“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
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*** (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I always heard it as "When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
Henry Ford
Footballguy
See, due process means. Um... it's a process. And it can't be late or it's past due process. That's the law.
tommyboy
Footballguy
In tense testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Friday, the inspector general for federal spy agencies refused to disclose why his office backdated secret changes to key whistleblower forms and rules in the wake of an anti-Trump whistleblower complaint filed in August, sources told The Federalist.
As The Federalist reported and the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) confirmed, the spy watchdog secretly changed its whistleblower forms and internal rules in September to eliminate a requirement that whistleblowers provide first-hand evidence to support any allegations of wrongdoing. In a press release last week, the ICIG confessed that it changed its rules in response to an anti-Trump complaint filed on August 12. That complaint, which was declassified and released by President Donald Trump in September, was based entirely on second-hand information, https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/intel-community-ig-stonewalling-congress-on-backdated-whistleblower-rule-changes/
Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The IG said the form was the same and had been in place since May 2018. And direct knowledge was never a requirement. The Federalist is flat out wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Federalist appears to not know it was referencing two different forms - the complaint form and the referral form.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I’m not sure what this is all about. I don’t understand why Schiff wouldn’t just have his personal lawyer handle this stuff. Skip the forms altogether.
mr roboto
Footballguy
If I told you there was a leader of a country who...
1. Invited foreign assistance in digging up dirt on his political opponents
2. Called his country’s media ‘fake news’ and claimed that the media was out to get him
3. Believed foreign leaders over his own intelligence community and consistently denigrated and dismisses his nation’s law enforcement and national intelligence apparatus
4. Coordinated with specific news outlets that were friendly to him a d had a pipeline of hiring people from this friendly news outlet
5. Dismissed his military advisers and made foreign policy decisions that harmed his allies and benefited other nations that were at odds with his
6. Pulled out of treaties and created unnecessary and damaging trade wars/disputes
7. Was known to be a highly corrupt businessman with highly questionable financial ties to foreign powers (who benefited from #2, 5 and 6 above)
and
8. Tweeted/spoke/wrote verifiable falsehoods on a nearly hourly basis to convince the population he was a victim of vast internal conspiracies...
Which nation(s) would you assume this man was leading?
1. Invited foreign assistance in digging up dirt on his political opponents
2. Called his country’s media ‘fake news’ and claimed that the media was out to get him
3. Believed foreign leaders over his own intelligence community and consistently denigrated and dismisses his nation’s law enforcement and national intelligence apparatus
4. Coordinated with specific news outlets that were friendly to him a d had a pipeline of hiring people from this friendly news outlet
5. Dismissed his military advisers and made foreign policy decisions that harmed his allies and benefited other nations that were at odds with his
6. Pulled out of treaties and created unnecessary and damaging trade wars/disputes
7. Was known to be a highly corrupt businessman with highly questionable financial ties to foreign powers (who benefited from #2, 5 and 6 above)
and
8. Tweeted/spoke/wrote verifiable falsehoods on a nearly hourly basis to convince the population he was a victim of vast internal conspiracies...
Which nation(s) would you assume this man was leading?
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Knowing what I know now, the US. Before Trump, I would have guessed somewhere in either Central America or a former Soviet state.
ren hoek
Footballguy
This is a fair point too. I think whistleblowing to me means seeing wrongdoing in your agency/outfit and getting it out to the public. Like a military contractor leaking about torture, or an NSA contractor making disclosures about mass surveillance etc. I think those have clearcut public interest defenses and are clear examples of wrongdoing that shouldn't be protected by overclassification. Maybe Snowden was out to get the NSA or something, but even if that were the case, he revealed information on illegal mass spying programs that the public obviously has a right to know about.
This one doesn't have the same feel to me as those other whistleblowers. The guiding principle appears to be about incriminating a President the whistleblower doesn't like rather than standing up for democracy, or whatever. The CIA ####s on democracy all the time. To the extent that people blow the whistle about it, they often face massive punishment from within their own organization, as well as the justice system that is supposed to protect them. These people don't give a #### about democracy, and it's insulting to pretend that they do. They just want their preferred ruling faction to have power again.
I'm troubled by the fact that they've carved out a very special definition for the whistleblower in this case. He 'followed the letter of the law' and made a 'credible' complaint and deserves our support, but those other guys didn't, so they can basically get locked in a cage until they die.
For the second time, the 'victim' so to speak is another establishment insider- first it was Hillary Clinton, how the Russian interference sabotaged our democracy by revealing the Party cheated to help her, how it was the 'crime of the century,' a 'digital pearl harbor,' an interference campaign 'worse than 9/11' etc.
Now it's Joe Biden- again, I can't emphasize enough, an individual that helped illegally overthrow a sovereign govt, whose son magically got a $50k/mo job 2 months later- who is beyond investigation. Sorry, but these are the most powerful people in the world- their sour grapes about getting caught subverting a democratic election process, or attempting to conceal their wrongdoing abroad from investigative scrutiny, are not something I give a #### about. Again, we are subjected to a palace intrigue narrative that serves powerful ruling elites, that will do nothing to improve the lives of people that are dying to our wars, or getting chewed up and spit out by our frankenhealthcare system.
I know people see it purely as upholding the law and holding Trump accountable- I want that too, for his support of genocide in Yemen, his child prison camp system, his war crimes in Venezuela, and numerous other things that are far more consequential and dangerous than this- this just feels like the new chum for people looking for a fix after the last Trump impeachment crusade.
the moops
Footballguy
I would like the hardcore Trump supporters just to answer the simple question of whether they think Trump is a good man. Take away the fact that he is president. The man himself - would you want your sister, or daughter, or friend to marry him? Would you enjoy his company and want to hang out with him? Would you seek his advice when things were going south in your life?
Whether he is a good person may not matter to some and it may not matter whether he is a good president. But I am curious if they are defending him just because he is not a snow flakey liberal, or whether they think he is a solid, and just man, who is only doing all these things to better this country.
Whether he is a good person may not matter to some and it may not matter whether he is a good president. But I am curious if they are defending him just because he is not a snow flakey liberal, or whether they think he is a solid, and just man, who is only doing all these things to better this country.
-fish-
Footballguy
There is a major distinction here that you continually fail to recognize. You may see Snowden as heroic, but what he did was criminal. He actually could have followed the letter of the law, but didn't. Some of us think the law is pretty important.
timschochet
Footballguy
Earlier today I mentioned the 3 arguments Republicans have offered for the phone call:
1. He did nothing wrong.
2. He did something wrong but it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable offense.
3. Placing one’s own political interest above the nation when conducting foreign policy is not a high crime. (Dershowitz)
And now I’ve been hearing a 4th argument, which goes like this:
It doesn’t matter what he’s done; we shouldn’t impeach him because there’s an election in 2020; let the public decide Trump’s fate.
Apparently Corey Gardner has been making this argument, and other senators may as well; I’m doing to call it the “Merrick Garland Special”. To my mind it’s just as nonsensical as the others, because consider the implications: what Gardner is saying is that over the next 12 months we can have a lawless President; he can commit any crime and nothing can happen to him until election.
1. He did nothing wrong.
2. He did something wrong but it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachable offense.
3. Placing one’s own political interest above the nation when conducting foreign policy is not a high crime. (Dershowitz)
And now I’ve been hearing a 4th argument, which goes like this:
It doesn’t matter what he’s done; we shouldn’t impeach him because there’s an election in 2020; let the public decide Trump’s fate.
Apparently Corey Gardner has been making this argument, and other senators may as well; I’m doing to call it the “Merrick Garland Special”. To my mind it’s just as nonsensical as the others, because consider the implications: what Gardner is saying is that over the next 12 months we can have a lawless President; he can commit any crime and nothing can happen to him until election.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Giuliani... Giuliani....Giuliani. I don't know sounds familiar.
Donald Trump distances himself from Rudy Giuliani: 'He has been my attorney'
Donald Trump distances himself from Rudy Giuliani: 'He has been my attorney'
Henry Ford
Footballguy
“Ghoulie who? That guy who married his cousin? I hardly know the guy. I hear he’s not very trustworthy.”
It would be funny if Trump didn't do this every single time another associate/ minion/ patsy gets busted.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
This simply isn't true and it needs to be called out. Everything??? I am going to assume that was a typo because you are better than this.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
A blurb on the Today show this morning: "White House sources have told NBC news that the President didn't always know what Rudy was doing."
Rudy, come on over and lie down here on the street...we'd like you to meet the bus.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
On Monday, the House Oversight Committee demanded documents and communications related to influential billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky as part of its subpoena of Giuliani.
>>>The involvement of Kolomoisky and Firtash complicates the already mind-boggling array of factions and agendas that form the backdrop of the Ukraine scandal. Because both face potential criminal liability in the U.S., both have reason to align themselves with Trump and try to ingratiate themselves to the president’s allies, according to Ukraine experts.
But the exact nature of Kolomoisky’s role in this saga isn’t yet clear. The billionaire owns the television network, 1+1, on which actor Volodymr Zelensky starred in a television show that catapulted him to political prominence. Kolomoisky — embroiled in a bitter feud with Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko — also became Zelensky’s biggest backer in his successful bid to unseat Poroshenko and claim the presidency this spring.
Kolomoisky allegedly stole billions of dollars from his bank, PrivatBank, before it was nationalized by Ukraine in 2016, according to a lawsuit filed in Delaware by the bank’s new leadership. How much influence he will yield in Zelensky’s government is one of the biggest questions hanging over the new president’s administration.
Another important question is what Kolomoisky might be seeking from Trump.
This spring, two Florida-based, Soviet-born businessmen who are aiding Giuliani’s effort traveled to Israel, where Kolomoisky has been holed up while he faces legal jeopardy in the U.S. and Ukraine.
Kolomoisky told the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of investigative journalists, that the businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, approached him about a natural gas venture, but they instead used the meeting to seek an audience for Giuliani with Zelensky. Kolomoisky said he refused the request, while Giuliani has claimed that Kolomoisky defamed Parnas and Fruman.
But there is more to Kolomoisky’s role in this saga beyond an apparently unpleasant meeting. Kolomoisky, who is known for his bravado, has been claiming to have damaging information on the Bidens, according to people familiar with the situation.
"He's been floating that out for quite a while, to keep himself relevant to the whole discussion, and he would also like to ingratiate himself to Trump," said Ken McCallion, an attorney who brought a federal suit that was later dismissed against Firtash over the alleged natural gas scheme on behalf of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. "He's been kind of cryptic and cute about it,” said McCallion, who remains in close touch with contacts in Ukraine. McCallion indicated Kolomoisky was claiming to have information about both Bidens, “the father and the son."
Another person familiar with Kolomoisky’s claims said the oligarch was claiming to possess valuable information in order to gain leverage in an FBI investigation of him underway in Ohio that is reportedly focused on possible financial crimes.
A lawyer for Kolomoisky, Mike Sullivan at Ashcroft Law Firm, did not respond to requests for comment. In May, Kolomoisky told the Kyiv Post that he has committed no crime and that any federal probe will “result in nothing, as usual.”
While Kolomoisky’s connection to the saga counts as a twist, for close Ukraine watchers, it hardly comes as a surprise. "Kolomoisky is a person who gets involved in every issue,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “He loves fighting, and he has an extraordinary capability to get into the details and be effective in the worst fashion."<<<
But the exact nature of Kolomoisky’s role in this saga isn’t yet clear. The billionaire owns the television network, 1+1, on which actor Volodymr Zelensky starred in a television show that catapulted him to political prominence. Kolomoisky — embroiled in a bitter feud with Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko — also became Zelensky’s biggest backer in his successful bid to unseat Poroshenko and claim the presidency this spring.
Kolomoisky allegedly stole billions of dollars from his bank, PrivatBank, before it was nationalized by Ukraine in 2016, according to a lawsuit filed in Delaware by the bank’s new leadership. How much influence he will yield in Zelensky’s government is one of the biggest questions hanging over the new president’s administration.
Another important question is what Kolomoisky might be seeking from Trump.
This spring, two Florida-based, Soviet-born businessmen who are aiding Giuliani’s effort traveled to Israel, where Kolomoisky has been holed up while he faces legal jeopardy in the U.S. and Ukraine.
Kolomoisky told the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of investigative journalists, that the businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, approached him about a natural gas venture, but they instead used the meeting to seek an audience for Giuliani with Zelensky. Kolomoisky said he refused the request, while Giuliani has claimed that Kolomoisky defamed Parnas and Fruman.
But there is more to Kolomoisky’s role in this saga beyond an apparently unpleasant meeting. Kolomoisky, who is known for his bravado, has been claiming to have damaging information on the Bidens, according to people familiar with the situation.
"He's been floating that out for quite a while, to keep himself relevant to the whole discussion, and he would also like to ingratiate himself to Trump," said Ken McCallion, an attorney who brought a federal suit that was later dismissed against Firtash over the alleged natural gas scheme on behalf of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. "He's been kind of cryptic and cute about it,” said McCallion, who remains in close touch with contacts in Ukraine. McCallion indicated Kolomoisky was claiming to have information about both Bidens, “the father and the son."
Another person familiar with Kolomoisky’s claims said the oligarch was claiming to possess valuable information in order to gain leverage in an FBI investigation of him underway in Ohio that is reportedly focused on possible financial crimes.
A lawyer for Kolomoisky, Mike Sullivan at Ashcroft Law Firm, did not respond to requests for comment. In May, Kolomoisky told the Kyiv Post that he has committed no crime and that any federal probe will “result in nothing, as usual.”
While Kolomoisky’s connection to the saga counts as a twist, for close Ukraine watchers, it hardly comes as a surprise. "Kolomoisky is a person who gets involved in every issue,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “He loves fighting, and he has an extraordinary capability to get into the details and be effective in the worst fashion."<<<
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I really don't understand why Trump and his crewe are so tied into stuff going on in the former Eastern bloc area. I don't recall other politicians or even well known businesspeople having so many connections in this area.
mr roboto
Footballguy
He’s known to have Russian financial ties going back decades.
https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-1/
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Yasha Levine @yashalevine
People voted for Trump with the full knowledge that he was a corrupt, lying #######. That’s democracy. That’s how it works. Trying to reverse an election through an undemocratic process—driven by spooks and an oligarchic—media is a coup. Support the coup, fine. But it‘s a coup.
There’s still a semi-functional democracy in America. It’s not some sort of dictatorship, where the only way to remove a leader is through extra-legal or undemocratic means. To get rid of Trump democratically isn’t impossible, but it would require a new politics.
But a new politics is something the ruling elite of this country cannot abide. And so we have this never-ending psychological war.
People voted for Trump with the full knowledge that he was a corrupt, lying #######. That’s democracy. That’s how it works. Trying to reverse an election through an undemocratic process—driven by spooks and an oligarchic—media is a coup. Support the coup, fine. But it‘s a coup.
There’s still a semi-functional democracy in America. It’s not some sort of dictatorship, where the only way to remove a leader is through extra-legal or undemocratic means. To get rid of Trump democratically isn’t impossible, but it would require a new politics.
But a new politics is something the ruling elite of this country cannot abide. And so we have this never-ending psychological war.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
What percentage of the American people would support a constitutional amendment to revoke the ability to impeach a President? My guess is it would be in single digits.
sho nuff
Footballguy
This process is not undemocratic.
And that they knew he was corrupt does not give him carte blanche to keep being corrupt. That is why we have impeachment and congressional oversight.
To call this a coup is laughably false. And dangerous.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I disagree with this characterization. Trump tried very hard to conceal just what a dirtbag he is- paying off women, hiding his tax returns, calling criticism “fake news.” Impeachment isn’t a coup. Removing Trump from power, if it were even to occur, should still leave mike pence in charge. If pence is implicated somehow and gets impeached, then Pelosi is in charge. That, which is an extreme long shot, still isn’t a coup. It’s democracy, backed up by the constitution. Simply having a different political party in charge doesn’t somehow make it a coup, following the succession set up by the constitution is what should occur, and I don’t know what to say other than don’t elect dirty people.
moleculo
Footballguy
Impeachment is not a coup. It is a process explicitly mandated in the Constitution, performed by a Congress elected by the people with fill knowledge that oversight of the executive branch is part of the job. In 2018, there were legislators elected who ran on the premise of impeaching Trump (if warranted).
The blanket statement that impeachment is a coup ignores the Constitution all together.
You can say impeachment isn't warranted all you want but these claims that impeachment=coup is more dangerous than impeachment itself because it implies the president has no oversight between elections.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
If impeachment is a coup... then the 1990s in American history needs a huge rewrite. A coup over a BJ. How Puritanical we once were... all the way back in the 1990s.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Here's the worst case scenario that's been running through my mind. It sounds absurd but nothing really sounds absurd with this particular presidency. The Senate stalls stalls stalls on its impeachment trial to let Trump run amok fixing the 2020 election, using Senate Republicans and a complacent DOJ to ignore blatant voter suppression in the battleground states. Millions are prevented from voting, with no legal recourse available in time, and Trump squeaks by again. Then, having secured the White House and Senate, Moscow Mitch turns on him, knowing that the party can't survive another four years of the rampant cheating and idocy of Donald Trump, and they convict him, content with installing a docile Mike Dense for the run down the final home stretch.timschochet said:
There's a lot of ways that can all fall apart but it may represent a better chance for a party in steep decline than playing by the normal rules and settling for fair elections. If they're looking at a decade of being tarred by the stigma of DJT and losing the last branch of the government, they'll pull out all the stops. Hell, it's why they're stacking the courts with Heritage Foundation trainees now.
timschochet
Footballguy
That’s not a worst case scenario for me. Any scenario that removes Trump, even one that would ensure 4 years of Mike Pence, is far more preferable to what we have now.
Those of you liberals who shudder at a Pence Presidency, like those of you conservatives who shuddered at a Hillary Presidency, still don’t get it IMO. You don’t get how uniquely awful Donald Trump has been. Trump is an existential threat to American institutions. There is no other political figure alive that comes even close to his awfulness. Full stop.
jamny
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
How about if you do elect dirty people, remove them when they commit high crimes and/or misdemeanors. It's not that complicated.
Yes, we knew who Trump was when elected, but he was NOT elected with the mandate to pressure foreign leaders to investigate Democrats.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Bush taking advantage of a national tragedy and deliberately lying to launch an illegitimate war, torture, murder, and displace millions of people- no impeachment.
Obama assassinating a 16-year old boy, a US citizen, with a flying robot and no due process whatsoever- no impeachment.
Obama agreeing to support the Saudi-run genocide in Yemen, then Trump doubling down on it- no impeachment.
Obama opening child prison camps, then Trump expanding them- no impeachment.
Trump asking a foreign leader to investigate a political figure's actions in that leader's country- Impeach!
This, is complete bull####. I think Trump is worthy of being impeached, for his actual high crimes and misdemeanors. That would force an important conversation about entrenched, systemic, bipartisan US policy. This is just the 2nd attempt, driven in large part by the intelligence apparatus, to remove Trump from office by any means necessary. If you support that, fine, but don't confuse it with a rule-of-law, democratic process.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
Sure, but which topic should Trump be impeached under because there are many of them for us to choose from. If lying is a prerequisite for impeachment... well, we would have crossed the impeachment, rather coup, bridge many moons ago. Correct?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
For somebody who claims he doesn't support Trump, you sure seem to post a lot of pro-Trump stuff.
Similar threads
