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*** (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Workhorse
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Now that they’re photoshopping him out of White House pictures? Yeah, I kinda do, too.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
His opening statement alone is pretty damning unfortunately very few people will read it and too many people will dismiss it.
sho nuff
Footballguy
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I can’t believe all the reporting about Al Capone was so negative.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Bernie Madoff always gets bad press. So unfair.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
I did not read this article, but I saw it come across my Twitter feed. Looks like it might address your question.timschochet said:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/teaching-democrats-to-speak-evangelical
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Good read here, friend.everything that comes out is negative.
This is why nobody takes you seriously.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Don't have link to properly attribute, but I chuckled.
Quid Pro Quo walk into a Barr.
Quid Pro Quo walk into a Barr.
timschochet
Footballguy
As always, conservatives have an alternative storyline: Devin Nunes came on Hannity tonight and claimed that Congressmen John Ratcliffe crossexamined Taylor and “destroyed him.” Nunes didn’t say how, but he assured Hannity that there was “no quid pro quo.” Mark Meadows said the same:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/there-is-no-quid-pro-quo-devin-nunes-says-john-ratcliffe-destroyed-diplomat-in-deposition
Man, who am I gonna believe?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/there-is-no-quid-pro-quo-devin-nunes-says-john-ratcliffe-destroyed-diplomat-in-deposition
Man, who am I gonna believe?
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Really seems like a coordinated effort from Republicans to 1) whine about leaks, and then 2) run immediately to State TV to leak their own narrative.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
I'm beginning to think 20 Republican senators might vote to convict, especially if things move quickly through the house. In an instant, all their problems of being tied to Trump melt away; and the threat of primarying these pols would open the gates wide for the Democrats to take back the Senate, so they can run on that.
I'm not much of a bettor. What are the lines on Trump getting impeached and convicted?
I'm not much of a bettor. What are the lines on Trump getting impeached and convicted?
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Until Trump’s base moves against him, the politicians won’t. It does seem like that’s going to happen for a multitude of reasons.
One factor that has to be looked at is the big money donors. Yes they fear the Trumpy primary challengers but if the big donors are solidly behind moving on from Trump, it will happen. Primary challenge is their biggest concern. If they make it to the general election, I don’t see many Republicans staying home or voting Democrats. In many cases, a vote for removal might increase their chances.
I can see McConnell leading the narrative that this a problem they have to step up and end. It lets them play the hero of the story. It will narrowly pass with many GOP Senators voting against simply as cover. Republicans have time to get a new candidate ready for 2020 who might have a better chance of winning.
I don’t think we’re quite there yet but I think it happens. I believe there’s more bombshells yet to come.
timschochet
Footballguy
McConnell today denied that he ever spoke with Trump about the phone call- basically calling Trump a liar.
msommer
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Encyclopedia Brown
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
Sept. 9 the IG notified Schiff that the DNI had not forwarded the Whistleblower's complaint as required by law. Republicans in the House no doubt alerted the White House to cover its tracks.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Eric Swalwell this morning: the Republicans, particularly John Ratcliffe, asked crazy conspiracy questions about the DNC server. Then the Republicans left early on. Then they complained they weren’t in the room.
timschochet
Footballguy
Radcliffe’s argument is that Ukraine did not know about the quid pro quo, therefore there was no quid pro quo. Radcliffe appeared on Fox to make this argument and Trump just tweeted about this.
apalmer
Footballguy
Ratcliffe: You don't like Mr. Guiliani very much, do you?
Taylor: No, I don't.
Ratcliffe: And you served in the Army that was a loser in Vietnam, didn't you?
Taylor: Yes, I did.
Ratcliffe: So you admit that you're just a loser who doesn't like a man whose city was attacked by terrorists. Thank you.*
Nunes: Ratcliffe destroyed Taylor on cross-examination.
*Disclaimer: Not an actual quote of the "cross-examination".
sho nuff
Footballguy
So there was now a quid pro quo...but they claim Ukraine didn't know about it. Seriously, who is giving the GOP legal advice?
jamny
Footballguy
One of the more interesting parts of that opening statement is when they discussed Trump operating as a businessman and that he was owed something. It goes a long way into understanding his thinking. He always claims credit, like how he gave people tax breaks, he has created the best economy ever, he has the best stock market. He might really not see this as quid pro quo but more as part of the deal if he is going to fork over the aid. He doesn't want to give something for nothing in his opinion. It's business. Someone should ask him what he thinks quid pro quo means.
timschochet
Footballguy
Here’s how Radcliffe “destroyed” Taylor: after asking questions about the DNC server (Taylor said he knew nothing about that) Radcliffe asked if Ukraine was aware of any quid pro quo. It’s unclear how Taylor answered but it sounds like he answered that he didn’t make the threat himself and wasn’t sure who did.
Therefore, says Radcliffe (and Trump) no evidence that Ukraine knew about it. Therefore no quid pro quo. In a sense this defense is similar to Trump ordering Mueller be fired, and then backing off when McGahn refused to do it.
But if it’s true (and I’m skeptical of this) then Senate Republicans might have an out: they can argue that Trump attempting this is really bad but it’s not impeachable because he didn’t carry it through. The problem with this argument is that the money wasn’t finally released until after the whistleblower report came out.
Therefore, says Radcliffe (and Trump) no evidence that Ukraine knew about it. Therefore no quid pro quo. In a sense this defense is similar to Trump ordering Mueller be fired, and then backing off when McGahn refused to do it.
But if it’s true (and I’m skeptical of this) then Senate Republicans might have an out: they can argue that Trump attempting this is really bad but it’s not impeachable because he didn’t carry it through. The problem with this argument is that the money wasn’t finally released until after the whistleblower report came out.
apalmer
Footballguy
Yeah, all Ukraine knew was that every time they asked where the aid was they were asked when Zelensky was going to get in front of a microphone and announce they were investigating Biden. They had no idea those two things were connected.
timschochet
Footballguy
There is nothing wrong with asking for a quid pro quo. The problem lies in the nature of the quo.
I give Trump credit - when it is due.
He has done an effective job in muddying the waters with the "quid pro quo" stuff.
Quid Pro Quo is not essential here. Trump is using the office of the presidency to pursue personal political vendettas. That is the definition of an abuse of office/power claim.
Yet, now people - many fine people on both sides - are discussing whether there was quid pro quo, with the underlying implication being that quid pro quo is the lynchpin to a successful impeachment.
Trump did that.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not really.
Technically you’re right that Trump abused his power simply by mentioning Biden in the first place and making his request.
But without a quid pro quo I don’t think the public would ever have approved of impeachment. It wouldn’t have been enough. You need a quid pro quo, particularly this one because it places our ally, Ukraine, in mortal danger, to make the case as to how serious this is.
Ned
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
What someone needs to do - is pull on the string labeled "Decision to withhold Aid"
If anyone pulled that string, and took a look at that decision making process - I suspect very strongly, that the whole story unravels. Its why nobody is screaming about that aspect from the Right. If you say that the decision to withhold aid was unrelated to the investigation into the Bidens - then lets see the paper-trail on both the decision to withhold aid, and the subsequent decision to release the aid.
What was discussed about withholding aid - and with whom?
What was discussed about releasing aid - and with whom?
Godsbrother
Footballguy
This can't be true because Trump and others have said there are no Republicans in the hearing and even if there were they wouldn't be allowed to ask questions.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is why the testimony yesterday was so devastating- because your questions were just answered.
Yeah - not really.
What we need to hear has to come from Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, maybe Giuliani, and people at the OMB office - those are the people with direct knowledge of the decision to withhold aid, and the subsequent decision to release aid.
Tie them down to a single story as to why the aid was withheld - Trump has floated several, investigators need to get them committed to one version.
Obtain the paper trail the purportedly supports that reason.
Follow the paper trail to see when and why the aid was released - and how does that corollate to the stated reason for withholding aid - i.e. what changed?
Similar threads
