President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

mcmoustache

Were any of the other impeachments in good faith?

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

Says the man himself who turns into a disingenuous pedant when his opinions are being challenged.

Time for another MSNBC/CNN remark?

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

Nope. You're being moronic.

This impeachment is the next step on from the Mueller farce and is being pushed by the same people, namely Adam Schiff. You're the moron who has dedicated his life to regurgitate utter crap on this site for the past 3 years because you hate the Donald and are annoyed you got 2016 so wrong after all the prose you wrote.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Were any of the other impeachments in good faith?

Ah, delighted my last reply to you got through. Why would i answer any of your questions? I am but a humble NPC.

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

It is quite simple Overheal. Impeachment is a process and not, by its nature, a coup. However, if the impeachment process is being utilised in bad faith to engineer a change of president, then it can absolutely be called a coup. The disingenuousness of you too is unreal.

Disingenious what do you call calling this a coup but impeachment is not a coup until i say its a coup coup. You've gone quite deranged on this point - the m o s t slack I can give you is Oxford English Dictionary which says:

1. (also coup d'état) a sudden, illegal, and often violent change of government

• He seized power in a military coup in 2008.
• to stage/mount a coup
• an attempted coup
• a failed/an abortive coup
• She lost her position in a boardroom coup (= a sudden change of power among senior managers in a company).

2. the fact of achieving something that was difficult to do

• Getting this contract has been quite a coup for us.
• He pulled off a major diplomatic coup by winning agreement from all the warring factions on a permanent ceasefire.

So let's play:

Impeachment is
X Not violent
X Not sudden
X Not illegal

But in some ways it IS a difficult achievement.

Let's guess which one the alt-right wing media is trying to infer.

mcmoustache

SJW Lover wrote: »

This impeachment is the next step on from the Mueller farce and is being pushed by the same people, namely Adam Schiff. You're the moron who has dedicated his life to regurgitate utter crap on this site for the past 3 years because you hate the Donald and are annoyed you got 2016 so wrong after all the prose you wrote.

The Mueller investigation was kicked off by Rod Rosenstein. A Republican appointed by Trump.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Time for another MSNBC/CNN remark?

Aw, nothing left have we? Sit tight, i feel more prose is on the way.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Were any of the other impeachments in good faith?

The two in recent times I’m thinking of had merit. First was the threat of impeachment... Although Nixon had nothing to do with the break in at the Watergate, he did participate in the cover-up. And we all know the cover-up is worst than the crime (Democrats should take heed). Hillary seemed to learn from Nixon's mistake of not destroying his tapes. That's probably why she destroyed her server and deleted 30,000 emails.

The second was for Bill Clinton lying to the grand jury.

Trumps 'crime' seems to be... Orange Man Bad!

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Did you miss the word if (and what followed it)? I guess so.

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

So let's play:

Na, you're grand. I enjoy watching your gymnastics

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Did you miss the word if (and what followed it)? I guess so.

Oh I saw someone talking out of both ends alright

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

Na, you're grand.

So then we agree it's not a coup. Thank you!

SJW Lover

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Did you miss the word if (and what followed it)? I guess so.

That's the tactic when they have nothing. Deliberately misread the post and then end up in a pedantic argument for 5 pages about basic spelling, words etc. Pretty basic tactic.

Edit: and i see his response is insults. Too easy

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

So then we agree it's not a coup. Thank you!

How childish. Are you a ten year old? You've had it explained to you more than once.

Edit: to add, that was one of the most pathetic posts i have seen on this site.

cnocbui

notobtuse wrote: »

Is there a term for the abuse of procedures?

Business as usual, Republican stylie.

cnocbui

SJW Lover wrote: »

And if your grounds for impeachment are baseless and invented to engineer impeachment, then it absolutely is a coup.

If true, there's nothing to worry about because of procedure.

notobtuse

cnocbui wrote: »

Business as usual, Republican stylie.

Always entertaining when a comedian joins in on the conservation.

mcmoustache

FOX has received encrypted texts between Volker Bill Taylor and the Ambassador to the EU. For some reason, Volker Taylor thought it was about a quid-pro-quo while Sondland, who donated a million to the Trump inauguration, insisted that it wasn't.

We'll need to see what else comes out, I guess.

Meanwhile, new encrypted text messages obtained by Fox News show Volker and other U.S. officials battling internally last month over whether Trump was engaged in a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine as he pressed for the country to look into the Biden family, while holding back U.S. aid. The texts with Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor indicate that the nature of a potential arrangement between the U.S. and Ukraine was a matter of dispute.

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said in a text exchange.

Sondland responded by saying that was not what was happening. "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Edited as it was Taylor, not Volker who saw this as a shakedown.

Overheal

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/poll-trump-impeachment-support-grows-removal-over-ukraine/3846565002/

Latest USA-Today/Ipsos survey says 45% vs 38% of Americans say Donald Trump should be impeached over the Ukraine scandal

By the same poll 44% vs 35% say the US Senate should subsequently vote to convict Trump of articles of impeachment and have him removed from office.

A USA-Today/Suffolk poll in June found that impeachment was 61% v 32% against. This is a radical swing.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/poll-trump-impeachment-support-grows-removal-over-ukraine/3846565002/

Latest USA-Today/Ipsos survey says 45% vs 38% of Americans say Donald Trump should be impeached over the Ukraine scandal

By the same poll 44% vs 35% say the US Senate should subsequently vote to convict Trump of articles of impeachment and have him removed from office.

A USA-Today/Suffolk poll in June found that impeachment was 61% v 32% against. This is a radical swing.

Maybe today's shenanigans will make people reconsider and reverse the trend?

Boggles

SJW Lover wrote: »

Edit: to add, that was one of the most pathetic posts i have seen on this site.

Sure your only "new".

:pac:

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/poll-trump-impeachment-support-grows-removal-over-ukraine/3846565002/

Latest USA-Today/Ipsos survey says 45% vs 38% of Americans say Donald Trump should be impeached over the Ukraine scandal

By the same poll 44% vs 35% say the US Senate should subsequently vote to convict Trump of articles of impeachment and have him removed from office.

A USA-Today/Suffolk poll in June found that impeachment was 61% v 32% against. This is a radical swing.

Here's the raw data if you hate yourself enough.


https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-10/tables-usa-today-impeachment-100319.pdf

Overheal

[Trump's] DOJ ordered the White House to preserve all presidential records relating to foreign leadership talks

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-orders-white-house-staff-to-preserve-all-presidential-records-related-to-trumps-talks-with-foreign-leaders/

Overheal

https://twitter.com/DavidNakamura/status/1179768387242745856?s=20

mcmoustache

There seems to be a lot of confusion, deliberate or otherwise, about why Trump is being impeached.

According to the constitution, you can be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

Asking for foreign help in an election fits high crimes and misdemeanors.

There are good reasons to believe that Trump did just that. This is why there is an impeachment inquiry.

If he asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, then he could by impeached in the House. If not, impeachment will probably fail.

I guess we'll have to wait for the facts to come out.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DavidNakamura/status/1179768387242745856?s=20

You have no proof that he said that. He never said that China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Fake News! You just don't like the Orange man.

notobtuse

The impeachment chess game has begun.

Senate Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy just threw Nancy Pelosi a lifeline to get out of the impeachment boondoggle she’s gotten herself into. But democrats are probably too crazed to grab hold of it.

He asked her to either establish “transparent and equitable rules and procedures” to govern the inquiry or hang it up altogether.

He went on to say “Unfortunately, you have given no clear indication as to how your impeachment inquiry will proceed — including whether key historical precedents or basic standards of due process will be observed”

“In addition, the swiftness and recklessness with which you have proceeded has already resulted in committee chairs attempting to limit minority participation in scheduled interviews, calling into question the integrity of such an inquiry”

Pelosi is up the impeachment creek without a paddle. Adam Schiff, just got exposed by the New York Times for lying about his role in cultivating the whistleblower complaint that has been its catalyst.

McCarthy wants Pelosi to commit to a credible process that allows for a true judicial approach to the question of impeachment. That includes an extensive resolution adopted by the whole House outlining “transparent and equitable rules and procedures,” including the following:

* Co-equal subpoena power to the committee chair and ranking member
* Right for Donald Trump’s counsel to attend all committee hearings and depositions, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses
* Allow the president’s legal team to present its own evidence

“By answering ‘no’ to any of the above,” McCarthy concludes, “you would create a process completely devoid of any merit or legitimacy.”

Oh, boy. Void of the merits it’s going to be a major problem for Pelosi in not just a Senate trial but just to get impeachment past a floor vote.

If Pelosi allows Schiff to run a kangaroo court without any appearance of due process to produce articles of impeachment, it will give Senate Republicans plenty of justification for a quick dismissal to its impeachment trial afterward.

The request gives Pelosi a way to kick crazies Schiff and Nadler out of their roles and put in some reasonable Congressmen and women in instead.

Did Republicans just capture the Democrat's queen?

Overheal

https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1179778155340603392?s=20

He calls for 'equitable rules and procedures' to be established - they have: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf

Impeachment is mentioned in Congressional rules 283 times. They've covered this chapter in American history before. Rules are established.

He's upset that minority Republicans enjoy no subpoeana power at this time, which would need a floor vote.

it’s going to be a major problem for Pelosi[...] just to get impeachment past a floor vote.

Articles of Impeachment pass by simple majority.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

The request gives Pelosi a way to kick crazies Schiff and Nadler out of their roles and put in some reasonable Congressmen and women in instead.

Did Republicans just capture the Democrat's queen?

I'm just going to have to assume here that you're serious. Anyway, why would McCarthy try to weaken Trump?


I was reliably informed that impeachment will strengthen Trump by a smart man on the internet.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1179778155340603392?s=20

He calls for 'equitable rules and procedures' to be established - they have: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf

Impeachment is mentioned in Congressional rules 283 times. They've covered this chapter in American history before. Rules are established.

He's upset that minority Republicans enjoy no subpoeana power at this time, which would need a floor vote.

Articles of Impeachment pass by simple majority.

And the response:

Dear Leader McCarthy,
As Members of Congress, we take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The existing rules of the House provide House Committees with full authority to conduct investigations for all matters under their jurisdiction, including impeachment investigations. There is no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.
As you know, our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections. I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections. We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.

best regards,
NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

It's all quite simple really. I don't know what the fuss is about.