What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (7 Viewers)

no one cares what you "think", the law is clear on the executive.  Only the most partisan judges would rule otherwise in a court of law.   The presidents conversations with foreign leaders are protected, priveledged information.  Otherwise how do you run a country>?   this isn't hard logic.

the impeachment process has been done before.  This is the only time in history that a) there hasn't been a vote on it and b) the process is being done in secret
The vote will happen later.  It's a big part of the process, you'll see when it happens.

 
no one cares what you "think", the law is clear on the executive.  Only the most partisan judges would rule otherwise in a court of law.   The presidents conversations with foreign leaders are protected, priveledged information.  Otherwise how do you run a country>?   this isn't hard logic.

the impeachment process has been done before.  This is the only time in history that a) there hasn't been a vote on it and b) the process is being done in secret
First of all - lots of people care what I "think"

Second - you are also wrong on everything else in this post.

 
What part of the process is being done in secret and how secret are these proceedings?  I ask because I have been hearing and reading a lot about the testimony and fact gathering that is going on and just today read a report on the testimony of a foer ambassador.

 
I am fine with that- I recognize its an unconventional - at best - way of looking at things.  And, I am just trying to step back from the fray, and see if anything makes sense.  When chum is thrown in the water, its easy to get caught up in the feeding frenzy.

I started thinking about Lev and Igor - and how they were probably taking advantage of Rudy and Trump, and I started to ask why, or how.  I think both Rudy and Trump are susceptible to conspiracy theories - so my theory is that these two guys were feeding into that - giving Rudy and Trump hope that the stories were true.  Such that when Trump asked for help from Ukraine, he was convinced there was ample evidence, and that asking for evidence of corruption was not illegal.  :shrug:

I am still very much in favor of getting him out of office sooner rather than later - as he is decidedly unfit for office, even under the best of circumstances.  I was just questioning whether we are forcing some facts to fit the narrative we want.
I won’t even try to convince you otherwise, but I wholeheartedly disagree that Trump and Guiliani useful dupes or somehow not corrupt in their intent, but that may be my NYC experiences with the two. 

 
there was not a vote on the "inquiry" just Pelosi saying there is one.   This has never happened.  Schiffs hearings are done in secret in secure locations, not in public.  doesn't seem like a very non partisan, fair attempt at impeachment to me.

so if i'm trump or the republicans, i don't blame them for not cooperating, honestly.   Make the process public and take a vote so everyone is on record where they stand.   
A vote isnt needed or required by law.  Schiffs committee has republicans too, you know this, right?

You don't blame Republicans for not cooperating with legal investigations?  Seems odd.

 
and for the record, this "impeachment" is the result of our intelligence agencies spying on the presidents protected conversation with the president of a foreign country.   This is what you are in favor of.  So we know the rules for the next time a Dem is the President.   This is what you are in favor of now.
No...it really isn’t.

 
there was not a vote on the "inquiry" just Pelosi saying there is one.   This has never happened.  Schiffs hearings are done in secret in secure locations, not in public.  doesn't seem like a very non partisan, fair attempt at impeachment to me.

so if i'm trump or the republicans, i don't blame them for not cooperating, honestly.   Make the process public and take a vote so everyone is on record where they stand.   
Was there a vote on Trump's inquiry into Biden's activity? I must have missed that part. Who voted on whether OJ should be investigated? Was it the police only or did the DA get a vote?  How about Epstein? Who voted on whether to investigate him?

ETA: Who voted on whether Hillary should be investigated for her emails and Benghazi? As I recall, the GOP even changed the rules so they could investigate her without a vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won’t even try to convince you otherwise, but I wholeheartedly disagree that Trump and Guiliani useful dupes or somehow not corrupt in their intent, but that may be my NYC experiences with the two. 
You may be right (probably are).  I lost a lot of sleep last night thinking through all the possibilities.

I won't lose any sleep if Trump is impeached and removed from office.

 
a) thats nice

b) no, i'm not.   read a book
I'm just going to assume tommyboy has me on ignore at this point, but for everyone else - I think everyone has read some books and I think everyone wants to talk about the issues.  Like, real ones, not ones the President and Nosferatu the Immortal Mayor of New York made up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
go ahead and argue that you are in favor of a) spying on the president, b) attempting to impeach the president in secret.  I'm listneing and so are a lot of voters.
Go ahead and keep ignoring the fact that he wasn't spied on, the deflection attempts are hilarious at this point!

Seriously, keep 'em coming. Friday afternoons are pretty slow here.

 
I'm totally fine with people watching to make sure the president is doing business in the best interest of the United States and if he isn't I want to know about it.
Pretty sure those folks, including the POTUS, took an oath to protect the US of A from enemies foreign and domestic.  So it's pretty easy, do that and don't commit crimes and everything is cool.

 
I'm just going to assume tommyboy has me on ignore at this point, but for everyone else - I've read some books if anyone wants to talk about the issues.  Like, real ones, not ones the President and Nosferatu the Immortal Mayor of New York made up.
Look at me! I can read!

 
go ahead and argue that you are in favor of a) spying on the president, b) attempting to impeach the president in secret.  I'm listneing and so are a lot of voters.
Who listens to the call?

Traditionally, officials from the US national security council (NSC) brief the president before a call with a foreign leader. Then the briefers sit in the Oval Office with the president while he speaks on the phone with the foreign leader. "At least two members of the NSC are usually present," according to USA Today.

There will also be officials sitting in a secure room in another part of the White House, listening to the president's call and taking notes. Their notes are known as a "memorandum of telephone conversation", and like many things in Washington it has an abbreviation: "memcon".

The president's calls with foreign leaders are also transcribed by computers. Afterwards, as former White House officials explain, the human note takers compare their impressions with an electronic version of the call. The notes from the officials and from the computerised transcriptions are combined into one document. This transcript may not be perfect, but it is done as carefully as time and resources allow.

IIRC, up to 12 people listen in on all presidential calls with foreign leaders. 

 
What part of the process is being done in secret and how secret are these proceedings?  I ask because I have been hearing and reading a lot about the testimony and fact gathering that is going on and just today read a report on the testimony of a foer ambassador.
Last week's sessions weren't just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation's most important secrets without fear of discovery.

The second hearing, in which Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.

Were highly classified matters discussed at the Volker and Atkinson hearings? Apparently not. Neither interview was classified. And even if some classified information were involved, it would be astonishing for Democrats to believe they could attempt to remove the president on the basis of information that is not available to the public.

The secrecy, decreed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, has taken Republicans by surprise. Some are now speaking out about it.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/end-impeachment-secrecy

 
I'm old enough to remember when Trump followers complained when the Dems held public hearings, calling them "a circus". Now they complain when they're held in private? Make up your damn mind!

:lmao:

 
Last week's sessions weren't just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation's most important secrets without fear of discovery.

The second hearing, in which Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.

Were highly classified matters discussed at the Volker and Atkinson hearings? Apparently not. Neither interview was classified. And even if some classified information were involved, it would be astonishing for Democrats to believe they could attempt to remove the president on the basis of information that is not available to the public.

The secrecy, decreed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, has taken Republicans by surprise. Some are now speaking out about it.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/end-impeachment-secrecy
Suppose the basis for impeachment is that a president delivered to Russia detailed, top-secret information. Should the testimony detailing that top-secret info to Congress be available to the public?

 
Last week's sessions weren't just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation's most important secrets without fear of discovery.

The second hearing, in which Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.

Were highly classified matters discussed at the Volker and Atkinson hearings? Apparently not. Neither interview was classified. And even if some classified information were involved, it would be astonishing for Democrats to believe they could attempt to remove the president on the basis of information that is not available to the public.

The secrecy, decreed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, has taken Republicans by surprise. Some are now speaking out about it.  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/end-impeachment-secrecy
:facepalm:

If you're trying to discover facts, how would you know if what you're going to talk about is classified until it already comes out?

 
I'm old enough to remember when Trump followers complained when the Dems held public hearings, calling them "a circus". Now they complain when they're held in private? Make up your damn mind!

:lmao:
Right.  For the entire Mueller investigation "We can't testify about that in public in Congress!  There's classified information involved!"

Now, apparently the call they wrote a memo about and stuck it on a classified server, everyone's supposed to know there's nothing important involved.  

 
Its almost as if you don't understand what has happened or the process at all.
i sure do.   The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information.   This rule was changed by the IC IG Atkinson and he has still not given a good answer as to "why".  Previously (forever) in order to qualify as a protected "whistleblower" you had to report 1st hand info.    check one

Adam Schiff denied that he had had contact with the 'whistleblower" prior to the initial reports in the media a month ago. Turns out he lied about that and had been in contact with the "whistleblower"  since early August.  He and his office coordinated with the whistleblower how to proceed with his 2nd and 3rd hand info.

Then the the dems had a meeting where Pelosi emerges from the meeting and announces "we starting an impeachment inquiry" as if she alone has that power.  She doesn't.  She then gives the lead role in that "inquiry" to the same Adam Schiff that lied about his coordination with the alleged "whistlblower" who, remember, is a hearsay witness at this point and wouldnt be protected by any legal whistlblower statute had not the IC IG changed and backdated the requirements in september right before the story broke.

Now Schiff is having hearings in SCIF rooms within congress, and they are calling this "an impeachment inquiry"

In reality  a) no vote on impeachment as in all previous impeachments and b) its all super secret so don't worry about any thing.  Orange man bad.

keep up the good work, the country is going to punish the Democrat party for a generation over this.  

 
I'm old enough to remember when Trump followers complained when the Dems held public hearings, calling them "a circus". Now they complain when they're held in private? Make up your damn mind!

:lmao:
I'll put it on the same page with. " That just guaranteed a Trump victory  and anyway no one cares "

 
i sure do.   The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information.   This rule was changed by the IC IG Atkinson and he has still not given a good answer as to "why".  Previously (forever) in order to qualify as a protected "whistleblower" you had to report 1st hand info.    check one

Adam Schiff denied that he had had contact with the 'whistleblower" prior to the initial reports in the media a month ago. Turns out he lied about that and had been in contact with the "whistleblower"  since early August.  He and his office coordinated with the whistleblower how to proceed with his 2nd and 3rd hand info.

Then the the dems had a meeting where Pelosi emerges from the meeting and announces "we starting an impeachment inquiry" as if she alone has that power.  She doesn't.  She then gives the lead role in that "inquiry" to the same Adam Schiff that lied about his coordination with the alleged "whistlblower" who, remember, is a hearsay witness at this point and wouldnt be protected by any legal whistlblower statute had not the IC IG changed and backdated the requirements in september right before the story broke.

Now Schiff is having hearings in SCIF rooms within congress, and they are calling this "an impeachment inquiry"
You are not getting information from good sources. You should consider reading publications with respected fact-checkers and editors. If you don't like the New York Times or the Washington Post, try the Wall Street Journal (not the editorial page).

That probably sounds condescending. I don't mean it to. I don't know how else to say it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems the baton has been handed off to tommyboy. Too bad noonan and stealthy and others have already been lapped
As they speed through the finish, the flags go down
The fans get up and they get out of town
The arena is empty except for one man
Still driving and striving as fast as he can
The sun has gone down and the moon has come up
And long ago somebody left with the cup
But he's driving and striving and hugging the turns
And thinking of someone for whom he still burns


 
i sure do.   The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information.   This rule was changed by the IC IG Atkinson and he has still not given a good answer as to "why".  Previously (forever) in order to qualify as a protected "whistleblower" you had to report 1st hand info.    check one

Adam Schiff denied that he had had contact with the 'whistleblower" prior to the initial reports in the media a month ago. Turns out he lied about that and had been in contact with the "whistleblower"  since early August.  He and his office coordinated with the whistleblower how to proceed with his 2nd and 3rd hand info.

Then the the dems had a meeting where Pelosi emerges from the meeting and announces "we starting an impeachment inquiry" as if she alone has that power.  She doesn't.  She then gives the lead role in that "inquiry" to the same Adam Schiff that lied about his coordination with the alleged "whistlblower" who, remember, is a hearsay witness at this point and wouldnt be protected by any legal whistlblower statute had not the IC IG changed and backdated the requirements in september right before the story broke.

Now Schiff is having hearings in SCIF rooms within congress, and they are calling this "an impeachment inquiry"

In reality  a) no vote on impeachment as in all previous impeachments and b) its all super secret so don't worry about any thing.  Orange man bad.

keep up the good work, the country is going to punish the Democrat party for a generation over this.  
The rules were changed thing was bogus.  No, you don't understand and are regurgitating the bunk from right wing sites that don't deal in facts.

 
I don't know what you are talking about.  But if you are trying to suggest that the Whistleblower, who was from the CIA, was listening into the president's conversation, you are not being honest.  You know damn well that the whistleblower was given this information by people on the president's own staff, who were legitimately on the call, and were so upset by the call that they told the WB. 
It will probably help if you look into what actually happened in this case.  You don't even have the facts right about how the whistle blower got the information.
Yep, I deserve that.  I knew it was secondhand, but forgot what exactly the firsthand source was.  My bad. 

It just seems like a bad look that the CIA's fingerprints were all over the Russia narrative, and now they're on this one too- another all-consuming media spectacle that will sideline issues affecting the poor and working class.  I'm guessing we'll be seeing a lot more palace intrigue intelligence/media leaks with this one too.  

 
Yep, I deserve that.  I knew it was secondhand, but forgot what exactly the firsthand source was.  My bad. 

It just seems like a bad look that the CIA's fingerprints were all over the Russia narrative, and now they're on this one too- another all-consuming media spectacle that will sideline issues affecting the poor and working class.  I'm guessing we'll be seeing a lot more palace intrigue intelligence/media leaks with this one too.  
It seems bad to you that investigations involving foreign nationals in foreign countries involve the CIA?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems bad to you that investigations into foreign nationals in foreign countries involve the CIA?
The intelligence agencies have a clear animus toward the President, and by the looks of it are trying to remove him from office again.  Not for his most abhorrent policies which have made the world a more dangerous and destructive place, which they help him with and engage in themselves, but for an infraction that seems strangely oblique and inconsequential compared to everything else.  Yes, I have a problem with that.  

Is it worth putting his ability to conduct policy with other foreign heads of state on blast and undermining the confidence of sensitive talks between the President and other countries?  For mentioning an investigation into a former government official that overthrew a sovereign government in Ukraine?  I don't think it is.  You disagree of course, and that's fine.  

 
The "whistleblower" rules were changed right before the media and democrats blew open the "whistleblower" story -  to allow the "whistleblower" process to report 2nd and 3rd hand information. 
The IC IG addressed this. It's the same form that was in place since May of 2018 and there was never a requirement for first person, direct familiarity, however the WB indicated that he/she had that anyway.

eta: link, IC IG statement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top