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*** (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
i believe that the purported business is like insurance or protection against fraud. but I remember reading about that a week or two ago and finding that name highly amusing.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I always rather thought it was because he had some substantial support from both parties in both houses and he got a vote on it. The Curveball stuff was baked into the back side of the NIE which is more or less the kitchen sink of all intelligence estimates. You can read it now and see that war wasn't warranted, you could see what the UN did and know it wasn't warranted, and that's compounded by the fact many Congressmen didn't bother to personally read the NIE to begin with.
- eta - Though the 2006 decision led to the sweeping success of 2008, which makes her actions in 2019 before all this more consistent, which is another way to look at it.
I guess more to the point it's remarkable to me - and it should be to you - that Mate, Greenwald, Tracey and Taibbi are running interference for Trump on what is essentially something they should all agree on. The Russia investigation was a complicated thing with difficult to prove connection from Trump to Manafort or Stone to Kilimnik etc etc, but here this is very clear what is going on. And yet here are the same trio banging away at a basic constitutional issue they should in principle be completely supporting. It's beyond weird.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
guess you never saw him play? guy has amazing timing, anticipation and instincts. always where he needed to be to stop the ball.
Sweet J
Footballguy
Oh, wait. I misread the statement "my colleague Mike Schmidt got an eyewitness account." I assumed the verb "got" meant that he actually was an eyewitness. As in, "he got a bird's eye view to what happened."
Now that I re-read, it was probably intended as "my colleague Mike Schmidt obtained an eyewitness account from someone who saw the event."
msommer
Footballguy
Let's not get too excited, he's likely to pull privilege anyway (whether warranted, allowed, or not)
This sounds like an odd situation - and I would not read too much into it.
Included in that letter, Sondland will not be turning over documents - which suggests to me that the testimony will be given in an attempt to defend Trump here, without disclosing the documentary evidence that could support or refute that defense.
My personal preference would be for such a hearing to be behind closed doors, and conducted by staff attorneys as they attempt to identify relevant facts, witnesses, and documents. A public hearing will be a sham - where both sides will be looking to score political points, rather than a good fact-finding hearing.
parrot
Footballguy
Dan Koller
@ByDanKoller
To be fair, don't we all have tons of friends named Lev and Igor? Who can keep them all straight?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
NEWS: Appeals Court backs House Dems’ bid for Trump financial docs from Mazars. BUT it’s a 2-1 decision with Trump’s appointee RAO dissenting.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1182658841542103040
This is a DC Circuit opinion - not the 2nd Circuit Opinion from the NY case
ETA - this is the Court approving Congress' subpoena to Mazars for Trump's financial records. Expect Trump to appeal to SC.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1182658841542103040
This is a DC Circuit opinion - not the 2nd Circuit Opinion from the NY case
ETA - this is the Court approving Congress' subpoena to Mazars for Trump's financial records. Expect Trump to appeal to SC.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
There’s always a risk that every public hearing is going to be a sham and a circus, but despite that they are far better that private hearings because they keep the issue before the public. Sam Ervin understood this; there were hours and hours of televised hearings for Watergate and the public was glued to them. Not sure if our current House gets that yet.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
To be fair he’s probably right that those documents belong to State. However I wonder how much of this he was running outside official channels such as private phone text/app/email. I hope they ask him that much.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I love how Shep refers to them as "Soviets" so that the elderly viewers know that they're bad guys.
meh - I think he said they were "Soviet-born" which is accurate - according to what I have read. One was born in Ukraine, and one in Belarus - both part of the USSR - when they were born.
And I have seen "soviet-born" used in several places, so I am assuming this is all part of the bio the news rooms have on these two, rather than a specific use here.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Who cares? Even if it were politically risky to do, even if impeachment weren't a guarantee, she should have done it. She should have forced hearings and aired out his crimes. This country was supposed to be better than torture and illegal wars of aggression- she should have acted like it.
Democrats used to campaign on it. Then we got Obama, who granted immunity to the torturers and normalized everything Bush did. And just like that, the antiwar left vanished.
That's what happens when you don't prosecute war criminals like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams- they come back again and again.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't mean you won't get an impeachment conviction. You won't get the House to vote for impeachment. Which means no hearings, no anything.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered Andrey Kukushkin held pending a bail hearing to determine if he is a flight risk.
ren hoek
Footballguy
The bigger point to me is the tacit admission that Trump's phone call with Ukraine is somehow more worthy of impeachment than the Iraq War. I think the oped writer is correct- these proceedings are happening with the consent of the party's corporate owners; nothing about the impeachment hearings or forthcoming media circus will improve the lives of regular working people. It will once again provide a prolonged distraction from those issues, just like the TrumpRussia charade did.
My life will be greatly improved if trump is impeached and if that impeachment leads to his removal from offices r to losing the next election. No hyperbole as trump is that bad for the system that any hope of steering the US toward the optimal ideals we all believe the country has are nutuerd with his continues presence in office.
Full disclosure: i have no corporate sponsorship and act solely based on my own concerns and my own volition. I also fully support any and all office holders pushing for impeachment as their actions align with my desires as a member of the general public.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am coming around on the idea that Trump should NOT be impeached here.
I concur with you that Trump is exceptionally bad as a president - and, by a comfortable margin, the worst President ever. I also think he continues to do harm to the country every day he stays in office. But, elections have consequences. We all, collectively, elected Trump as president, and that has consequences.
Having regrets or policy differences is not a reason to remove someone from office. Its a reason to vote for someone else in the next election - but not a valid reason to remove via impeachment.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
They're not running interference for Trump. I don't think it's unfair to be a little skeptical here- another media circus driven by the intelligence apparatus, the instant heralding of this CIA guy as a pro-democracy "whistleblower" (while actual whistleblowers were immediately tarred as traitors, criminals), the fact that Biden is being treated with kidgloves after his work overthrowing a sovereign govt. A large part of the sentiment against Trump here requires pearlclutching for the Bidens, and I just don't see it as an issue that voters will (or should) care about that much.
McJose
Footballguy
That one guy
Footballguy
I wish it was only policy differences. The fact that trump spearheads an operation to instill alternate facts and propaganda as a means to consolidate executive power ushers us closer to an imperial presidency than we've ever been and there needs to be a bulwark against that, thus my approval for impeachment. Which impeachment being well earned imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I suggest reading this back to yourself but pretend it’s written by a hard core right winger and you’re an anti-authoritarian left of prog holding values that Taibbi & Co claim to hold.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
mcintyre1
Footballguy
The sitting POTUS actively using back channels and official interactions with foreign governments to interfere in the next Presidential election isn't a "regret" or "policy difference."
I think they are - if we really get down to it. I think what is driving public opinion is just the avalanche of dumb things that Trump does, and its all being hooked onto the Ukrainian phone call.
Now, don't get me wrong - from a technical stand point, I think what Trump did on the phone call - ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival - meets the requirements for an impeachable offense. Full stop.
But, I am contemplating whether that alone should result in the removal of the President.
I am also having an internal debate over the role of Trump's rather obvious Narcissistic Personality Disorder plays into this process. (Its a messy debate, with lots of jumbled thoughts).
We talk about mental health - and the need for better diagnosis and treatment. I think this is one of those instances where we are ignoring the rather large elephant in the room. I am not suggesting this rises anywhere close to 25th Amendment - but I am wondering how big a factor it plays in who Trump is, and how he acts. Much like an addict that can't really control their actions, I think Trump's personality disorder prevents him from acting - well, normally.
I am not sure Trump acts with a "corrupt" intent when he reaches out to get dirt on Biden. And, I think that intent should matter when we are talking about impeachment.
Now, Trump's personality disorder is a primary reason why nobody should support him for the office of President - no matter how much you like his policies. Because he is always going to be driven to put his own interests first - that is the nature of the disorder, and I don't think he can do anything about that. He is not suddenly going to resolve the disorder and start putting the country or others above his own interests.
But, in terms of impeachment - I don't know. Congress - particularly the GOP members - are doing a disservice to the country, and to their constituents by refusing to provide real oversight and checks and balances. But, elections have consequences. We knew, or should have known, what we were getting with Trump, and collectively we voted for this mess. We need to collectively unvote this mess in 2020.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I just did. I don’t think there’s a clear quid pro quo, and I don’t think the Bidens are above investigation. I agree it was unethical for Trump to go there, but it’s far from his most impeachable conduct.
I know you think Trump is a traitor or whatever- I think he’s about as corrupt as Bush/Obama were- but I think it’s legitimate to be concerned about the CIA undermining a President’s ability to have a private conversation with foreign leaders.
When did it become the CIA’s business to listen to the President’s conversations with foreign diplomats? What else have they heard, but decided wasn’t worthy of public scrutiny? Those are legitimate questions for any libertarian/progressive to ask.
And yeah, I don’t really see the victim here- an investigation isn’t inherently a political weapon, and I think overthrowing a govt and getting your kid a cush $50k/mo job 2 months later looks corrupt as ####.
I don't like that trump is normalizing corruption whether because he is Abby Normal(all the more reason to get the unstable genius away from the seat of power) or because he is just a crook at heart, either way if he goes unscathed then dollars to donughts this is the new normal for All candidates moving forward.
This is an interesting thought - because it seems to conflict with your notion of the "true" whistleblowers - who publicly disclosed state secrets.
I am of the position that the President works for the People. Nothing the president does should be shielded from the people.*
*When national security is involved, the people are represented by Congress who should have the right to oversee those conversations. No president should be engaged in secret conversations, unchecked by the people.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
That's a pretty weird take my dude. So you're basically saying that, because Trump naturally gravitates toward corruption, we should just accept it?
What's the point of our system of checks and balances if those balances effectively can't ever be used? Elections do have consequences, and the 2018 election produced a Democratic majority in the House. It is the constitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the President and (in the face of evidence of wrongdoing) impeach them.
You're way over thinking this.
What's the point of our system of checks and balances if those balances effectively can't ever be used? Elections do have consequences, and the 2018 election produced a Democratic majority in the House. It is the constitutional duty of the House to provide oversight of the President and (in the face of evidence of wrongdoing) impeach them.
You're way over thinking this.
Should the President commit crimes against the people of the United States, or shouldn’t he?
Seems like a policy issue about which people might differ.
Yes and no.
Congress has a duty to protect the country and the constitution - and if they were to remove in this situation, I would understand.
But, the people also have the duty to take better care when electing someone to the office. Again, setting policy differences aside, Trump is wholly unfit for office - and always has been unfit. Yet, enough people voted for him to be President. That is a big, big problem.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
We might have some posters on this board who could offer some fascinating arguments in favor.
No - like I said its a convoluted jumble of ideas floating in my head - but the gist is that Trump is not corrupt - Trump suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder that naturally filters everything in his brain through "How does this help me?" first and foremost.
I think Trump looks at getting dirt on Biden as just a natural way of doing business - not a corrupt way of doing business.
If this was the only thing he did - I don't think we would be running full speed ahead towards impeachment. That suggests, to me, that there are other issues here driving that push - and I think most of those other issues are policy differences and regrets.
tommyboy
Footballguy
they should follow their constitutional perogatives, vote on impeachment and set up the rules for the inquiry allowing due process to the accused. Seems pretty simple solution. Not sure why Pelosi doesn't do this.
Not really - because impeachment is inherently political, impeachment (and conviction) won't happen without the tacit approval of the voters.
tommyboy
Footballguy
lol. i mean you sound so sad and hurt that i thought you might need emotional support. I didn't realize you were such a tough guy. my bad
Similar threads
