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)

timschochet said:
if he refuses to release the transcript, yes. Why is that unreasonable?
Click to expand...
DN refused to respond to this post, but I want to amend it anyhow. I've been thinking more about this. Here is what we know right now from the President's own admission: he had a phone conversation with the President of Ukraine about money that Congress authorized but that Trump had inexplicably held up. In that phone conversation, Trump brought up Joe Biden and asked Ukraine to help Rudy Giuliani investigate what Trump believed to be corrupt behavior from several years ago. Joe Biden is currently President Trump's likeliest opponent in the upcoming election. 

IMO, that's enough. Whether or not we get to see the transcript, I believe that what we know is in itself an impeachable offense. The President of the United States cannot call up the leader of another country and ask for their assistance to damage another candidate in an election. Unacceptable. Full stop, there really are no other issues, no wait and see here. Trump should be removed for this act alone.  

If anybody reading this disagrees, please don't mock me, don't predict how we'll all look like fools, don't say "I will wait and see." Tell me what is wrong with my position, as it stands. tia

 
Mr. Ham said:
This post is absolutely shocking to me. It appears the right wing has been incredibly effective at creating false equivalency. Can you not see that in one instance, the entire EU supported removal of a corrupt prosecutor, and on the other the President is soliciting help to drum up a false conspiracy theory to persecute a political rival? How do you equate these two things?

It is overtly illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign government to influence a US election. It's not only illegal, it is antithetical to our entire experiment in freedom and liberty.

This isn't ambiguous. It's not only crime, it's the bonkers behavior of tyrannical banana republic dictators, the stuff the US set itself apart from for the better part of the last century. And to protect from the American Peoples' constitutional right to transparency in government via checks and balances, this rogue Executive Branch is ignoring clear law to obstruct evidence of what was on the face a crime and betrayal of American values and the right of the public to voice via their votes. Wake up please out of this coma. This isn't normal, nor is trying to force whataboutism that simply doesn't exist. The President is acting abhorrently, and the People cannot trust that he is not subverting the institutions that give us agency.
Click to expand...
I honestly hope you are being paid to type this or just flat out trolling as you have admitted to in the past.

1. Biden is on tape admitting to bribing Ukraine with a billion dollars if they do not fire a government official who was looking into a company that was paying his crack head sister-in-law boning son with zero energy or foreign experience.

2. But Drumpf may have said something according to anonymous heresay. Execution time!

3. Speaking of soliciting foreign help in drumming up a false conspiracy to persecute a political rival? Spygate says hi!

The only question left is how far this forum is willing to embarrass themselves with hypocrisy and projection.

Trump has owned the Dems, the media, and you since day one.

See you in 3 months.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skoo said:
"Sure what Trump did may have been bad, but (insert deflection here) was worse."
Click to expand...
Well those crimes should have been punished.  It was a mockery of justice and our "institutions" or whatever that they weren't.  That's when the "norms" and "civility" went away- decades upon decades of institutionalized corruption before Trump. 

Don't expect people to share in the over-the-top, selective outrage about Trump when every other criminal in DC skated free no problem, no matter how many people they massacred or foreign lands they laid waste to.  

 
timschochet said:
DN refused to respond to this post, but I want to amend it anyhow. I've been thinking more about this. Here is what we know right now from the President's own admission: he had a phone conversation with the President of Ukraine about money that Congress authorized but that Trump had inexplicably held up. In that phone conversation, Trump brought up Joe Biden and asked Ukraine to help Rudy Giuliani investigate what Trump believed to be corrupt behavior from several years ago. Joe Biden is currently President Trump's likeliest opponent in the upcoming election. 

IMO, that's enough. Whether or not we get to see the transcript, I believe that what we know is in itself an impeachable offense. The President of the United States cannot call up the leader of another country and ask for their assistance to damage another candidate in an election. Unacceptable. Full stop, there really are no other issues, no wait and see here. Trump should be removed for this act alone.  

If anybody reading this disagrees, please don't mock me, don't predict how we'll all look like fools, don't say "I will wait and see." Tell me what is wrong with my position, as it stands. tia
Click to expand...
It can't possibly be a standard that a candidate cannot be investigated during an election cycle for a couple of reasons:  a) that's like all the time and b) both candidates were under investigation during the last election cycle.

 
tonydead said:
It can't possibly be a standard that a candidate cannot be investigated during an election cycle for a couple of reasons:  a) that's like all the time and b) both candidates were under investigation during the last election cycle.
Click to expand...
OK? What does this have to do with anything that I wrote? Or with this story at all? 

 
Raylan said:
I honestly hope you are being paid to type this or just flat out trolling as you have admitted to in the past.

1. Biden is on tape admitting to bribing Ukraine with a billion dollars if they do not fire a government official who was looking into a company that was paying his crack head sister-in-law boning son with zero energy or foreign experience.

2. But Drumpf may have said something according to anonymous heresay. Execution time!

3. Speaking of soliciting foreign help in drumming up a false conspiracy to persecute a political rival? Spygate says hi!

The only question left is how far this forum is willing to embarrass themselves with hypocrisy and projection.

Trump has owned the Dems, the media, and you since day one.

See you in 3 months.
Click to expand...
Amazing. 

 
Raylan said:
I honestly hope you are being paid to type this or just flat out trolling as you have admitted to in the past.

1. Biden is on tape admitting to bribing Ukraine with a billion dollars if they do not fire a government official who was looking into a company that was paying his crack head sister-in-law boning son with zero energy or foreign experience.

2. But Drumpf may have said something according to anonymous heresay. Execution time!

3. Speaking of soliciting foreign help in drumming up a false conspiracy to persecute a political rival? Spygate says hi!

The only question left is how far this forum is willing to embarrass themselves with hypocrisy and projection.

Trump has owned the Dems, the media, and you since day one.

See you in 3 months.
Click to expand...
Aside from being unexcellent - do you have a legitimate link to the accusation that the prosecutor was looking into Biden and/or his company?

Because all of the reporting I have seen on this say just the opposite - there was no investigation into Biden nor the company at the time.

 
God bless Rudy:

BARTIROMO: Did the president threaten to cut off aid to the Ukraine—

GIULIANI: No, that was a false story.

BARTIROMO: 100%?

GIULIANI: Well, I can't tell you if it's 100%.

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Ned
Don't Noonan said:
Here's hoping you can see the light.   :banned: .  Your hatred of Trump is clouding your judgement.  I have faith you can change.
Click to expand...
So you haven’t made up your mind but others should see the light? And its like the “russia hoax”? And you find that post by Raylan actually good?  Because it was as inaccurate as it was painfully inflammatory.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tonydead said:
Didn't you imply that Trump can't have Biden investigated because he's likely to be his campaign opponent?
Click to expand...
No. Of course he can have Biden investigated. 

What he can’t do is contact the head of state of  another country and seek out their help to investigate Biden, in his role as President. You do get why he can’t do this right? 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Here's hoping you can see the light.   :banned: .  Your hatred of Trump is clouding your judgement.  I have faith you can change.
Click to expand...
First I don’t hate Trump, and second, I really wish he hadn’t done this. I would be very happy if there is something I am missing here that exonerates him. Impeachment is a very bad thing for the country. Seriously I would rather Trump serve another term in office than see him impeached and removed...unless he absolutely deserves it, which it appears sadly that he does. 

 
:coffee:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 7m7 minutes ago

“@FoxNews bombshell information reports that the so-called Whistleblower did not have firsthand knowledge of that phone conversation with Ukraine’s President.” Wow! @HARRISFAULKNER It is all a Democrat/Adam Schiff Scam! Doing this for 3 years now, and found NOTHING!

 
timschochet said:
No. Of course he can have Biden investigated. 

What he can’t do is contact the head of state of  another country and seek out their help to investigate Biden, in his role as President. You do get why he can’t do this right? 
Click to expand...
I think you are misstating this. Trump should not have anyone investigated for political reasons. Its why - prior to Trump - Presidents would respect a wall between the DOJ and the WH. 

If the DOJ investigates a candidate on its own, of course that is fine.

Of course this President has obliterated that norm. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
I think you are misstating this. Trump should not have anyone investigated for political reasons. Its why - prior to Trump - Presidents would respect a wall between the DOJ and the WH. 

If the DOJ investigates a candidate on its own, of course that is fine.

Of course this President has obliterated that norm. 
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean official investigation. I meant that of course the President can have someone like Giuliani try and dig up dirt on opponents. They all have guys like that- Sidney Blumenthal, etc.- But when you solicit other countries as President , that’s when you’re committing a crime. 

 
Listening to this Trump defender on CNN. I should be used to these guys by now but they drive me crazy. 

This one says the call was fine, nothing wrong with it, but that we don’t get to ever hear the call and that’s fine too. 

 
The House Democrats are meeting tomorrow. I expect them to issue an ultimatum: either the White House turns over the transcripts and the complaint to Congress, or start impeachment. 

 
 If Ukrainian corruption is the key for Trump, as he claimed:

1. I expect to hear about a lot more people besides Bidens son.  I mean, if he wants to know more about Ukrainian corruption, all he has to do is call his buddy Paul Manafort.  I'd bet Pauly could name a lot more folks doing a lot more shady stuff than sitting on the board of a gas company. 

2. Why send Guliani?  Wouldn't you send someone from the State Department?  How about Pence?  Regardless, someone official, not your personal lawyer.

I think it's obvious this whole thing is political - using the weight of the US Govt to dig up dirt on a political rival.  

Trump has a long history of mixing his funds - he uses his charity fund as his own piggy bank, for example.  Now that he is president, why wouldn't he consider US money as his money?  And if the US money allocated to Ukraine is his, why wouldn't he use it to maximize benefit to him personally?

 
Mr. Ham said:
So... impeachment it is.

(Though I worry a bit that the actual compliant is nuanced and concerns a number of steps adding contextual weight to the call itself. Narrowing to verbiage on the call may or may not be as damning as the entire series of corresponding events).
Click to expand...
Dems underestimate the power of the banner sign “Impeachment” on the bottom of the screen for the next year.  

It helps that Trump is as guilty as they come.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Not a good perception, but people have board seats for legitimate reasons. I honesty don’t know whether Hunter Biden had relevant experience, connections outside of his dad, or not. Regardless, at minimum the core accusation of complicity in state level corruption is false.

Here I will also enlighten anyone new to Earth that Trump has a clear pattern of disregard for truth. He cares about perception, and maintaining his con. The fact he levered a foreign government into participation is illegal, and that fact is damning on its own.
Click to expand...
The bolded is true or at least true in that there are no facts to support the accusation. But also at a minimum, it wasn't very smart for father to hook up son with a board seat in a company in a foreign country that routinely wins the gold medal in corruption. Even if everything was above board, it just opens them up for this type of attack that could have been easily avoided.

And just a cursory review of son's history shows a continued path of failure upward with a series of cushy jobs and corporate board positions that don't match up with his experience or expertise or really anyone's for that matter. Again, I really don't care. Nepotism and cronyism exists and will always exist, both sides of the aisle and everywhere around the world. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Aside from being unexcellent - do you have a legitimate link to the accusation that the prosecutor was looking into Biden and/or his company?

Because all of the reporting I have seen on this say just the opposite - there was no investigation into Biden nor the company at the time.
Click to expand...
In fact, the latest report from the NY Times he "broke" the story and promised hot new details is that part of the Obama administration's objection to the prosecutor was his failure to move against the oligarch who controlled the company that eventually put Hunter Biden on their board.  

But once again, let's look at what Trump and his defenders are actually saying.

It was corrupt for Joe Biden to threaten the Ukraine with a loss of funding if they failed to take steps to improve their investigation of corruption because the steps they urged could have potentially provided a material benefit to Biden's son.

It was, however, perfectly legitimate for Donald Trump to threaten the Ukraine with loss of funding if they failed to take steps to investigate corruption when that step would unquestionably provide a material benefit to Donald Trump's 2020 campaign by producing opposition research/propaganda against his suspected general election opponent.

Put aside politics or what you think of Donald Trump.  Just as a matter of proving that this is a debate among people who can actually reason at a junior high school level, how do you distinguish between those two statements?  Trump is attempting to prove Biden's corruption by engaging in the exact same corrupt activity he's accusing Biden of.  

 
My position has always been the same.  House Members take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to do what they think gives them the best chance of winning the Presidency and the Senate in 2020.  And frankly, I don't really see the downside in making Susan Collins or Cory Gardner having to take a position on this.  They're already going to be accused of being partisan.  And Trump is already going to claim exoneration.  I'd rather make him be brazen enough to have to claim that the failure of  a sufficient number of bootlickers in his own party to put their Constitutional duty above their fear of a mean tweet constitutes exoneration.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
My position has always been the same.  House Members take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to do what they think gives them the best chance of winning the Presidency and the Senate in 2020.  And frankly, I don't really see the downside in making Susan Collins or Cory Gardner having to take a position on this.  They're already going to be accused of being partisan.  And Trump is already going to claim exoneration.  I'd rather make him be brazen enough to have to claim that the failure of  a sufficient number of bootlickers in his own party to put their Constitutional duty above their fear of a mean tweet constitutes exoneration.
Click to expand...
Related question on this- if Trump is impeached in the House is McConnell required to have a trial and a vote? Or can he simply not do anything? 

Or, shades of Garland, can he say “well next year is an election year so we’re going to table the whole thing until after November”? 

 
timschochet said:
Related question on this- if Trump is impeached in the House is McConnell required to have a trial and a vote? Or can he simply not do anything? 

Or, shades of Garland, can he say “well next year is an election year so we’re going to table the whole thing until after November”? 
Click to expand...
There is an argument that the Constitution does not compel the Senate to hold a trial.  They would have to amend the Senate rules (which currently do require them to bring articles up) in order to do so.  And they'd need a majority to change the rules.  I think that would be an even more perilous vote for vulnerable Republican Senators than the vote on removing from office (or Obamacare or Kavanaugh).  So I think it's kind of an academic question.  I don't see the upside to Republicans in using that possible procedure.

 
The Dude said:
Dems are warming up to impeachment cause the constitution is behind them on this one - the matter has to be given to congress. 

They are going to force those cowardly republicans to vote against the constitution - which should set up a massive win of seats next year.
Click to expand...
Will it? I’m not sure the actual Constitution is as weighty with the public these days as it used to be. 

 
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
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top