What's new
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*** (11 Viewers)

Mr Anonymous said:
You're grossly overestimating the general public. Not only in their ability to make sense of what comes out of these hearings, but more importantly that the average, everyday American will take the time to tune in.

It's why I've been saying from the start of this mess that a slam dunk was needed. A "hit you over the head" statement that couldn't be parsed or left open for interpretation. Something SPECIFICALLY along the lines of "If you don't conduct an investigation into Biden, you're aid is being cut off". And I'm not even sure that would be enough. It might have had to been followed by Trump actually withholding the aid and declaring that the failure to uncover dirt on Biden was the reason why.

Dems and dem voters wanted Trump impeached for 10 different things before this Ukraine incident even took place. Which as a sidenote, lessens the impact of the current attempt. Crying wolf from day one of his Presidency was the first huge mistake. You'd have liberals in favor of his impeachment if the charge was jaywalking. To actually get conservatives and independents on board you need something that knocks people over. This isn't that no matter how much Dems want it to be.
Click to expand...
Seems that over 40% of independents are already in favor and that doesn't count the undecided.

 
 
JohnnyU said:

The American people has the right to know if the Vice President of the US or his family profited from his position.
Click to expand...

If you truly believed this, then you would be calling for an investigation into Trump and his children, including the immediate release of their tax returns.

After all, the American people have the right to know if the President of the US or his family are profiting from his position.
 
Amused to Death said:
I think it would have a big impact on the public's perception if the Dems counter the "no first hand knowledge" narrative with "then let those with first hand knowledge sit under oath". Hammer the point that the WH is blocking them from testifying. I know one of the Dems did bring it up yesterday but, imo, it needs to be a bigger issue.

"Why would the WH block testimony from those who could exonerate the president?" Hammer it.
Click to expand...
That's not strong enough language. The Dems should say  "The refusal of Trump to allow his people to testify is proof of his guilt".  I'd also throw out some "If Trump was not guilty he'd come and testify himself".

What would be the over/under on the number of questions asked before Trump commited perjury if he testified under oath? 5? 

 
Mr Anonymous said:
Do you think that's a good number? (It's not)

And what do you anticipate coming out that will drive that number higher?
Click to expand...
It's an OK number for Democrats.  I'm just pointing out that lots of independents are already on board.  You seemed to imply otherwise.  

I don't think the number will go significantly higher although I'd guess it will at least trickle up as undecideds make up their minds.

 
Widbil83 said:
If I could use a 100 laughing emojis I would. I mean really, word for word. 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5cb8f7abe4b068d795cabbc6?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACg9DocCV6Rd_u6K476Y6rZK6jDIBKuubV5hOyuflcggX48RwoFuRLc_R3b8pKhX6nmcXQuVmfq-9tDgLsz0BRHhY4YZ0Bns6d6tDZ_ifGgOSdJrFZLi2TpiSZ_emyoM-nt2ZZQSLLylb4n9xINu6GOjxgDLBfhHJSk6ZlEjJEVh
Click to expand...
Foreign governments' actions/attempts to interfere with US elections >>>>> Domestic actions/attempts to interfere with US elections

Hardly a laughing matter.

 
Widbil83 said:
he said the whistleblower should testify
Click to expand...
IIRC he said anonymously and by written questions & answers.

And Trump himself answered by written Q&A - with lawyers, and without answering all of them, so perhaps use that standard consistently at least when it comes to Trump. However Republicans did not accept that premise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Widbil83 said:
now he's saying, 'I don't even know how the whistleblower is, even though my staff met with them,''' Jordan added.
Click to expand...
I still don't see a contradiction here. I believe it was one staff member and it would make sense if Schiff or the staffer felt a duty to not know the identity.

I'd still like to know what Trump or his supporters think the committee staffer or Schiff should have done once the WB approached them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
It's an OK number for Democrats.  I'm just pointing out that lots of independents are already on board.  You seemed to imply otherwise.  

I don't think the number will go significantly higher although I'd guess it will at least trickle up as undecideds make up their minds.
Click to expand...
It's a terrible number for something like impeachment. It's simply a losing proposition if it's partisan. And that's exactly what the numbers show right now without an apparent "home run gotcha moment" on the horizon. 40% support from independents offered up as a positive, really? Really?

 
jamny said:
I think he did this to hurt Biden and the announcement itself was actually more important than an actual investigation. 

But again...can it be proven? Can they separate the personal benefit from the benefit to the country to root out corruption?

(forgive me for asking, Jack)
Click to expand...
BREAKING (AP) — AP source: 2nd US embassy official overheard President Trump’s call with Sondland about need for Ukraine investigations.

 
msommer said:
Perhaps, as they showed in 2018, these constituents prefer Democrats now? So, the logic that they would fear the impeachment because Trump won in 2016 appears flawed.
Click to expand...
Good luck to any Democrat who votes with the Trumpists fund raising for the next election. They may even face a primary opponent. Maybe at some point getting the undecided voter in the middle was the key to winning elections but, IMO currently the side that gets their base to show up at the polls wins.  

 
JohnnyU said:
The American people has the right to know if the Vice President of the US or his family profited from his position. 
Click to expand...
I don't know much about Hunter Biden other than the Wikipedia search I did 5 minutes ago.  From what I can tell he went to excellent colleges and has worked a number of impressive jobs.  The jobs he got early in his career strike me as more inappropriate than the Burisma position given his job experience.  Even though there are a couple jobs that raise some red flags with me, the Wikipedia article suggests they took measures to prevent them from having influence on each other.  Again, this is from Wikipedia, and haven't looked into it further (nor do I particularly care to).  Children of politicians and other powerful people regularly get high profile jobs and I'm confident they are not always the most deserving applicants, but it's laughable the concern is on Hunter Biden's job with Burisma when Ivanka, Jr, and Kushner are 1000x less qualified for their positions.

 
Mr Anonymous said:
It's a terrible number for something like impeachment. It's simply a losing proposition if it's partisan. And that's exactly what the numbers show right now without an apparent "home run gotcha moment" on the horizon. 40% support from independents offered up as a positive, really? Really?
Click to expand...
In the end, most of us agree that Trump will be impeached but not removed from office.

The interesting question to me is how this might impact the election in 2020.  If support among independents ends up at like 45% for/45% against/10% undecided, I'd argue it make little difference.

 
Jackstraw said:
What kind of evidence would you need to become convinced on the military aid? 
Click to expand...
Again...I believe he withheld military aid to get information on Biden.

My questions, to which you so strenuously objected to, is can they still impeach without proving it. Not sure why this is confusing you.

And besides, someone overhearing the call from Sondland's end doesn't prove anything unless they were on the actual call. Or unless Sondland was heard saying, "yes, we are withholding aid until they agree to do what you want" 

 
JohnnyU said:
The American people has the right to know if the Vice President of the US or his family profited from his position. 
Click to expand...
Would you also agree that The American people have the right to know if the  President of the US or his family profited from his position? Would you also agree that The American people have the right to know if the President of the US used his position to advance his personal political ends?

 
jamny said:
Again...I believe he withheld military aid to get information on Biden.

My questions, to which you so strenuously objected to, is can they still impeach without proving it. Not sure why this is confusing you.

And besides, someone overhearing the call from Sondland's end doesn't prove anything unless they were on the actual call. Or unless Sondland was heard saying, "yes, we are withholding aid until they agree to do what you want" 
Click to expand...
While they can still impeach without "proving" it, they shouldn't.  But Trump should be impeached for either, or both, of the following:

1) Trump used his office to pressure a foreign power for his own political gain, as proven through the evidence provided.  The transcript of the phone call, combined with witness testimony to date (closed door, and yesterday's formal start to the hearings), is ...compelling ...evidence.

2) Trump obstructed justice by preventing witnesses from testifying.

Any argument that the pressure didn't come from Trump (but: the transcript!) only means that he is incredibly incompetent (at leading our nation) rather than corrupt.  Spoiler: It's both.

 
timschochet said:
Trump has already been asked about this at his press conference. He said “I don’t know anything about that. I don’t remember having that conversation, but all you need to know about Sondland is that I told him no quid pro quo.” 
Click to expand...
He's so excited to have learned a Latin phrase, he says it all the time. Someone needs to teach him ego sum reus

 
tri-man 47 said:
While they can still impeach without "proving" it, they shouldn't.  But Trump should be impeached for either, or both, of the following:

1) Trump used his office to pressure a foreign power for his own political gain, as proven through the evidence provided.  The transcript of the phone call, combined with witness testimony to date (closed door, and yesterday's formal start to the hearings), is ...compelling ...evidence.

2) Trump obstructed justice by preventing witnesses from testifying.

Any argument that the pressure didn't come from Trump (but: the transcript!) only means that he is incredibly incompetent (at leading our nation) rather than corrupt.  Spoiler: It's both.
Click to expand...
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?

2) -  I'll leave that to the lawyers but if that alone is impeachable, why bother with any of this? Put it to a vote if none of this testimony is even needed.

 
If it is clear that the witnesses corroborate the assertion that Trump directed others to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in exchange for releasing military aid, is there really a chance that public support for removal would stay below 60%?  
 

Its one thing to scream ‘here say’ and ‘no direct evidence’ but if there is?  I just can’t imagine outside of Trumps base (which I think is in the 35% range) anyone would really be able to claim he shouldn’t be removed. 

 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?

2) -  I'll leave that to the lawyers but if that alone is impeachable, why bother with any of this? Put it to a vote if none of this testimony is even needed.
Click to expand...
When you say “for the good of the country” which country are you referring to? Ukraine, or the U.S?

 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?

2) -  I'll leave that to the lawyers but if that alone is impeachable, why bother with any of this? Put it to a vote if none of this testimony is even needed.
Click to expand...
1. If Joe Biden used his political position to get his son a job he should be investigated and if any crimes were committed, charged.  I don’t know anybody who would truly disagree with that. The question is, is it proper for the current president who, at the time would most likely be running against him in the next election, to force a foreign government to investigate this and withhold military aid as leverage which damages US national security?

 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?
Click to expand...
I'm open to the possibility that he did not do it completely for personal gain.  However, in my opinion, it's not plausible that it wasn't overwhelmingly for personal gain.  

 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?
Click to expand...
I have no love for Joe Biden (he's not even my choice for 2020) so if he's done anything wrong then by all means, investigate him and his son. But do it with the proper channels. But if this is truly for the good of the country, then why make a public announcement a requirement? You have to wonder, what was more important to Trump - the investigation or the announcement of one? If you answer "the investigation", then why has none been started?

 
The failure to comply with subpoenas really bothers me. Many of these people are now seeing what other witnesses are saying and can adjust their story if needed. They all should have testified behind closed doors before moving on to public hearings. No information should have been released until then.

 
 https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/media/impeachment-hearing-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html

"Don't expect viewers, listeners, and readers of right-wing media to walk away from Wednesday's impeachment hearings with a different opinion of President Trump's behavior," Darcy said. "In fact, it's possible they might be more convinced than ever that Trump did nothing wrong. Why? Because right-wing media has largely -- and unsurprisingly -- focused on the moments in the hearing favorable to its preferred narrative."

The article goes on to share quotes from commentators that I cant post here. Explains why we are where we are, and how we're going to need a lot more for this Ukraine impeachment to gain any traction.

 
JbizzleMan said:
Thank you. If it was for the U.S. then why not ask Barr to investigate?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'm not looking to defend Trump or any of his decisions.

I'm asking a bigger picture question that if they can't prove it was for personal gain, can they still impeach. 

At this point, I'll bow out of the conversation and get some work done.

 
mr roboto said:
1. If Joe Biden used his political position to get his son a job he should be investigated and if any crimes were committed, charged. 
Click to expand...
Also...if this is the new bar that we setting, we'll need to go back and do an awful lot of investigations including the current president and his family.  

 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?

2) -  I'll leave that to the lawyers but if that alone is impeachable, why bother with any of this? Put it to a vote if none of this testimony is even needed.
Click to expand...
1)  It's inappropriate for Trump to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival, period.  I don't even think it would be appropriate for him to ask the DOJ to do it.  My understanding is that Congress would have to open the investigation, but as Maurile said, it's unlikely they will do so because it would put the spotlight on how their political influence has landed their own children prestigious jobs.

2)  I'm no lawyer, but impeachment is a political process.  We already saw how Trump blatantly breaking the law in the Mueller investigation didn't move the needle, so the Democrats need to go above and beyond to make it as crystal clear as possible to the public.  The Senate has already given Trump their blessing to break the law, so the public needs to see what Trump has done wrong, they need to see the Senate's refusal to take action against the wrongdoing, and hopefully vote Trump and the spineless Senators out of office.  I'm seeing zero chance the Senate actually does it's job.

 
mr roboto said:

1. If Joe Biden used his political position to get his son a job he should be investigated and if any crimes were committed, charged. I don’t know anybody who would truly disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I would disagree with that.

An investigation should be based on probable cause that a crime occurred. It's one of the founding principles of our country; our laws protect people from being investigated without probable cause.

There are many ways in which a person can legally use their political position to get jobs for their children. Until there's evidence of a crime or violation, we should not be investigating Joe Biden or anyone.
 
jamny said:
1) - As I asked earlier, can the defense be that looking into Biden was for the good of the country and not (strictly) for personal gain?

2) -  I'll leave that to the lawyers but if that alone is impeachable, why bother with any of this? Put it to a vote if none of this testimony is even needed.
Click to expand...
Echoing other responses, I'd simply answer #1 with: "No."  How could Trump - with his own children riding on his coattails - argue that Hunter Biden's arrangement should be investigated?

As to #2, we're bothering with this because the actions are not in keeping with our democratic principles.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
6K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top