U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Fox News Poll: Record support for Trump impeachment

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment

 

 

 

 

Meaningless.

[mtls2005]

Lindsay Graham weighs in on Impeachment, obstruction, and a White House's requirement to comply with Congressional oversight...

 

Ah, the good ole days.

 

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4794460/121898-rep-lindsey-graham-impeachment-debate

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by mtls2005

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

It's silly to ask posters to provide links to information that any poster could easily obtain themselves, especially a fact which is overwhelmingly common knowledge.  And it's completely dishonest to make the accusation that because the poster didn't provide a link to the information that it's "made-up nonsense."  I've tried many, many times to point out and explain in detail the many deceitful tactics posters use to discredit, and then disparage as well, other posters.  I want posters to understand the tricks which are employed against them.

It is NOT silly to ask for a factual bit of information to be substantiated.   I did Google it and could find nothing to support your contention.  

 

So please provide a link.   We do not permit the deliberate posting of misinformation.  

 

[Rimmer]

Baiting post removed

[Jingthing]

A useful very clear summary of the notorious call and why it's so important.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[metisdead]

2 hours ago, metisdead said:

Off topic posts and replies about the 2016 election results have been removed. 

 

More posts and replies about the 2016 election results have been removed as this topic has nothing to do with the 2016 election results.  Please stop with the deflection posts about Poll results. 

 

Posts commenting on moderation have been removed:

 

10) Do not comment on moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. This also includes posting an emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. 

 

You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy.

 

 

Another off topic post and a reply has been removed.  

[Becker]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Meaningless.

Yes, you go ahead and keep telling yourself that. But let me tell you the name of a person for whom this is of the utmost importance and who will now have the mother of all hissy fits....well, you know who I'm talking about. 

[roobaa01]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

 

Link: Fox News Poll: Record support (51%) for Trump impeachment!

 

You're in trouble Donald and you richly deserve every bit of it and then some.

 

terrific thus given dems can stage their floor vote with no worries and commence due process, meaning transforming the illegimate and unconstitutional partisian impeachment charade into a real inquiry.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

terrific thus given dems can stage their floor vote with no worries and commence due process, meaning transforming the illegimate and unconstitutional partisian impeachment charade into a real inquiry.

 

wbr

roobaa01

It is totally legitimate.

It is totally constitutional. 

It is a real inquiry.

It is not a charade.

The rules are set by the house.

The rules are not set by the executive branch.

It is becoming less partisan every day. 

 

Cheers. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Jingthing

[Becker]

2 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

terrific thus given dems can stage their floor vote with no worries and commence due process, meaning transforming the illegimate and unconstitutional partisian impeachment charade into a real inquiry.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Unless you can back up your "illegimate and unconstitutional" claim with facts you're just trolling/diverting.

[Jingthing]

Just now, Becker said:

Unless you can back up your "illegimate and unconstitutional" claim with facts you're just trolling/diverting.

Bingo!

[roobaa01]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Unless you can back up your "illegimate and unconstitutional" claim with facts you're just trolling/diverting.

thats very easy ....the legal letter sent by the whouse legal counselor to pelosi on the 8.10.19

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Becker said:

Unless you can back up your "illegimate and unconstitutional" claim with facts you're just trolling/diverting.

None of Jingthing's statements were backed up with fact.

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, Becker said:

Unless you can back up your "illegimate and unconstitutional" claim with facts you're just trolling/diverting.

 

Delay, deny and deflect.

 

(I do think some posters here deserve a bit of a pass as they are translating from Russian so posts often seem strange.)

 

At this point no one is defending the president's many criminal actions, that genuis has bolted the stable.

 

Now all they can do is is defend on process. If the glove fits...

 

The American public is generally intelligent, and can sense when someone is acting guilty. I mean, many of us have children, so recognize the various excuses used. The president is acting "guilty" by behaving like a third-grader (I didn't do it. Everyone does it. OK, I did it but it's not that bad. Rick did it.).

 

Obviously releasing and/all information, and allowing witnesses to testify, would be the best thing for an innocent person to do. That the president - true, he is the only one saying that the "call was perfect" - is doing very little to defend against the charges, is telling.

 

 

[roobaa01]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It is totally legitimate.

It is totally constitutional. 

It is a real inquiry.

It is not a charade.

The rules are set by the house.

The rules are not set by the executive branch.

It is becoming less partisan every day. 

 

Cheers. 

which legal congressional rules ??? due process which gives also republicans subpoena power ???

the legal letter sent by the legal cousilor to pelosi on the 81019 explained it.

anyway the last word will be having the supreme court again and thats months away.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

which legal congressional rules ??? due process which gives also republicans subpoena power ???

the legal letter sent by the legal cousilor to pelosi on the 81019 explained it.

anyway the last word will be having the supreme court again and thats months away.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Congress makes the rules.

That's in the constitution. 

As far as minority party subpoena powers, so sorry, that was in the old rules before the REPUBLICANS changed them!

So cry me a river on that one.

Very short sighted of them.

The "legal" letter was not a legal letter. It was a political letter basically saying that in the U.S. system the president is not subject to congressional oversight. That's ultimately what this is going to be about. Do Americans want to give presidents now and in the future full dictator powers or will we continue respect the founders design -- that CONGRESS is a coequal power with the executive.

If we end up with presidents having dictator powers, say ba-bye to American democracy.

REAL conservatives, REAL republicans don't want to have presidents have dictator powers.

Would they want Elizabeth Warren to have dictator powers?

[mtls2005]

15 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

thats very easy ....the legal letter sent by the whouse legal counselor to pelosi on the 8.10.19

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainly one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, and is thus a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by mtls2005

[Thomas J]

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainy one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, is a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

Yes his name will live in infamy if he's not totally forgotten, he'll hope that he is totally forgotten.

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully. 

 

Several points...

 

Joe Biden is not the President

Joe Biden is not the subject of an impeachment inquiry

Joe Biden was fulfilling his duties as VP, in full view, with the backing of the U.S. and many, many partners, in getting corrupt prosecutor removed.

This "story" has been fully debunked.

 

Joe Biden used his position lawfully.

 

Trump appears to have acted illegally, for his own personal benefit.

 

That said, I'm sure that the president will cooperate with the investigation as he did nothing wrong?

[roobaa01]

12 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Precious. "legal letter". Yeah, right.

 

This letter isn't worth the paper it's written on. It offers only the most fleeting and spurious legal opinion - It's mainly one long whiney Trump-like tweet. Invoking a 1950's case, Watkins vs. United States, which is not even close to this situation, and is thus a joke.

 

Simply saying something is illegitmate and unconstitutional is hardly a valid legal precedent, nor does it make something "true".  By the way, I am handsome.

 

Pat Cippolone will rue the day he signed that bit of guano.

 

 

 

 

assumptions only.

the correct piano chord is to call a vote, call the house of reps to vote on a motion to start impeachment inquiry but instead it was just a hypothetical political gambit- but the dems are going to find out if 217 vote. thats when the supreme court will rule months away.

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Compare what Trump did in his call with the Ukrainian President versus what Joe Biden in his own words said he did and tell me which one used his position unlawfully.

He got a corrupt prosecutor (who was not investigating his son) fired. He did it to get her with the IMF and the EU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/imf-warns-ukraine-halt-40bn-bailout-corruption-christine-lagarde

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

[Tippaporn]

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

Ho-ho-ho indeed!

"Mr. Gowdy was particularly critical of the State Department for not complying with requests for documents, and those past comments about the importance of responding document requests are likely to resurface in any defense of Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-legal-team.html

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ho-ho-ho indeed!

"Mr. Gowdy was particularly critical of the State Department for not complying with requests for documents, and those past comments about the importance of responding document requests are likely to resurface in any defense of Mr. Trump."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-legal-team.html

As long as the requests are legit.  If they're not then I would predict that Gowdy would argue the case quite well.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

As long as the requests are legit.  If they're not then I would predict that Gowdy would argue the case quite well.

The House has the strong backing of the Constitution. The case was much more ambiguous when Gowdy led the House inquiry.

[Eric Loh]

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

If the Benghazi hearing was his finest moment, there is nothing to worry about him going anywhere. ????

[Rimmer]

Two off topic flames have been removed.  

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Per NBC News:

 

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team.

 

Ho-ho-ho.  I would not want this guy going after me.

You mean Benghazi-Gowdy, the zealot who wasted millions of tax payers' dollars on a wild goose chase that (as opposed to the Mueller investigation) led to 0 (zero) convictions??

Yeah, I'm sure the dems are quaking in their boots!

[RideJocky]

You mean Benghazi-Gowdy, the zealot who wasted millions of tax payers' dollars on a wild goose chase that (as opposed to the Mueller investigation) led to 0 (zero) convictions??
Yeah, I'm sure the dems are quaking in their boots!

Yes, everyone knew it was the video that set off the Benghazi attack.