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)

I have to be up this early, unfortunately. 

You’re one of the main people I “lecture” about good discussion, and this is an example of why it’s well deserved. As usual, your only contribution to this thread was an attempt to rip me personally for making a perfectly justifiable comparison. You haven’t offered a single thought on the issue at hand; you never do. You only wait until you see the opportunity to attack other posters. Have at it I guess. 
:lmao:

You came in trolling Jon at 5AM (when he's not even posting in this thread) and then twist your tripe into being about me.  Sorry you hate getting called out for your trolling and hypocrisy and derailing yet another thread.   Great work, Tim.   Imagine being so obsessed with Jon that you're thinking about him at 5AM.  Think about that for a minute.

 
I love this “fact”. Trump is now under impeachment investigation but yet somehow he’s the master manipulator playing chess.
They are all in on this BS that impeachment will guarantee Trump re-election.  Just like they were all in that Sarah Sanders being kicked out of a restaurant was going to cause a red wave at the midterms. 

 
:lmao:

You came in trolling Jon at 5AM (when he's not even posting in this thread) and then twist your tripe into being about me.  Sorry you hate getting called out for your trolling and hypocrisy and derailing yet another thread.   Great work, Tim.   Imagine being so obsessed with Jon that you're thinking about him at 5AM.  Think about that for a minute.
OK. This thread is about impeaching Donald Trump. Nobody cares about this nonsense. But I look forward to your thoughts on the issue at hand. 

 
🤣 Wow, that was quick.
It was already being talked about before your post.  This administration has doctored transcripts before (as has been linked), doctored weather maps to cover for POTUS spouting off lies on twitter, lied over and over and over on any number of issues (like...say, no contacts with Russia?).

Anyone who takes this administration at their word has their head buried in the sand.

And anyone who is relying solely on any transcript of this call as the determination of the whole thing...is ignoring all the reports of the whistleblower complaint.

 
OK. This thread is about impeaching Donald Trump. Nobody cares about this nonsense. But I look forward to your thoughts on the issue at hand. 
Tim...like when you tagged me and others to leave people alone in the MAGA thread or no respond to certain people...this is where Id give you the same advice.  You point out how the poster doesn't talk about the topics...so why reply?  Perhaps the others are trolling in that other thread, but its typically about Trump or about politics and not just about posters.  They may not be sincere, but its about the topics usually.  There are several posters that do just what you are saying earlier here...all about posters and not the topic.  Those are the ones that should be ignored as it just takes down all discourse.  They drag you into the mud with them.  (and yes...Im guilty of hopping in that mud pit too).

 
Tim...like when you tagged me and others to leave people alone in the MAGA thread or no respond to certain people...this is where Id give you the same advice.  You point out how the poster doesn't talk about the topics...so why reply?  Perhaps the others are trolling in that other thread, but its typically about Trump or about politics and not just about posters.  They may not be sincere, but its about the topics usually.  There are several posters that do just what you are saying earlier here...all about posters and not the topic.  Those are the ones that should be ignored as it just takes down all discourse.  They drag you into the mud with them.  (and yes...Im guilty of hopping in that mud pit too).
So you admit.... he trolled Jon.... for no reason whatsoever.... to drag this thread into the mud..... but yet you're responding..... to him.   Weird.  Move on

 
I for one totally trust that the White House will release accurate transcripts without any information being omitted.  

The Dems are getting played by a conman with no ethics or moral character.  

McConnell okaying this tells you everything you need to know.  
This. If any of you think that the guy who drew on a weather map with a sharpie then pretended he had no idea how it happened is going to release an actual unedited transcript that shows his guilt  then I have a free gift certificate to Trump University for you. 

 
It might. Some things are more important than elections though. 
Yes. Sadly. We shouldn't have to point out to Republicans how corrupt the president is; they should be able to observe this themselves. But I'm afraid only one side will take a stand for the country. I hope Dems can convince enough voters how important this is.

 
Yes. Sadly. We shouldn't have to point out to Republicans how corrupt the president is; they should be able to observe this themselves. But I'm afraid only one side will take a stand for the country. I hope Dems can convince enough voters how important this is.
They dont even need to convince.  Just wear the public out where they just want to move on.  What happened with Hillary to a large degree.

 
So you admit.... he trolled Jon.... for no reason whatsoever.... to drag this thread into the mud..... but yet you're responding..... to him.   Weird.  Move on
This is part of the agenda for many on this board. At a time where Democrats should be satisfied that impeachment is at least moving forward, they need to have something or someone to attack to release their frustration. It's the same thing that happens in other threads. Even when they are winning the topic and have overwhelming public support, they feel the need to stomp the smallest resistance that remains. Even if that resistance isn't around any longer.

 
caustic said:
Yes, there should be transcripts of the call. It is a long-standing practice, intended to not only memorialize the call but to protect the President against the foreign leader/gov't making egregious claims about the call.
Fwiw I think this is the traditional practice. ... However: Trump. What I recall is after the release of the transcript between Trump and Nieto which proved so embarrassing for Trump, there was talk that Trump's team would end the long standing practice of recording and doing full transcriptions. Again that practice was created for the reasons in the above article.... but Trump may have ended it even if damaging to standard US interests. 

 
Fwiw I think this is the traditional practice. ... However: Trump. What I recall is after the release of the transcript between Trump and Nieto which proved so embarrassing for Trump, there was talk that Trump's team would end the long standing practice of recording and doing full transcriptions. Again that practice was created for the reasons in the above article.... but Trump may have ended it even if damaging to standard US interests. 
Transcribing Trump's phone calls into something intelligible would be a, um, challenging task.

 
Trump's ‘transcript’ of Ukraine call unlikely to be verbatim

Details from a phone call made by Donald Trump that has led the U.S. House of Representatives to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against the president isn’t likely to come from a recording or be verbatim, former White House and national security officials say.

Instead, because of standard White House protocol for handling phone calls between the president and other world leaders, a transcript is likely to be put together from written notes by U.S. officials who listen in.

..A former White House senior official concurred there was unlikely to be a recording. “There’s no physical recording but there are a lot of people listening and taking contemporaneous notes of these calls,” the official said. “When you read it, it looks almost like a transcript.” ...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This impeachment process will cost Dems the house.
If they didn't do anything......it might cost them the House. 

It might cost the R's the Senate if there's a legit reason to go forth with impeachment and they vote against it. 

If one believes in the checks and balances of our Federal Government.......the House is acting in the right manner; regardless of political repercussions. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's the go to line. The people will be so upset they will gladly vote out anyone who speaks out against a lying cheating conman. 
We have to ask ourselves, just how bad is the country's electorate when prosecuting malfeasance is viewed as more disqualifying than actually committing malfeasance. What kind of middle-of-the-road or undecided voters are out there who think like that?

 
This is a fascinating interview with Representative Mikie Sherril of New Jersey - and one of the authors of the WaPo Op-Ed that sort of opened the floodgates to Dems supporting impeachment- It walks through the thought processes of shifting from No to yes on impeachment:

NYT Link


After months of caution, since Monday, dozens of House Democrats have announced their support for an impeachment inquiry of President Trump. Representative Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a moderate first-term Democrat, is one of them. Moments before Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared the formal initiation of the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s actions, Ms. Sherrill spoke with Michael Barbaro, the host of “The Daily,” about why she’d changed her mind on impeachment.

The following is a transcript of the interview from the episode.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKIE SHERRILL: Hello?

MICHAEL BARBARO: Hey, it’s Michael Barbaro from The New York Times. I’m trying to reach Congresswoman Sherrill.

SHERRILL: Hi, it’s Mikie Sherrill, how are you? We’re try — we don’t use our landline very often, if you can’t tell.

Sign up for The Upshot Newsletter

Get the best of The Upshot’s news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life.

SIGN UP

BARBARO: You pick up your own phone!

SHERRILL: [Laughs]

BARBARO: I could have been anybody.

SHERRILL: Right? I know. Well, we don’t get tons of calls, I think. I shouldn’t even say that, because I never answer the landline, so who knows? I just saw it ringing and grabbed it.

BARBARO: Right. I’m just kidding. I have to imagine this feels like a pretty historic day in your office and in your chamber of Congress.

SHERRILL: It does feel like a historic day. It does feel important. But I am hoping that we can, after today, get back to the reasons I’m really here — to legislate on health care and taxes and infrastructure.

BARBARO: Well, but this conversation is going to be about impeachment, with apologies, because —

SHERRILL: No, certainly.

BARBARO: — after months and months of saying that you don’t think impeachment is the right step, you have released a statement saying that you’re open to the possibility that it is, so let’s talk about that. To start, I wonder if you could read from the statement that you released on Monday night about this.

Editors’ Picks

What I Learned in a Year of Weeknight Cooking

A Slain Jewish Girl’s Diary of Life Under the Soviets and the Nazis

20 Under $20: Minimal Effort, Maximum Pleasure

SHERRILL: O.K. “We are now faced with accusations from numerous sources that our president attempted to pressure a foreign government to investigate one of his rivals in the next presidential election. In other words, the president of the United States is attempting to fix the election. I think these accusations should be addressed with all of the tools at Congress’s disposal, including articles of impeachment. I did not run for Congress to impeach the president. I ran to make the lives of New Jerseyans better, but I’ve long said that Congress is a coequal branch of government and has constitutional oversight duties, as well as duties to legislate for Americans. The president of the United States is threatening our national security. I believe it is my responsibility as a member of Congress to ensure that I protect our country from any and all threats. And that is what I intend to do.”

BARBARO: I can’t imagine that you made this decision lightly. I want to talk about what happened in the lead-up to your decision to release this statement, and an op-ed you released with six other moderate Democratic colleagues from the House. Tell me about those conversations that you were having with those colleagues, if you would, that led to this decision to come out together, as you did.

SHERRILL: So all of us, as military veterans and C.I.A. officers, have been trained to make hard decisions in tough circumstances. But this wasn’t one of those. This wasn’t a tough decision for us. This was sort of an obvious decision. And someone asked me earlier, “Well, who led on this?” Nobody led on this. We’re all in a chat group. We all text back and forth routinely. And when this news came out, we started talking and saying, this is a huge issue, this is a national security issue, this is different from what we’ve seen before, and we need to act. And because we all felt the same way about this, and we all saw the national security implications, we thought it would be best to act as a group. Quite frankly, the hardest part of all of this was getting seven congresspeople to agree on the language of the op-ed — we had people putting commas in and taking commas out, so that was probably the hardest part of all of this.

BARBARO: Hmm. I’m quite surprised to hear you say that this wasn’t a tough decision. You represent purple districts, swing districts, and so it feels like inherently, it’s a very tough decision, in the sense that it may not represent the will of the majority of your constituents.

SHERRILL: I think it would be a tough decision if this was in some way a political decision.

BARBARO: Hmm.

SHERRILL: But for all of us, it’s always been about what is the best decision for this country? And I’ve often said, you know, if I look back on this in 10 years or 20 years, how is our country going to be on better footing because of a decision I made today? And so when you have that as your compass, then a decision like this and seeing the threat to our national security and seeing these grave breaches, the flagrant disregard for our law, it became an easy decision. You know, certainly there will be people in my district who don’t support this, and across the country. But, you know, I’ve already heard support from several Republicans in my district who felt like this really was different, and this was a line that had been crossed.

BARBARO: I want to be sure I understand the line that you’re describing, that you feel was so clearly crossed here.

SHERRILL: The fact that our president is trying to induce a foreign power to threaten our elections — I think that’s a huge national security risk. The fact that a president is withholding support from a security partner that is trying to fight off Russia, which has presented multiple national security threats over the past several years. To withhold this kind of support, knowing how critical it is that we deter Russian aggression across the world, and to have that aid not arrive to our security partner, not arrive in Ukraine as they are trying to fight that aggression — I just think it’s so incredibly offensive to put that kind of support and that kind of fight that they have going on in jeopardy and in peril. I think those are clear national security threats, and the fact that they are being conducted by the president leaves no other option than for Congress to act. Because Congress is the body that the founding fathers anticipated would be a check on the executive branch.

BARBARO: So let’s talk about how you came to this moment. The last time that we spoke with you, a few months back, you were very much not in favor of impeachment. I wonder if you could remind us why you weren’t?

SHERRILL: I didn’t think that we had made our case to the American people. I, you know, simply had watched the responses to some of our hearings. I was concerned about how we were presenting things to people throughout my district and throughout the country. And I simply did not think that we were bringing the American people along with us based on the evidence we were presenting. And not just how it was presented, but also the actual evidence we had was the type of case that I could bring to the American people and convince them that there had been enough wrongdoing to go against the democratic will of the people.

BARBARO: One of the reasons we understand that Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not pursue impeachment following the Russia investigation is because she did not want to endanger House members such as yourself. It now appears that your coming forward helped lead Pelosi to the place that she’s in, where she says that the House will pursue an impeachment inquiry. Did you speak with Pelosi before you came forward?

SHERRILL: So we put together our op-ed — we had all been speaking — and then when we finalized it and sent it to The Washington Post, we called up the speaker to say, “Look, this will be coming out, and this is our thought process, and this is why we did this.”

BARBARO: So you weren’t really seeking permission, you were telling her you were doing it. What did she say?

SHERRILL: Right, because we’d done it. But we also — maybe it’s our military background. We don’t like to surprise other members of the unit. So we had sent the op-ed off, and then, you know, said, “We’d like to sit down and just talk through what we’ve been working on.” And she said, “Thank you for coming to me. You know, this is a very strong case. You’ve really presented some critical voices in national security, and I appreciate that.”

BARBARO: So when did you realize that she was going to, in a sense, follow your statement, your lead, and back the idea of an impeachment inquiry?

SHERRILL: I think about half an hour ago, maybe.

BARBARO: Wow. So just within the last hour or so.

SHERRILL: Right.

BARBARO: And what did you think when she did that?

SHERRILL: I wasn’t surprised, given our conversation and her response to what we had said and what we were doing. So when she came out and said, “This is where the House is going,” that seemed like a logical continuation of the conversation we’d had last night.

BARBARO: Mm-hmm. I wonder if it feels to you, as it does to several of our colleagues here at The Times, that your statement and the statement of these six others made a very big difference and may have actually kind of broken the dam.

SHERRILL: I think it was an important statement. I think our party needed to lay out the case, and I think to have that case come from a group of people that have a history of service to the country, that don’t have a history of being partisan, I do think that was a powerful statement.

BARBARO: You said you’ve heard from people in your district, including Republicans, but obviously it’s far too early to understand how your voters will come down on this. I wonder, does that matter to you? Are you comfortable with the idea that this decision could theoretically cost you your seat in Congress?

SHERRILL: It matters to me in the sense that I have a vision for the future of this country that I think is important and that I think will help not just New Jerseyans but all Americans. So I think it would be a shame if, after 2020, we still had President Trump in office, because I don’t think he’s been good for this country. In that sense, no, I’m not totally comfortable with the possibility that this will cost me, because to me, that means I haven’t made the case well enough, that I haven’t done what I think I and I think, you know, other freshmen members that I’ve written this op-ed with — you know, the case that I think Gil Cisneros and Jason Crow and Chrissy Houlahan and Elaine Luria and Elissa Slotkin and Abigail Spanberger and I can make — to the American people about what the president has done. And if we don’t do that well enough and we lose our seats, yeah, I’m not really comfortable with that, because I think we have a better vision for the future than the president does. And yet it’s a risk that I think we all felt we had to take to defend our national security.

BARBARO: Congresswoman, in your letter, you said that if the allegations are true — and you emphasized if — this is an impeachable offense. The way you’re talking now, it seems like you’re pretty clear that this is an impeachable offense. Do I have that right? Am I missing something?

SHERRILL: I think we have a group of people that have signed on to this op-ed, and this is where the group is. I think I am pretty confident that these are impeachable offenses. Now, whether that’s the decision that we as a caucus will make, that’s a different thing. And I think there’s many things that will go into that decision for the caucus. But I certainly think these actions do represent an impeachable offense.

BARBARO: Congresswoman, thank you very much for your time, I really appreciate it.

SHERRILL: Thank you so much, I appreciate it. Have a good day.

BARBARO: You too.

SHERRILL: Bye-bye.


 
:lmao:

You came in trolling Jon at 5AM (when he's not even posting in this thread) and then twist your tripe into being about me.  Sorry you hate getting called out for your trolling and hypocrisy and derailing yet another thread.   Great work, Tim.   Imagine being so obsessed with Jon that you're thinking about him at 5AM.  Think about that for a minute.
I had no clue who Tim was talking about until you mentioned him.

Seriously,  what us the outrage here? 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Sinn Fein said:
Speaking to reporters, the president defended his July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as entirely appropriate, and stopped short of directly confirming news reports about what was discussed. But he acknowledged that he had discussed Mr. Biden during the call and accused the former vice president of corruption tied to his son Hunter’s business activities in the former Soviet republic.

“The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don’t want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine,” Mr. Trump told reporters before leaving for a trip to Texas and Ohio.
Close, but no cigar
Fyi:

Trump, speaking at the UN, on impeachment talk: "I think it's ridiculous. It's a witch hunt ... That call was perfect. It couldn't have been nicer ... There was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden."

 
Sorry if this has been covered, but with the impeachment proceedings, will the Lewandowskis, and McGahons, and Don Jr's be able to refuse to testify?  Ids this just going to be more of the Trump team stonewalling?

 
One of the thing that I would ask of Trump supporters - ask yourself this question:

Assume that Trump is correct, and that he is concerned about corruption in Ukraine.  Assume that he does not want to give them money unless he is satisfied that the money will not be wasted.

What does any of that have to do with Joe Biden?

Even if you think Biden acted nefariously 5 years ago - what does that have to do with corruption in Ukraine today?

 
Sorry if this has been covered, but with the impeachment proceedings, will the Lewandowskis, and McGahons, and Don Jr's be able to refuse to testify?  Ids this just going to be more of the Trump team stonewalling?
Impeachment expedites the court decisions. 

But it hasn’t been decided if they’re going to use impeachment to pursue the Mueller stuff, or focus solely on Ukraine. 

 
I saw this on twitter, but it raises an interesting point - will Rudy become the new Cohen, who later has to take the fall (and prison time) for working on behalf of Trump?

 
Impeachment expedites the court decisions. 

But it hasn’t been decided if they’re going to use impeachment to pursue the Mueller stuff, or focus solely on Ukraine. 
Pelosi talked about current investigations now falling under the impeachment inquiry “umbrella”. 

 
I saw this on twitter, but it raises an interesting point - will Rudy become the new Cohen, who later has to take the fall (and prison time) for working on behalf of Trump?
But no Mueller and Rosenstein, instead he's replaced by Barr and Rosen. It sounds to me that if the DOJ wanted to hit Giuliani with Fara indictments tomorrow they could.

 
I saw this on twitter, but it raises an interesting point - will Rudy become the new Cohen, who later has to take the fall (and prison time) for working on behalf of Trump?
Manafort and Cohen are both sitting in jail cells because of things they did for Trump. While Trump remains free as a bird. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Rudy ends up in jail and Trump still feels just fine about himself. People are just pawns to him. 

 
Pelosi talked about current investigations now falling under the impeachment inquiry “umbrella”. 
Yeah but she was deliberately vague because she really hasn’t decided this yet. 

I lean towards focusing on Ukraine but it’s a hard decision. Because McGahn’s testimony could be very damaging. A lot will depend on how the public will react to the events of this week. 

 
Yeah but she was deliberately vague because she really hasn’t decided this yet. 

I lean towards focusing on Ukraine but it’s a hard decision. Because McGahn’s testimony could be very damaging. A lot will depend on how the public will react to the events of this week. 
I think showing a huge body of corruption since the day he took office will be most effective. Let's be honest, Pelosi has no illusions of swaying Republican Senators into voting to impeach. But this is going to be all over the news every day. She is playing to independent voters.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top