White House announces it will not comply with illegitimate and unconstitutional impeachment inquiry

[Sir Galahad]

The only thing smoking is you and the people who actually think what Trump did would lead to impeachment. This is all about making Trump look bad before the 2020 election. Look at what is in the rules being presented today. Look at the power Nadler will have. They want his tax returns and they want his private communications with his attorneys.
I will say it for you again, there will be no impeachment vote. No way the dems will give the power to the senate to dig deeper into all the democrats games.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cubs79]

So you understand what they are voting in? This is not an impeachment vote, this is a vote on rules of investigation which is useless because it’s too late.

It is part of the process of formal impeachment, and there will absolutely be an impeachment vote.

 

[Sir Galahad]

It is part of the process of formal impeachment, and there will absolutely be an impeachment vote.

Why do you think that? They know full well that anything they send is DOA in the senate. I don’t think you understand just what the Republicans can do in the senate. They can and will call the whistleblower, Schiff’s staff and Schiff himself to testify. That puts Pelosi up as well if Schiff slips just one step.

 

[Cubs79]

Why do you think that? They know full well that anything they send is DOA in the senate. I don’t think you understand just what the Republicans can do in the senate. They can and will call the whistleblower, Schiff’s staff and Schiff himself to testify. That puts Pelosi up as well if Schiff slips just one step.

They wouldn't be going through this process if they didn't have a plan to have an impeachment vote. It has nothing to do with Republican's in the Senate. They would look extremely weak as a party right before campaign season starts heating up if they end up doing all of this for show and don't ultimately have a vote. I guarantee you there will be an impeachment vote.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is all about making Trump look bad before the 2020 election.

As if Trump needs any help.

 

[Crazyhole]

The only thing smoking is you and the people who actually think what Trump did would lead to impeachment. This is all about making Trump look bad before the 2020 election. Look at what is in the rules being presented today. Look at the power Nadler will have. They want his tax returns and they want his private communications with his attorneys.
I will say it for you again, there will be no impeachment vote. No way the dems will give the power to the senate to dig deeper into all the democrats games.

[/QUOTE]

Lol at his tax returns. What would they possibly glean from his tax returns that would have anything to do with this?

 

[DaShuckster]

Lol at his tax returns.

LOL at the LOL.

How we ever allowed a serious candidate for President to be elected without sharing his financial situation is one of the most mind-boggling dumb things American voters have ever done!!!!

Clearly there are things Trump doesn't want the American Public to know. The fact that he has stonewalled all attempts to see them since taking Office speaks volumes.

Given how incredibly stupid we've shown ourselves to be, there needs to be a legal requirement that serious Presidential candidates provide ten years of their tax returns.

 

[Boosted87]

Why do you think that? They know full well that anything they send is DOA in the senate. I don’t think you understand just what the Republicans can do in the senate. They can and will call the whistleblower, Schiff’s staff and Schiff himself to testify. That puts Pelosi up as well if Schiff slips just one step.

You actually think this is all a bluff? It may be politics but it's not a bluff. Short of a national crisis that backburners this thing,there's a very high likelihood they impeach him. There's no putting the cat back in the bag and Schiff and Pelosi know that. If there was some deep dark secret that they're willing to derail this process to protect, they would have never announced that this was a formal impeachment inquiry in the first place.

 

[Crazyhole]

LOL at the LOL.

How we ever allowed a serious candidate for President to be elected without sharing his financial situation is one of the most mind-boggling dumb things American voters have ever done!!!!

Clearly there are things Trump doesn't want the American Public to know. The fact that he has stonewalled all attempts to see them since taking Office speaks volumes.

Given how incredibly stupid we've shown ourselves to be, there needs to be a legal requirement that serious Presidential candidates provide ten years of their tax returns.

Other than satisfying peoples curiosity, what value comes from seeing his tax returns? I've never seen why tax returns and college transcripts should be a factor in elections.

1. Is there the possibility of finding an impeachable offense in his tax returns?

2. Is there the possibility of finding something in there that solidifies the case against him regarding Ukraine?

The answer to both is no. This is just house dems taking advantage of the situation to find things to use against him in 2020.

 

[DaShuckster]

Other than satisfying peoples curiosity, what value comes from seeing his tax returns?

Is there a possibility of finding out who Trump's financial lenders have been since American Banks quit loaning his businesses money back in the 1990s?

For the sake of this discussion, what if it turns out a Presidential candidate was beholden to Big Money Russian oligarchs who were all buddies of Vladimir Putin. Shouldn't the American public have had a right to know about these financial relationships? I mean if such a crazy scenario were ever to exist for any candidate, it sure seems to me it would indicate a serious conflict of interest.

 

[Crazyhole]

You actually think this is all a bluff? It may be politics but it's not a bluff. Short of a national crisis that backburners this thing,there's a very high likelihood they impeach him. There's no putting the cat back in the bag and Schiff and Pelosi know that. If there was some deep dark secret that they're willing to derail this process to protect, they would have never announced that this was a formal impeachment inquiry in the first place.

I don't think its members of the house that are nervous about secrets coming out, it's people in the state dept and justice.

 

[Crazyhole]

Is there a possibility of finding out who Trump's financial lenders have been since American Banks quit loaning his businesses money back in the 1990s?

For the sake of this discussion, what if it turns out a Presidential candidate was beholden to Big Money Russian oligarchs who were all buddies of Vladimir Putin. Shouldn't the American public have had a right to know about these financial relationships? I mean if such a crazy scenario were ever to exist for any candidate, it sure seems to me it would indicate a serious conflict of interest.

Tax returns don't provide that kind of information. The IRS would have to conduct an audit to find out things like that, and if they have found those types of things I kind of doubt that employees there would keep it secret.

 

[DaShuckster]

Tax returns don't provide that kind of information.

Tax returns would provide enough information that financial journalists would be able to piece it all together.

In an increasingly global economy, the American Public has a right to know what countries a candidate is "doing business" with, whether its an international charitable Foundation or a private business. I would think this is something we should all agree on.

 

[fried-chicken]

Republicans voting nay

I can see possibly voting that you don't think this is worth removing Trump from office but imagine saying that you don't even think this is worth looking into.

Its so clearly an issue worth looking at that voting nay just solidifies that you're more interested in staying in power than you are in doing your constitutional duty to be the check on the executive branch. What is the rationale for those voting no?

 

[Boosted87]

Republicans voting nay

I can see possibly voting that you don't think this is worth removing Trump from office but imagine saying that you don't even think this is worth looking into.

Its so clearly an issue worth looking at that voting nay just solidifies that you're more interested in staying in power than you are in doing your constitutional duty to be the check on the executive branch. What is the rationale for those voting no?

I agree. I think you can make arguments why the facts as we currently know them aren't sufficient grounds to impeach. I do not think you can make an intellectually honest argument that this doesn't even deserve to be investigated. You have to be living pretty deep in a right-wing propaganda cave to come to that conclusion.

 

[fried-chicken]

I agree. I think you can make arguments why the facts as we currently know them aren't sufficient grounds to impeach. I do not think you can make an intellectually honest argument that this doesn't even deserve to be investigated. You have to be living pretty deep in a right-wing propaganda cave to come to that conclusion.

When 100% of them vote that it's not worth looking into that's exactly what you have. A party that only exists to hold power and is willing to do anything, including shirking constitutional responsibility, to keep that power.

 

[Boosted87]

Other than satisfying peoples curiosity, what value comes from seeing his tax returns? I've never seen why tax returns and college transcripts should be a factor in elections.

1. Is there the possibility of finding an impeachable offense in his tax returns?

2. Is there the possibility of finding something in there that solidifies the case against him regarding Ukraine?

The answer to both is no. This is just house dems taking advantage of the situation to find things to use against him in 2020.

It's about public trust. If it wasn't a big deal, it wouldn't have become standard practice for decades. Pretty straight forward to me. I hope post-trump we codify a bunch of anti-corruption and transparency stuff for public officials.

 

[Ucfmikes]

What do I need to change the title of this thread to? Lol

 

[UCFWayne]

232 - 196 pretty much the party line except 2 dems said no.

 

[DaShuckster]

For the life of me, I don't understand a 'no' vote. It's not a vote to impeach, it's simply a vote to initiate a formal inquiry to ascertain whether there was any wrong-doing.

The naysayers don't believe this Ukraine business is worth looking into??!? Really??!?

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

The greatest thing this president has done is show the conservatives to be the hypocrites we always knew they were. Always shocked and outraged at the other side, but when it comes to their own, they fall in line with glorious leader.

 

[Sir Galahad]

They wouldn't be going through this process if they didn't have a plan to have an impeachment vote. It has nothing to do with Republican's in the Senate. They would look extremely weak as a party right before campaign season starts heating up if they end up doing all of this for show and don't ultimately have a vote. I guarantee you there will be an impeachment vote.

Nope, why isn’t the judiciary committee handling this phase?

 

[Cubs79]

Nope, why isn’t the judiciary committee handling this phase?

Nope to what? And look, we will just have to wait and see I am not going to argue this over and, but I am 99.999% confident I am going to be correct on this. Why in the world do you think they brought this forward if they have no plans of having a vote? I just don't understand your logic or how you somehow think that helps the Democrats at all.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

I mean, do you remember when Obama wore a tan suit (like Regan), or didn't wear a lapel pin with the flag on it? Ho-lee-shit!

 

[Boosted87]

Nope, why isn’t the judiciary committee handling this phase?

Because both Clinton and Nixon had special prosecutors do the investigation and hand the results over. The House didn't need to investigate in those cases, just hold hearings and vote accordingly.

In this case, DOJ reviewed the transcript per a criminal referral from the CIA, did no investigation, and decided it was fine. So the House is doing their investigation on their own terms. Findings will be handed over to the Judiciary Committee and they'll take it from there.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I agree. I think you can make arguments why the facts as we currently know them aren't sufficient grounds to impeach. I do not think you can make an intellectually honest argument that this doesn't even deserve to be investigated. You have to be living pretty deep in a right-wing propaganda cave to come to that conclusion.

This is nothing more than smoke screen for the two investigations about to land on the democrats.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is nothing more than smoke screen for the two investigations about to land on the democrats.

Full fledged panic mode. Looking at the last 3 years as an entire narrative, what we are seeing is a last ditch effort to not only get rid of Trump but also to hide what has been going on.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Remember when conservatives were up in arms about Hillary having a private email server, but then Trump, his kids, and staff, all use private email servers and suddenly conservatives don't care?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

 

[Crazyhole]

Remember when conservatives were up in arms about Hillary having a private email server, but then Trump, his kids, and staff, all use private email servers and suddenly conservatives don't care?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Which one of his kids was secretary of state?

 

[Cubs79]

Which one of his kids was secretary of state?

So that only applies to the sec of state and not to presidential advisors with security clearances?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Nope to what? And look, we will just have to wait and see I am not going to argue this over and, but I am 99.999% confident I am going to be correct on this. Why in the world do you think they brought this forward if they have no plans of having a vote? I just don't understand your logic or how you somehow think that helps the Democrats at all.

To distract and discredit Trump and Barr who will drop the hammer on the real 2016 election corruption.

 

[DaShuckster]

To distract and discredit Trump and Barr who will drop the hammer on the real 2016 election corruption.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...B49F4339D11929F0D2CEB49F4339D119&&FORM=VRDGAR

 

[Cubs79]

To distract and discredit Trump and Barr who will drop the hammer on the real 2016 election corruption.

I still don't even get your logic behind that. You think the Democrats are knowingly running a sham impeachment, which will end up making themselves look like a weak and corrupt party, while also making Trump look much better? If that is what they are doing then I hope every single of them are voted out because that is the dumbest political strategy I have ever heard. Anyway, you are going to be wrong on this.

 

[DaShuckster]

I still don't even get your logic behind that. You think the Democrats are knowingly running a sham impeachment, which will end up making themselves look like a weak and corrupt party, while also making Trump look much better?

When you have no defense for Trump's stupid antics, conspiracy theories help energize the base by giving them hope.

 

[Cubs79]

When you have no defense for Trump's stupid antics, conspiracy theories help energize the base by giving them hope.

Lol, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[UCFWayne]

Which one of his kids was secretary of state?

not to mention the level of secret information they have access to.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I still don't even get your logic behind that. You think the Democrats are knowingly running a sham impeachment, which will end up making themselves look like a weak and corrupt party, while also making Trump look much better? If that is what they are doing then I hope every single of them are voted out because that is the dumbest political strategy I have ever heard. Anyway, you are going to be wrong on this.

What is their endgame? There is zero chance the Senate will convict. Would the Dem's really impeach and let someone like Adam Schiff be brought before the Senate Intel Committee where he will be under oath?. Remember that Schiff had the whistleblower report nearly a month before it was announced by the IGIC. First he denied the fact that there was contact, then it leaked out. How long do you think it will take Sen. Graham to call firs the whistleblower, then Schiff's staff then Schiff to testify? If forced to answer questions, how long do you think it will take to link other big names to the scam behind how the whistleblower was brought forward?

Do you really think Schiff wants to be called in front of the Senate where he would have ZERO power?

 

[sk8knight]

I think there are a lot of very excited people in this thread who are going to be sorely disappointed again when this is over. We’ll get about an hour of respite and then they’ll be on to the next reason why Trump should be impeached/imprisoned and why all republicans are evil.

 

[DaShuckster]

We’ll get about an hour of respite and then they’ll be on to the next reason why Trump should be impeached/imprisoned and why all republicans are evil.

Weird how Trump seems to regularly provide impeachment reasons

I think there are a lot of very excited people in this thread who are going to be sorely disappointed again when this is over.

You're happy about what's been going on???!?!

Whether it's an impeachment conviction or defeat next year, most Americans just want this crazyass Presidency to be over with.

​

 

[sk8knight]

Weird how Trump seems to regularly provide impeachment reasons
You're happy about what's been going on???!?!

Whether it's an impeachment conviction or defeat next year, most Americans just want this crazyass Presidency to be over with.

​

Yet a new poll shows Trump edging unnamed Democrat 41-39.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-rises-sanders-buttigieg-top-tier/4096461002/