Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Encyclopedia Brown said:

The New Yorker had a very unflattering article about Hunter. He has a long history of really bad life decisions. 

You took me by the hand

You made me a man

That one night

You made everything all right

That one night

You made everything all right

So raw so right all night all right

Oh yeah, oh yeah

So raw so right all night all right

Oh yeah

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Need to apologize for my lack in common sense here, broke my arm yesterday and am waiting for surgery on Monday and on pain medication (hydro condone)which has me thinking irrational. Upon further review I remember that GOP Senators and Representatives only want to get re-elected and seeing how 90% GOP voters don’t give a rat’s a$& or even know what Trump say or does I renege the previous post completely 

Get well!

Share this post


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

Is this a Jesus joke? This feels like an attack on Jesus. 

Took about five seconds for your joke to sink in.

Share this post


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

Is this a Jesus joke? This feels like an attack on Jesus. 

Should I edit it to 1000 or 3000 years for you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Should I edit it to 1000 or 3000 years for you?

If it’s 100O you’re attacking Muhammad. 

If it’s 3000 you’re attacking the Jonas Brothers. 

Ok I’m good with 3000. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd like to go on record saying it's possible, likely even, that Hunter Biden was improperly using his father's connections and influence to enrich himself.

That pales in comparison to Trump using the weight of the US Government to manipulate a foreign government into tarnishing his political opponent.

Not to mention: there is nothing Hunter Biden could have possibly done that is less shady than the #### pulled by either DJTJr, Kushner, or Ivanka.

Seems very unlikely considering what we know actually happened.  Ukraine was not investigating Burisma by the time Hunter joined the board.  Biden was joined by pretty much every Western government in lobbying for the removal of a prosecutor who was dragging his feet and protecting corrupt oligarchs who had been connected to the Yankuvich government. And while I have no confirmation either way, I'd be extremely surprised to learn that Hunter Biden's compensation as a board member would be tied to in anyway to a favorable outcome in the (reportedly dormant) investigation.  This feels very much like Uranium One in that the claimed corruption just doesn't make sense on its own terms.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

This feels very much like Uranium One in that the claimed corruption just doesn't make sense on its own terms.

So you're saying it's the perfect vehicle for Republicans?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the funniest thing about all this is that if it's no big deal and just part of Trump's foreign policy authority, then there's literally no corruption argument against Joe Biden, who is accused of doing EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP AND RUDY HAVE JUST TOLD US IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Of course, the funniest thing about all this is that if it's no big deal and just part of Trump's foreign policy authority, then there's literally no corruption argument against Joe Biden, who is accused of doing EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP AND RUDY HAVE JUST TOLD US IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

:lmao:solid point 

Share this post


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

I thought Judas.

Briefly considered that 

Share this post


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

Should I edit it to 1000 or 3000 years for you?

I’m an atheist. I’m good as is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Of course, the funniest thing about all this is that if it's no big deal and just part of Trump's foreign policy authority, then there's literally no corruption argument against Joe Biden, who is accused of doing EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP AND RUDY HAVE JUST TOLD US IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

Funny isn’t the word I’d use. 

Share this post


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

I’ve probably been the biggest Biden booster in this forum ( that despite the fact I’ve never loved the guy and he isn’t my first or second choice.) But this story could change my mind completely. Last thing we need is another Hillary email mess hanging over our heads all through election year. 

You were also the biggest Hillary booster in this forum.   And, after the election, you claimed you never loved her as a candidate.   

 

You lack credibility in these matters.

3 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Of course, the funniest thing about all this is that if it's no big deal and just part of Trump's foreign policy authority, then there's literally no corruption argument against Joe Biden, who is accused of doing EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP AND RUDY HAVE JUST TOLD US IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

This is a little too nuanced for Trump voters, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

You were also the biggest Hillary booster in this forum.   And, after the election, you claimed you never loved her as a candidate.   

 

You lack credibility in these matters.

 

I liked Hillary a lot more than I like Biden. Still do. 

My credibility should be based on whether what I write makes sense. Not on my record of predictions. Actually my record of predictions is pretty good, but it shouldn’t matter. Only if what I write currently is credible. That’s not up to me but to you and anybody else reading this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

You were also the biggest Hillary booster in this forum.   And, after the election, you claimed you never loved her as a candidate.   

I thought that was me...:kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

This is a little too nuanced for Trump voters, yes?

I'm sure you're waiting for one of the normal cadre to chime in with the "but Trump voters are to stupid to read so yeah".  

Took care of that to advance the line here so we can keep movin' on movin' on.

Share this post


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

I'm sure you're waiting for one of the normal cadre to chime in with the "but Trump voters are to stupid to read so yeah".  

Took care of that to advance the line here so we can keep movin' on movin' on.

I don't think anyone here would say or post anything like that GB.  They don't support him out of stupidity.  It's more like being in a cult and brainwashed because they only believe what Trump tells them to believe. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Proof?

Trump’s the one that’s stopping the whistleblower, not Schiff :shrug: 

Don’t you want the truth to come out?

Oh God, the other eight times someone asked DN for proof of Schiff lying weren't inconclusive enough?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I thought that was me...:kicksrock:

Tgunz belongs in the conversation too

Share this post


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

Not that I expect any of the usual suspects to read it, but just in case the good Lord casts the scales from an eye or two, I'll make it easy for them:

Quote

In 173 pages on Russian interference, Mueller identified constant contact and interaction between the Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. Mueller found clear evidence of collusion, as the examples below demonstrate.

Mueller decided not to prosecute for criminal conspiracy based on a very narrow prosecutorial standard that he clearly laid out in the report. However, it is abundantly clear that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Here are six clear examples of collusion from the Mueller report:

Quote

The Mueller report builds on the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that there were two campaigns to elect Donald Trump— one run by Trump and one run by the Russian government. The Mueller report clearly identified collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite repeated denials from Trump and many of his senior advisers and close associates that there were any connections between the two campaigns.

A total of 272 contacts between Trump’s team and Russia-linked operatives have been identified, including at least 38 meetings. And we know that at least 33 high-ranking campaign officials and Trump advisers were aware of contacts with Russia-linked operatives during the campaign and transition, including Trump himself. None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them.

Beyond the many lies the Trump team told to the American people, Mueller himself repeatedly remarked on how far the Trump team was willing to go to hide their Russian contacts, stating, “the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Below is a comprehensive chronological list of the contacts that have been discovered to date and some of the many lies Trump’s campaign, transition team, and White House told to hide them.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Seems very unlikely considering what we know actually happened.  Ukraine was not investigating Burisma by the time Hunter joined the board.  Biden was joined by pretty much every Western government in lobbying for the removal of a prosecutor who was dragging his feet and protecting corrupt oligarchs who had been connected to the Yankuvich government. And while I have no confirmation either way, I'd be extremely surprised to learn that Hunter Biden's compensation as a board member would be tied to in anyway to a favorable outcome in the (reportedly dormant) investigation.  This feels very much like Uranium One in that the claimed corruption just doesn't make sense on its own terms.

That hasn't stopped it from spreading like wildfire in the conservative echo-chambers.  So much so, even Tim is reconsidering Biden.  Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean - the allegation is that the President used his position to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

If that is not an abuse of power - then nothing will ever be an abuse of power.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I mean - the allegation is that the President used his position to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

If that is not an abuse of power - then nothing will ever be an abuse of power.

Until a Democrat, or a woman or a black guy (but I repeat myself), does it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

The precedents coming out of this administration:

  • Can't compel administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't compel non-administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't enforce a statute like the tax code law that says that all Americans even the president must submit their tax return if demanded by Congress.
  • Can't compel production of the supporting evidence of a special counsel investigation and can't compel production of the whole report.
  • Can't compel production of an inspector general report where the law mandates delivery.
  • The president can obstruct justice.
  • The president can use foreign policy for personal means.
  • The president can violate the emoluments clause.
  • The president can override the appropriations clause.
  • The president can ignore the appointments clause.
Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

Quote

Now, however, we face an entirely new situation. In a call to the new president of Ukraine, Trump reportedly attempted to pressure the leader of a sovereign state into conducting an investigation—a witch hunt, one might call it—of a U.S. citizen, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden.

As the Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Gerashchenko told the Daily Beast when asked about the president’s apparent requests, “Clearly, Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in prison.”

Clearly.

If this in itself is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning. Trump’s grubby commandeering of the presidency’s fearsome and nearly uncheckable powers in foreign policy for his own ends is a gross abuse of power and an affront both to our constitutional order and to the integrity of our elections.

The story may even be worse than we know. If Trump tried to use military aid to Ukraine as leverage, as reporters are now investigating, then he held Ukrainian and American security hostage to his political vendettas. It means nothing to say that no such deal was reached; the important point is that Trump abused his position in the Oval Office.

In this matter, we need not rely on a newspaper account, nor even on the complaint, so far unseen, of a whistle-blower. Instead, we have a sweaty, panicked admission on national television by Trump’s bizarre homunculus, Rudy Giuliani, that he did in fact seek such an investigation on Trump’s behalf. Giuliani later again confirmed Trump’s role, tweeting that a “President telling a Pres-elect of a well known corrupt country he better investigate corruption that affects US is doing his job.”

Let us try, as we always find ourselves doing in the age of Trump, to think about how Americans might react if this happened in any other administration. Imagine, for example, if Bill Clinton had called his friend, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, in 1996, and asked him to investigate Bob Dole. Or if George W. Bush had called, say, President Vicente Fox of Mexico in 2004 and asked him—indeed, asked him eight times, according to The Wall Street Journal—to open a case against John Kerry. Clinton, of course, was eventually impeached for far less than that. Is there any doubt that either man would have been put on trial in the Senate, and likely chased from office?

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

The precedents coming out of this administration:

  • Can't compel administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't compel non-administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't enforce a statue like the tax code law that says that all Americans even the president must submit their tax return if demanded by Congress.
  • Can't compel production of the supporting evidence of a special counsel investigation and can't compel production of the whole report.
  • Can't compel production of an inspector general report where the law mandates delivery.
  • The president can obstruct justice.
  • The president can use foreign policy for personal means.
  • The president can violate the emoluments clause.
  • The president can override the appropriations clause.
  • The president can ignore the appointments clause.

Jesus. When you put it that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Jesus. When you put it that way.

But her emails...

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

But her emails...

Benghazi!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

But her emails...

Let's not forget what got us down the Benghazi path to start with.  The Republicans were upset the Obama administration said the attack was spontaneous and not calculated terrorism, and they did this to downplay the event right before politics.

Downplaying an event for political reasons spurned months and months of investigation and hearings.

Now we have a president openly pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political opponent.  Will Republicans say a word?  I'm not holding my breath.  If there is any lesson from the Mueller report, not only is there nothing to see here but we must investigate the whistleblower leaker.

It's #### like this that has forever turned me off of the Republican party.

(in before the inevitable "but what about some unrelated thing that made an unrelated Democrat look bad?)

  • Like 4
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tonydead said:

If they try impeachment the entire election will rest on how well that turns out.  

I get that people think this way.

At some point Pelosi has to do her job here. If this Ukraine stuff is true then they need to impeach this guy. What is the point if they don't?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tonydead said:

If they try impeachment the entire election will rest on how well that turns out.  

That says more about the American people and our willingness to ignore rule of law, tbh. 

ETA: I'm not ok with it, but apparently there is a significant number of folks who prefer a president who is above the law.  If that were to happen, what makes us greater than any other Banana republic or despotic dictatorship?

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That says more about the American people and their willingness to ignore rule of law, tbh. 

Exactly...its not about how it turns out as we have seen what Mitch will do to protect Trump and the party.

Its about proceedings needing to be done where facts come out exposing the corruption.  I doubt it removes him from office...but if they show all he has done in a factual manner...people will have to decide of they still want to support that level of corruption as POTUS

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The precedents coming out of this administration:

  • Can't compel administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't compel non-administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't enforce a statue like the tax code law that says that all Americans even the president must submit their tax return if demanded by Congress.
  • Can't compel production of the supporting evidence of a special counsel investigation and can't compel production of the whole report.
  • Can't compel production of an inspector general report where the law mandates delivery.
  • The president can obstruct justice.
  • The president can use foreign policy for personal means.
  • The president can violate the emoluments clause.
  • The president can override the appropriations clause.
  • The president can ignore the appointments clause.

It's up to the voters to punish the elected representatives that support these actions by Trump. There is no indication that the Trump/GOP/conservatives voters will do so. Would ignoring an adverse Supreme Court decision  do it? Doubtful at best.

  

Share this post


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

It's up to the voters to punish the elected representatives that support these actions by Trump. There is no indication that the Trump/GOP/conservatives voters will do so. Would ignoring an adverse Supreme Court decision  do it? Doubtful at best.

It is also up to every voter that is opposed to Trump to educate those supporters of the travesties that he has committed. Ask each voter if they are okay with the list presented and give examples of how Trump has done so. Not just tweets or snippets but actual evidence showing how Trump has violated the sacred Constitution. Many times people either refuse or just don't know what the actual evidence is because they are told something pro-Trump before they are given, if at all ever, any evidence demonstrating the crime.

That list is scary to think about and the same people I vaguely mentioned above will cry foul, IMPEACH, and "lock him/her up", every time a Dem does something in the future without realizing Trump is/was the catalyst to whatever action occurs in the future.

An uneducated populace plays into the GOP and Dems wheelhouse. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to love this or not care at all. And, any Trump supporter, in good faith, cannot defend any of Trump's actions... ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That hasn't stopped it from spreading like wildfire in the conservative echo-chambers.  So much so, even Tim is reconsidering Biden.  Amazing.

I didn’t know any details. If it’s uranium one style nonsense then forget it I’m not worried. I was concerned it might rise to a Hillary email type of level. 

Share this post


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

Oh God, the other eight times someone asked DN for proof of Schiff lying weren't inconclusive enough?

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

Edited by Don't Noonan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

And he could have seen evidence of collusion and Mueller may have found proof of that but couldn't proceed because he believed that a sitting President can be indicted (which is based on a advisory opinion and has never been tested in the courts).

Share this post


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

And he could have seen evidence of collusion and Mueller may have found proof of that but couldn't proceed because he believed that a sitting President can be indicted (which is based on a advisory opinion and has never been tested in the courts).

Read the report

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Read the report

I have...it doesn't refute what Schiff said.  You should probably stop falsely claiming it does.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

If I am reading this article correctly: 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/wsj-trump-ukraine-calls-biden-investigation-giuliani/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

then Trump was careful not to mention any specific quid pro quo in the phone call. 

If that is the case, then in my judgment, he will get away with this. 

I wrote this yesterday, and not being a lawyer, I didn’t understand the law. After watching several lawyers on TV explain this subject, I’m pretty sure I was wrong. If President Trump contacted the Ukrainian President and asked for dirt on Joe Biden,, even without an explicit quid pro quo, apparently that itself is a criminal act. 

Share this post


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

I have...it doesn't refute what Schiff said.  You should probably stop falsely claiming it does.

Exactly. And parroting what Trump has been saying about Schiff doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

I think everybody reading this post already knows your opinion of Adam Schiff. It strikes me that your mention of him here is a distraction. I would be very interested instead in hearing your opinion on this current scandal. I’m guessing we all fully expect you will simply repeat the President’s line that this is all fake news and that he did nothing wrong, but I’d still like you to make it official anyhow. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm sure you're waiting for one of the normal cadre to chime in with the "but Trump voters are to stupid to read so yeah".  

Took care of that to advance the line here so we can keep movin' on movin' on.

Too. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I think everybody reading this post already knows your opinion of Adam Schiff. It strikes me that your mention of him here is a distraction. I would be very interested instead in hearing your opinion on this current scandal. I’m guessing we all fully expect you will simply repeat the President’s line that this is all fake news and that he did nothing wrong, but I’d still like you to make it official anyhow. 

Just like the Mueller report, I choose not to jump to conclusions and wait for more info to come out.  :shrug:

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I didn’t know any details. If it’s uranium one style nonsense then forget it I’m not worried. I was concerned it might rise to a Hillary email type of level. 

A current example of this ‘scandal’ might go something like this:

Imagine that the Epstein scandal becomes huge and there are loads of evidence against several rich and powerful people. Barr is investigating all of these claims but dragging his feet and many people doubt that he will ever do anything to them.

Many people including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren push for Barr to be removed. Warren convinces Trump to fire Barr by agreeing to help expedite the confirmation of some of his appointees.

Now here’s where the real scandal is. It’s discovered that Warren’s husband worked for a law firm that was being investigated in the Epstein scandal. But he did not work there during the scandal, only 5 years later. Pundits start saying that Warren pushed for Barr to be removed because he was investigating a company her husband worked for.

  • Thanks 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.