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*** (5 Viewers)

Zow said:
Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were clearly "unproven" suggest that you like the objectivity to provide any sort of meaningful input on this issue. I mean, you can't even admit that maybe Trump's actions were at the very least unwise given the potential optics? 

For comparison's sake, I probably hold a minority opinion that the jury in the OJ trial issued the correct verdict. In other words, I firmly believe that there was reasonable doubt to his guilt. That said, do I think it was a conspiracy? That the defense clearly disproved the allegations? That the initial charges were baseless/lacked probable cause? That it was somehow an injustice for him to go through the time, energy and expense of defending himself? Absolutely not to all those questions. I'd have to be intentionally obtuse to refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't at least some evidence to suggest he may have committed the murder. 

It's worrisome that you, and others that share your extreme opinion, appear entirely unable to view issues via multiple lenses (and certainly not through an objective lens). By any objective measurement Trump's call wasn't perfect. By an objective measurement this wasn't a damned conspiracy. I think it is debatable from a legal perspective whether this was a high crime and whether it warranted removal. But by taking your extreme stance and using such absolute hyperbole you lose all credibility. 
Click to expand...
Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   

 
Sam Quentin said:
Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election
Click to expand...


So your argument is 1) from my earlier list - he did not withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigated (or announced an investigation into) a political rival for his own benefit. 

Ok.

 
zoonation said:
Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   
Click to expand...
The OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRC

 
whoknew said:
So your argument is 1) from my earlier list - he did not withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigated (or announced an investigation into) a political rival for his own benefit. 

Ok.
Click to expand...
He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.

 
Sam Quentin said:
He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.
Click to expand...


Right. I get that is your view.

Earlier I was ... someone from the Trump side to explain why they thought this was a sham investigation. He or she refused to do so. And I was disappointed with that because I truly want to understand the pro-Trump view.

You seem to be clearly on the "because none of it ever happened" camp. I think that is an ... unreasonable position to take. But I appreciate you explaining it.

 
Mr. Ham said:
That’s one way of looking at it, if you ignore the evidence that he was soliciting a personal favor related to an American election, which is a high crime.
Click to expand...
The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.

 
Sam Quentin said:
He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.
Click to expand...
Even if there was a quid pro quo, it doesn't matter.  It's not a "High Crime".

Just ridiculous.  Dems deserve to lose every congressional seat as far as I'm concerned...and I'm an independent that would have no problem voting for Klobuchar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin said:
The OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRC
Click to expand...
Agree. But he did it.  The civil trial proved that beyond any reasonable doubt  

just like trump did this.  The evidence without Bolden was overwhelming.   With? More overwhelming, I guess?

every senator knows he did it.  Many have acknowledged it and pivoted to not impeachable.   A significant exercise in cognitive dissonance is required to conclude he didn’t.  

so, if you don’t think it warrants removal, fine.  But he did it.  For sure.  

 
zoonation said:
So that isn’t what happened.  At all.  Good lord.  The information is everywhere.  Take a stroll outside of your bubble.  
Click to expand...
Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShamrockPride said:
USA, now 0-3 all time for impeachments, maybe time to alter or get rid of this clearly useless measure.
Click to expand...
This post shows great ignorance of history, and should be clarified.

First off, there were 19 impeachments in Congress prior to this one, and they resulted in 8 convictions. Additionally, 4 other people left office before a Senate trial could be completed. So, the actual ratio could be expressed as either 8-20 or 12-20.

Also, your post conveniently ignores the fact that Richard Nixon would not have resigned if we had altered or gotten rid of the supposedly "useless" measure.

 
Sam Quentin said:
Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did?

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause
Click to expand...
He, along with many western allies, called for Shokin to be fired because he was corrupt.  And doing nothing.  It never had anything to do with protecting his son from investigation.  In fact, by calling for a real prosecutor Biden arguably exposes his son to real investigation.  Of course, there is no evidence that Biden Jr. was corrupt beyond your run of the mill nepotism that happens all the time in Washington and, specifically, in Trump’s own administration (see Kushner for example).  

 
Sam Quentin said:
zoonation said:
So that isn’t what happened.  At all.  Good lord.  The information is everywhere.  Take a stroll outside of your bubble.  
Click to expand...
Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep
Click to expand...
:lol:

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.

That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.

There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.

 
Sam Quentin said:
Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause
Click to expand...
I love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.

I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!" :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This topic can be closed.  Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again.  She’s killed the party.  Congrats Nancy. 

 
It blows my mind that people think Trump actually was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.  I mean, we are talking about a guy who started a fake “university” to defraud people out of money.  He settled that case for 25 million dollars while he was president. 

He is a con man.  Always has been.  There are numerous other examples.  

But he was rooting out corruption in Ukraine?  Lmao.  

 
Sam Quentin said:
The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.
Click to expand...
Does Rudy work for Barr now?

 
[scooter] said:
:lol:

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.

That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.

There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.
Click to expand...
Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.

we also know that the money laundering allegations against Burisma were reduced to tax evasion under the new prosecutor.

the only way to know for sure is to get the facts from an investigation.

 
Sam Quentin said:
Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.

we also know that the money laundering allegations against Burisma were reduced to tax evasion under the new prosecutor.

the only way to know for sure is to get the facts from an investigation.
Click to expand...
Or Biden could just pay Ukraine off with campaign money, make them sign a NDA, and go about his business.

 
Sam Quentin said:
Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
Click to expand...
What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?

What do you think Hunter Biden’s role was in that?

If the investigation was legit, and trump is truly concerned, why:

1. did he wait until 2019 right after Biden announced his candidacy to apply pressure?

2.  Hasn’t anything happened since the WB came forward?  If legit, why did trump abandon the entire thing?  

 
Sam Quentin said:
[scooter] said:
I love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.

I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!" :lol:
Click to expand...
Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
Click to expand...
This fantastic new definition of "money laundering" -- i.e., receiving money from shady entities for services rendered -- is not considered to be a crime by Republicans. We know this to be the case because they have endorsed the President and his company receiving money from all kinds of shady entities (private foreign companies, foreign dictatorships, etc.). That's just capitalism.

 
zoonation said:
Sam Quentin said:
Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most
Click to expand...
What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?

What do you think Hunter Biden’s role was in that?

If the investigation was legit, and trump is truly concerned, why:

1. did he wait until 2019 right after Biden announced his candidacy to apply pressure?

2.  Hasn’t anything happened since the WB came forward?  If legit, why did trump abandon the entire thing?  
Click to expand...
I'm still kinda curious why Trump was directing Parnas and Furman to fire (and/or "get rid of") Yovanovitch. Seems odd to tell those 2 goons to do it and not Pompeo. Seems the world may never know.

:popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin said:
The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.
Click to expand...
First off, we know this is all a lie because Trump dropped it the moment he was caught.

Second, it may be true that the President is allowed to seek truthful information. However, he's not allowed to violate the law and circumvent Congress to do it. And we know that Trump violated the law because the GAO confirmed as such.

 
zoonation said:
Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   
Click to expand...
Well, I was using the definition of probable cause in my jurisdiction. I'd certainly agree that there was a preponderance of evidence as well (and therefore I agree with the civil verdict). 

But, this is all probably irrelevant to my original post. Point is that it just isn't credible to say that he did absolutely nothing wrong or at least ill-advised and, further, it's not some conspiracy. 

 
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: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top