President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Here you go...



https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

Possible doesn't mean the same as assured, you know that right?

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

Possible doesn't mean the same as assured, you know that right?

100% guaranteed, no. But I think most would agree a decision would have been made quickly by the courts. Probably in less time than it took Pelosi to walk the articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

Boggles

Sean.3516 wrote: »

He might feel more comfortable about it if Republicans had been allowed by the Dems to call their own witnesses.
.

Absolutely nothing stopping them calling witnesses except for themselves.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Wrong. Courts would have fast tracked it and rendered a decision.

notobtuse wrote: »

Here you go...



https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house


"we think it....possible"

:pac:

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

:pac:

probable even

Precedent was set in US v. Nixon

How did I know when you asked for something… 'anything,' you would twist it around. Boy did I call it.

You remind me of Adam Shiff.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

probable even

Precedent was set in US v. Nixon

How did I know when you asked for something… 'anything,' you would twist it around. Boy did I call it.

You remind me of Adam Shiff.

I asked you to back up your claim that it would have been definitely fast tracked.

You offered an opinion which didn't even back up your claim.

Trump (obstructionist) would have buried it in court, just like his tax returns.

Again though, nothing stopping him from letting witnesses testify now, he would love to according to himself.

Boggles

Great opening, remind ye of anyone?

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Great opening, remind ye of anyone?

Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton?

mcmoustache

Sean.3516 wrote: »

He might feel more comfortable about it if Republicans had been allowed by the Dems to call their own witnesses.

The republicans got witnesses. Off the top of my head, Turly was a republican witness and he wasn't the only one. Now, I understand that Hunter Biden didn't get called but he witnessed about as much of the "drug-deal" as I did - in other words, not a witness.

Sean.3516

Why it’s almost impossible to tell if Trump attempted bribery or obstruction of justice.

Both bribery and obstruction of justice are intent based crimes. It all comes down to what Trump’s intentions were in that phone call. Neither the act of holding back the aid or holding it back in exchange for something in return are illegal. The rationale is what’s key here.

If Trump held back the aid because he wanted to pressure Ukraine into investigating alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton’s supposed emails being in some Ukrainian server (almost certainly BS but that doesn’t matter) as well as pressure to clean up corruption in Ukraine which may involve investigating Biden allegedly pressuring Ukrainian authorities to call off the prosecutor investigating his son. Then this is completely legal. It is certainly in the US national interest both to investigate if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. It’s also in their interest to know if Biden pressured them when he was VP.

Now, if it can proven that Trump’s sought to get Ukraine to do this not in the US national interest but purely as a measure to help his 2020 campaign then he should be impeached. To verify this, you have to either hear from Trump or someone who spoke to him that this was his intent. That isn’t likely to happen.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

The republicans got witnesses. Off the top of my head, Turly was a republican witness and he wasn't the only one.

This is false and has been pointed out to you multiple times on other parts of boards.

The Republicans were not allowed to call ANY witnesses of their own. There was a list made up of allowed witnesses and they were told they could call some of them, and Turley was on that list. Therefore they were the Democrats' witnesses that were called.


https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1219397560118530049

It was smoke and mirrors to suggest that those witnesses were witnesses that the Republicans had requested. Stefanik calls Schiff out on that BS here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unc9gmAUehE

Now, I understand that Hunter Biden didn't get called but he witnessed about as much of the "drug-deal" as I did - in other words, not a witness.

That's obtuse and I think you know that. Hunter Biden (if called) would not be there to answer questions about the so called "drug deal", he would be called with the objective of showing that there was good reason for Trump to ask Zelensky to "look into" what had been reported about Hunter, Burisma, and Joe using aid to get the Ukraine prosecutor fired. Trump said on the call that it sounded "horrible" to him and so it would be these matters for which his testimony would be sought, in an effort to make it clear that he was not asking for this issue to be looked into because Joe would be running for president, but because (as he said): "there's been a lot of talk" about these issues, and there had been, even the NY Times and other left leaning media outlets:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/12/the-money-machine-how-a-high-profile-corruption-investigation-fell-apart

... and so how could a President of the US speak with a newly elected leader of the Ukraine and notbring this up? It would be absurd. It's just a nonsense democrat narrative to suggest Trump was worried about Joe bloody Biden and thought this was a way of taking him out. Not saying there's no animosity there, for sure there is, but only because Biden was part of the Obama administration. It would be Trump's wet dream for Biden to be his opponent in 2020 for heaven sake.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is false and has been pointed out to you multiple times on other parts of boards.

The Republicans were not allowed to call ANY witnesses of their own. There was a list made up of allowed witnesses and they were told they could call some of them, and Turley was on that list. Therefore they were the Democrats' witnesses that were called.


https://twitter.com/EliseStefanik/status/1219397560118530049

Stefanik yells a lot of untrue nonsense for Trump's approval in the hopes that it might get her some scraps from Trump. Have you got something more credible?

Stateofyou

notobtuse wrote: »

Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton?

They're not president and haven't been impeached.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

They're not president and haven't been impeached.

I'll take trump fan whataboutery for 100 Alex

silverharp

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Why it’s almost impossible to tell if Trump attempted bribery or obstruction of justice.

Both bribery and obstruction of justice are intent based crimes. It all comes down to what Trump’s intentions were in that phone call. Neither the act of holding back the aid or holding it back in exchange for something in return are illegal. The rationale is what’s key here.

If Trump held back the aid because he wanted to pressure Ukraine into investigating alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton’s supposed emails being in some Ukrainian server (almost certainly BS but that doesn’t matter) as well as pressure to clean up corruption in Ukraine which may involve investigating Biden allegedly pressuring Ukrainian authorities to call off the prosecutor investigating his son. Then this is completely legal. It is certainly in the US national interest both to investigate if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. It’s also in their interest to know if Biden pressured them when he was VP.

Now, if it can proven that Trump’s sought to get Ukraine to do this not in the US national interest but purely as a measure to help his 2020 campaign then he should be impeached. To verify this, you have to either hear from Trump or someone who spoke to him that this was his intent. That isn’t likely to happen.

Mind reading isn't catered for in the US constitution though it seems to be the main plank of the Dem attack

Boggles

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Now, if it can proven that Trump’s sought to get Ukraine to do this not in the US national interest but purely as a measure to help his 2020 campaign then he should be impeached. To verify this, you have to either hear from Trump or someone who spoke to him that this was his intent. That isn’t likely to happen.

His intent was clear. He had no interest in corruption or an actual investigation.

He wanted an announcement of an investigation.

The GOP will write into history that POTUS gross abuse of power will be permitted going forward.

duploelabs

silverharp wrote: »

Mind reading isn't catered for in the US constitution though it seems to be the main plank of the Dem attack

In the absence of direct testimony which has been blocked by the Republicans, all the house managers can do the is paint the picture around the absence of blocked evidence

Winning_Stroke

Is it in the public, and the country's interest, that anything a foreign power might "have" on a potential President or their immediate family be investigated?

Yes.

Was it Trump's job to ensure that?

... I dunno, yeah?

Did he go about it the right way?

... I dunno.

Is this impeachment going to be voted down and dismissed?

Yes, 100%.

Were the Democrats reluctant to bring about this "sombre" event?

Hahahahahahaha.

What are the real outcomes of it?

Dems see themselves as taking a scalp. Reps see it as a hit job from the establishment/deep-state/whatever. Those in between? Do they see it as a waste of time, or worthy, or both? Guess we'll see in Nov!

Winning_Stroke

duploelabs wrote: »

In the absence of direct testimony which has been blocked by the Republicans, all the house managers can do the is paint the picture around the absence of blocked evidence

"We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence"

duploelabs

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

"We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence"

Hersay and conjecture where?

silverharp

Boggles wrote: »

His intent was clear. He had no interest in corruption or an actual investigation.

He wanted an announcement of an investigation.

The GOP will write into history that POTUS gross abuse of power will be permitted going forward.

again this is mind reading , the system is designed on the very basis that politicians get to benefit themselves once they are also doing their job. A compromised poll topping candidate to be future President would be the current President’s top priority

Winning_Stroke

duploelabs wrote: »

Hersay and conjecture where?

Relax, I'm just Lionel Hutzing it

Boggles

silverharp wrote: »

again this is mind reading , the system is designed on the very basis that politicians get to benefit themselves once they are also doing their job. A compromised poll topping candidate to be future President would be the current President’s top priority

It ain't.

“I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or had to be completed,” Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form, and that form kept changing

silverharp

Boggles wrote: »

It ain't.

that's getting into the weeds , the only way to discuss this topic is to introduce mind reading which is why the constitution doesn't care.

Boggles

silverharp wrote: »

that's getting into the weeds

If by weeds you mean Trumps Ambassador to Europe discussing the "drug deal" with his personal lawyer.

Then yeah weeds.

Cheerful Spring2

pearcider wrote: »

The Democrats are an absolute joke at this stage. Despite sending all their errand boys against Trump, they’ve achieved nothing except make him look good. The mueller investigation and now this impeachment circus is all due to the fact that they rigged an election for Killary Clinton and still lost. Sour grapes that’s the sum of it.

Even with the FBI the state department and virtually the entire corporate media and all the power of Silicon Valley on their side not to mention the rigged polls, they still couldn’t win. They are unelectable and out of touch. President Trump has ran rings around them the past 4 years. It’s a joy to behold. He’s going to win a landslide in November. Put the mortgage on it.

If the US economy actually is doing well, and there increase with employment, during Trump 4-year term, then its very foolish for the democrats to maintain this circus. End of the day Republicans are never going to switch positions and support getting rid of Trump with 10 months to the next election.

All of this local government politics and all republicans fear losing their own cosy positions at the ballot box.  Most Americans are not watching this and only care about their own plight economically and they don't care if Trump asked Ukraine or not to investigate Biden. For me this just reveals how out of touch democrats are.  They feel Trump stole the election, its the only reason they keep going after him, yet they have underestimated their failure,  electing a candidate who was not liked. Hilary lost in states she should have won. All it takes for them states to just pick Trump again and he receives another 4-year term. While democrats are angry with Trump, his holding large rallies to keep his support for the next elections. 

Stateofyou

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If the US economy actually is doing well, and there increase with employment, during Trump 4-year term, then its very foolish for the democrats to maintain this circus. End of the day Republicans are never going to switch positions and support getting rid of Trump with 10 months to the next election.

All of this local government politics and all republicans fear losing their own cosy positions at the ballot box.  Most Americans are not watching this and only care about their own plight economically and they don't care if Trump asked Ukraine or not to investigate Biden. For me this just reveals how out of touch democrats are.  They feel Trump stole the election, its the only reason they keep going after him, yet they have underestimated their failure,  electing a candidate who was not liked. Hilary lost in states she should have won. All it takes for them states to just pick Trump again and he receives another 4-year term. While democrats are angry with Trump, his holding large rallies to keep his support for the next elections. 

On the contrary, from my experience many Americans do care about the injustices committed by Trump or on behalf of Trump. A great many American's care about the harm being done to the middle class, to the education system, the cruel and inhuman immigration policies and the treatment of the people caught in it. They're concerned about gun violence and police brutality. They care about the harm being done to the environment and the reversal of protection policies. They're embarrassed by Trump and how he represents them at home and abroad. The country is deeply divided and there is no way you can you can claim anything here about "most Americans." Trump lost the popular vote by millions, remember that? In the end he was inaugurated due to the electoral college (among other reasons). Out of the two major political parties, it is the Democrats who are most in touch with ordinary people and what they need and the plights they have. It was the democrats who set up the most comprehensive health plan to date and steadied the economy. Stop bringing up Hilary like it has any relevance 4 years later. The lessons were learned and investigations post stolen election are done. Large rallies? I distinctly remember Trump and co lying about the #'s in their crowd or rally size, repeatedly. It's a sore point to his fragile ego. Ha.

duploelabs

Nadler blowing the 'it's not a crime he committed therefore he can't be impeached' talking point out of the water

Igotadose

duploelabs wrote: »

Nadler blowing the 'it's not a crime he committed therefore he can't be impeached' talking point out of the water

Yep, I especially liked the Lindsay Graham video.

The Representative from Texas could use some lessons in public speaking, though. Of course, she's way better a speaker than Trump, who is so laughably bad.

duploelabs

Igotadose wrote: »

Yep, I especially liked the Lindsay Graham video.

The Representative from Texas could use some lessons in public speaking, though. Of course, she's way better a speaker than Trump, who is so laughably bad.

That's a wide bracket for the term 'speaker' when it comes to Trump's grasp of linguistics