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*** (8 Viewers)

Don't Noonan said:
It is really sad he feels the need to try and argue everything and constantly tout opinions as facts.  So weird.
Click to expand...
I didn't.  I posted links showing the facts of the process.  I backed up the points made.

Stick with the topic rather than piling on to false posts about me.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I do, and I think you probably do too.  It's nice that you want to bend over backwards to not jump to the "removed from office" conclusion, but every scrap of evidence that we have in front of us is that he colluded with a foreign government to interfere in our electoral process.  And that's setting aside all the other stuff, like his attacks on the first amendment, collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice in the investigation of his collusion with Russia, overall dangerous incompetence, etc.  We should all be rooting for removal from office at this point.  It's the right thing to do for the country.
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough.  I want it to happen today, but really do think it's important to go through the process.  Find out who the people the whistle blower heard from, etc.  Have a vote and a trial in the Senate.

 
Awful lot of people seem awfully willing to talk about this -- and they aren't even under oath in front of Congress yet:

WASHINGTON — No one bothered to put special limits on the number of people allowed to sit in the White House “listening room” to monitor the phone call because it was expected to be routine. By the time the call was over 30 minutes later, it quickly became clear that it was anything but.

Soon after President Trump put the phone down that summer day, the red flags began to go up. Rather than just one head of state offering another pro forma congratulations for recent elections, the call turned into a bid by Mr. Trump to press a Ukrainian leader in need of additional American aid to “do us a favor” and investigate Democrats.

The alarm among officials who heard the exchange led to an extraordinary effort to keep too many more people from learning about it. In the days to come, according to a whistle-blower complaint released on Thursday, White House officials embarked on a campaign to “lock down” the record of the call, removing it from the usual electronic file and hiding it away in a separate system normally used for classified information.

But word began to spread anyway, kicking off a succession of events that would eventually reveal details of the call to the public and has now put Mr. Trump at risk of being impeached by a Democrat-led House for abusing his power and betraying his office. The story of the past two months is one of a White House scrambling to keep secrets to protect a president willing to cross lines others would not, only to find the very government he frequently disparages expose him.

“The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call,” the whistle-blower, a C.I.A. official who once worked at the White House, wrote in his complaint, which was declassified and made public by the House Intelligence Committee.

“They told me,” he added, “that there was already a ‘discussion ongoing’ with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials’ retelling, that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain.”

The president and his Republican allies rejected that characterization, saying he made no quid-pro-quo demands of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who himself told reporters in New York on Wednesday that he did not feel like he was being pushed.

Mr. Trump dismissed the complaint as part of “another Witch Hunt” against him and suggested the whistle-blower was “close to a spy.”

But while the White House disparaged the whistle-blower’s complaint as full of secondhand information and media-reported events, it did not directly deny the sequence of events as outlined.

Moreover, other officials amplified the narrative on Thursday with details that were not in the complaint. For instance, they said, at one point an order was given to not distribute the reconstructed transcript of Mr. Trump’s call electronically, as would be typical. Instead, copies were printed out and hand delivered to a select group.

During the call on the morning of July 25, Mr. Zelensky talked about how much Ukraine had come to depend on the United States to help in its grinding, five-year war with Russian-sponsored separatists in the eastern part of the country. Without missing a beat, Mr. Trump then segued directly to his request for help in his own domestic politics.

“I would like you to do us a favor, though,” he said. Ukraine, he said, should look into conspiracy theories about Democratic emails hacked during the 2016 election as well as the actions of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his younger son Hunter Biden, who was on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

“Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible,” Mr. Trump said.

The electronic version of the reconstructed transcript produced from notes and voice recognition software was removed from the computer system where such documents are typically stored for distribution to cabinet-level officers, according to the complaint. Instead, it went into a classified system even though the call did not contain anything especially sensitive in terms of national security information.

The actions were unusual in a normal national security process but not unheard-of in Mr. Trump’s administration. Since early in his tenure, when transcripts of his telephone calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia leaked, Mr. Trump has been sensitive to preventing such records from getting out.

He has proved particularly attuned to guarding the confidentiality of other conversations involving the former Soviet Union. After his first meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia after taking office, Mr. Trump took his interpreter’s notes and ordered him not to disclose what he heard to anyone.

The specifics of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky would be one thing by itself, but it came during a period of other events that provide a context. For months leading up to the call, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had been lobbying Ukrainian officials to investigate Democrats over the 2016 election and Mr. Biden’s dealings with the country.

Starting in mid-May, the whistle-blower wrote, he began hearing from other American officials “that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani’s circumvention of national security decision making processes to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between” Kiev and the president.

Other people close to the situation have said that among those angry at Mr. Giuliani’s activities was John R. Bolton, who was then the president’s national security adviser before leaving this month amid disagreements with Mr. Trump over Russia as well as other issues.

But State Department officials, including Kurt D. Volker, the special envoy for Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, were left to try to “contain the damage” by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani’s campaign, according to the complaint.

The Ukrainians, it added, were led to believe that arranging a meeting or phone call between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump would depend on whether Mr. Zelensky showed willingness to “play ball” on Mr. Giuliani’s wishes. Indeed, it said, Mr. Trump ordered Vice President Mike Pence to cancel plans to travel to Ukraine for Mr. Zelensky’s inauguration on May 20.

As Mr. Giuliani continued to seek action by the Ukrainians, the White House Office of Management and Budget informed national security agencies on July 18 that the president had ordered the suspension of $391 million in American security aid to Ukraine. In the days that followed, officials said they were unaware of the reason for the freeze.

According to other officials, three rounds of interagency meetings were then held to try to “unstick” the blocked aid or at least figure out why it was behind held up. When the White House continued to not explain, some administration officials began enlisting staff members in the Senate to help.

The day after the agencies were notified about the aid freeze, Mr. Giuliani had breakfast with Mr. Volker about connecting with Ukrainian officials.

“Mr. Mayor — really enjoyed breakfast this morning,” Mr. Volker wrote in a text later that day that Mr. Giuliani posted on Twitter on Thursday. Mr. Volker offered to connect Mr. Giuliani with Andriy Yermak, an aide to Mr. Zelensky, according to the text message.

Six days later came the phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky. The White House readout released to the news media afterward made no mention of the discussion about Democrats, but a Ukrainian statement alluded to it by saying they discussed the completion of “investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States.”

The next day, according to the complaint, Mr. Volker and Mr. Sondland visited Kiev and met with Mr. Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials, offering them guidance on how to respond to Mr. Trump’s demands. Mr. Giuliani then met in Spain with Mr. Yermak on Aug. 2.

A week later, on Aug. 9, Mr. Trump publicly embraced Mr. Zelensky, telling reporters that he planned to invite the Ukrainian to the White House. “He’s a very reasonable guy,” Mr. Trump said. “He wants to see peace in Ukraine, and I think he will be coming very soon, actually.”

In fact, Ukrainian officials had been trying to lock down a date for such a meeting for months but kept getting put off by White House aides. At this point, Ukrainian officials have said, they still did not know that Mr. Trump had suspended American aid but they were hearing that it might be at risk.

All of this was taking place at a time of flux among key national security officials. Fiona Hill, the senior director for Europe at the National Security Council, was stepping down and had turned over her duties in July before the call. Three days after the call, Mr. Trump announced that Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, would be resigning.

On Aug. 12, the whistle-blower filed his complaint with the office of Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community. The complaint was addressed to Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, and Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, with the understanding that, under the law, it would be provided to them.

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election,” the whistle-blower wrote.

He acknowledged that he “was not a direct witness to most of the events described” but said he had gathered it from multiple officials and was “deeply concerned” that the actions constituted a flagrant abuse or violation of law.

Ten days later, Senate staff members sought an explanation for the aid freeze during a briefing by State and Defense Department officials but received no further information. By this time, however, they had begun hearing reports that the delays might be tied to reports about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine.

Mr. Atkinson forwarded the whistle-blower complaint on Aug. 26 to Joseph Maguire, who took over from Mr. Coats as the acting director of national intelligence, and declared that he had determined the complaint “appears credible.” Mr. Maguire brought the issue to the White House rather than Congress, arguing that he was obliged to do so, a decision that drew sharp criticism from Democrats.

The next day, Aug. 27, Mr. Bolton, then still the national security adviser, met with Mr. Zelensky in Kiev, the first personal visit by such a high-ranking member of the administration since Mr. Zelensky’s inauguration. Mr. Bolton, who holds deeply skeptical views of Russia, assured the Ukrainians that the United States stood behind them. He also was preparing for what was expected to be a meeting a few days afterward in Warsaw between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky.

Ukrainian officials have said the aid holdup was not discussed during this visit and that they only learned about it afterward. The first report of the frozen money appeared in Politico on Aug. 28, the day after Mr. Bolton’s visit and congressional aides were finally informed the next day.

As it happened, Mr. Trump canceled his trip to Warsaw to monitor Hurricane Dorian, which was bearing down on the East Coast. Instead, he sent Mr. Pence, who met with Mr. Zelensky.

Three House committees opened an inquiry on Sept. 9 to examine whether the aid to Ukraine was being held up for political reasons. On the same day, Mr. Atkinson, the inspector general, sent a letter to the intelligence committees informing them of the existence of the whistle-blower complaint but withholding details, including the subject.

Senators from both parties increased the pressure on the White House to release the frozen aid to Ukraine. On Sept. 11, Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, spoke to Mr. Trump about the matter and urged him to lift the freeze. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, informed the White House that he would support a Democratic amendment meant to penalize the White House to prod the funds loose.

Administration officials informed senators that night that the money will be released and the decision was announced the next day without any explanation for why it had been held up in the first place.

Mr. Trump has since given conflicting explanations. First, he said he held it up because of concerns about corruption in Ukraine and cited Mr. Biden in particular. Then he shifted the rationale to say he blocked it because he thought European countries should shoulder more of the burden.

Angry at not being informed about the topic of the whistle-blower complaint, Mr. Schiff issued a subpoena the next day to Mr. Maguire. The Washington Post reported on Sept. 18 that the complaint involved Mr. Trump, and The Post and The New York Times reported the next day that it involved Ukraine.

Mr. Schiff said on Thursday that the whole episode had not been in the interest of the United States. “It is instead the most consequential form of tragedy,” he said, “for it forces us to confront the remedy the founders provided for such a flagrant abuse of office, impeachment.”

The whistle-blower is expected to testify to Congress soon.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
No, I will rely on my expert with more experience than you or Judge Nap thanks.
Click to expand...
Joe DiGenova is a partisan hack, but that doesn't matter because his point is fundamentally irrelevant.

Let's assume he's completely right about the (ludicrous) unitary executive theory.  All that shows is that the remedy for a President that uses his near absolute Article II powers to target political enemies is (wait for it ...)  impeachment.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Does Schiff already know the identity?  I ask this because during the hearing he referred to the whistle blower as he before correcting himself.
Click to expand...
Not sure.

I'm more interested in the people who talked to the whistle blower and the timing of Coats' and Bolton's resignations seem interesting in context.  Possible those aren't related to this incident, but both of them are well known and would be taken very seriously by the GOP.  And they both strike me as exactly the sort of patriotic protect-America sorts who would step up here.  Bolton's a bit of a lunatic, but there's no doubt he loves the US.  Coats, a former Senator known for his seriousness, might be even more problematic.

Again, could be nothing, but when you see the timing it's interesting.

 
timschochet said:
There was a story earlier in the day that it’s a CIA analyst. 
Click to expand...
The whistle blower is a CIA analyst.

Who talked to several people in the Administration who all told him about this incident.  I'm interested in those witnesses.  If someone like Dan Coats were to testify in a Senate trial it would carry a lot of weight with GOP Senators.

 
Am I going insane?? Why did Giuliani tweet that out? I thought their whole shtick was covering things up and not openly admitting them? 

 
Relevant to earlier discussion about narrowly focused impeachment efforts vs “throwing the book”  this is kind of what I was trying to say earlier, expressed by a former Dem congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee that impeached Nixon:

https://news.yahoo.com/watergateera-dem-urges-party-to-go-after-trump-on-all-fronts-232841270.html;_ylt=AwrE19X3hY1dmVsAbtLBGOd_;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZG9laDZ2BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjY1NDdfMQRzZWMDc3I-

ETA she also suggests what many of us have been saying, “ Dems need to get a lot tougher” and use tools such as fines, contempt charges, ultimately arrests if necessary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
What I find lacking in most discussions here is that what Trump is currently facing impeachment for is nearly EXACTLY what he was accused of doing with Russia.
Click to expand...
Same behavior. Of course one missing link was evidence of Trump’s personal involvement. There was testimony on that - Trump via Manafort & Stone especially- But man it’s front and center here, all over every page. 

 
Otis said:
Love seeing the GOP on the run and collectively going bananas.  I’m expecting some caution in the coming days followed by the dominos falling. 
Click to expand...
I would love it were this the case.. unfortunately we know beyond a shadow of doubt that the left cant follow through.

 
Being the political strategy that it is,  I opine the left to be making a mistake (again).

You can beat him on his record of simply not achieving his stated goals and commitments.  You can beat him on a simple appeal to common sense and common decency.

Another sloppily articulated circus that doesn't effectively remove Trump from office only further motivates and weaponizes his base.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
It sounds like Trump believes the whistleblower, as he was calling those in his administration who spoke to the whistleblower spies and traitors.
Click to expand...
I think Trump was referring to the "whistleblower" who the NYT stated is actually a CIA officer who was placed in the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

If in fact the CIA placed someone in the White House to spy on the administration and their investigation into Spygate (which implicates the CIA in working with foreign agents to interfere with an election... the IRONY) then this "whistleblower" probably does deserve the maximum punishment allowed.

Hence Trump's comment. In the old days we used to execute traitorous spies.

 
Tom Skerritt said:
Is America great again?!? It’s difficult to keep track. 

#MAGA
Click to expand...
Despite the best efforts of the Democrats, the media, and their paid propaganda shills on social media to spread nothing but hate and division for 3 straight years..... Yes, America greatness is at an all time high, which is why Trump's approval is higher than Obama's at the same point of their first term, despite the 90% negative coverage by the media.

And it is only going to get better, so buckle up.

Despite the misery around here life is good for Americans. 

 
adonis said:
Also he's surrounded by less loyal people now than he was during his campaign.  It's not the loyalists who are blowing whistles.

The crimes are the same - the witnesses are different.
Click to expand...
His Ukraine loyalist is locked up. 

 
Speaking of Schiff, remember when he was colluding with what he thought was a Ukrainian official to get **** pics of Trump? Sounds like interference in an election.

Schiff on tape asking for **** pics of Trump

Speaking of foreign interference, what is the opinion on 3 Dem Senators threatening Ukraine to investigate Trump?

Article including letter requesting interference

"In May of 2018, Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., **** Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking the Ukraine government to keep four investigations open related to the Mueller probe into Russian election interference in the U.S. and indicated that their support for foreign aid to Ukraine could be in jeopardy"

Should Durbin, Menendez, and Leahy be punished?

 
Raylan said:
Speaking of Schiff, remember when he was colluding with what he thought was a Ukrainian official to get **** pics of Trump? Sounds like interference in an election.

Schiff on tape asking for **** pics of Trump

Speaking of foreign interference, what is the opinion on 3 Dem Senators threatening Ukraine to investigate Trump?

Article including letter requesting interference

"In May of 2018, Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., **** Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking the Ukraine government to keep four investigations open related to the Mueller probe into Russian election interference in the U.S. and indicated that their support for foreign aid to Ukraine could be in jeopardy"

Should Durbin, Menendez, and Leahy be punished?
Click to expand...
Read the letter linked within the article, its not even remotely comparable. 

For the federalist (or anyone) to try and draw comparisons is to welcome attacks on their critical thinking.

 
Raylan said:
Speaking of Schiff, remember when he was colluding with what he thought was a Ukrainian official to get **** pics of Trump? Sounds like interference in an election.

Schiff on tape asking for **** pics of Trump

Speaking of foreign interference, what is the opinion on 3 Dem Senators threatening Ukraine to investigate Trump?

Article including letter requesting interference

"In May of 2018, Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., **** Durbin, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking the Ukraine government to keep four investigations open related to the Mueller probe into Russian election interference in the U.S. and indicated that their support for foreign aid to Ukraine could be in jeopardy"

Should Durbin, Menendez, and Leahy be punished?
Click to expand...
The actual letter

Seems they weren’t cooperating with the Mueller investigation because they were worried about losing military aid. This seems to support Trumps admins wrongdoing in my opinion. They in no way imply military aid will be withheld, in fact, they imply that it’s the reason they quit cooperating with mueller. Do you just digest this “news” without even looking at their “evidence?”

 
Raylan said:
I think Trump was referring to the "whistleblower" who the NYT stated is actually a CIA officer who was placed in the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

If in fact the CIA placed someone in the White House to spy on the administration and their investigation into Spygate (which implicates the CIA in working with foreign agents to interfere with an election... the IRONY) then this "whistleblower" probably does deserve the maximum punishment allowed.

Hence Trump's comment. In the old days we used to execute traitorous spies.
Click to expand...
Wow. This is awful even for you. 

 
Raylan said:
I think Trump was referring to the "whistleblower" who the NYT stated is actually a CIA officer who was placed in the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html

If in fact the CIA placed someone in the White House to spy on the administration and their investigation into Spygate (which implicates the CIA in working with foreign agents to interfere with an election... the IRONY) then this "whistleblower" probably does deserve the maximum punishment allowed.

Hence Trump's comment. In the old days we used to execute traitorous spies.
Click to expand...
In this case, if you're going to execute the traitor, the "spy" isn't the one in danger. The question would be whether the noose will rub off the fake tan.

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top