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

[RideJocky]

Yeah, how dare them pesky dems expect him to follow the law and not obstruct justice.

They could impeach him for obstruction of justice, wonder why they don’t...

I guess to Nancy (bluff as she must) it’s not as cut-and-dried as it is to all of yoose guys...

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

They could impeach him for obstruction of justice, wonder why they don’t...

I guess to Nancy (bluff as she must) it’s not as cut-and-dried as it is to all of yoose guys...

 

There will be multiple articles.

One covering Ukrainegate of course. He's confessed.

Likely obstruction of congress.

Possibly an emoluments clause related one. Doral was hardly the only instance. 

As far as whether they will address the approximately ten open obstruction of justice cases detailed by Mueller, that is still an open question but the momentum seems to be that they don't want to complicate it too much, so probably not. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

 

They could impeach him for obstruction of justice, wonder why they don’t...

I guess to Nancy (bluff as she must) it’s not as cut-and-dried as it is to all of yoose guys...

 

Because they are investigating. They put all articles together then vote.

 

But you seem to think they should vote on one thing each time Trump does something. Which is every day.

 

Would at least get repubs doing something in the senate as they refuse to do any voting on bills before them.

[Jingthing]

The republican game so far has been to whine that the impeachment inquiry which has indeed been officially started is illegitimate because there wasn't a full house vote to begin it. But they're 100 percent wrong based on facts. (Facts aren't their thing.) That is because there is no rule whatsoever, not in the constitution and not in the current house rules that there NEEDS to be any such vote to begin an official impeachment inquiry. So likely there will never be such a vote about the inquiry. Or there might be if Nancy Pelosi decides for whatever reason to hold it. But eventually there will indeed be a house vote on the actual articles of impeachment once they are finalized. It's almost definite that this impeachment will proceed to having articles, a vote, and a passed house impeachment. But the details and timing are not up to the accused president but rather the democratic controlled house.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There will be articles.He will be impeached in the house.Conviction in the senate is still very unlikely.

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeachment-is-the-lesser-evil/2019/10/20/77bd99dc-f1b8-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html 

 

Why we should impeach and remove President Trump

 

No one has worked more aggressively to trigger impeachment than the president. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and yet, the Dems can't seem to find enough to actually vote on.

Never mind, it keeps them occupied and allows Trump to get on with whatever he's getting on with.

2020 to 2024

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There will be multiple articles.

One covering Ukrainegate of course. He's confessed.

Likely obstruction of congress.

Possibly an emoluments clause related one. Doral was hardly the only instance. 

As far as whether they will address the approximately ten open obstruction of justice cases detailed by Mueller, that is still an open question but the momentum seems to be that they don't want to complicate it too much, so probably not. 

Likely, possibly, probably not.

The last seems appropriate.

[thaibeachlovers]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The republican game so far has been to whine that the impeachment inquiry which has indeed been officially started is illegitimate because there wasn't a full house vote to begin it. But they're 100 percent wrong based on facts. (Facts aren't their thing.) That is because there is no rule whatsoever, not in the constitution and not in the current house rules that there NEEDS to be any such vote to begin an official impeachment inquiry. So likely there will never be such a vote about the inquiry. Or there might be if Nancy Pelosi decides for whatever reason to hold it. But eventually there will indeed be a house vote on the actual articles of impeachment once they are finalized. It's almost definite that this impeachment will proceed to having articles, a vote, and a passed house impeachment. But the details and timing are not up to the accused president but rather the democratic controlled house.

At the rate they are proceeding, seems likely to be 2025 before they get around to having a vote at all, and that's only if they keep the house. Their present behaviour is hardly encouraging voters in middle America to vote for them, IMO.

[RideJocky]

It's almost definite that this impeachment will proceed to having articles, a vote, and a passed house impeachment. But the details and timing are not up to the accused president but rather the democratic controlled house.

Yes, the key word being: “almost”

[johnnybangkok]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At the rate they are proceeding, seems likely to be 2025 before they get around to having a vote at all, and that's only if they keep the house. Their present behaviour is hardly encouraging voters in middle America to vote for them, IMO.

As usual 'IMO' in your case is ridiculously biased towards Trump, despite many posters here educating you to how impeachment works and what Trump is going to be impeached for.

So let me be the next one to also lend a helping hand regarding the 'rate of proceedings'.

Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton for 4 years before he eventually impeached Clinton. Starr was initially appointed to investigate the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments of Bill Clinton but since they were just a bunch of the usual GOP conspiracy theories, he eventually ended up impeaching over lying about giving Monica a bit of Billy sausage during a sworn deposition. The impeachment was initiated in October 1998 with the actual trial hitting the Senate in January 1999.

My guess is that formal impeachment will happen by the end of the year for Trump and he will go on trial in the Senate some time around April/May of next year - plenty of time before the elections for him to either fall on his sword or for Republican Senators to grow a pair and get him out. 

What won't happen is for it to be dragged out 'to 2025' as you put it as it needs to be done soon and lets admit it, they've got plenty to go on even now. 

 

[Jingthing]

Yes, the key word being: “almost”

Not really. Just that saying 100 percent would be a tiny bit too much.

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

[4675636b596f75]

How is the coup going?  Looks to me like it's fizzling out.  

 

[RideJocky]

How is the coup going?  Looks to me like it's fizzling out.  
 

If only that pesky Trump would cooperate!!!

[RideJocky]

Not really.

 

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

 

 

Really

[Jingthing]

 
Really

Intentionally distorted edit.

Not cool.

Goodbye.

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

[rabas]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That is because there is no rule whatsoever, not in the constitution and not in the current house rules that there NEEDS to be any such vote to begin an official impeachment inquiry.

And there is no rule whatsoever in the Constitution or in the Senate rules that the Senate must hold a trial.  Why would they?

 

Because if Nancy does not have an initial vote, the house Republicans and Independents are denied the power to investigate.  Thus the Senate will reject the whole thing as a complete and utter partisan political sham because the Constitution gives the whole house, not the democrats, the power to impeach.

 

Anyway, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be there as presiding judge. I hear he is not too happy.

 

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, rabas said:

And there is no rule whatsoever in the Constitution or in the Senate rules that the Senate must hold a trial.  Why would they?

 

Because if Nancy does not have an initial vote, the house Republicans and Independents are denied the power to investigate.  Thus the Senate will reject the whole thing as a complete and utter partisan political sham because the Constitution gives the whole house, not the democrats, the power to impeach.

 

Anyway, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be there as presiding judge. I hear he is not too happy.

 

The majority senate leader has already indicated that he will be holding a trial for the expected house impeachment to be sent his way.

 

As far as your bogus "investigating" block arguments the democrats are following the rules that the republicans previously passed. Karma bites my dear.

 

Also republicans are given full access for questioning of the witnesses. 

 

The entire house will be involved in the full house impeachment vote after the articles of impeachment are drafted.

 

Enjoy. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

How is the coup going?  Looks to me like it's fizzling out.  

 

Do you go to internet forums to get your news, or are you trolling?

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

 

If only that pesky Trump would cooperate!!!

 

As per the constitution

[Sujo]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and yet, the Dems can't seem to find enough to actually vote on.

Never mind, it keeps them occupied and allows Trump to get on with whatever he's getting on with.

2020 to 2024

Why do you think the dems cant find enough.

 

What is trump getting on with? Making decisions to get allies killed?

[RideJocky]

Intentionally distorted edit.

Not cool.

Goodbye.

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

Sorry, go with God

[RideJocky]

As per the constitution

He seems to have a pretty good record with the Supreme Court, yes?

[RideJocky]

Why do you think the dems cant find enough.
 
What is trump getting on with? Making decisions to get allies killed?

They’ve been claiming they have enough for three years come January, yes?

But-but-but what about President Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and then sneaking them back in after he saw what a mess he made? Wonder what that didn’t get much press. Oh, that’s right, he blamed President Bush.

[johnnybangkok]

50 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

They’ve been claiming they have enough for three years come January, yes?

But-but-but what about President Obama pulling all the troops out of Iraq and then sneaking them back in after he saw what a mess he made? Wonder what that didn’t get much press. Oh, that’s right, he blamed President Bush.

 

Deflection. Deflection. Deflection. (and not a very good one either).

I understand that to be a Trump fan, concentration is an issue but please try to stick to the subject at hand. This thread has nothing to do with Obama. Nothing to do with Bush. It's about Trump getting impeached.

Which is going to happen. 

Soon.

We've cleared up all your issues with constitutional law and the separation of powers. We've knocked down your conspiracy theories. We've even shown you all the rats that are rapidly jumping ship. And we know you haven't got much more left in the tank other than bad whataboutisms like this.

Be please, be patient. It's going to happen.

Perhaps try and look at it with an open mind and an eye for facts. It'll certainly help your argument.

 

 

 

[riclag]

47 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Deflection. Deflection. Deflection. (and not a very good one either).

I understand that to be a Trump fan, concentration is an issue but please try to stick to the subject at hand. This thread has nothing to do with Obama. Nothing to do with Bush. It's about Trump getting impeached.

Which is going to happen. 

Soon.

We've cleared up all your issues with constitutional law and the separation of powers. We've knocked down your conspiracy theories. We've even shown you all the rats that are rapidly jumping ship. And we know you haven't got much more left in the tank other than bad whataboutisms like this.

Be please, be patient. It's going to happen.

Perhaps try and look at it with an open mind and an eye for facts. It'll certainly help your argument.

 

 

 

Actually its the best thing that could happen,imop ! The impeachment of the best economy POTUS,ever ! Dems are playing the public opinion game with their MSM friendlies to convince other voters who wanted change, to jump ship lol.  Americans,most importantly the swing voter, will have a chance to see the liberal swamp  and the Gop defend their version of hyperbole on the house floor!  The Radical dems ,some of which have been trying to impeach him the day he walked off that escalator back in 2015 to announce his intentions, sad, versus the people who won the electoral vote by a landslide! victory! Bring it on!   

[JHolmesJr]

At this point I absolutely insist on impeachment. Im going to love watching Dems

struggle to prove their falsely inflated claims using hearsay. Hopefully John Durham will

bust into the room and drag some of them off.

[wayned]

I doubt that Trump can resist the urge to blame the delay and lengthening of the impeachment inquiry on Elijah Cummings.  His memorial service has forced the rescheduling of 5 of the 7  depositions scheduled for this week, rather than the many additional depositions scheduled due to previous witness testimony.  Waiting for the tweet!

[RideJocky]

Deflection. Deflection. Deflection. (and not a very good one either).
I understand that to be a Trump fan, concentration is an issue but please try to stick to the subject at hand. This thread has nothing to do with Obama. Nothing to do with Bush. It's about Trump getting impeached.
Which is going to happen. 
Soon.
We've cleared up all your issues with constitutional law and the separation of powers. We've knocked down your conspiracy theories. We've even shown you all the rats that are rapidly jumping ship. And we know you haven't got much more left in the tank other than bad whataboutisms like this.
Be please, be patient. It's going to happen.
Perhaps try and look at it with an open mind and an eye for facts. It'll certainly help your argument.
 
 
 

Yes, pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is always judged (by the left) to be deflection, off-topic or some other disqualifier unrelated to the merit of the claim.

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Yes, pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is always judged (by the left) to be deflection, off-topic or some other disqualifier unrelated to the merit of the claim.
 

 

How is a "but, but, but...Obama!" post not a deflection?

[RideJocky]

How is a "but, but, but...Obama!" post not a deflection?

Exactly

[EVENKEEL]

Are we there yet??