Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
So I guess we can expect the opposition party to impeach every President from now on if this is the standard. Fun.
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)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Who is "stretching"?
We know Trump froze the aid to Ukraine.
We know Trump pointed out how much the US does for Ukraine.
We know that Trump asked Ukraine to look into Joe Biden - not for on-going conduct, but for conduct 5 years ago.
We know that Rudy has told the Ukraine that their help would be very beneficial to "his client."
Everything about this - from Trump's own point of view - says this is a classic case of abuse of power. This is precisely the conduct that the founding fathers feared.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Articles based on this, the obstruction conclusions in the Mueller report, and his conduct as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case would not even remotely be a “stretch.”
I’d impeach Obama on those allegations without a second’s hesitation.
I’d impeach Obama on those allegations without a second’s hesitation.
joffer
Footballguy
if they ask foreign governments to investigate their rivals in exchange for $$$.....yeah probably.
whoknew
Footballguy
You are funny.
We already know Trump used the power of his office and the DOJ to try to get a foreign power to investigate a political rival.
What else needs to be said?
Oh - and there is more information to come in the complaint.
Punxsutawney Phil
Footballguy
There is no way we are going to get 2/3's of the Senate to vote to impeach based on this Nothingburger.
I would hope a president is impeached if he/she uses their position to target a political rival.
whoknew
Footballguy
Every President that uses his office and the DOJ to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival, yes.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
If there later is indisputable evidence of a quid pro quo, would you support impeachment? I'm asking because I'm trying to get a handle on where conservatives draw the line.No quid pro quo. Nothing wrong with what he did. Nothing burger.
I'd settle for getting 50% of the senate to affirm their support of this conduct.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
I wish there was an emoji of an Ostrich with his head stuck in the sandNo quid pro quo. Nothing wrong with what he did. Nothing burger.
jonessed
Footballguy
Is there another version? There is no recording and there were only a handful of people there.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
Hopefully we wake up and the red and blue states get a divorce and everyone moves on and lives happily ever after.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Do you think there's nothing wrong with using the powers of the Presidency to ask foreign governments to investigate political rivals?
sho nuff
Footballguy
But you knew this would be the deflection. No quid pro quo explicitly in this version of the transcript. Talking points out...
snitwitch
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Trump could ask the GRU to assassinate Mitt Romney and 2/3 of this Senate wouldn’t vote to remove him from office. That says nothing about the seriousness of the charges and everything about the character of the Senate majority.
Pelosi: "The President of the U.S., in breach of his constitutional responsibilities, has asked a foreign government to help him in his political campaign at the expense of our national security as well as undermining the integrity of our elections. That cannot stand."
That is a pretty straightforward argument.
That is a pretty straightforward argument.
timschochet
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
True. You continue to ignore all that has been said to you that its not just this phone call. As do others. Its not a both sides issue at all. And its not impeachment proceedings as some keep trying to portray the inquiry.
Punxsutawney Phil
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
there is no line.....the gop got trump in there....they got their tax cuts.....got their judges appointed.......if he loses next election.....so what....they will not impeach in senate regardless of what he does
jonessed
Footballguy
Nope. These calls aren’t recorded as a policy. That’s why there are people taking notes.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Has he been impeached? Have articles of impeachment been passed?
Or are you still trying to conflate what is actually going on?
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Republicans really need to get to the bottom of this by obtaining the text messages between the whistleblower and his girlfriend.
sho nuff
Footballguy
There may be...the point is believing a white house version is complete and factual is naive...and that the inquiry the house is doing is not just based on one phone call. As has been said many times but ignored by people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
In what world is that straightforward? He did not ask for help on his campaign. Her statement is an extrapolation, not one of fact. C'mon, you're better than that. Find a bulletproof grounds for impeachment and then pounce. Don't waste that bullet on this one. Keep digging. I'll admit it's probably there. But playing this card NOW on THIS sets a horrible precedent.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Of course. Which is why it’s surprising that the transcript actually contains what can fairly be considered a quid pro quo. Public corruption cases are brought on communications like this all the time. If I had a client under investigation and found this in discovery, I’d be distraught. And looking to cut a deal. I’d never want that before a jury.
A couple of points - somebody posted a NYT article on this process:
1. There is unlikely to be an actual recording of the call
2. There is unlikely to be a verbatim transcript
The call has a limited audience, and those that are there take handwritten notes - which is what we see.
I also think we might be making too much about the ellipses - I use them (improperly, of course) occasionally just to separate thoughts...It does not necessarily imply I am leaving something out.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think you are not being intellectually honest with yourself here.
The only reason to bring up Biden in 2019 is for the impact it will have on Trump in 2020. The public gets that. Its easy to make that connection.
[scooter]
Footballguy
I'm sure the whistleblower's wife once donated money to a Democratic political candidate. Or maybe he once submitted a 2-star Yelp review of a Trump restaurant?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
Everybody appears sure the smoking gun is out there somewhere. Seems like they are barking up the collusion tree again, but maybe this time the apple falls. We will see.
Last edited by a moderator:
This what Pelosi sees - this is an easy case to connect dots (ellipses if you want) when the public can see the bad action leading to the bad outcome.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Collusion?
No...just point blank asking a foreign government to investigate his political rival after he has withheld funds and talking about favors and injecting his personal lawyer into it...and that is just the one call.
The transcript alone is damning to most people because of that.
People who understand that is not the norm and should never be the norm.
Its a clear abuse of power.
timschochet
Footballguy
We need to talk some more about Bob Barr. If I’m understanding this correctly:
1. Barr reviewed the IG report, which included this transcript. In the transcript, the President mentions Barr and asks the Ukrainian President to contact Barr.
2. Barr decides not to send the IG report to Congress.
This seems like its corrupt. Shouldn’t Barr have recused himself the moment his name was mentioned? If this is true Barr should be removed, possibly charged with obstruction of justice.
1. Barr reviewed the IG report, which included this transcript. In the transcript, the President mentions Barr and asks the Ukrainian President to contact Barr.
2. Barr decides not to send the IG report to Congress.
This seems like its corrupt. Shouldn’t Barr have recused himself the moment his name was mentioned? If this is true Barr should be removed, possibly charged with obstruction of justice.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I like my witch hunters to look like Gemma Arterton: https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&q=witch+hunter+gretel&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9sSVpezkAhUMGTQIHatdDz8QiR56BAgJEBI&biw=1280&bih=915#imgrc=qRN3T_PKA7cvIM:&spf=1569425416953
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
No. The ellipsis are likely indicating pauses from the speaker. Redactions aren’t done that way. Because you have to designate the statutory basis for the redaction.
timschochet
Footballguy
We'll just disagree about that.
if they were specifically trying to hide something - then you don't even include the ellipses. From a technical perspective ellipses are only used when you are omitting quoted text - and that is clearly not the case here. Its a summary of what was said, not a direct quote.
Mookie
Footballguy
Perhaps the impeachment inquiry should include evidence of the hundreds of times Trump lied about having sexual relations out of wedlock. That would likely get Republicans to shift in their thinking, right? Besides, it's far more damning and saucy than all of this national security, ask a foreign government to do dirty work on a political opponent, violate the law stuff.
Similar threads
