Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

How exactly will you "know" the loss is because of investigations (should that happen)?

They'll ask the question in the polling.  

"Did the investigations sway your vote?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Turley, George Washington University

Got a link?  Because I have one of him saying;

" Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/written-testimony-of-jonathan-turley/d130b12b-e348-4851-8243-e533ad38b4fb/

Page 4  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Which professor said that?  

Also Harvard Professor Dershowitz.

 

“I feel very strongly that the proposed articles of impeachment endanger the Constitution and endanger the separation of powers,” Dershowitz said in the Reuters interview.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh we are back on the incorrect takes on polling again.  Thats never happened before.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Got a link?  Because I have one of him saying;

" Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/written-testimony-of-jonathan-turley/d130b12b-e348-4851-8243-e533ad38b4fb/

Page 4  

Hard pass on after the fact banter reported by the Washington Post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They'll ask the question in the polling.  

"Did the investigations sway your vote?"

The polling that you don't trust?  Ok....that's a good start I guess, but they will need a few more questions to come close to getting to the answer you are ascribing above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Hard pass on after the fact banter reported by the Washington Post.

It's a quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ahh we are back on the incorrect takes on polling again.  Thats never happened before.

This simply isn't true.  Polling failed horribly in 2016.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Another is that Republican lawmakers have not behaved this shamefully since the era of Joseph R. McCarthy. Just like McCarthy they are terrified of Trump's hold on the base of the party, and too cowardly to stand up to it.

I suspect that, when history looks back on these events, the Democrats are not the political party that is going to be the most embarrassed.

This post makes no sense. So why will several Democrats be voting with the Republicans if they are going full Joe McCarthy?  After this entire months long #### show why are they losing votes? You can’t have it both ways here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Hard pass on after the fact banter reported by the Washington Post.

That's a link to, and a direct quote from, the transcript of his testimony before Congress.  He reiterates it in his conclusion as well; 

"That is why this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right. His
call was anything but “perfect” and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.
It is not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian
controversy. The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political
opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense."

 

But yeah, it's neat how you passed your lie off on "something something Washington Post something".  :thumbup:

Edited by parrot
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

 

 

But yeah, it's neat how you passed your lie off on "something something Washington Post something".  :thumbup:

is this the kind of snark that Joe and Maurile are referring to?

 

If I post this it's reported 100 times and I'm banned for a month...like some game the liberals here play to pretty much deter anybody that isn't left.

 

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Hard pass on after the fact banter reported by the Washington Post.

Quotes from reputable sources are bad?

Share this post


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

Quotes from reputable sources are bad?

When they deal in hypotheticals in a non-official manner.

I'll pay more attention to what he actually said in the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ahh we are back on the incorrect takes on polling again.  Thats never happened before.

Every time there is a poll posted that doesn't fit your beliefs you attack it. Such a hypocrite.

Share this post


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

When they deal in hypotheticals in a non-official manner.

I'll pay more attention to what he actually said in the hearing.

Ummm...he did say so in the hearing.  That quote was from the hearing.

The WP link was the transcript of the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

is this the kind of snark that Joe and Maurile are referring to?

 

I asked you for a link while providing one of my own, along with a relevant quote that would bring your assertion very much into question.  I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing they have indicated they want.  You responded by blowing it off because of the url, ignoring that it was a link to his actual testimony, then accused me of "misinterpret(ting)" it even though I offered no interpretation other than the quote.  You had every opportunity to support your statement but instead tried to obfuscate and make unsupported accusations while offering nothing of substance . If you want to report me for being snarky, knock yourself out I guess.  :)

Edited by parrot
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 3

Share this post


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

Every time there is a poll posted that doesn't fit your beliefs you attack it. Such a hypocrite.

Agreed.  Some folks in here are just too close minded due to the echo chamber and out of touch with reality.

Edited by Don't Noonan
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Ummm...he did say so in the hearing.  That quote was from the hearing.

The WP link was the transcript of the hearing.

 I'm only interested in what his opinion is, not what it would be.

 

Share this post


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

 I'm only interested in what his opinion is, not what it would be.

It’s *Both. He swore to it in testimony. 

Where did you get your initial impression that said otherwise?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 I'm only interested in what his opinion is, not what it would be.

 

Ummm his opinion is what he stated.  What do you feel his opinion actually was?  Or what did he say his opinion was?  

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Ummm his opinion is what he stated.  What do you feel his opinion actually was?  Or what did he say his opinion was?  

the opinion you quoted was an "if statement"

 

read the entirety of his remarks...it will make more sense.

Edited by TripItUp

Share this post


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

IFurther, many scholars including the professor that testified in the actual hearing, do not believe the quid pro quo is an impeachable offense as originally intended by the forefathers.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

the opinion you quoted was an "if statement"

 

read the entirety of his remarks...it will make more sense.

So which is it...he said it was impeachable, or not?  What quote led you to believe the above?

Ive read his remarks...Id like a quote coming close to what you claimed please. Because thus far his actual words refute your claim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

the opinion you quoted was an "if statement"

 

read the entirety of his remarks...it will make more sense.

The only "if" of his statement was "if proven".  Your original claim was that the quid pro quo does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense; 

Further, many scholars including the professor that testified in the actual hearing, do not believe the quid pro quo is an impeachable offense as originally intended by the forefathers.

Turley says the exact opposite in his testimony at least twice.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

The only "if" of his statement was "if proven".  Your original claim was that the quid pro quo does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense; 

 

 

Turley says the exact opposite in his testimony at least twice.

Well, not according to these alternative facts I have here...

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

Also Harvard Professor Dershowitz.

 

“I feel very strongly that the proposed articles of impeachment endanger the Constitution and endanger the separation of powers,” Dershowitz said in the Reuters interview.

You mean a guy possibly advising Trump made this pretty ridiculous claim?

Also...the only thing that is endangering separation of powers os the GOP right now with their Senator’s  behavior (and Trumps).  These articles of impeachment seem very much in line with the constitution.

Not does this quote say much of anything about qpq or what Turley said

Share this post


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

To be fair, that % translates to between 5.6 and 9.6 million people (assume 160M voters).  Seems relatively significant.

So that's how percentages work.  

Share this post


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

Every time there is a poll posted that doesn't fit your beliefs you attack it. Such a hypocrite.

And they cherry picked Fox news.  Maybe because it was Fox news it's somehow more believable when it's not pro-Trump?  And maybe not cherry picked if the IDB/TIPP poll hadn't come out yet today with Trump beating everyone but Biden? 

So yeah, a couple percentage points either way despite 3 years of Russia and however many months of Ukraine.  Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone mention that the gap has closed in favor of Trump since the last Fox poll on November 3rd by about the same margin, 4-5%?  Yikes, the lead has just been cut in half.  Impeach!

Share this post


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

You're in a pretty narrow demographic.  "nobody" was the wrong word.  Should have said "vast majority".

It's the title of my... @Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea bouncing around that Dems might sit on the Articles of Impeachment -- just hold them -- until Senate Republicans agree to a fair process (namely the same process the Republican House and Republican Senate put in place for Clinton's Impeachment) is really, really good politics, and has the advantage of being right on principle as well (equal justice independent of the person is a bedrock concept of the law).

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 7
  • Love 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TripItUp said:

is this the kind of snark that Joe and Maurile are referring to?

 

If I post this it's reported 100 times and I'm banned for a month...like some game the liberals here play to pretty much deter anybody that isn't left.

 

Stating facts is now snark?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Giuliani just gutted Trump again.

New article in the upcoming New Yorker:

Quote

In a long conversation with me this past November, Giuliani largely confirmed Lutsenko’s account of their relationship. He, too, saw Yovanovitch as an obstacle, hindering his attempt to dig up dirt against his client’s rival in advance of the 2020 election. “I believed that I needed Yovanovitch out of the way,” he said. “She was going to make the investigations difficult for everybody.” Giuliani compiled a dossier on the Bidens and Yovanovitch, which he sent to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and which was shared with the F.B.I. and with me. John Solomon, a journalist, had interviewed Lutsenko for the Washington-based publication The Hill. Giuliani promoted the project. “I said, ‘John, let’s make this as prominent as possible,’ ” Giuliani told me. “ ‘I’ll go on TV. You go on TV. You do columns.’ ”

The past few pages are an interesting microcosm or what’s going on in the US. 

We have this blatant admission out of the President’s personal attorney, yet people are sucked into debates about polls.  
 

Distract and confuse works. 
 

 

  • Like 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

The past few pages are an interesting microcosm or what’s going on in the US. 

We have this blatant admission out of the President’s personal attorney, yet people are sucked into debates about polls.  
 

Distract and confuse works. 
 

 

Yup. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ned said:

The past few pages are an interesting microcosm or what’s going on in the US. 

We have this blatant admission out of the President’s personal attorney, yet people are sucked into debates about polls.  
 

Distract and confuse works. 
 

 

The truth is only what Trump says it is.  Trump supporters actually defended the sharpied weather map and his pathetic letter to Erdogan. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

And they cherry picked Fox news.  Maybe because it was Fox news it's somehow more believable when it's not pro-Trump?  And maybe not cherry picked if the IDB/TIPP poll hadn't come out yet today with Trump beating everyone but Biden? 

So yeah, a couple percentage points either way despite 3 years of Russia and however many months of Ukraine.  Yikes.

Yikes indeed.  It is pretty disturbing how so many Americans are OK with ignoring obvious corruption.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

This post makes no sense. So why will several Democrats be voting with the Republicans if they are going full Joe McCarthy?  After this entire months long #### show why are they losing votes? You can’t have it both ways here.

Because those democrats are equally afraid of the base.  They know he did it.  They care more about their own re-election.   Is what it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American democracy is broken. If you thought the kavanaugh #### was a circus, wait for this embarrassment.   

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

American democracy is broken. If you thought the kavanaugh #### was a circus, wait for this embarrassment.   

Yep.  This is it.  The final ride.  The sham impeachment trial, openly inviting foreign interference, plus all the voter roll purging going on in swing states is establishing a system going forward where leaders choose their voters instead of the other way around.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

The sham impeachment trial, openly inviting foreign interference, plus all the voter roll purging going on in swing states is establishing a system going forward where leaders choose their voters instead of the other way around.

These have been going on for a while GB. 

Share this post


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

These have been going on for a while GB. 

There’s been gerrymandering about as long as there’s been a republic.  

The current wave of polarization in the House, from extremist reps to primarily grading reps by how often they vote with party to seeing virtue in refusing to cooperate with the other side started about 25 years ago.

The intensity of Republican indifference to democracy ratcheted up after Obama won.   Rather than changing policy to broaden appeal, they targeted state legislatures to redraw districts and the judicial branch.  Now that they’ve gutted the Voting Rights Act, installed a wave of unqualified partisan hack judges, and flaunted defiance of norms to stall popular legislation, they’re installing a semi-permanent form of minority rule.  
And with current population trends, we’re just a few years away from 30-35 percent of the people capable of forming a bloc of veto-proof Senate majority.  Plus there’s the Electoral College nonsense.

Trump was an excellent distraction from the final stages.  But it does explain why the GOP lets him do whatever he wants and why they aren’t interested in removing him from office.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

The idea bouncing around that Dems might sit on the Articles of Impeachment -- just hold them -- until Senate Republicans agree to a fair process (namely the same process the Republican House and Republican Senate put in place for Clinton's Impeachment) is really, really good politics, and has the advantage of being right on principle as well (equal justice independent of the person is a bedrock concept of the law).

I'm not sure I understand.  Are you talking about Dems delaying the House vote?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

Is this going to be the response, whenever conservatives see a poll they don’t like, forever? 

 

Yes, because it was true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No they cannot. Once funds are approved for release they are to be issued with all deliberate speed, the President doesn't get to sit on funds much less delay their release to pressure personal political favors. Please consult your Constitution.

- eta - It was actually May when the aid was approved for release.

So where were the Dems or for that matter the Ukraine’s. why didn’t they have oversight and raise concern earlier?.. Why did it take a bogus whistle blower to bring it to their attention. Shouldn’t the democratic majority know what’s going on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditka Butkus said:

So where were the Dems or for that matter the Ukraine’s. why didn’t they have oversight and raise concern earlier?.. Why did it take a bogus whistle blower to bring it to their attention. Shouldn’t the democratic majority know what’s going on ?

In what way was the whistleblower bogus?  The testimony showed people were concerned (which is why the whistleblower even happened).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ditka Butkus said:

So where were the Dems or for that matter the Ukraine’s. why didn’t they have oversight and raise concern earlier?.. Why did it take a bogus whistle blower to bring it to their attention. Shouldn’t the democratic majority know what’s going on ?

When Congress approves of funds, it is expected to be followed through on. When the President withholds those funds, the Dems do like Jeannie here and know right away when something isn't right. Like, right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s finally happening, and it’s long overdue. I’ll enjoy the ensuing melt down of this narcissistic diaper wipe and sorry excuse for a President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In what way was the whistleblower bogus?  The testimony showed people were concerned (which is why the whistleblower even happened).

Bogus partisan testimony..The Dems have been fixated on impeachment since Trump took office.. They are wasting time and resources again... The Senate won’t find him guilty and he takes office again in 2020,because all the Dems have is old Joe and a bunch of communist sympathizers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ditka Butkus said:

Bogus partisan testimony..The Dems have been fixated on impeachment since Trump took office.. They are wasting time and resources again... The Senate won’t find him guilty and he takes office again in 2020,because all the Dems have is old Joe and a bunch of communist sympathizers.

Wait, what? So those ambassadors and public servants gave bogus testimony?  
This post doesn't answer the question really about the testimony...those weren’t “democrats” testifying.

Also claiming its Joe and “communist sympathizers” does not appear to have any basis in fact.

You have a nice evening

  • Sad 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.