Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

Ask nations that need our help to survive to help your reelection, no prob.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So silly that Rs support this con man.  Many others way more worthy of support.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 5:04 PM, zftcg said:

I will say I don’t put a lot of stock in what Senators said. They all started with the presumption that they would vote for acquittal and worked backwards based on their temperament and “brands”. Alexander was no more likely to call it a witch hunt than Tom Cotton was to criticize Trump’s behavior. 

Truly gutless performance by all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 2:01 PM, Insomniac said:

Between the no indictment policy and the total ineffectiveness of the Constitutional impeachment process we now have a system where the POTUS is above the law. The problem isn't  the liklihood of Trump abusing his powers, everyone who comes after will have the same ability.

Yup.  This is what the right is completely missing in their frenzied jubilation.  They are going to  squeal if and when the show is on the other foot.  On the other hand, universal healthcare will be only one signature away from being a reality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The difference is Bernie actually IS a socialist.  He's literally defended Castro and Ortega.  Took his honeymoon in Russia.  Also, he literally said it himself so no one is fear-mongering.

Warren is adopting almost all of his positions, so not sure how you can ignore that either.

Not really the same thing, IMO.

Many people defended many sides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2020 at 3:46 PM, BladeRunner said:

Uhmmm, no.  This sounds a bit like someone is assuming way too much.

This is a direct quote from a letter that I received from Pat Toomey (R- PA) last week: 

"The president's actions were not "perfect." Some were inappropriate. But the question for the Senate was not whether his actions were perfect, but if they constituted impeachable offenses that justified removing a president for the first time and forbidding him from ever holding office."

Toomey's opinion is that the Democrats made a "...faulty claim that the only possible motive for his actions was his personal political gain. In fact, there are also legitimate national interests for seeking investigations into apparent corruption, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved."   

I personally think this is hogwash:  it was patently obvious that Trump had little or no concern of corruption in Ukraine in his first two years of office and that the only "corruption" Trump's personal lawyer was investigating pertained to the Bidens, his perceived political opponent in the 2020 election.

Toomey went onto quote none other than Joe Biden in his letter:  

"Vice President Biden stated during President Clinton's impeachment trial, "the Constitution sets the bar for impeachment very high." A president can only be impeached and removed for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." While there's debate about the precise meaning of this phrase, it's clear that impeachable conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.

The Constitution sets the impeachment bar so high for good reasons. Removing a president from office, and forbidding him from seeking future office, overturns the results of the last election and denies Americans the right to vote for him in the next one. The Senate's impeachment power essentially allows 67 senators to substitute their judgment for that of millions of Americans.

Vice President Biden's framework for judging an impeachment was right then and it is right now."

So Toomey's position is that Trump's actions were "inappropriate" but did not warrant his removal of office.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, well.  If Brad Pitt says it then we must believe it!

Any other celebrities you follow that we should listen to?  ;)

Did the senate hear testimony from John Bolton?

AFAICT Mr Pitt seems to have stated a fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kodycutter said:

c'mon  brad pitt?   c'mon, who cares?

I don't. Doesn't make him wrong, though

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

 

So Toomey's position is that Trump's actions were "inappropriate" but did not warrant his removal of office.  

I believe Rubio has been quoted in this thread as saying it harsher than "inappropriate"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, msommer said:

Did the senate hear testimony from John Bolton?

AFAICT Mr Pitt seems to have stated a fact

Yawn.  Who watches the Oscars anyways?

Who cares what these pretentious, hypocritical, preaching morons think anyways?  If you're hanging your justification for politics on actors, then I would say you need to get out more.  Enjoy life instead of being bitter, jaded and full of hate.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we lock this thread? It's over. Trump was aquitted. Move on to your next sham investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

“HE’S NOT HITLER!” is not the defense of an American President I’d thought I’d see in my lifetime.

Actually, there is not a single President in your lifetime who hasn’t been compared to Hitler. 

Share this post


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

This is a direct quote from a letter that I received from Pat Toomey (R- PA) last week: 

"The president's actions were not "perfect." Some were inappropriate. But the question for the Senate was not whether his actions were perfect, but if they constituted impeachable offenses that justified removing a president for the first time and forbidding him from ever holding office."

Toomey's opinion is that the Democrats made a "...faulty claim that the only possible motive for his actions was his personal political gain. In fact, there are also legitimate national interests for seeking investigations into apparent corruption, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved."   

I personally think this is hogwash:  it was patently obvious that Trump had little or no concern of corruption in Ukraine in his first two years of office and that the only "corruption" Trump's personal lawyer was investigating pertained to the Bidens, his perceived political opponent in the 2020 election.

Toomey went onto quote none other than Joe Biden in his letter:  

"Vice President Biden stated during President Clinton's impeachment trial, "the Constitution sets the bar for impeachment very high." A president can only be impeached and removed for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." While there's debate about the precise meaning of this phrase, it's clear that impeachable conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.

The Constitution sets the impeachment bar so high for good reasons. Removing a president from office, and forbidding him from seeking future office, overturns the results of the last election and denies Americans the right to vote for him in the next one. The Senate's impeachment power essentially allows 67 senators to substitute their judgment for that of millions of Americans.

Vice President Biden's framework for judging an impeachment was right then and it is right now."

So Toomey's position is that Trump's actions were "inappropriate" but did not warrant his removal of office.  

If he has questions about motive why did he want to hear from witnesses that could clear this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eisenhower - probably

Kennedy - Less likely, perhaps

Johnson - Probably

Nixon - Very likely

Ford - Not Jerry

Carter - I'm guessing not so much

Reagan - Sure, by his detractors.  Of course by his detractors, ones supports rarely make such a comparison.

Bush - Sure

Clinton -  Lots of negative comparisons but Hitler?  Since we are entering the age of hyperbole I suppose so.

Bush -  More Curious George comparisons but sure.

Obama - Way more Muslim world dictator comparisons.  If he was compared to Hitler I bet those doing so amended the comparison with "black".

Trump - Certainly

Share this post


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

If he has questions about motive why did he want to hear from witnesses that could clear this up?

In my opinion Mr Toomey knows full well what motivated Trump to withhold Ukrainian aide.  His argument is the House Democrats didn't prove it and even if they could have it still wouldn't have warranted removal.  Therefore additional witnesses were not necessary.

Share this post


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

Yawn.  Who watches the Oscars anyways?

Who cares what these pretentious, hypocritical, preaching morons think anyways? If you're hanging your justification for politics on actors, then I would say you need to get out more.  Enjoy life instead of being bitter, jaded and full of hate.

Yeah, silly actors with their political preaching.

I much prefer a Reality TV star to tell me what I should think politically than one who only does movies.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weebs210 said:

Can we lock this thread? It's over. Trump was aquitted. Move on to your next sham investigation.

Yup, the "sham investigation" where the Senate didn't want to hear from an ex-cabinet member professing to have info on the subject.  Sham investigation, whitewash, cover-up, they all work.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

No mention of the sham investigation that started all this? 

You mean the two sham investigations that were requested during the perfect call?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weebs210 said:

Trump was aquitted. Move on to your next sham investigation.

To make sense of the 'impeachment talk started in 2016' claim, you have to realize that during the campaign Trump always made clear that he was not going to adhere to constitutional norms and standards. His protestations that troops should be allowed to do war crimes is one example (and that came to light recently with the Gallagher case), I suppose another was his complete lack of knowledge or understanding of key American history and the Constitution was another (and anecdotal evidence continues to arise), and for many Trump supporters that was a feature of his presidency, something they wanted. - So yeah I'm afraid this is the kind of president we have and as he continues to run afoul of the Constitution and the law he will continue to be called to account for it. It's bound to happen not later but soon, very soon, or even now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually, there is not a single President in your lifetime who hasn’t been compared to Hitler. 

I think most were compared favorably to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yawn.  Who watches the Oscars anyways?

Who cares what these pretentious, hypocritical, preaching morons think anyways?  If you're hanging your justification for politics on actors, then I would say you need to get out more.  Enjoy life instead of being bitter, jaded and full of hate.

About 30 million people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yawn.  Who watches the Oscars anyways?

Who cares what these pretentious, hypocritical, preaching morons think anyways?  If you're hanging your justification for politics on actors, then I would say you need to get out more.  Enjoy life instead of being bitter, jaded and full of hate.

I didn't. And in the next post from the one you answered you could see that I don't care what Brad Pitt says.

But you reacted quite a bit to the soundbite. To the point where you first challenged the veracity of the statement (it was true) and then obliquely attack the person pointing that out to you.

That's interesting. 

Share this post


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

Lindsey Graham Implicates William Barr in Massive Scandal, on Live Television

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/lindsey-graham-william-barr-rudy-giuliani-lev-parnas-ukraine-trump.html

Reince Priebus already established the, yeah but we lie to the press all the time defense. Lindsay will simply fall back on this acknowledgement that anything at any time may just be bull#### meant to score political points with a base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Reince Priebus already established the, yeah but we lie to the press all the time defense. Lindsay will simply fall back on this acknowledgement that anything at any time may just be bull#### meant to score political points with a base.

They're like a bad gangster movie.  "Oh yeahs, whats a you gonna do about it!? Nuttin' that's what!". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In a court filing Monday evening, prosecutors recommended to a federal judge that former Trump associate Roger Stone serves seven to nine years in prison for lying to Congress and witness tampering during the Russia probe.

“Roger Stone obstructed Congress’ investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, lied under oath, and tampered with a witness,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. “And when his crimes were revealed by the indictment in this case, he displayed contempt for this Court and the rule of law. For that, he should be punished in accord with the advisory Guidelines.”

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


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

They're like a bad gangster movie.  "Oh yeahs, whats a you gonna do about it!? Nuttin' that's what!". 

When the gangsters have paid off the police in the city...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Slip of the tongue I'm sure. 

Apparently not.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dickies said:

 

14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Also really bad: Trump Fires Defense Official for Refusing to Break the Law on His Behalf

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/trump-fires-defense-official-refusing-to-break-law-elaine-mccusker.html

I'm angry. 

Share this post


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

 

I'm angry. 

It's okay, I'm sure he will learn his lesson by tomorrow.  

Share this post


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

All 4 federal prosecutors quit Stone case after DOJ overrules prosecutors on sentencing request

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/roger-stone-sentencing-justice-department/index.html

If Mitch McConnell is still Majority Leader in a year we are in serious trouble as a nation. 

  • Sad 3

Share this post


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

If Mitch McConnell is still Majority Leader in a year we are in serious trouble as a nation. 

Check the Trump Years thread. It gets even worse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Check the Trump Years thread. It gets even worse. 

Every day something more shocking than the last!

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

Quote

 

The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former National Security Council aide and impeachment witness President Donald Trump fired Friday, was just doing his job, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told students and guests at a Drew University event here Wednesday night.

Over a 75-minute speech and Q&A session, Kelly laid out, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s words and actions regarding North Korea, illegal immigration, military discipline, Ukraine, and the news media.

Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that Vindman is blameless and was simply following the training he’d received as a soldier; migrants are “overwhelmingly good people” and “not all rapists”; and Trump’s decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden upended long-standing U.S. policy.

Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested: Having seen something “questionable,” Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said. Vindman, who specialized in Ukraine policy at the National Security Council at the time, was among multiple U.S. officials who listened in on the call. When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth, Kelly said.

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

Although Trump has long insisted that his call to Zelensky was “perfect,” Kelly made clear that Trump indeed conditioned military aid on Zelensky’s help digging up dirt on the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

That amounted to a momentous change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine—one that Vindman was right to flag, because other federal agencies needed to know about the shift, Kelly said.

“Through the Obama administration up until that phone call, the policy of the U.S. was militarily to support Ukraine in their defensive fight against … the Russians,” Kelly said. “And so, when the president said that continued support would be based on X, that essentially changed. And that’s what that guy [Vindman] was most interested in.”

When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that was tantamount to hearing “an illegal order,” Kelly said. “We teach them, ‘Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss.’” ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 5
  • Love 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelly? Never heard of him. Don't think I've ever met him.

I think he got coffee for everyone or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still laugh, derisively, at Trump creating the new category of achievement for praise, that being making "a perfect call".  Before this Presidents had "Productive discussions" with foreign leaders.

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.