That is a step too far - Trump is almost certain to be impeached - and he will get all the due process afforded by law. So, its a rather poor talking point - that comes across as more desperate than substantive.
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)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Because the Senate holds the trial. Last time I checked, Pelosi isn't the Senate majority leader. I hope you have similar expectations for McConnell on actually having a legitimate trial, rather than a dog and pony show with a pre-determined outcome.
Of course it’s corrupt. It’s illegal. It’s an abuse of power for an improper purpose.
And the other issues are not policy differences — they are additional crimes and abuses of power.
tommyboy
Footballguy
because in our country, even the president is allowed due process in the inquiry process. No impeachment has ever been done in secret without due process.
due process doesn't stop because Pelosi or Schiff say so.
My take on these guys is that they were just grifters.
They had a money source back in Russia/Ukraine and were promising influence here in exchange for Oligarch money. I think a lot fo the photos and videos we all posted yesterday were intended to show Daddy Warbucks that they had reached the upper echelons of government.
I think they took advantage of both Trump and Giuliani who both desperately wanted the conspiracy theories to be true. (Its a flaw that both Trump and Giuliani were so gullible - but I think these guys were just stringing them along on the Biden stuff until they (Soviet Guys) got what they needed.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Inquiry isn't the trial. The trial doesn't take place in the house. Due process? The accused have list no rights during this inquiry.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
IMO you're looking for a reason to excuse Trump's behavior, and frankly I have no earthly idea why.
You don't get a free pass on crimes or corrupt behavior because of a personality disorder. That's not how society works and shouldn't be how it works. Doesn't the general idea of all political corruption revolve around the central theme of "How does this help me?" This isn't a novel situation.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Every impeachment has had this inquiry (Clinton and Nixon at least). Nobody has lost rights here.
Workhorse
Footballguy
This is a classic red herring. Elizabeth Warren, who is about as immune from big corporate overlords as anyone and fights like hell for working people, supports impeachment hearings.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Wasn't there almost a 6 month gap between the start of Congressional investigating and the "formal" opening of an impeachment inquiry during the Nixon scandal? You're grasping at technical straws that don't exist. Impeachment isn't happening in secret, no matter how much you want to believe it is.
I am probably just going to move on here - but nothing is really being done in "secret"
No president has the right to call witness or cross-examine witnesses before the House votes on specific articles. Just like no criminal defendant has the right to call witness or cross-examine witnesses before a grand jury.
Despite what you hear - Trump will have all the due process afforded him (or any criminal defendant). In fact, he will have much more due process by virtue of having allies on the jury.
If you’re saying Trump doesn’t know right from wrong ... insanity is not a valid defense to impeachment proceedings.
If you’re saying Trump has a mental handicap and is entitled to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act ... no, that doesn’t apply either.
apalmer
Footballguy
And Nixon thought that breaking into DNC offices was a natural way of doing business. Drug dealers think selling opioids to those who are addicted is a natural way of doing business. Fortunately, in the US, we have laws that decide what's "natural" and what's illegal and individuals don't get to violate those laws without punishment just because they think they disagree or think they're above those laws.
WASHINGTON — Marie L. Yovanovitch, who was recalled as the American ambassador to Ukraine, testified to impeachment investigators on Friday that a top State Department official told her that President Trump had pushed for her removal for months even though the department believed she had “done nothing wrong.”
In a closed-door deposition that could further fuel calls for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, Ms. Yovanovitch delivered a scathing indictment of his administration’s conduct of foreign policy, warning that private influence and personal gain have usurped diplomats’ judgment, threatening to undermine the nation’s interests and drive talented professionals out of public service.
According to a copy of her opening statement obtained by The New York Times, the long-time diplomat said she was “incredulous” that she was removed as ambassador “based, as far as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.”
In a closed-door deposition that could further fuel calls for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, Ms. Yovanovitch delivered a scathing indictment of his administration’s conduct of foreign policy, warning that private influence and personal gain have usurped diplomats’ judgment, threatening to undermine the nation’s interests and drive talented professionals out of public service.
According to a copy of her opening statement obtained by The New York Times, the long-time diplomat said she was “incredulous” that she was removed as ambassador “based, as far as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.”
timschochet
Footballguy
Her opening statement revealed no new details about Mr. Trump’s effort to pressure Volodymyr Zelensky, the new president of Ukraine, to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Joseph R. Biden Jr. It also offered no details about Lev Parnas or Igor Fruman, two businessmen who helped Mr. Giuliani mount a campaign for her removal. Both were arrested late Wednesday on charges of campaign finance violations. The indictment charged that they were working for one or more Ukrainian officials who wanted her out of Kiev.
Staff from three House committee expected to question Ms. Yovanovitch for several hours.
She said that John Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state, told her this spring that she had “done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.”
Instead, Mr. Sullivan told Ms. Yovanovitch in April that Mr. Trump had “lost confidence in me and no longer wished me to serve as his ambassador,” she said, and that there had been “a concerted campaign against me, and that the department had been under pressure from the president to remove me since the summer of 2018.”
Staff from three House committee expected to question Ms. Yovanovitch for several hours.
She said that John Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state, told her this spring that she had “done nothing wrong and that this was not like other situations where he had recalled ambassadors for cause.”
Instead, Mr. Sullivan told Ms. Yovanovitch in April that Mr. Trump had “lost confidence in me and no longer wished me to serve as his ambassador,” she said, and that there had been “a concerted campaign against me, and that the department had been under pressure from the president to remove me since the summer of 2018.”
That one guy
Footballguy
I think if we’re all honest, we have margins when assessing whether or not a crime has been committed with regards to politicians/politics. That might rightly open me up to a bit of hypocrisy when applying my arbitrary standards to law, but I think I’m consistent when it comes to specific topics, with Trump that is voting/American democracy. If he’s breaking those laws, corrupting our method of governance for personal gain, and ultimately weakening the reliability and faith in that system (the foundation of our system), then impeachment inquiry at minimum is the correct course of action...and actual impeachment/removal should he be found guilty of such crimes
apalmer
Footballguy
Due Process doesn't mean the police can't investigate you without giving you a warning or a chance to dispute what they're finding. If they complete their investigation and decide to proceed against you then you get your Due Process rights. Don't put the cart before the horse.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
DeSantis took $50K from them....is in the process of giving it back 
mcintyre1
Footballguy
To be clear, @Sinn Fein, I'm not trying to attack you and I appreciate the stuff you post, I just think you're pretty off base with that line of thinking.
Mile High
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Genuine question...what does a term like "due process" look like in a political process like impeachment? And where in the Constitution is it outlined?
randall146
Footballguy
Well, in this case impeachment means disregarding the electoral college’s wishes, in favor of the voters’ wishes.
Sweet J
Footballguy
You are arguing against a person who believes that every single president in the history of America is a corrupt war criminal. And that in comparison, what Trump does is simply "meh." You are not going to get a conversation rooted in reality.
I am fine with that- I recognize its an unconventional - at best - way of looking at things. And, I am just trying to step back from the fray, and see if anything makes sense. When chum is thrown in the water, its easy to get caught up in the feeding frenzy.
I started thinking about Lev and Igor - and how they were probably taking advantage of Rudy and Trump, and I started to ask why, or how. I think both Rudy and Trump are susceptible to conspiracy theories - so my theory is that these two guys were feeding into that - giving Rudy and Trump hope that the stories were true. Such that when Trump asked for help from Ukraine, he was convinced there was ample evidence, and that asking for evidence of corruption was not illegal.
I am still very much in favor of getting him out of office sooner rather than later - as he is decidedly unfit for office, even under the best of circumstances. I was just questioning whether we are forcing some facts to fit the narrative we want.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Thanks for the response, and I mean that. About your questions:
- It's always been the CIA's business to do so, it's standard practice. But to be clear what happened here is that the NSC loaned out this CIA employee from the CIA for work that NSC was doing and that it does for all presidents, which is capture telephone calls for memorialization so that foreign leaders don't try to screw with the US by claiming something was said which wasn't and so that the White House can look at its own files and see what has happened and what they do so it can strategize. It's totally standard and necessary practice.
- Typically what they hear is and what is or isn't released is totally up to the White House executive staff, really the chief of staff (Mulvaney here) and the president and other senior advisors. That's normal. What isn't normal is upclassifying material effectively keeping it from others within the White House and even the President's own closest advisors. That's completely nuts.
Just about your points about Deep State, in your prior post you - and I suppose Taibbi, Mate & Pals - have to and actually do rely instead on .... Donald J. Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Bill Barr. Barr especially is hard to fathom your turning to as he is the guy, The Man, who instituted the secret domestic surveillance program you are always (likely rightly) railing about. And yet here you are leaning on him like a good solid old friend.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you are referring to Ren, while I think @mcintyre1 was referring to me - but I could be wrong...
Sweet J
Footballguy
by the way, I don't know if anyone saw this, but this senator's response is like a real life FBG argument: Weasel Town
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Real quick question here - is there anyone on this board that thinks the police have to let you question witnesses before they can charge you with a crime?
Sweet J
Footballguy
I don't know what you are talking about. But if you are trying to suggest that the Whistleblower, who was from the CIA, was listening into the president's conversation, you are not being honest. You know damn well that the whistleblower was given this information by people on the president's own staff, who were legitimately on the call, and were so upset by the call that they told the WB.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
And to piggyback on this, I don't generally give legal advice on message boards, but let me assure you that the police definitely do not have to let you question witnesses before they can charge you with a crime.
Trump's defense about this inquiry being improperly conducted is basically on the level of "I asked him if he was a cop! He didn't tell me! They have to tell you if they're cops, that's the law!"
tommyboy
Footballguy
there was not a vote on the "inquiry" just Pelosi saying there is one. This has never happened. Schiffs hearings are done in secret in secure locations, not in public. doesn't seem like a very non partisan, fair attempt at impeachment to me.
so if i'm trump or the republicans, i don't blame them for not cooperating, honestly. Make the process public and take a vote so everyone is on record where they stand.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It will probably help if you look into what actually happened in this case. You don't even have the facts right about how the whistle blower got the information.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Why would there have to be one? Do the police vote on whether to investigate? Do they have their witness interrogations in a public forum?
You don't understand the process so it's scary. I get it. Relax. It's all happening just fine.
Kyle Griffin@kylegriffin1 · 6m
Yovanovitch said she was forced to leave Kiev on "the next plane" this spring, with the State Department's No. 2 telling her that, though she had done nothing wrong, Trump had lost confidence in her and State had been under significant pressure to remove her since summer 2018.
It bears repeating - but this is as big an issue for Trump as the phone call, imo. When you tie in the indictment where Trump is being lobbied to remove her, and in fact, removes her at the request of people with a financial interest in her removal - that looks very corrupt-y (and not even in a whats-in-it-for-me kind of way). I suspect the whats in it for Trump was both the $325,000 donation and continued help in tracking downthe real killers Hunter Biden - but to be fair, I don't recall the timing of the donation, and how it ties into this lobbying, or if that was all on Pete Sessions.
Yovanovitch said she was forced to leave Kiev on "the next plane" this spring, with the State Department's No. 2 telling her that, though she had done nothing wrong, Trump had lost confidence in her and State had been under significant pressure to remove her since summer 2018.
It bears repeating - but this is as big an issue for Trump as the phone call, imo. When you tie in the indictment where Trump is being lobbied to remove her, and in fact, removes her at the request of people with a financial interest in her removal - that looks very corrupt-y (and not even in a whats-in-it-for-me kind of way). I suspect the whats in it for Trump was both the $325,000 donation and continued help in tracking down
tommyboy
Footballguy
and for the record, this "impeachment" is the result of our intelligence agencies spying on the presidents protected conversation with the president of a foreign country. This is what you are in favor of. So we know the rules for the next time a Dem is the President. This is what you are in favor of now.
Skoo
Footballguy
That's not what happened though.
Remember, Trump was all in a tizzy because it "wasn't first-hand information"?
Swing and a miss.
:sigh:
The GOP is present at all of "Schiff's hearings" - the president's position is well protected in those hearings.
Not every hearing is public - which is a good thing. But, these hearings are not being held by a secret cabal of Dem House members who won't let the GOP in.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Oh? Are you sure it isn't our intelligence agencies being given information from members of the administration and staff about a conversation that happened?
Mile High
Footballguy
I'm totally fine with people watching to make sure the president is doing business in the best interest of the United States and if he isn't I want to know about it.
I don't think any conversation of the president should be "protected" not the least of which are conversations with foreign leaders. The president is accountable to the people. The only way to be accountable is for proper oversight by the people's representatives in Congress.
BTW - really weird that you think the Congress should not operate in "secret" but you think the president should...
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Honestly, this whole series of incidents makes me want there to be someone doing what people seem to think was happening.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
"Area man passionate defender of what he imagines the Constitution to be"
tommyboy
Footballguy
no one cares what you "think", the law is clear on the executive. Only the most partisan judges would rule otherwise in a court of law. The presidents conversations with foreign leaders are protected, priveledged information. Otherwise how do you run a country>? this isn't hard logic.
the impeachment process has been done before. This is the only time in history that a) there hasn't been a vote on it and b) the process is being done in secret
Similar threads
