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*** (7 Viewers)

bostonfred said:
Democrats are accusing the president of abusing his power for personal gain.  

Republicans counter that he gave Ukraine Javelins, and Obama didn't.  

That's how abuse of power works, though, isn't it?  This isn't a debate over whether Ukraine should have Javelins.  The president is accused of offering Ukraine things and making them conditional on something that benefited him personally.  

If I offered the town money to give my business a difficult to obtain license, that might be corrupt.  But if I offered money directly to a member of the zoning committee, it's clearly a bribe.  And if Steve from the zoning commitee came to me and said if you give me free donuts for a year I'll let you open your new Krispy Kreme, it wouldn't be a good defense to say "but Steve really likes donuts". You'd say Steve's a criminal.  You wouldn't care if I told you later that I didn't feel pressured to give Steve the donuts. And you wouldn't care if I said that the town really wanted a new Krispy Kreme. The issue would obviously be Steve.  
Click to expand...
I'm a broken record and I know I will now get booed out of the room...

You are describing what most anyone paying attention would describe as applicable to the vast majority of government officials from small town mayors to POTUS.  Republicans, Democrats, blue, red, yellow.

If this is the bar you are setting (abusing power for personal gain), not one person on that TV would be left standing.  Watching the masses think THIS is the winning strategy is mind boggling.

Impeach the guy because he is a buffoon, but don't try to convince me that politicians can accuse other politicians of being corrupt and abusive of power.  I won't be able to keep a straight face.

 
TheMagus said:
I'm not so sure Tim. The polls the past few days on 538 are going DOWN on people favoring impeachment. I'm completely dumbfounded.

I guess we will see what happens in the next couple of days.
Click to expand...
People were expecting a smoking gun if the House was going to take this on.  I've yet to see that.  Right now I would say the preponderance evidence favors Trump warranting impeachment, it's not to the point of beyond reasonable doubt I was expecting.

 
It is amazing watching the pro-Trump arguments continue to be destroyed by actual witnesses while the talking points just get more and more aggressive.  Just not a lot of hope that our system can overcome a cult of personality to this degree.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
Care to wager on this?

45% didn't support impeachment as of today.  Trumps approval rating is 41.4%.  So for your statement to be accurate, every person who thinks Trump is doing a poor job but don't favor impeachment watched the hearings or read a bunch of news that changed there mind.  Additionally 1.6% of the people who approve of Trump after everything that has happened to date were suddenly convinced by some guy who said in his opinion there was QPQ and then admitted that many of the pieces of QPQ didn't happen.
Click to expand...
47.4% favor impeachment

 
BassNBrew said:
People were expecting a smoking gun if the House was going to take this on.  I've yet to see that.  Right now I would say the preponderance evidence favors Trump warranting impeachment, it's not to the point of beyond reasonable doubt I was expecting.
Click to expand...
In all flatness, we’ve reached the we kinda know it’s there but might not quite be beyond a reasonable doubt with a full on obstruction effort by those we already think are guilty. 
 

Maybe if we actually heart from Mulvaney, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump, we could know for sure one way or the other.  
 

 
Koya said:
In all flatness, we’ve reached the we kinda know it’s there but might not quite be beyond a reasonable doubt with a full on obstruction effort by those we already think are guilty. 
 

Maybe if we actually heart from Mulvaney, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump, we could know for sure one way or the other.  
 
Click to expand...
I honestly thought Trump was dumb enough to leave a smoking gun.

 
Koya said:
In all flatness, we’ve reached the we kinda know it’s there but might not quite be beyond a reasonable doubt with a full on obstruction effort by those we already think are guilty. 
 

Maybe if we actually heart from Mulvaney, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump, we could know for sure one way or the other.  
 
Click to expand...
Why you gotta bring flatness into this?

 
BassNBrew said:
I honestly thought Trump was dumb enough to leave a smoking gun.
Click to expand...
As in, he wrote a letter with a sharpie to Zelenskyy saying "I bribe you to publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden so I can use that to smear him in the 2020 election and then I will give you the Congressionally appropriated funds that I am not legally allowed to withhold from you?"

Not being snarky, but what would the smoking gun look like?

The reason why we don't have direct testimony from the people that talked directly to him is because he has ordered his people to defy lawful subpoenas, which is in and of itself an impeachable offense. I'm pretty sure we have the honorable Lindsey Graham on record saying that ignoring subpoenas is a impeachable.

Are we seriously at a point in our history where Congress no longer has any oversight authority, a President can claim absolute immunity to do literally whatever he/she feels like, and there is nothing that can be done about it because the executive branch is above the law? And the public just says "meh?"

 
TheMagus said:
As in, he wrote a letter with a sharpie to Zelenskyy saying "I bribe you to publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden so I can use that to smear him in the 2020 election and then I will give you the Congressionally appropriated funds that I am not legally allowed to withhold from you?"

Not being snarky, but what would the smoking gun look like?

The reason why we don't have direct testimony from the people that talked directly to him is because he has ordered his people to defy lawful subpoenas, which is in and of itself an impeachable offense. I'm pretty sure we have the honorable Lindsey Graham on record saying that ignoring subpoenas is a impeachable.

Are we seriously at a point in our history where Congress no longer has any oversight authority, a President can claim absolute immunity to do literally whatever he/she feels like, and there is nothing that can be done about it because the executive branch is above the law? And the public just says "meh?"
Click to expand...
Can't the House drag these people in and compel them to testify?

 
BassNBrew said:
I honestly thought Trump was dumb enough to leave a smoking gun.
Click to expand...
If there is one thing his narcissistic instinct does well, it’s ensure all around him get stained but he’s the new Teflon Don.

Of course, anyone who pretends to want transparency and to just know the truth would demand we here from him and his inner circle.

Trump’s fear and weakness is very telling on this front.

 
BassNBrew said:
Can't the House drag these people in and compel them to testify?
Click to expand...
If they go that path it is going to take months and they have enough right now to impeach him without the other evidence. And to be honest, based on the polls which have been going DOWN since the public hearings started, I'm not sure it would move the needle on public opinion which means he won't be removed by the Senate anyway, especially if it is well into the 2020 election cycle. So that is a calculation on the Dems' part. 

I am just beyond baffled how the public could be watching this without their jaws on the floor over how egregious this behavior is and at the general apathy of the American public. It's pretty scary. This is a horrible precedent and someone someday, perhaps in the not so distant future, is going to come along and pull the same crap and actually be competent and effective. 

 
TheMagus said:
If they go that path it is going to take months and they have enough right now to impeach him without the other evidence. And to be honest, based on the polls which have been going DOWN since the public hearings started, I'm not sure it would move the needle on public opinion which means he won't be removed by the Senate anyway, especially if it is well into the 2020 election cycle. So that is a calculation on the Dems' part. 

I am just beyond baffled how the public could be watching this without their jaws on the floor over how egregious this behavior is and at the general apathy of the American public. It's pretty scary. This is a horrible precedent and someone someday, perhaps in the not so distant future, is going to come along and pull the same crap and actually be competent and effective. 
Click to expand...
1. They don't care if they have a job and their wealth is going up.

2. The people who are trying to convince them have called them racist and deplorable.

3. Technically Clinton should have been impeached.  The standard has been moved from letter of the law to well it wasn't the end of the world.

 
matuski said:
sho nuff said:
They are still fights worth having.
Click to expand...
And there we disagree.

Wasted an entire term of Trump on it.  On accusing a politician of being corrupt.  A politician.
Click to expand...
At what point did Congress go too far, in your opinion?

Should they have stopped before the hearings? Should they have stopped after catching him in the act?

Or should they have ignored the whistleblower altogether, allowing Trump to withhold the aid, and then have a phony photo op with Ukraine's president where he announced a phony investigation into the Bidens? Is that your idea of "just politicans being politicians"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
hmmmm

"So no one told you," Turner pressed on. "Not just the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.

 
BassNBrew said:
1. They don't care if they have a job and their wealth is going up.

2. The people who are trying to convince them have called them racist and deplorable.

3. Technically Clinton should have been impeached.  The standard has been moved from letter of the law to well it wasn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...
This is prob pretty close. I just want him ousted because I hate him, not really because of this incident. If you were a fan before (yikes), I doubt you care now. 

 
BassNBrew said:
1. They don't care if they have a job and their wealth is going up.

2. The people who are trying to convince them have called them racist and deplorable.

3. Technically Clinton should have been impeached.  The standard has been moved from letter of the law to well it wasn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...
2. No no no...that is not what deplorable was about...it was not calling all of hos supporters that.

 
BassNBrew said:
1. They don't care if they have a job and their wealth is going up.

2. The people who are trying to convince them have called them racist and deplorable.

3. Technically Clinton should have been impeached.  The standard has been moved from letter of the law to well it wasn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...
Technically, Clinton was impeached.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
honky kong said:
Which fights should they have picked, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
A simple, traditional plan to win the next election.

Use his insecurity against him.  Note all the things he really hasn't been able to do.

Really anything other than cheering on politicians calling other politicians corrupt.  They got played.

 
Stealthycat said:
hmmmm

"So no one told you," Turner pressed on. "Not just the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.
Click to expand...
Because.

 
TheMagus said:
I am just beyond baffled how the public could be watching this without their jaws on the floor over how egregious this behavior is and at the general apathy of the American public. It's pretty scary. This is a horrible precedent and someone someday, perhaps in the not so distant future, is going to come along and pull the same crap and actually be competent and effective. 
Click to expand...
I'm not apathetic, I'm a cynic.

Why is THIS TIME (I have no doubt whatsoever Trump engaged in quid pro quo) the one that sends you over the "egregious" line?  Seriously?  Do you pay any attention to what happens all around you every day with politicians?  How they win office in the first place?

Really, THIS is egregious?

I'm beyond baffled myself,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
honky kong said:
Which fights should they have picked, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
A simple, traditional plan to win the next election.

Use his insecurity against him.  Note all the things he really hasn't been able to do.

Really anything other than cheering on politicians calling other politicians corrupt.  They got played.
Click to expand...
I've heard this argument and it has me shaking my head. Let the next election decide it... an election where Trump has been caught trying under the table to get a foreign country to do something that he thinks will increase his chances of winning. That makes zero sense. We'll campaign on the issues while he uses his office to kneecap us. And this is just what we know about. No thanks.

 
honky kong said:
I've heard this argument and it has me shaking my head. Let the next election decide it... an election where Trump has been caught trying under the table to get a foreign country to do something that he thinks will increase his chances of winning. That makes zero sense. We'll campaign on the issues while he uses his office to kneecap us. And this is just what we know about. No thanks.
Click to expand...
EVERY politician is doing something under the table to win the next election.  Or worse, over the table through direct campaign funding.

What makes no sense is getting on your high horse over one politician versus another in this regard.

This is why you (the broader you) are about to be chomping on a second juicy nothing burger.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
I'm not apathetic, I'm a cynic.

Why is THIS TIME (I have no doubt whatsoever Trump engaged in quid pro quo) the one that sends you over the "egregious" line?  Seriously?  Do you pay any attention to what happens all around you every day with politicians?  How they win office in the first place?

Really, THIS is egregious?

I'm beyond baffled myself,
Click to expand...
If you could point to another historical incident where the President used the power of the White House to withhold legally appropriated Congressional taxpayer funding, that he was not legally allowed to withhold, from a weaker foreign ally until they went to the press and publicly announced they were opening an investigation into his likely political opponent in the next presidential election so he could use that to smear his political rival and help his chances of winning re-election, I would be happy to take a look at it. I'm not aware of anything like that  ever happening before in our history. 

Egregious. Yes. That term in hindsight was probably too lenient.

 
TheMagus said:
If you could point to another historical incident where the President used the power of the White House to withhold legally appropriated Congressional taxpayer funding, that he was not legally allowed to withhold, from a weaker foreign ally until they went to the press and publicly announced they were opening an investigation into his likely political opponent in the next presidential election so he could use that to smear his political rival and help his chances of winning re-election, I would be happy to take a look at it. I'm not aware of anything like that  ever happening before in our history. 

Egregious. Yes. That term in hindsight was probably too lenient.
Click to expand...
Set an arbitrary bar.  Yes, that is the game they play.  THIS time is WAY worse than last time I swear!

Like I said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
hmmmm

"So no one told you," Turner pressed on. "Not just the president. Giuliani didn't tell you, Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn't tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?"

The congressman cut Sondland off, restating his point: "No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations, because if your answer is yes, then the chairman is wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.
Click to expand...
Hey, if you buy that logic, I have a bridge to sell ya in Brooklyn.

Seriously, I think you can connect the dots here. Again, this is so akin to how a mob boss 'insulates' themselves.  The fact that so many bend over backward to refute the obvious is as concerning as any aspect of this dark Era in American history. Especially those sworn to uphold our Constitution and protect our American way.

 
Choke said:
@matuski When the entire US intelligence community says the Russians "interfered" in the election, and the President requested it from the Russians for everyone to see... they should investigate regardless of the outcome.

The outcome didn't matter so much as doing their job to try and make America more secure.
Click to expand...
Investigate.  Let those departments do their job.  If charges are warranted, let them do that.

The second you insert a bunch of politicians into it (right. left, otherwise)... kiss any legitimacy goodbye.  I can go to Tijuana and see a better donkey show.

 
matuski said:
I'm not apathetic, I'm a cynic.

Why is THIS TIME (I have no doubt whatsoever Trump engaged in quid pro quo) the one that sends you over the "egregious" line?  Seriously?  Do you pay any attention to what happens all around you every day with politicians?  How they win office in the first place?

Really, THIS is egregious?

I'm beyond baffled myself,
Click to expand...


matuski said:
EVERY politician is doing something under the table to win the next election.  Or worse, over the table through direct campaign funding.

What makes no sense is getting on your high horse over one politician versus another in this regard.

This is why you (the broader you) are about to be chomping on a second juicy nothing burger.
Click to expand...


So there's just no line, none at all, in your world?

 
Let us not lose the irony that Giuliani took down the top echelon mob bosses because weak attempts to insulate oneself from the crimes they clearly, by any objective measure, committed, doesn't stand up to an ounce of objectivity and reason.

And here, Giuliani has one more lying, cheating, criminal enterprise running capo to take down. Just so happens to be the accidental President himself.

 
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: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top