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…117118120122123…173

Comments

  • Options
    #3572
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,223 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Judicial Watch? Hmmm, they sound like an impartial organisation.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Klayman


  • Options
    #3573
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    woohoo!!! wrote: »
    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.
    Step away from the MSLSD. Donald Trump and Barack Obama tied in 2019 as the most-admired men in America in a Gallup poll. Go figure! I guess they go together like peas and carrots.

    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
    #3574
    Slowyourrole
    Registered Users Posts: 288 ✭✭Slowyourrole


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


    The Congress vote is the equivalent of a police investigation and DPP decision to prosecute. The Senate is the court of decision on guilt.


  • Options
    #3575
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Slowyourrole wrote: »
    The Congress vote is the equivalent of a police investigation and DPP decision to prosecute. The Senate is the court of decision on guilt.

    No, the guilt has been confirmed with the impeachment. The Senate votes on whether to remove the president.
    With Clinton, he's impeached in the house but the senate voted to not remove him


  • Options
    #3576
    ebbsy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,858 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    If they bring him to the Senate then it will be voted down and he will claim victory.

    If they dont go there then he will claim an injustice.

    Either way he will get loads of free airtime.

    God bless the Donald, the champ that runs the camp.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3577
    ebbsy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,858 ✭✭✭ebbsy


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

    +1

    He is the face that runs the place.


  • Options
    #3578
    RobbingBandit
    Registered Users Posts: 18,127 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    By doing what he did on the official phone whilst knowledgeable of being monitored Trump can't have thought this is paramount to abuse of office and an impeachable offense he's been ratted out by a whistleblower it is a witch hunt and in no way similar to Watergate as Nixon didn't or wasn't aware that he was being recorded.

    Trump will ride this wave regardless of what the house has done the senate won't vote two thirds majority to remove him from office.


  • Options
    #3579
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    RobbingBandit wrote: »
    By doing what he did on the official phone whilst knowledgeable of being monitored Trump can't have thought this is paramount to abuse of office and an impeachable offense he's been ratted out by a whistleblower it is a witch hunt and in no way similar to Watergate as Nixon didn't or wasn't aware that he was being recorded.

    Trump will ride this wave regardless of what the house has done the senate won't vote two thirds majority to remove him from office.

    JFC, Nixon did the recordings himself! Doesn't anyone read a history book these days?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/the-untapped-wealth-of-secrets-in-the-nixon-tapes/374868/


  • Options
    #3580
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Has Pelosi forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, yet? I kinda remember Pelosi claiming Trump was such a dire threat to the nation that he had to be impeached before Christmas.

    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
    #3581
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Has Pelosi forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, yet? I kinda remember Pelosi claiming Trump was such a dire threat to the nation that he had to be impeached before Christmas.

    And with the recent targeted assassination of the Iranian general Trump has proven her right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3582
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,289 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    notobtuse wrote:
    Has Pelosi forwarded the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, yet? I kinda remember Pelosi claiming Trump was such a dire threat to the nation that he had to be impeached before Christmas.


    Statement still seems to be fairly true, he's not exactly up on geopolitics, particularly on the middle eastern region


  • Options
    #3583
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    And with the recent targeted assassination of the Iranian general Trump has proven her right.
    For doing what he is legally bound to do?

    An embassy of ours is US territory.

    “If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.”

    So said the Supreme Court in the Civil War-era Prize Cases more than 150 years ago, and has been the law of the land since the US was founded. When there are forcible threats to the US and it’s citizens, the president doesn’t only have the power, but the obligation to confront them.

    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
    #3584
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,524 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    For doing what he is legally bound to do?

    An embassy of ours is US territory.

    “If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.”

    So said the Supreme Court in the Civil War-era Prize Cases more than 150 years ago, and has been the law of the land since the US was founded. When there are forcible threats to the US and it’s citizens, the president doesn’t only have the power, but the obligation to confront them.

    When did Iran invade America?


  • Options
    #3585
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    When did Iran invade America?
    As I noted an embassy of ours is US territory. The Iranian-backed Kata'ib Hezbollah militiamen and their PMF supporters and sympathizers attacked the US embassy in Iraq. Soleimani was targeted when he brazenly went to check on his handiwork. Soleimani’s had direct involvement in planning, financing and directing the 2012 attacks on US diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi. Also as reported, Soleimani also has the blood on his hands of some 600 US servicemen due to his guidance of IED's.

    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
    #3586
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,454 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    As I noted an embassy of ours is US territory. The Iranian-backed Kata'ib Hezbollah militiamen and their PMF supporters and sympathizers attacked the US embassy in Iraq. Soleimani was targeted when he brazenly went to check on his handiwork.
    He had a meeting scheduled with the Iraqi PM that day. Was that to check on his handiwork?
    Soleimani’s had direct involvement in planning, financing and directing the 2012 attacks on US diplomatic and intelligence facilities in Benghazi. Also as reported, Soleimani also has the blood on his hands of some 600 US servicemen due to his guidance of IED's.

    Yes, it's good he's dead. However, there may be a lot more dead on both sides due to the way this was handled.


  • Options
    #3587
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    notobtuse wrote: »
    As I noted an embassy of ours is US territory.
    Common misconception.

    Embassies are not sovereign territory. They are specially protected by the international law, but they remain part of the jurisdiction of the host country.

    An attack on a US embassy is not an attack on US territory.


  • Options
    #3588
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    seamus wrote: »
    Common misconception.

    Embassies are not sovereign territory. They are specially protected by the international law, but they remain part of the jurisdiction of the host country.

    An attack on a US embassy is not an attack on US territory.
    You are correct. I should have said property instead of territory. The mission is protected and is considered US property, but the 'territory' does not belong to the US. So the US mission was attacked and the premises of a mission is inviolable, as even the host country cannot enter the mission without permission. It is also the receiving State's duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. This did not happen as the US mission property was attacked.

    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
    #3589
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You are correct. I should have said property instead of territory. The mission is protected and is considered US property, but the 'territory' does not belong to the US. So the US mission was attacked and the premises of a mission is inviolable, as even the host country cannot enter the mission without permission. It is also the receiving State's duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. This did not happen as the US mission property was attacked.

    nice copy and paste. So what appropriate steps were not taken by the receiving country?


  • Options
    #3590
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    nice copy and paste. So what appropriate steps were not taken by the receiving country?
    I could have just listed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 21-25 but it would have been long and boring. So I condensed and reworded it to highlight the pertinent points. You’re welcome.

    Iraq failed to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion and damage.

    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
    #3591
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I could have just listed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Articles 21-25 but it would have been long and boring. So I condensed and reworded it to highlight the pertinent points. You’re welcome.

    Iraq failed to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion and damage.

    no country can offer absolute protection. that is impossible. so what steps did they not take?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3592
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    there is also the small matter of assasinating a member of a foreign countrys government on Iraqi soil. Talk about ****ting all over iraqi hospitality.


  • Options
    #3593
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You are correct. I should have said property instead of territory.
    Good. So you're going to withdraw your factually incorrect claim that an attack on the embassy is a de facto act of war? And therefore that there was no consitutional imperative on Trump to strike back in retalitation.

    Because if it's not US territory, then there has been no foreign invasion.


  • Options
    #3594
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    seamus wrote: »
    Good. So you're going to withdraw your factually incorrect claim that an attack on the embassy is a de facto act of war? And therefore that there was no consitutional imperative on Trump to strike back in retalitation.

    Because if it's not US territory, then there has been no foreign invasion.
    No. If there is an attack on my home, even though the bank holds the loan and are technically the title owners to the property, there deserves to be retaliation on my part.

    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
    #3595
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No. If there is an attack on my home, even though the bank holds the loan and are technically the title owners to the property, there deserves to be retaliation on my part.

    The law says otherwise.


  • Options
    #3596
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    no country can offer absolute protection. that is impossible. so what steps did they not take?
    Seemingly... the basic ones.

    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
    #3597
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The law says otherwise.
    What law?

    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
    #3598
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    What law?

    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?


  • Options
    #3599
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    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?
    In the US you can. It’s called the Castle Doctrine.

    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
    #3600
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,413 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    In the US you can. It’s called the Castle Doctrine.

    i'm well aware of what that is. it doesnt allow you to track the invader down and kill them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3601
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,454 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    In the US you can. It’s called the Castle Doctrine.

    Stop reading propaganda from the Russian-run NRA ffs. The Castle Doctrine doesn't apply even in the slightest. "I see someone accused of murder so I ran out and shot him" is what happened here, not a defense of the home that the Castle Doctrine is about.


Advertisement