President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

hetuzozaho

I enjoyed this tweet, his confusion apparent in so few characters. Pretty low? Pretty high? ha

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181969511697788928

I've no horse in the race, but this is great entertainment!

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

What is the Trump impeachment inquiry about? Attempts to dig up dirt on a presidential candidate, or something, I've been told.

This impeachment appears to be focused on the US president asking for electoral help from a foreign government. I know that there's a large effort going on to confuse the easily confused but the impeachment inquiry is doing its thing and if you look at the witnesses being called, it might clear things up for you.


Or if you prefer, continue reading what you've been reading and continue being confused.

mcmoustache

hetuzozaho wrote: »

OK, but dumb it down for me, are you saying Obama is involved in the Ukraine thing? I don't understand the Clapper thing.

Reading comments on r/the_donald now as it's front page there, but still lost.

It's a load of conspiracy theories that don't stand up to any scrutiny and are internally inconsistent with each other and reality but they provide Trump supporters with stuff to repeat elsewhere.


Speaking of, any word from QAnon lately? If I remember correctly, according to Q, Hillary and the Democrats were supposed to be rounded up and arrested by Mueller a few months back.

I'll just add, you're not likely to get any clarity by asking for an explanation because the people putting forward these ideas have no idea about what they're talking about. They can repeat the theory but the slightest questioning shows them for the nonsense that they are. Even a top mind like Giuliani disintegrates under a little questioning when he's peddling this nonsense.

hetuzozaho

Why are Fox News releasing such results? Surely not in their interest.

https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/1182054428314132481

Trump's latest speeches are a mad listen:

‘I’m not gonna say it happened to me but it did’

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1182033001217171457

You'd imagine his team must be baffled by him! Why do they let him ramble on, why do they let him tweet?

Overheal

mad muffin wrote: »

America’s Founders did not put impeachment into the Constitution as a partisan tool to be used for overturning an election.

Today's Democrat party disagrees with the Founders, and with the Constitution as written, so don't expect them to act in the best interest of the country. They lost, and they can't handle it. They know they can't win as their plans for the country are the opposite of what the people want, so they must use whatever means necessary to take what they can't earn.

When is impeachment ever not “overturning an election?” That’s a silly undercurrent inherent to the nature of removing an elected official from office for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In the very same way the GOP was “trying to undo” not one but both Clinton elections, was it?

Odhinn

Truly, the most ignorant - potentially lethal - gobshite in the western hemisphere


Trump defends Syria decision by saying Kurds 'didn't help us with Normandy'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy

Odhinn

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You'd imagine his team must be baffled by him! Why do they let him ramble on, why do they let him tweet?

Because they can only advise him. If the clown won't listen to sense, there's not much they can do.

Wanderer78

Odhinn wrote:

Truly, the most ignorant potentially lethal gob****e in the western hemisphere

He has moved from just being a fcuking idiot, to a dangerous fcuking idiot

Wanderer78

Odhinn wrote:

Because they can only advise him. If the clown won't listen to sense, there's not much they can do.

I actually think it suits them to leave him off, it continually causes disruption

Timberrrrrrrr

Odhinn wrote: »

Truly, the most ignorant - potentially lethal - gobshite in the western hemisphere


Trump defends Syria decision by saying Kurds 'didn't help us with Normandy'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy

Prepare for one of his zealots to post shortly about how that's not what he really meant and he how can we be sure he isn't right etc.

Boggles

Odhinn wrote: »

Truly, the most ignorant - potentially lethal - gobshite in the western hemisphere


Trump defends Syria decision by saying Kurds 'didn't help us with Normandy'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy

How long before the Kurds are classified as a "terrorist" organisation?

I hope people are paying attention this time.

osarusan

Odhinn wrote: »

Truly, the most ignorant - potentially lethal - gobshite in the western hemisphere


Trump defends Syria decision by saying Kurds 'didn't help us with Normandy'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy

All talk of impeachment aside, he really does come across as incredibly ignorant of the world sometimes, and I would guess he never wants to be advised on or informed on anything, he'll just bluff his way through it.

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

All talk of impeachment aside, he really does come across as incredibly ignorant of the world sometimes, and I would guess he never wants to be advised on or informed on anything, he'll just bluff his way through it.

He doesn't need to be advised or informed. He knows more about everything that anyone. And I don't just think it's bluster or bluffing when he says that, I think he genuinely believes it. He believes, even with as little knowledge and experience as he might have on any given topic, that his opinion on that topic is right and he therefore truly understands the situation better than anyone, even if everyone told him he was wrong.

He can't not be right all the time. Not just publicly or for show, but I think he genuinely believes he's just right all the time.

Wanderer78

Penn wrote: »

He doesn't need to be advised or informed. He knows more about everything that anyone. And I don't just think it's bluster or bluffing when he says that, I think he genuinely believes it. He believes, even with as little knowledge and experience as he might have on any given topic, that his opinion on that topic is right and he therefore truly understands the situation better than anyone, even if everyone told him he was wrong.

He can't not be right all the time. Not just publicly or for show, but I think he genuinely believes he's just right all the time.

narcissists tend to be, well, narcissistic

ollkiller

Odhinn wrote: »

Truly, the most ignorant - potentially lethal - gobshite in the western hemisphere


Trump defends Syria decision by saying Kurds 'didn't help us with Normandy'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-syria-kurds-normandy

There's thick and then there's this. The mind does boggle how anyone can stand up for this guy when he comes out with the most ignorant nonsense. The Kurds have fought alongside American soldiers in various wars for decades and now it's "ah ya f**k em".

Please oh please let there be a heaven and a hell. I'll be burning in hell as well but at least he'll be there too. FFS.

Penn

Wanderer78 wrote: »

narcissists tend to be, well, narcissistic

I think it extends beyond narcissism. I think there's proper delusion in there too, compounded by being born into a rich family that just fed into those delusions.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:Goodness! The Don might actually co - operate and roll over so...

http://english.sina.com/world/am/2019-10-10/detail-iicezuev1123495.shtml

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:Goodness! The Don might actually co - operate and roll over so...

http://english.sina.com/world/am/2019-10-10/detail-iicezuev1123495.shtml

Rules which worked when Clinton and Nixon cooperated with the process; Trump will not just change 70 years of character - he will use lawyers of his to grind proceedings to a halt.

Take for example two battles currently ongoing in DC: both on tuesday, the WH counsel argued publicly in one instance that precedent precedent precedent must be adhered to in the impeachment process to allow Trump lawyers to cross examine everyone and everything. In the other the DOJ has filed suit arguing that precedent should be thrown out since it would allow Congress to see Grand Jury evidence from the Mueller Investigation. Both are arguing for Trumps defense.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/can-you-say-hypocrisy-dan-abrams-rips-trump-admins-conflicting-arguments-about-impeachment-precedent/

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

OK, but dumb it down for me, are you saying Obama is involved in the Ukraine thing? I don't understand the Clapper thing.

Reading comments on r/the_donald now as it's front page there, but still lost.

No. What I’m saying is Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for things they 'claim' are impeachable, which just so happen to be very similar to what their guys have done when in power - underhanded methods of digging up dirt on a political opponent in order to hurt their campaigns, or in the case of Democrats to also work get a duly elected president out of office. If double standards and hypocrisy are allowed to rule the day, or if impeachable offenses are anything Congress says they are, we will be witnessing endless and continuous impeachment inquiries and hearings for every president going forward, whether it be Republican or Democrat. This is not what we vote politicians into office to do. If every president has to defend himself/herself from impeachment nonsense their entire time in office how in the world can they be effective?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

No. What I’m saying is Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for things they 'claim' are impeachable, which just so happen to be very similar to what their guys have done when in power - underhanded methods of digging up dirt on a political opponent in order to hurt their campaigns, or in the case of Democrats to also work get a duly elected president out of office. If double standards and hypocrisy are allowed to rule the day, or if impeachable offenses are anything Congress says they are, we will be witnessing endless and continuous impeachment inquiries and hearings for every president going forward, whether it be Republican or Democrat. This is not what we vote politicians into office to do. If every president has to defend himself/herself from impeachment nonsense their entire time in office how in the world can they be effective?

As an American, rather than defending based on double standards, would you not like to see Trump impeached and any former politicians held to account in some way too? One canceling out the other isn't how the law works surely?
And no, seeking aid from foreign powers to get dirt an an elected American official for personal gratification is more than just something congress casually decided was impeachable.
Is this as much nonsense as when Trump supported the Birther movement and harangued Obama for years?

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

No. What I’m saying is Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for things they 'claim' are impeachable, which just so happen to be very similar to what their guys have done when in power - underhanded methods of digging up dirt on a political opponent in order to hurt their campaigns, or in the case of Democrats to also work get a duly elected president out of office. If double standards and hypocrisy are allowed to rule the day, or if impeachable offenses are anything Congress says they are, we will be witnessing endless and continuous impeachment inquiries and hearings for every president going forward, whether it be Republican or Democrat. This is not what we vote politicians into office to do. If every president has to defend himself/herself from impeachment nonsense their entire time in office how in the world can they be effective?

Ah perfect I understand you now.

I'd be a "two wrongs don't make a right" kind of guy.

Ihatewhahabies

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'm struggling to keep up. But why does this effect the Ukraine thing?

My understanding is that they are investigating the how the "coup/ purple colour revolution" against Trump was initiated

Lee stranahan's twitter feed is excellent upon this topic

The plot seems to have been initiated in Ukraine

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As an American, rather than defending based on double standards, would you not like to see Trump impeached and any former politicians held to account in some way too? One canceling out the other isn't how the law works surely?
And no, seeking aid from foreign powers to get dirt an an elected American official for personal gratification is more than just something congress casually decided was impeachable.
Is this as much nonsense as when Trump supported the Birther movement and harangued Obama for years?

A president is allowed to ask for help from a foreign country if there is reason to believe crimes were committed. Biden running for president doesn't exempt him from the process if he participated in the apparent quid pro quo while he was VP. If it does then I guess I could rob a bank, run for president, then nobody can investigate me... right?

If I would support Trump being impeached based on such flimsy evidence I would also have to support Hillary being impeached on day one if she became president... and have supported a Barack Obama impeachment, same with GW BUsh, and if Biden wins, his impeachment on day one. And if anything comes up on Warren if she wins I would have to support her impeachment because impeachable offenses seems to be anything Congress says they are.

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah perfect I understand you now.

I'd be a "two wrongs don't make a right" kind of guy.

But I’m sure when the next Democrat became President the DNC would do everything in their power to keep the Republicans in Congress from following the precedent they’ve set. They'll expect the GOP to suddenly become the party of ‘turn the other cheek.’

Things don't work that way. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Penn

notobtuse wrote: »

Things don't work that way. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

And rightfully so. Both parties need to be reigned in and checks and balances properly enforced.

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

But I’m sure when the next Democrat became President the DNC would do everything in their power to keep the Republicans in Congress from following the precedent they’ve set. They'll expect the GOP to suddenly become the party of ‘turn the other cheek.’

Things don't work that way. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think people should just be accountable for wrong doings. Regardless of parties etc.

Keep it simple stupid, as they say.

mcmoustache

Illegal acts have always been impeachable. Clinton lying to a Grand Jury was impeachable. It doesn't matter that the original investigation was about property but once he lied about a blowjob, he crossed that line.

Offences don't need to even be criminal to be impeachable but that doesn't matter in this case because for one thing, Trump is still an indicted co-conspirator for directing the crime that Michael Cohen is sitting in prison for.

The thing is, there's a reason why impeachment isn't used all the time. It's very unpopular with the population. Back in July, only about a quarter of voters wanted impeachment. Any party trying to impeach with numbers like that would find things very difficult. Now, around half of voters favour it so it's clear that the voting public see that there is something seriously wrong with his behaviour. Anyone with a brain between their ears knew what Trump meant in the transcript and didn't believe that him doing it on camera with the Chinese was a joke.

So you have conduct unfit for office and electorate copping on to that fact. That sort of thing makes impeachment from an opposing congress inevitable.


As an aside, there were some feeble attempts to impeach Obama including from Blake Farenthold because of Obama's birth cert. House majorities will always have a desire to impeach an opposition President but unless there is something to be impeached for, it will be very unpopular.

notobtuse

Penn wrote: »

And rightfully so. Both parties need to be reigned in and checks and balances properly enforced.

I agree with this. But as history notes that expectation only seems to happen when power changes between parties. So the time is now to make sure checks and balances are properly enforced, not when another party gains power.

Penn

notobtuse wrote: »

I agree with this. But as history notes that expectation only seems to happen when power changes between parties. So the time is now to make sure checks and balances are properly enforced, not when another party gains power.

So you'd agree that the Trump administration should not be ignoring subpeonas or refusing to allow people to testify in front of Congress who are acting in their duties as a co-equal branch of government in enforcing those checks and balances, given the accusations and evidence of potential illegalities of the actions of the Trump administration?

mcmoustache

Penn wrote: »

And rightfully so. Both parties need to be reigned in and checks and balances properly enforced.

That's how the whole US system has been set up. It's always been like that and nobody gets to be a whiny little bítch complaining about how unfair it is.