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*** (4 Viewers)

BigJim® said:
Yeah, I guess you can get there with this argument if you ignore

1. He was asking about Biden specifically as part of this, which has nothing to do with 2016 elections

2. He is asking for a foreign country to investigate, not our own DOJ, who I believe has said they see no reason to investigate Biden

3. Investigation alone was not sufficient, it required a public proclamation (a "deliverable")

4. He is holding appropriated funds hostage, which he can't do

5. His own advisers had debunked Ukraine/crowdstrike, intelligence and the Mueller report had already established Russian interference, which was affirmed by a GOP majority Senate Intelligence committee

6. He had his own personal attorney spearheading the effort, not a government employee

7. He removed ambassador/OMB personnel as necessary to further his scheme

8. He released funds as soon as it became clear his hand in the cookie jar was going to become known

9. He's previously said over and over the funds and WH meeting were not QPQ, and still takes that position

Other than that...
Click to expand...
Its a clear pattern of trying to gain political favor with use of us funds and the power of the office.  And attempts to obstruct and cover it up.

 
Koya said:
Wait, wat?  That's not the sense I get at all. I'd suggest MOST moderators are moderate (haha?) or even left leaning, with the exception of one owner/mod who clearly aligns strongly with the extreme alt-right and has much the same world view and approach as those more right-extremist posters here.

But overall? Hardly "die hard gop"
Click to expand...
I don't think this needs to be re-litigated but in 2015-2016 it was pretty clear which views ruled this place from the top down (and when I stopped subscribing, lol).

It's not the sense I get now at least.

 
Zow said:
Reasonable, intelligent people refer to things by the improper terms all the time. It doesn't mean that they're correct. 
Click to expand...
Reasonable, intelligent people understand that the majority of America refers to what I linked to as the transcript.  Most folks also understand that the white house admits it isn't a full transcript but it all we have so it is referenced as the transcript.   :shrug:

 
Zow said:
Damn I actually like the Socratic Method... :kicksrock:  
Click to expand...
Had a torts professor that was very traditional and used socratic method exclusively.   When put on the hot seat, one of my classmates simply refused to respond.   At first, the professor thought he was just thinking, but after repeating the question it became apparent that his strategy was to just wait the professor out and make him move on.    There were several minutes of uncomfortable silence before the professor finally caved and moved to another victim.

 
Zow said:
My question was asked for purposes consistent with the Socratic Method. 

In other words, I know the answer. I don't think you know the answer. So, I asked you a question to see if you can teach yourself by arriving at the right answer via research and/or thought or, alternatively, should you provide an errant answer the correct answer can be explained to you in a thoughtful and educational way. 
Click to expand...
GL, GB!

 
Dickies said:
You said "Reasonable people understand there has not been sufficient evidence presented that Trump deserves to be impeached."  

They are gathering the evidence now.  What do you think happens if he is impeached?
Click to expand...
I could not have been more clear.  Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.  The transcript released of the call, the texts and conversations of the witnesses so far, have not demonstrated an impeachable offense.  If we see a smoking gun that shows Trump is guilty then you guys might have a case.

 
moleculo said:
it really is crazy.  The actual accusation in that article is that Sytnyk and Leschenko illegally leaked Manaforts name by publishing the "black ledger".  What I can't tell is if they leaked Manafort explicitly to do harm to the Trump campaign to benefit Hillary (per the claim),  if Manafort was one of many names that were leaked, or if this whole thing is internal Ukranian politics.

This seems to be a more damning article WRT Ukranian influence in 2016 election. - the 2017 Politico article.  Per this article, it does appear that the Ukranian gov't worked with a DNC operative (named Chalupa) to get word out about Manafort.  Is that the same as Trump working with the Russians?  I don't believe it is (que the usial suspects).  Manafort was dirty.  Legitimately dirty.  Chalupa was digging into that dirt, and the Ukranian gov't helped. I suppose one could argue that publishing Manaforts name was a dirty trick that made Ukraine an active participant but I have a hard time wrapping my head around that - it seems to me that exposing a crook for being a crook is something that should be done, regardless of the gov'ts political preferences.

honestly, I can understand digging into this.  There is a bunch of smoke.  However, I can't imagine the investigation makes Team Trump look good.  The investigation would ultimately highlight that Manafort was crooked, and it's not likely to show the DNC acted inappropriately.
Click to expand...
It opens up the next layer of defense: "so what if Russia was helping Trump? Ukraine was helping Hillary!! BOFF SIDEZ!! Benghazi, Uranium One" etc

 
Don't Noonan said:
I could not have been more clear.  Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.  The transcript released of the call, the texts and conversations of the witnesses so far, have not demonstrated an impeachable offense.  If we see a smoking gun that shows Trump is guilty then you guys might have a case.
Click to expand...
Is abuse of power an impeachable offense?  I'll spare you the socratic method.  It is.   

 
sho nuff said:
Then why have we heard next to nothing from the democrats to combat Trump's (and the GOP) claims that Republicans are not in the room with this inquiry?

Why the continued lies about the server that still get parroted by Trump and the GOP?

Why do so many still believe it?

I don't think Democrats are getting the message out well.  And that means getting it out to places where "Republicans" get their information.  
Click to expand...
What are the dems suppose to do? Invade fox news and Breitbart?
 

I’ve  heard that Republicans are in the room and I’ve only casually followed this.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
Perhaps.  So far there is no abuse of power.
Click to expand...
There is no perhaps about it.   Abuse of power is, in fact, an impeachable offense.   You know how we know this?  Because it has been part of articles of impeachment.   Your ignorance of the impeachment process is on full display today.   

 
-fish- said:
There is no perhaps about it.   Abuse of power is, in fact, an impeachable offense.   You know how we know this?  Because it has been part of articles of impeachment.   Your ignorance of the impeachment process is on full display today.   
Click to expand...
:lmao:   OK internet tough guy.  My knowledge of the impeachment process is on point.  Sorry if facts annoy you.

 
Don't Noonan said:
You literally just lied and said I didn't understand the impeachment process.   :lol:
Click to expand...
You have demonstrated it.   It's not an opinion.  Two posts ago you admitted that you did not know that abuse of power was an impeachable offense, unless you're now trying to redefine other words, like "perhaps."

 
zoonation said:
His point is that, regardless of how some people may misdescribe the memo/summary of the call, it is not a transcript.  Definitionally.  
 

could not be more simple.  
Click to expand...
I don't anyone is arguing that by definition it isn't a transcript.  However, it is referred to as the transcript by everyone.

 
-fish- said:
You have demonstrated it.   It's not an opinion.  Two posts ago you admitted that you did not know that abuse of power was an impeachable offense, unless you're now trying to redefine other words, like "perhaps."
Click to expand...
Not true.  Do you know what perhaps means?  

 
I feel like we are an impass and to let cooler heads prevail I will bow out of this thread for a bit in the spirit of Joe trying to get folks to get along.  

Calling folks you disagree with as trolls is juvenile but alas.

 
FBG Moderator said:
Please both of you drop and move on. Please keep the discussion about the issues and not each other. 
Click to expand...
One of the issues is the continued lying about the process itself.   Unfortunately, the position of Trump defenders is to: (1) lie about the existence of a "phone transcript" ; and (2) lie about the impeachment process itself, as demonstrated by the GOP's stunt yesterday in which it protested closed-door testimony to which they had access and which is being held according to rules adopted by the GOP.   Sadly, correcting lies is part of a discussion of the issues.   Unless, of course, the moderation team will start taking action about people repeatedly posting lies.

 
-fish- said:
Sadly, correcting lies is part of a discussion of the issues.   Unless, of course, the moderation team will start taking action about people repeatedly posting lies.
Click to expand...
Correct. If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.

If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Correct. If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.

If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...
Noonan has repeatedly and intentionally lied about there being a transcript of Trump call over the last five pages.   Your moderation team has commented on it.  MT discussed whether moderators should be moderating misrpresentations of fact similiarly to people altering quotes.

It appears that the answer is that the moderation team will continue to allow him to intentionally lie about this and other facts with the intention of getting a reaction.    If that's true, your moderation team should not be limiting others' ability to call out and correct those lies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
If that's true, your moderation team should not be limiting others' ability to call out and correct those lies.
Click to expand...
Nobody is "limiting others' ability to call out and correct those lies."

I said,

If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.

If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.
Click to expand...

 
-fish- said:
Noonan has repeatedly and intentionally lied about there being a transcript of Trump call over the last five pages.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that much of the news media has incorrectly called what we know a "transcript" as well- I'm talking about CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. The word "transcript" has become shorthand for what the White House released.

@Don't Noonan's weakness is not in using the word "transcript"; his weakness is arguing that what he read is not an abuse of power. Furthermore, he has not at all addressed the 15 page opening statement by Mr. Taylor, which has also been released, and which completely contradicts and destroys DN's defense.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top