRant wrote: »
    The Senate are the sole arbitrary body responsible for decide what's proven or not.

    Can you show citation on that please


  • Options
    #3569
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Can you show citation on that please

    What citation do you want?

    The House bring the articles and vote on impeachment. The Senate then have sole responsibility for the trial, or not it they seem so. Thereby assign guilty or not, based on the evidence provided by the House.

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



  • Options
    #3570
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Judicial Watch, a group that promotes government transparency, is suing to get the whistleblower's emails under the Freedom of Information Act. From reports yet to be substantiated, one day after Trump's call with the Ukrainian president Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. After that hire, Schiff's staff met with Ciaramella (the supposed whistleblower), who was a friend and co-worker of Misko's in the intelligence community. Then Schiff's staff gave Ciaramella guidance on how to make the infamous complaint. Schiff denied any dealings between his office and the whistleblower until The New York Times caught him in the lie. Apparently Schiff also withheld documents about aiding the whistleblower to House investigators. If everything is substantiated in the emails will Shiff be held accountable for his devious means on how he drove the impeachment? Can Shiff be thrown out of Congress? Sadly, it's too late to do anything about the sham of an impeachment, unless the Senate takes an initial vote and throws it out as being devious, purely political, and nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to undo the 2016 election.

    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
    #3571
    woohoo!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭woohoo!!!


    The identity of the whistle blower is old news on social media, as are a multiple of conspiracy theories about him and his motivations. At minimum Schiff/his staff informed him on how to go about making his complaint or protected disclosure. It could all get very messy in court. Whether it's the whistle blowers, various Ukraine embassy staff, Trump has zero issue with turning US state employees who he perceives to have slighted him, into enemy of the people cannon fodder on social media. 1 could be an accident, 2 could be coincidence but the multiple such people he has thrown under the bus, based on retweeted and long debunked conspiracy theories/lies, the man is clearly a danger to the office, constitution and country. It's not a monarchy and it's not his own private company.


Advertisement