Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

It’s amazing to think about, but it’s quite possible that Donald Trump could make history by being the only President ever to be impeached twice. 

Consider: it’s likely that Trump will be impeached but not convicted in the Senate. I think he will then lose the election, but that’s not a sure thing. Suppose he faces Warren and the public gets scared off by “socialism”? Or suppose he faces Biden and Joe appears too tired and worn out? Or something else happens- it’s a year away and Trump could easily win another tight, electoral college victory. 

At that point President Trump will believe that there is nothing he can’t do, no law that he can’t break, because he has yet to be punished. How long then before he does something else completely reprehensible? Not too long I think, at which point he will be impeached again. 

It really could happen. 

Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Agreed. I keep waiting for the damn to break, especially after the catastrophe in Syria. How long can they really stand behind him? But this can't go on.

One moment I’m waiting for is when potential challengers like Cruz and Rubio smell blood in the water and positioning themselves for a run. That’s when momentum might start to build. Once there’s a faction open to impeachment, things will snowball quickly. I can’t imagine that there are many who actually want 4 more years of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Biff84 said:
1 hour ago, TheMagus said:

Agreed. I keep waiting for the damn to break, especially after the catastrophe in Syria. How long can they really stand behind him? But this can't go on.

One moment I’m waiting for is when potential challengers like Cruz and Rubio smell blood in the water and positioning themselves for a run. That’s when momentum might start to build. Once there’s a faction open to impeachment, things will snowball quickly. I can’t imagine that there are many who actually want 4 more years of this. 

None of this is going to happen.

Republicans have learned their lesson from Watergate: never go against the party under any circumstances.

No one of significance will run against Trump in the primaries. He has a built-in base of approximately 35% of Republican voters. That's just too big of a lead to overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

I don't expect the Pro-Trumpers to read this - but here is an update from Adam Schiff that addresses most (all?) public complaints about the process:

 

Page 1

 

Page 2

 

Its in picture form, so I can't cut and paste the content of the letter.

 

"Adam Schiff is a liar"

/theusualsuspects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

That totally addresses what we were all talking about...great job.

It actually does. You mentioned military. We get the chance to criticize Trump. We also get the chance to bring to light legitimate criticisms dating back 3 administrations. It's something that should be talked about more, that isn't right now because people aren't able to singularly pin it on Trump.

But I digress. I just got off overnight, I'll address anything further this afternoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShamrockPride said:

It actually does. You mentioned military. We get the chance to criticize Trump. We also get the chance to bring to light legitimate criticisms dating back 3 administrations. It's something that should be talked about more, that isn't right now because people aren't able to singularly pin it on Trump.

But I digress. I just got off overnight, I'll address anything further this afternoon.

I mentioned military as we were discussing Mattis...and how many other Generals has he insulted or claims he knows more than them?

And yes...I will pin that disrespect on the man showing that disrespect.

Yeah...odd how in a discussing about pending impeachment of Trump and his comments on Mattis we aren’t discussing Clinton, Bush and Obama and the middle  east.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

You know what's disrespectful? Keeping our troops stranded in the Middle East for 18 years to keep an illegal war propped up.

That's a good point except for the fact that he just send more to Saudi Arabia.  How do you justify that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yak651 said:

That's a good point except for the fact that he just send more to Saudi Arabia.  How do you justify that?

I'm not justifying it at all. He absolutely deserves criticism for it. I don't really care what he calls others, words aren't killing anybody. His actions like what you just mentioned do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

I'm not justifying it at all. He absolutely deserves criticism for it. I don't really care what he calls others, words aren't killing anybody. His actions like what you just mentioned do.

And his actions with these generals and how he goes against what they advise and they leave or are fired...is all part of his disrespect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

I'm not justifying it at all. He absolutely deserves criticism for it. I don't really care what he calls others, words aren't killing anybody. His actions like what you just mentioned do.

So, you don’t care that this decision was made rashly, against the wishes of just about if not every major military leader, without any plan as to how to go about it?

It reminds me of the old adage... sure it’s easy to fire the head coach.  But who are you going to have replace them? If you end up with worse leadership by firing even an underperforming coach, you’ve only done harm.

Do you support that we have abandoned an ally in a manner that has led to unneeded loss of innocent life (or do the lives of Kurdish children not matter)?

Do you support that we have undercut our ability to garner allies in the future, harming our ability to protect our nation for years into the future (not to mention being ok with our nation going back on promises and not being a trustworthy ally in the first place - you seem to be ok with that, but I was taught we were better than that and that the US should lead by example, not by being a turncoat)? And by acting as such, alienating a group of people who could well align with our enemies to become the next generation of anti-American terrorists?

Do you support cowardly acquiescing to the slaughter of innocents by a foreign despot, while he makes our nation look feeble, weak and impotent in foreign affairs?

Do you support that this was done so hastily and without any strategy moving forward (the firing the head coach example) leading to the release of hundreds of key ISIS leaders, providing a much needed boost to ISIS and harming our national security for years if not decades into the future?

These are not rhetorical, as they are a clear result of the decision you claim to support. Therefore, should I assume you are ok with all the above? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Koya said:

So, you don’t care that this decision was made rashly, against the wishes of just about if not every major military leader, without any plan as to how to go about it?

It reminds me of the old adage... sure it’s easy to fire the head coach.  But who are you going to have replace them? If you end up with worse leadership by firing even an underperforming coach, you’ve only done harm.

Do you support that we have abandoned an ally in a manner that has led to unneeded loss of innocent life (or do the lives of Kurdish children not matter)?

Do you support that we have undercut our ability to garner allies in the future, harming our ability to protect our nation for years into the future (not to mention being ok with our nation going back on promises and not being a trustworthy ally in the first place - you seem to be ok with that, but I was taught we were better than that and that the US should lead by example, not by being a turncoat)? And by acting as such, alienating a group of people who could well align with our enemies to become the next generation of anti-American terrorists?

Do you support cowardly acquiescing to the slaughter of innocents by a foreign despot, while he makes our nation look feeble, weak and impotent in foreign affairs?

Do you support that this was done so hastily and without any strategy moving forward (the firing the head coach example) leading to the release of hundreds of key ISIS leaders, providing a much needed boost to ISIS and harming our national security for years if not decades into the future?

These are not rhetorical, as they are a clear result of the decision you claim to support. Therefore, should I assume you are ok with all the above? 

Seriously, how did you come up with this rant based on his post?  He said he deserves criticism and the poster wasn't justifying anything and that actions can harm people.  It's like you read the exact opposite of what he posted just to rant yet again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

That totally addresses what we were all talking about...great job.

You don't get to decide what everyone else discusses.... great job mucking up another thread with your attempts at another gotcha.  

You two are like a ####### miserably married couple of 50 years. Can you both just put each other on ignore please?

  • Like 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sho nuff said:
44 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

I'm not justifying it at all. He absolutely deserves criticism for it. I don't really care what he calls others, words aren't killing anybody. His actions like what you just mentioned do.

And his actions with these generals and how he goes against what they advise and they leave or are fired...is all part of his disrespect

Also, quite possible, gets more Americans killed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, the moops said:

You two are like a ####### miserably married couple of 50 years. Can you both just put each other on ignore please?

Please don't include me...I have had him on ignore for years and not responded to a thing he has said.  Its a completely one sided thing of him trying to get my attention and goes better if people just don't quote his nonsense to me.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Seriously, how did you come up with this rant based on his post?  He said he deserves criticism and the poster wasn't justifying anything and that actions can harm people.  It's like you read the exact opposite of what he posted just to rant yet again.

Guess I have the same issue as I read it as he agreed with trump pulling out of Syria like he did and I would have similar questions to his as Koya did

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Please don't include me...I have had him on ignore for years and not responded to a thing he has said.  Its a completely one sided thing of him trying to get my attention and goes better if people just don't quote his nonsense to me.

 

OK sorry :thumbup:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Seriously, how did you come up with this rant based on his post?  He said he deserves criticism and the poster wasn't justifying anything and that actions can harm people.  It's like you read the exact opposite of what he posted just to rant yet again.

I’m happy to stand corrected if I misread, but my understanding was that he was ok with the withdrawal but not ok with the language of the letter and those other issues, not the retreat itself.  I do know many who claim on any number of issues to not like trumps language, bullying, etc, but they support his decisions and policy. My impression was that was one of those such cases.

 

@ShamrockPride - did I misunderstand?  Are you against the action itself militarily?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Wednesday morning’s hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee with Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs R. Clarke Cooper was contentious. The focus was on the administration’s emergency declaration allowing the White House to bypass Congress in authorizing arms sales to the Gulf. In one particular exchange, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Ca.) pressed Cooper on the potential involvement of then-Deputy Assistant Secretary Marik String in drafting the justification memo for the emergency declaration.

Cooper hedged, and Bera pounced. The congressman raised his concern that String had been appointed Acting Legal Adviser to the State Department on May 24, “the very day that this emergency declaration was sent to the Hill, according to public records, this is when he got the promotion to be the top lawyer.” String worked for Cooper until May 23.

String was first admitted to the bar only in 2013, as Bera highlighted, and he practiced law for only a few years as an associate at WilmerHale before joining the State Department in 2017 in a non-legal capacity. With four years of experience practicing law, String appears to be the least seasoned lawyer ever to lead the State Department’s Legal Office. 

This is the guy making legal calls at State.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

WASHINGTON — Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, will tell House impeachment investigators on Thursday that President Trump essentially delegated American foreign policy on Ukraine to his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Sondland, a Trump campaign donor who has emerged as a central figure in the Ukraine scandal, will testify that he did not understand until later that Mr. Giuliani’s goal may have been an effort “to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly in the president’s 2020 re-election campaign.”

According to a copy of his opening statement reviewed by the New York Times, Mr. Sondland will say that Mr. Trump refused to take the counsel of his top diplomats, who recommended to him that he meet with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, without any preconditions. The president said that the diplomats needed to satisfy concerns both he and Mr. Giuliani had related corruption in Ukraine, Mr. Sondland will say.

“We were also disappointed by the president’s direction that we involve Mr. Giuliani,” Mr. Sondland will say in an 18-page prepared statement. “Our view was that the men and women of the State Department, not the president’s personal lawyer, should take responsibility for all aspects of U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.”

...

Mr. Sondland will say that Mr. Trump put him and top diplomats and administration officials dealing with Ukraine in an impossible position, as they tried to conduct diplomacy with an important European ally.

“Please know that I would not have recommended that Mr. Giuliani or any private citizen be involved in these foreign policy matters,” he planned to say. “However, given the president’s explicit direction, as well as the importance we attached to arranging a White House meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, we agreed to do as President Trump directed.” ...

...“I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the president’s 2020 re-election campaign,” he will say.

Mr. Sondland will seek to distance himself from other aspects of the unfolding scandal, as well. He will say that Marie L. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Trump abruptly removed as ambassador to Ukraine in May amid a smear campaign against her by the president’s allies, was an “an excellent diplomat” whose departure he “regretted.”

“I was never a part of any campaign to disparage or dislodge her,” he planned to say. ...

- NYT

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some items in that statement that are extremely hard to believe, mainly that he knew nothing about Hunter Biden. He insists that he had no knowledge of any attempt to tie aid to Ukraine to the 2020 election, but then goes on to say that at a meeting he and other officials agreed that the aid should not be tied to the 2020 election. If Sondland had no knowledge as he claimed, then why is he discussing the issue? That makes no sense.

Nonetheless,  even taken at face value this is yet more damning testimony for Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There are some items in that statement that are extremely hard to believe, mainly that he knew nothing about Hunter Biden. He insists that he had no knowledge of any attempt to tie aid to Ukraine to the 2020 election, but then goes on to say that at a meeting he and other officials agreed that the aid should not be tied to the 2020 election. If Sondland had no knowledge as he claimed, then why is he discussing the issue? That makes no sense.

Nonetheless,  even taken at face value this is yet more damning testimony for Trump. 

I dunno about that.   While he expresses misgivings about Rudy being involved  he basically says he knew nothing of any deal in regards to Biden and states unequivocally the president told him there was no quid pro quo.   I expect he'll say that he knew nothing about  Biden until Taylor' emails.

Edited by Godsbrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Godsbrother said:

I dunno about that.   While he expresses misgivings about Rudy being involved  he basically says he knew nothing of any deal in regards to Biden and states unequivocally the president told him there was no quid pro quo.   I expect he'll say that he knew nothing about  Biden until Taylor texted him.

I believe this.  The president has told everyone there is no quid pro quo.  He has also told us no collusion, total exoneration, largest inauguration crowd ever, Alabama was under risk of hurricane, his taxes are under audit, etc. 

Sondland, working for Trump, had no choice but to take Trump at face value.  On the other hand, Trump works for us (we, the people), and we (should) have no problem discerning obvious lies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Kudlow on CNBC just stated he read the transcript many times and didn't see anything wrong with it.  He was then asked to explain Giuliani and the other indicted individuals involvement.  He replied "I don't want to explain it".  

Perfect. 

Kudlow was drunk 

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I dunno about that.   While he expresses misgivings about Rudy being involved  he basically says he knew nothing of any deal in regards to Biden and states unequivocally the president told him there was no quid pro quo.   I expect he'll say that he knew nothing about  Biden until Taylor' emails.

He says he was told that on (or after, it isn't clear) Sept. 9. That just happens to be the day that the IG notified Congress of the Whistleblower Complaint (and is weeks after it had been forwarded to the DNI).  By then, there had been plenty of time for Trump to receive legal advice that his best defense was "no quid pro quo".  The fact that he repeated that phrase several times during the phone call suggests he had been well-drilled on it. When a witness repeats a key phrase over and over in testimony (especially when it's a Latin phrase), you know that he's been told how important that phrase is and to stick with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Please don't include me...I have had him on ignore for years and not responded to a thing he has said.  Its a completely one sided thing of him trying to get my attention and goes better if people just don't quote his nonsense to me.

 

It is amazing how many people come to troll you, but good to hear you put them on ignore.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There are some items in that statement that are extremely hard to believe, mainly that he knew nothing about Hunter Biden. He insists that he had no knowledge of any attempt to tie aid to Ukraine to the 2020 election, but then goes on to say that at a meeting he and other officials agreed that the aid should not be tied to the 2020 election. If Sondland had no knowledge as he claimed, then why is he discussing the issue? That makes no sense.

Nonetheless,  even taken at face value this is yet more damning testimony for Trump. 

I believe him on Hunter Biden. The only people who knew about that are the ones trafficking in conspiracy theories.

The rest of opening statement come off as being ready to tell the whole story but covering his own butt is his first priority. As damning as this opening statement is, I bet it only gets worse when the lawyers start to get more out of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, apalmer said:

He says he was told that on (or after, it isn't clear) Sept. 9. That just happens to be the day that the IG notified Congress of the Whistleblower Complaint (and is weeks after it had been forwarded to the DNI).  By then, there had been plenty of time for Trump to receive legal advice that his best defense was "no quid pro quo".  The fact that he repeated that phrase several times during the phone call suggests he had been well-drilled on it. When a witness repeats a key phrase over and over in testimony (especially when it's a Latin phrase), you know that he's been told how important that phrase is and to stick with it.

I definitely agree with this.   I would be willing to bet money that Trump didn't even know what that meant a few months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Godsbrother said:

I definitely agree with this.   I would be willing to bet money that Trump didn't even know what that meant a few months ago.

I would be willing to bet he doesn't know what it means now.  He just knows Rudy told him to keep saying it.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Godsbrother said:

I definitely agree with this.   I would be willing to bet money that Trump didn't even know what that meant a few months ago.

he absolutely did - he repeated this phrasing during Russia-gate, so he's known it for at least a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I dunno about that.   While he expresses misgivings about Rudy being involved  he basically says he knew nothing of any deal in regards to Biden and states unequivocally the president told him there was no quid pro quo.   I expect he'll say that he knew nothing about  Biden until Taylor' emails.

The problem is that Trump has offered Sondland as proof that there was no quid pro quo. Now it turns out Sondland got that from Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

Oh okay.  I stand corrected.

earliest Trump QPQ reference: April 1, 2016:

 

Quote

Well, Hillary has been playing the woman's card 100 percent. I think I'm going to do very well with women. I think women want security. They want safety. They want the military. They want to stop terrorism. They see her horrible moves on -- if you look at Libya. Benghazi came because of Libya. It's a fact, because of what happened in Libya, the Benghazi disaster. Amazingly, the public never picked up on Benghazi like I thought they should have maybe because a lot of people in mainstream don't write too much about it. But the public has never picked up on Benghazi like I would have thought. The Clinton Foundation's going to be very interesting because there's so many things. When you talk about quid pro quo, there are so many things going on there that could be a big factor. But no, the reason is, Jenna, that Hillary's been hitting me on that. So if she's going to play those cards, I'm going to play the same cards. An honor to have you back up. And thank you for being so fair. You've been really fair. Tough one need be, and very tough unfortunately when need be. I really mean this, Dan, you've been very fair.

ETA: my source

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quid pro quo discussion is a red herring. Sondland’s statement and testimony is proof that the President was running a shadow diplomacy operation using his private attorney outside of normal executive branch channels, with no legal authority to do so.

That is impeachable on its own.

  • Like 26
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

The quid pro quo discussion is a red herring. Sondland’s statement and testimony is proof that the President was running a shadow diplomacy operation using his private attorney outside of normal executive branch channels, with no legal authority to do so.

That is impeachable on its own.

I think QPQ is important. 

Impeachment is a political exercise.  It's important for the public to be on board, which means the underlying reason has got to be crystal clear.  This is something that Trump understands very well - it's all about the sound bite.  you have between 3 and 5 words to get your point across for the public to grasp - that's it.

  •  
  • The buck stops here
  • its the economy, stupid
  • read my lips, no new taxes (ok, 6 words)
  • hope and change
  • Make America Great Again

Quid Pro Quo is a simple concept that everyone inherently knows is wrong.  IMO, it's the key to John Q Public grasping this whole thing.  Trump understands this, which is why they are pushing "no QPQ" so strongly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...