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*** (2 Viewers)

WASHINGTON — The intelligence officer who filed a whistle-blower complaint about President Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine raised alarms not only about what the two men said in a phone call, but also about how the White House handled records of the conversation, according to two people briefed on the complaint.

The whistle-blower, moreover, identified multiple White House officials as witnesses to potential presidential misconduct who could corroborate the complaint, the people said — adding that the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, interviewed witnesses.

Mr. Atkinson eventually concluded that there was reason to believe that the president may have illegally solicited a foreign campaign contribution — and that his potential misconduct created a national security risk, according to a newly disclosed Justice Department memo.

An early portrait of the intelligence officer began to take shape on Wednesday as the White House released a rough log of a July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the latest extraordinary revelation set off by the whistle-blower’s complaint.

This account is based on interviews with the two people and with lawmakers who were permitted to read the complaint late in the day, as well as on details revealed in a Justice Department memo explaining the Trump administration’s legal rationale for withholding the whistle-blower’s allegations from Congress before Mr. Trump relented this week. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Atkinson also found reason to believe that the whistle-blower may not support the re-election of Mr. Trump and made clear that the complainant was not in a position to directly listen to the call or see the memo that reconstructed it before it was made public, according to the Justice Department memo, which referred only to a single phone call between Mr. Trump and an unnamed foreign leader.

Instead, the officer heard about the call secondhand from unidentified White House officials who expressed concern that Mr. Trump had “abused his authority or acted unlawfully in connection with foreign diplomacy,” the memo said. Still, Mr. Atkinson concluded after an investigation that the information in the complaint was credible.

 
I didn't type it. I copy and pasted from the actual Mueller report. 

Had McGahn done as instructed, Trump could just say that he didn't instruct McGahn to make the call. He said, he said. Plausible deniability. 

Why would he have to dispute something that never happened? Or create a record? You create lies. You tell the truth. 
Weird that you said you cut and pasted and nowhere in your quotes does it match what you wrote.

Making the case that somebody can’t be Special Counsel due to conflicts and not succeeding is not the same thing as ordering that person be fired and asking that someday with no authority carry out that request.

during Watergate, Nixon fired the special investigator and dismissed his whole office.  The NYT, with their misleading headline, is trying to make the reader infer some kind of parallel.  McGahn, and Trump and you, are probably smart enough to realize that the Nixon scenario is not even really close to the reality of what happened here...so yes, having McGahn make a record of the actual events is an appropriate response., because the NYT story was inaccurate and misleading.

 
Weird that you said you cut and pasted and nowhere in your quotes does it match what you wrote.

Making the case that somebody can’t be Special Counsel due to conflicts and not succeeding is not the same thing as ordering that person be fired and asking that someday with no authority carry out that request.

during Watergate, Nixon fired the special investigator and dismissed his whole office.  The NYT, with their misleading headline, is trying to make the reader infer some kind of parallel.  McGahn, and Trump and you, are probably smart enough to realize that the Nixon scenario is not even really close to the reality of what happened here...so yes, having McGahn make a record of the actual events is an appropriate response., because the NYT story was inaccurate and misleading.
Here is my original post. You've entered the conversation midstream. 

All copy/paste from the Mueller report.

The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. Tn February 2017,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaignrelated investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign . Tn early March, the President
told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. 

On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call
the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be
removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction , however, deciding that he would resign rather
than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special
Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather
than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House
officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to
have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were
accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed.
The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the
reports. In the same meeting , the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special
Counsel about the President ' s effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes
of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered
happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle.

 
The intelligence officer who filed the complaint about President Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine raised alarms not only about what the two men said in a phone call, but also about how the White House handled records of the conversation, according to two people briefed on the complaint.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower.html

🤔
I am starting to think maybe we shouldn't fully trust the Call Read Out distributed by the White House...

 
He had not delivered Biden yet, had he?
Maybe he has....the DOJ has a policy of not acknowledging or denying the existence of ongoing investigations.. maybe this is why the Democrats panicked

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is my original post. You've entered the conversation midstream. 

All copy/paste from the Mueller report.
Without really seeing the quote you typed, you can see there is a difference between ordering somebody be fired vs raising a cause of action that would/could cause that person to be removed.  On the conflicts issue, if there is anything that could even be remotely perceived as a conflict, then Trump is morally obligated to bring it to the attention of DOJ. 

 
Without really seeing the quote you typed, you can see there is a difference between ordering somebody be fired vs raising a cause of action that would/could cause that person to be removed.  On the conflicts issue, if there is anything that could even be remotely perceived as a conflict, then Trump is morally obligated to bring it to the attention of DOJ. 
I think I see the disconnect. 

 
Without really seeing the quote you typed, you can see there is a difference between ordering somebody be fired vs raising a cause of action that would/could cause that person to be removed.  On the conflicts issue, if there is anything that could even be remotely perceived as a conflict, then Trump is morally obligated to bring it to the attention of DOJ. 
What can't you see? I literally copy and pasted it in my last post.

 
Zelensky agreed to cooperate with the DOJ in July...military aid still getting hung up in September doesn’t fit the narrative 
Coats also quit 3 days after the call. And Sue Gordon quickly followed.

It’s a good point that if supposedly Zelensky agreed during the call to assist Trump then money should have flowed then. So what’s the Trump explanation for the ~12 week delay?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without really seeing the quote you typed, you can see there is a difference between ordering somebody be fired vs raising a cause of action that would/could cause that person to be removed.  On the conflicts issue, if there is anything that could even be remotely perceived as a conflict, then Trump is morally obligated to bring it to the attention of DOJ. 
I think I see the disconnect. 

 
Big decision by Pelosi. She has instructed the Democrats to table Mueller, and focus solely on Ukraine. Move very quickly and draw up Articles of Impeachment on Ukraine only. 

I think this is the right decision. But some people won’t like it. 

 
"So many leaders came up to me today and they said, 'Sir, what you go through, no president has ever gone through. And it's so bad for your country."

Literally nobody said that to him. He strokes himself with his own lies.  
God, GB, you missed what made this statement particularly funny.  According to him the people who have told him this?  Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin.  

:lmao:

 
Big decision by Pelosi. She has instructed the Democrats to table Mueller, and focus solely on Ukraine. Move very quickly and draw up Articles of Impeachment on Ukraine only. 

I think this is the right decision. But some people won’t like it. 
it's the right decision in terms of removing the deadly threat, trump, quickly.

but there is moral hazard if we don't ultimately deal with all the russia-backed traitors. the consequences have to be severe or we're asking for a repeat down the road. 

 
JUST IN: An adviser to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition for their now-infamous July 25 phone call.

-Axios news

 
JUST IN: An adviser to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition for their now-infamous July 25 phone call.

-Axios news
Here is the thing - By releasing his version of the call read out, Trump led with his best defense today.  Today is as good as it will get for the Trump campaign. Its all downhill from here.

 
Plausible Deniability is the name of my new band.  I figure an audience of about 35-39% of the country, rock-stardom here we come! 

 
Axios news (cross post with whistleblower thread)

JUST IN: An adviser to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition for their now-infamous July 25 phone call.
He really cares about rooting out corruption.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Axios news (cross post with whistleblower thread)

JUST IN: An adviser to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition for their now-infamous July 25 phone call.
This is fine...totally normal. 

 
One argument that I have heard continually on conservative talk radio is that any  impeachment of a President is an attempt to overturn the results of the last election, and therefore it takes away the will of the voters.
The official DOJ position used to be that a sitting President cannot be indicted. That's apparently changed: now it's that a sitting President cannot be investigated. An obvious implication is that a sitting President cannot be impeached.

 
Big decision by Pelosi. She has instructed the Democrats to table Mueller, and focus solely on Ukraine. Move very quickly and draw up Articles of Impeachment on Ukraine only. 

I think this is the right decision. But some people won’t like it. 
Lol. Yea she is moving on impeachment?  Oh she isnt.

 
Axios news (cross post with whistleblower thread)

JUST IN: An adviser to Ukraine's president tells ABC News that Trump's insistence for the two leaders to discuss a possible investigation into Joe Biden was a precondition for their now-infamous July 25 phone call.
Feels like Comey redux. Trump’s trying to suppress this investigation has caused it to metastasize. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top