Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

You dont believe the events in 2016 had anything to do with recent events?

Yes, I absolutely think that this case ties Into Putin and Russian collusion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

See: avenue, 5th

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:

For the 2016 election interference and crowdstrike right?

No.

Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

For the 2016 election interference and crowdstrike right?

Huh?

These impeachment hearings are about Trump abusing his power to pressure Ukraine to say they were investigating Joe Biden and Burisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Starr:

"There will be articles of impeachment, I think we've known that ... It's over ... This is his position, we now know that the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery ... Articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up."

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1197192997835808769

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

Okay, but everyone saw the same testimony I did, right? Every single Republican defense was blown up. President, VP, Secretary of State all knew it was what can accurately be described as bribery. The facts are there. Sondland's testimony added an impeachment article today regarding withholding unclassified documents as consciousness of guilt. Only tack now is for the GOP Senate to deny reality and the Constitution and shield a conspiracy. It's a pivotal moment in our history, and one that either way will serve as a precedent and maybe a tipping point for the Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd at least wait until people see the news tonight to start gleaning anything from betting lines.

No one knows how bad the fallout will be right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Hey Bluto I've posting stuff in another thread on this, don't want to distract from the actual events here. I'll reply in that thread, fyi.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

We won’t see a change in those odds until some months  after the Senate impeachment vote. What will change them decisively in the Democrats’ favor will not be as much Trump’s actions but the way Republicans in the Senate responded to them. But today is the key that unlocks the whole thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump just spoke to the press:

Maggie Haberman @maggieNYT· 2m

President Trump - wait for it - hardly knows the guy (Sondland): “I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.”

  • Laughing 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Ham said:

Okay, but everyone saw the same testimony I did, right? 

This is the actual problem, a lot of people are simply not paying attention. The Dems are gonna have to drive it down peoples throats publicly to get more traction or the GOP are gonna continue to pretend this is about 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/behind-ukraine-reopening-investigation-into-hunter-biden-company

The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma’s founder had benefited from criminal dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call their “wanted list.”

Notwithstanding the allegations and controversy Burisma continued–and continues–to operate. Is, for instance, a major support of the annual Energy Security Forum in Monaco together with one of Burisma’s long time directors, former Polish Presiden Aleksandr Kwasniewski.

The most criticized past prosecutor general of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, did not push for the investigation of the Burisma Group, so by 2016 the case was effectively in limbo. Vice President Joe  Biden insisted on the dismissal of Viktor Shokin. But the national anti-corruption agency, NABU, continued some of the Burisma investigative proceedings. In September 2016, Kyiv’s court made a decision to stop looking into Zlochevsky.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Lock him up if he's guilty.

Thing is, Biden being guilty doesn't make Trump innocent. The charges remain the same.

We have our own Justice Department if someone wants a proper investigation.

  • Like 8
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

25 CFR 11.448 or Artcile I Section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, depending on circumstances.  Among others.

25 CFR 11.448: Abuse of office.

  • A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:
  • (a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; 

requires the act itself to be illegal.  Is asking a foreign country to investigate someone illegal?  I don't think their is an underlying crime here.

Article 1, section 9, clause 8 is the Emolument clause.  I don't see that fitting.

Bribery - I think there's something there, but someone skilled in the art will have to draw it up and make it crystal clear how this counts as bribery.  It's not cut and dry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The Democrats will not impeach Pence. 

In truth, I don’t find Pence knowing about this, and lying about his knowledge (not under oath) to be an impeachable offense. Probably worth a censure though. He owes the public an apology. 

And a promise not to pardon Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End result: Trump goes (willfully or not), Pence  is cleared of wrongdoing by carrying out the orders of POTUS (even though he should have known better) and assumes the presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

please stay on topic, this thread is for Trumps impeachment.....articles coming soon

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Prove it and you can throw Biden in jail. Lindsay Graham has promised a hearing on this- if he has evidence bring it on. 

But even if you can prove it, “they did it too” is never a very good argument (though my daughters use it all the time.) 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Trump just spoke to the press:

Maggie Haberman @maggieNYT· 2m

President Trump - wait for it - hardly knows the guy (Sondland): “I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.”

His "I am so detached from, and ill-equipped for, my job that I never have any idea who is working for me or what they do" defense is certainly an interesting one.

  • Like 5
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Prove it and you can throw Biden in jail. Lindsay Graham has promised a hearing on this- if he has evidence bring it on. 

But even if you can prove it, “they did it too” is never a very good argument (though my daughters use it all the time.) 

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/behind-ukraine-reopening-investigation-into-hunter-biden-company

The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma’s founder had benefited from criminal dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call their “wanted list.”

Notwithstanding the allegations and controversy Burisma continued–and continues–to operate. Is, for instance, a major support of the annual Energy Security Forum in Monaco together with one of Burisma’s long time directors, former Polish Presiden Aleksandr Kwasniewski.

The most criticized past prosecutor general of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin, did not push for the investigation of the Burisma Group, so by 2016 the case was effectively in limbo. Vice President Joe  Biden insisted on the dismissal of Viktor Shokin. But the national anti-corruption agency, NABU, continued some of the Burisma investigative proceedings. In September 2016, Kyiv’s court made a decision to stop looking into Zlochevsky.

so...Biden pushed for the prosecutor who was NOT investigating Burisma be fired.  This is why the whole Boden thing is nonsense.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

The fact that the Senate will not remove him based on this should be everything anyone needs to know about whether the GOP supports the rule of law or the basic tenets of our system of government.  

Assuming they don't remove him based on all of this, there will never be a Republican who gets my vote again.

Nothing like lumping a group of people all together.  Plus I don't think it's your vote they are after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

Not swaying public opinion does not connote nothingburger.

It suggests that a large segment of our society, even when confronted with clear evidence of wrongdoing at the highest levels of government, will gladly look the other way.  It suggests that, even worse, they are fine supporting someone who wishes to undercut the integrity of our elections and democracy itself.

Those are huge burgers with lasting implications on US and world history.  I'd also suggest that over time, these realities WILL have repercussions for many involved - the Republicans will not hold power forever.  State statues may be in play here.  Public opinion over time and with the benefit of both time elapsed and additional information that will surely come to light could well play into things here.

Finally, we may ALREADY be seeing some result from this. Trump is, and has always been, a very unique case and character in US Politics. His forewarning about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue has come to fruition in all its bluster.  That is not, however, the case for prospective (or current) Governors, Congresspeople, Senators... in a suburban district that may be purple and getting more blue, that 55% win might now be a 47% loss.

Of course, I don't think Trump himself cares about any of this, other than how it affects him.  Others, however, will have to deal with these consequences (including his family/children, mind you - we. will. never. forget.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Bluto, that was standard policy from IMF, Republicans, Dems, the EU, and reformists in Ukraine. Shokin was blocking reform and pursuit of corruption. That's a totally different idea from what you claimed above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie Haberman‏Verified account @maggieNYT 10m10 minutes ago

President Trump (just now to reporters)- wait for it - hardly knows the guy (Sondland): “I don’t know him very well. I have not spoken to him much. This is not a man I know well. He seems like a nice guy though.”

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1197194000677122048

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

From what I've seen he keeps refusing to confirm anything. Is that what you all want?

He said he received express direction from trump.

It seems like the crux of this talking point is: Sondland was merely directed to arrange a totally legal quid pro quo that involved "investigation into corruption" in exchange for "a photo op at the White House". Since neither Trump nor Rudy told Sondland about Biden OR the money, it is therefore not an impeachable act.

(Of course, it doesn't answer the question of why the money was frozen, nor does it address the fact that Sondland ultimately told Ukraine that the QPQ did involve Biden and money, nor does it address the fact that Ukraine asked Pompeo and Pence about the money, along with many other holes in that theory...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197195936059084800

In summary: Trump, speaking in a croakier voice than usual, told reporters that the sole important thing from the hearing is that he told Sondland that he wanted "nothing" from Ukraine. Trump claimed that this means "it's all over." He then walked away, taking no questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, moleculo said:

25 CFR 11.448: Abuse of office.

  • A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:
  • (a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; 

requires the act itself to be illegal.  Is asking a foreign country to investigate someone illegal?  I don't think their is an underlying crime here.

Article 1, section 9, clause 8 is the Emolument clause.  I don't see that fitting.

Bribery - I think there's something there, but someone skilled in the art will have to draw it up and make it crystal clear how this counts as bribery.  It's not cut and dry.

https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

 

Nixon's and Clinton's articles of impeachment - not a single reference to a federal statute.

 

Its not required.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1197195936059084800

In summary: Trump, speaking in a croakier voice than usual, told reporters that the sole important thing from the hearing is that he told Sondland that he wanted "nothing" from Ukraine. Trump claimed that this means "it's all over." He then walked away, taking no questions.

Gee, the only way to clear up this discrepancy would be for the President to testify under oath, right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Blutarsky said:

Spamming the thread? Yep, this place is getting better. :rolleyes:

What you are posting is irrelevant to this inquiry.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

Spamming the thread? Yep, this place is getting better.

Hey Bluto, glad to discuss the Burisma issue thoroughly in the other thread.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

 

Nixon's and Clinton's articles of impeachment - not a single reference to a federal statute.

 

Its not required.

Yep, if the president just sits on the White House lawn all day starting at the sun, he's not doing anything illegal, but he can still be impeached for not doing his job. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

To be 100% clear, Sondland never heard those words DIRECTLY from Trump, though. Correct?

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would recognize that when you state that the Pres told us and others that what Rudy says was at his direction and Rudy spoke for the presented, and then Rudy does these things, it's the President making the orders (again, the mafia system).  Of course, I'm sure plenty will run to  "well, the President didn't say it HIMSELF, so... nothingburger"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

https://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm

 

Nixon's and Clinton's articles of impeachment - not a single reference to a federal statute.

 

Its not required.

I'm coming from a realpolitik perspective, not legal requirements.  IMO , republicans have moved (or will move?)  the goalpost from a vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" to specific federal crime significant enough to justify removing a duly elected official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that the republicans are acting like the people testifying are a DOS computer game from the early 1980's where if you don't input the EXACT statement it's looking for you get a "try again" message.  That these folks aren't capable of reason.

ETA

@Mr. Pickles

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.