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…2627293132…173

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Did another citizen brag publicly that when they were Vice President they had threatened to withhold $1Billion in foreign aid from a country until that country got rid of one of their prosecutors?

    Nah, didn't think so, Mitt.


    Which American political opponent did Biden single out?


  • Options
    #843
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Did another citizen brag publicly that when they were Vice President they had threatened to withhold $1Billion in foreign aid from a country until that country got rid of one of their prosecutors?

    Nah, didn't think so, Mitt.

    Hey Pete, did Biden try to conseal his pressuring of the removal of a foreign prosecutor? Did he move his transcripts to a code word secured server?


  • Options
    #844
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Did another citizen brag publicly that when they were Vice President they had threatened to withhold $1Billion in foreign aid from a country until that country got rid of one of their prosecutors?

    Nah, didn't think so, Mitt.

    Did any citizen (Biden or otherwise) brag about withholding $1Bn without the support of the GOP, EU, IMF and State Department?

    Nah, didn’t think so, Pete.


  • Options
    #845
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Out of curiosity, is anyone denying that Trump looked for a political favour from a foreign government?

    Are they just saying that it's totally cool now?


  • Options
    #846
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,006 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Did another citizen brag publicly that when they were Vice President they had threatened to withhold $1Billion in foreign aid from a country until that country got rid of one of their prosecutors?

    Nah, didn't think so, Mitt.

    That's pretty standard practice, as in threatening to cut off financial supports if they don't do what they are asked.

    The Yanks have been doing that for decades.

    Trump has done it since he took office, multiple times and followed through on at least 3 occasions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, is anyone denying that Trump looked for a political favour from a foreign government?

    Are they just saying that it's totally cool now?
    No, that was Democrats, again. Trump thought it would be a good idea for the Ukrainian president to look into their part in the hacking of the 2016 election and to look into corruption.

    But if you want to continue to be like #FullOfSchiff, then have at it.

    And, more interesting information coming out about this whistleblower and Ukraine…
    So, a Deep State operative who worked with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election becomes the main source for Democrats' effort to impeach Trump — for allegedly asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, his likely 2020 challenger. That's more than a little hypocritical, right?
    - - -
    In May 2018, Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine's prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, asking him to reopen investigations into Trump related to the Robert Mueller probe. They also suggested their support for military aid to Ukraine was conditional on the investigation into Trump.
    - - -
    In February 2018, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Russian pranksters that he would welcome dirt on Trump from Ukrainian officials. In the prank call, Schiff asked about recordings of Russians "discussing the compromising material on Mr. Trump," and said, "Well obviously we would welcome a chance to get copies of those recordings." Schiff, who is largely leading the impeachment inquiry, himself has potentially troubling ties to Ukraine.
    - - -
    Ukrainian officials have also tried to present evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of American Democrats and their allies in Ukraine, specifically involving foreign meddling against Trump and for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Naturally, this comes from officials in Zelensky's administration, accusing former officials in Poroshenko's administration of working to further American Democrats' untoward schemes.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-ex-cia-impeachment-whistleblower-dug-up-dirt-against-trump-in-ukraine/

    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
    #848
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, that was Democrats, again. Trump thought it would be a good idea for the Ukrainian president to look into their part in the hacking of the 2016 election and to look into corruption.

    But if you want to continue to be like #FullOfSchiff, then have at it.

    And, more interesting information coming out about this whistleblower and Ukraine…



    https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-ex-cia-impeachment-whistleblower-dug-up-dirt-against-trump-in-ukraine/

    Yeah, anything that contains the phrase 'deep state' should be held in the same contempt as 'water memory' due to it's complete division from sense, facts, or reality


  • Options
    #849
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, that was Democrats, again. Trump thought it would be a good idea for the Ukrainian president to look into their part in the hacking of the 2016 election and to look into corruption.

    But if you want to continue to be like #FullOfSchiff, then have at it.

    And, more interesting information coming out about this whistleblower and Ukraine…



    https://pjmedia.com/trending/report-ex-cia-impeachment-whistleblower-dug-up-dirt-against-trump-in-ukraine/


    So no defense. Just whataboutery, smears and obfuscation.


  • Options
    #850
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    So no defense. Just whataboutery, smears and obfuscation.
    It's not whataboutery... its WhatTheF#ckYouHypocrites... and truth to power.

    Pretty ironic if the Democrats in the House were to impeach Trump for doing something they claim, that was similar to what the Obama administration actually orchestrated against Trump in the presidential 2016 campaign. Dontcha think? But since the Democrats seemingly have no morals, who would expect otherwise.

    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
    #851
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    It's not whataboutery... its WhatTheF#ckYouHypocrites... and truth to power.

    Pretty ironic if the Democrats in the House were to impeach Trump for doing something they claim, that was similar to what the Obama administration actually orchestrated against Trump in the presidential 2016 campaign. Dontcha think? But since the Democrats seemingly have no morals, who would expect otherwise.

    Similar in what way?

    The federal government was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Which American political opponent did Biden single out?

    That's actually your reply? And you actually think that makes sense, do you?
    Mitt:When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China’s investigation is his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated.

    Me:Did another citizen brag publicly that when they were Vice President they had threatened to withhold $1Billion in foreign aid from a country until that country got rid of one of their prosecutors? Nah, didn't think so, Mitt.

    You:Which American political opponent did Biden single out?

    Seriously? And who even said Biden singled out anyone? Point missed by a country mile.


  • Options
    #853
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    That's actually your reply? And you actually think that makes sense, do you?



    Seriously? And who even said Biden singled out anyone? Point missed by a country mile.


    Romney said that the situation was unprecedented, you argued with him using an incomparable situation.


    My question highlighted that.


  • Options
    #854
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Hey Pete, did Biden try to conseal his pressuring of the removal of a foreign prosecutor?

    No, did I say he did?
    Did he move his transcripts to a code word secured server?

    Nope, again, did I say Biden did? Why would he anyway, has someone leaked a bunch of his calls?

    Two more nonsense questions that in no way, shape or form, rebut the point which is being quoted.


  • Options
    #855
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    No, did I say he did?



    Nope, again, did I say Biden did?

    Two more nonsense questions that in no way, shape or form, rebut the point which is being quoted.

    Again, you're arguing against the argument rather than the facts themselves. I asked you did Biden move his communications to a secure server? And if not, why didn't he as it seems to be the style when pressuring a foreign leader


  • Options
    #856
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Interesting… The form submitted by the whistleblower required him/her to disclose all contacts they had regarding allegations. If he/she failed to disclose those interactions with Shifty Schiff before filing the complaint, the whistleblower could and should be subject to felony false statement charges.

    It is being reported by Catherine Herridge that the IC Inspector General told lawmakers the whistleblower did not disclose contact with Schiff/Committee staff.

    So now it looks like we have both lies and a cover-up by the Democrats and their operatives.

    Who should the Republicans choose as the next Speaker?

    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
    #857
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,411 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Interesting… The form submitted by the whistleblower required him/her to disclose all contacts they had regarding allegations. If he/she failed to disclose those interactions with Shifty Schiff before filing the complaint, the whistleblower could and should be subject to felony false statement charges.

    It is being reported by Catherine Herridge that the IC Inspector General told lawmakers the whistleblower did not disclose contact with Schiff/Committee staff.

    So now it looks like we have both lies and a cover-up by the Democrats and their operatives.

    Who should the Republicans choose as the next Speaker?
    You don’t even need the whistleblower to impeach: the WH already confirmed the call and the allegations, then text messages surfaced proving quid pro quo was discussed (and covered up), and now we have Trump in broad daylight coercing China to dig up dirt on Biden in exchange for trade war reprieve.

    How many murders are vacated with red handed evidence because the first person to alert the police didn’t file the correct form in a perfect manner?


  • Options
    #858
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    That horse bolted when Trump released the transcript and then asked asked for electoral help on TV.

    And as for Pelosi, do you know how speakers are chosen? I'm curious as to how you think Republicans would have a say in that.


  • Options
    #859
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    And as for Pelosi, do you know how speakers are chosen? I'm curious as to how you think Republicans would have a say in that.

    Simple... by vote through majority representation after taking back the House in the next election. It's not rocket science.

    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
    #860
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,278 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Simple... by vote through majority representation after taking back the House in the next election. It's not rocket science.

    How'd that work out last time?


  • Options
    #861
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Overheal wrote: »
    Did any citizen (Biden or otherwise) brag about withholding $1Bn without the support of the GOP, EU, IMF and State Department?

    Nah, didn’t think so, Pete.

    And another garbage reply ... not one of you rebutted the point I made and that folks is because you can't.

    What Mitt said was a nonsense, because to say "When the only American citizen President Trump singles out [for doing x] is his political opponent...." is to suggest that Trump had options in that regard..... that there were others who have done the very same thing Biden did .... and Trump choose not to call for investigations into them, just Biden. If that were true, then Mitt would have had a point, but it's not and so he doesn't.

    All this: "Did Biden do this and that and the other thing, Pete, cause Trump did" is all baloney and again, in no way, shape or form, addresses the point which I made, which was..... that Trump only called for Biden to be investigated when speaking with the president of Ukraine, because Biden is the only one that boasted about committing a quid pro quo crime with a billion US dollars in the Ukraine. Trump would have been negligent if he did not raise the issue with Zelensky.

    Not that I agree with everything he has said in his pressers, mind, but on that call, he did and said nothing wrong, it was.... you could say, perfect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    duploelabs wrote: »
    How'd that work out last time?
    Win some, lose some… with all the Democratic lies, deceit and corruption going on it looks like time for another win.

    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
    #863
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Simple... by vote through majority representation after taking back the House in the next election. It's not rocket science.


    I'll leave the mystic meg act you yourself but I don't see that happening without a major change from the R side. Trump needs to grow his base and appeal to the middle if he wants a Republican house. There hasn't been any sign of that yet. And all those Republicans retiring suggests that they know which way the wind is blowing.


  • Options
    #864
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Win some, lose some… with all the Democratic lies, deceit and corruption going on it looks like time for another win.


    Erm... actually, I'm not sure what to say to that.


  • Options
    #865
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    And another garbage reply ... not one of you rebutted the point I made and that folks is because you can't.

    What Mitt said was a nonsense, because to say "When the only American citizen President Trump singles out [for doing x] is his political opponent...." is to suggest that Trump had options in that regard..... that there were others who have done the very same thing Biden did .... and Trump choose not to call for investigations into them, just Biden. If that were true, then Mitt would have had a point, but it's not and so he doesn't.

    All this: "Did Biden do this and that and the other thing, Pete, cause Trump did" is all baloney and again, in no way, shape or form, addresses the point which I made, which was..... that Trump only called for Biden to be investigated when speaking with the president of Ukraine, because Biden is the only one that boasted about committing a quid pro quo crime with a billion US dollars in the Ukraine. Trump would have been negligent if he did not raise the issue with Zelensky.

    Not that I agree with everything he has said in his pressers, mind, but on that call, he did and said nothing wrong, it was.... you could say, perfect.


    Do you actually believe that this is about Trump's problem with corruption?


  • Options
    #866
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    These are the sorts of numbers to watch. Ultimately, impeachment is political.

    https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1180211064648142851


  • Options
    #867
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    tenor.gif

    https://twitter.com/RepRatcliffe/status/1180199673245683713


  • Options
    #868
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    tenor.gif

    https://twitter.com/RepRatcliffe/status/1180199673245683713


    He says a lot of things that don't reflect reality very well. It's not for a grown up audience.


    Let's see how he gets on with that. Especially when he finds out that the head of the DOJ, Barr, is both a witness and subject of the Whistleblower complaint.


  • Options
    #869
    Pilly2019
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12 ✭Pilly2019


    Trump is going to win 2020 and there is nothing the Marxists can do to stop him
    6/5 @ PADDYPOWER
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE


  • Options
    #870
    noel1980
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭noel1980


    Pilly2019 wrote: »
    Trump is going to win 2020 and there is nothing the Marxists can do to stop him
    6/5 @ PADDYPOWER
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE


    Of course he is. I check the odds every day and they've barely budged since this impeachment fiasco happened. But Biden is finished ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    Pilly2019
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12 ✭Pilly2019


    noel1980 wrote: »
    Of course he is. I check the odds every day and they've barely budged since this impeachment fiasco happened. But Biden is finished ;)
    /thread


Advertisement