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…8889919394…173

Comments

  • Options
    #2702
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Thanks for posting some fact for a change, refreshing.


    She must have missed Sondland's "clarification". If I found out that someone who I believed was successfully deceiving me, I would look inward to see what it was about my thought processes that made me blind to the deception so that I would be less likely to fall for it in the future. We can't fix the past but we can better prepare for the future.


  • Options
    #2703
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    She must have missed Sondland's "clarification". If I found out that someone who I believed was successfully deceiving me, I would look inward to see what it was about my thought processes that made me blind to the deception so that I would be less likely to fall for it in the future. We can't fix the past but we can better prepare for the future.

    I enjoy the philosophy. Read the transcript for all you need to know about the NSC brokered call.


  • Options
    #2704
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,210 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    This is moving a good bit faster than I thought it would. Any chance the trial could happen before Christmas?


  • Options
    #2705
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Overheal wrote: »
    Nice to see the White House engaging with the inquiry, while simultaneously calling this a sham: “this is all a bogus witch hunt but just in case this is all completely constitutional (it is)...”

    They’re planning to put Jim Jordan on the House Intelligence Committee, replacing Devin Nunes. Nunes had to recuse himself on the Russian interference in the 2016 election after supplying false information to the committee.

    I have a $5 bet out that Trump also wants Jordan because he reminds him of Aaron Eckhart. Jordan really milks that’s look too, I want to start a betting pool for how cold it will be outside in DC before he puts on his coat.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-gop-eyes-committee-shake-up-ahead-of-trump-impeachment-hearings/2019/11/05/55efd564-ffe5-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html

    Schiff should be recused himself. He met (or at a minimum his team did) with the whistleblower before they officially lodged their complaint.

    Still can't believe this is what they are going after the Donald on. The hotel fiasco in DC has much more meat on its bones than this IMO.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #2706
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    MadYaker wrote: »
    This is moving a good bit faster than I thought it would. Any chance the trial could happen before Christmas?
    As soon as it goes to law they will string it out like linguine.
    This is to prevent the DOJ bringing charges in another case against some that are involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2707
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    JRant wrote: »
    Schiff should be recused himself. He met (or at a minimum his team did) with the whistleblower before they officially lodged their complaint.

    Still can't believe this is what they are going after the Donald on. The hotel fiasco in DC has much more meat on its bones than this IMO.

    Annnnnd we're back to the whistle-blower!


  • Options
    #2708
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JRant wrote: »
    Schiff should be recused himself. He met (or at a minimum his team did) with the whistleblower before they officially lodged their complaint.

    Still can't believe this is what they are going after the Donald on. The hotel fiasco in DC has much more meat on its bones than this IMO.

    Emoluments will be included, the House Ways and Means still plays a role in the impeachment inquiry.

    I'm not clear on why Schiff should recuse himself because the whistleblower contacted the House Intelligence Committee. Per whistleblower rules, that is one of the ways a whistleblower is meant to blow the whistle.


  • Options
    #2709
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    As soon as it goes to law they will string it out like linguine.
    This is to prevent the DOJ bringing charges in another case against some that are involved.

    Impeachment never becomes a criminal process.


  • Options
    #2710
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Impeachment never becomes a criminal process.

    It will if they try use to it to shut the door on on him.


  • Options
    #2711
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Overheal wrote: »
    Emoluments will be included, the House Ways and Means still plays a role in the impeachment inquiry.

    I'm not clear on why Schiff should recuse himself because the whistleblower contacted the House Intelligence Committee. Per whistleblower rules, that is one of the ways a whistleblower is meant to blow the whistle.

    Can he not now be called up as a witness during proceedings though?
    If that were to happen it wouldn't be the best look if he was running the entire things while having to give testimony.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2712
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Annnnnd we're back to the whistle-blower!

    Sooooo?

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #2713
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    It will if they try use to it to shut the door on on him.

    No, I have no idea what you're talking about.


  • Options
    #2714
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JRant wrote: »
    Can he not now be called up as a witness during proceedings though?
    If that were to happen it wouldn't be the best look if he was running the entire things while having to give testimony.

    Schiff? as a witness to what? Schiff hasn't met with the whistleblower.


  • Options
    #2715
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    No, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Explain to me what is the purpose of this impeachment process?


  • Options
    #2716
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Explain to me what is the purpose of this impeachment process?

    Should you even be posting on this thread if you don't know the answer to that question?


  • Options
    #2717
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Explain to me what is the purpose of this impeachment process?

    To try on conviction or acquittal the President of the United States as to whether they can maintain their office and position based on allegations and probable findings of high crimes and misdemeanors.


  • Options
    #2718
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    To try on conviction or acquittal the President of the United States as to whether they can maintain their office and position based on allegations and probable findings of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    I see the happy clappers are in the house.....

    And that can legally be challenged.


  • Options
    #2719
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I see the happy clappers are in the house.....

    And that can legally be challenged.

    In what way can it be legally challenged? There's no appeal. It's presided over by the highest justice in all the land


  • Options
    #2720
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,268 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    JRant wrote: »
    Sooooo?

    Firstly, he did not meet with the whistle blower beforehand, nor did his committee.
    This was debunked ages ago.
    Secondly, everything the whistle blower said had been confirmed.


  • Options
    #2721
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    In what way can it be legally challenged? There's no appeal. It's presided over by the highest justice in all the land

    I think we would have to go to arbitration on an American legal forum on that issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2722
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I think we would have to go to arbitration on an American legal forum on that issue.

    No, we would not.

    First you claimed it could be and now you're claiming its debatable, and have yet to base your assertion on, anything.


  • Options
    #2723
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    No, we would not.

    First you claimed it could be and now you're claiming its debatable, and have yet to base your assertion on, anything.

    I'm debating your claim that impeachment is a legally binding decision.


  • Options
    #2724
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Overheal wrote: »
    Schiff? as a witness to what? Schiff hasn't met with the whistleblower.

    Isn't that what he'll be possibly be called up to clarify though?

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #2725
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I'm debating your claim that impeachment is a legally binding decision.

    The Impeachment itself is the collection of charges of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Trial convenes in the Senate, and is preside with the aid of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    There is no appeal after that stage: there exists no higher authoritative body to appeal it to.


  • Options
    #2726
    JRant
    Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Firstly, he did not meet with the whistle blower beforehand, nor did his committee.
    This was debunked ages ago.
    Secondly, everything the whistle blower said had been confirmed.

    Hang on there now, are you saying the whistleblower didn't meet with his committee before lodging their complaint?

    Another poster just claimed they did and that this is all above board, in fact it is part of the whistleblower process.

    Secondly, no such thing has been confirmed. We've heard snippets of accounts so far. It will be interesting to see what comes out during the actual hearings now that the formal process has been voted on.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Options
    #2727
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    The Impeachment itself is the collection of charges of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Trial convenes in the Senate, and is preside with the aid of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    There is no appeal after that stage: there exists no higher authoritative body to appeal it to.

    And if they try to further that opinion to stop Trump running for re-election it will be challenged.


  • Options
    #2728
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JRant wrote: »
    Isn't that what he'll be possibly be called up to clarify though?

    It's been clarified though?

    Additionally, the whistleblower's tip-off resulted in the release of a corroborating Memorandum of the Telephone call and corroboration by other US officials of efforts to get Ukraine to agree to a quid pro quo to investigate Burisma, Biden, and 2016. It's like trying to unmask Deep Throat while pretending Watergate isn't a real scandal until that's done.


  • Options
    #2729
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JRant wrote: »
    Hang on there now, are you saying the whistleblower didn't meet with his committee before lodging their complaint?

    Another poster just claimed they did and that this is all above board, in fact it is part of the whistleblower process.

    Secondly, no such thing has been confirmed. We've heard snippets of accounts so far. It will be interesting to see what comes out during the actual hearings now that the formal process has been voted on.

    They didn't meet with any of the Congressman on the committee. The whistleblower contacted the offices for the committee. Staffers were go-betweens at most. this is all afaik.


  • Options
    #2730
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Should you even be posting on this thread if you don't know the answer to that question?

    If you tried to jump in front of a bus you'd miss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2731
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    And if they try to further that opinion to stop Trump running for re-election it will be challenged.

    I don't understand your meaning.

    Trump cannot seek re-election once removed from the office. Once convicted the officer can hold no other government position of trust.


Advertisement