The General
Footballguy
So think we are ready to light this candle. I’m hungry for some Impeachment Pie.
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)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
saintfool
Dead sexy
cosjobs
Footballguy
6. Sondland's prepared remarks omit:
Sondland names some of the US officials who attended June 4 dinner he arranged with Zelensky.
But somehow leaves out the name of the senior US official who was seated next to Zelensky at the dinner ((Jared Kushner).
bostonfred
Footballguy
Ttump directed Sondland to work with his attorney, Giuliani, as a precondition of a presidential meeting. There's the quid.
Trump's attorney said they needed to investigate Biden as part of the "anti corruption". That's the pro quo.
So there's three angles Trump can take
1 acknowledge the quid but deny the pro quo. "We never specifically said they had to dig up dirt on Biden."
2 deny that it was a precondition. "Sondland is lying! "
3 deny that the president was the one who wanted dirt on Biden. "I never asked for that, it was Giuliani!"
None of these holds any kind of water but my guess is they go with 3 and throw Giuliani under the bus, but also try to compel him not to testify and try to give him a pardon for denying participation in an unlawful witch hunt.
Trump's attorney said they needed to investigate Biden as part of the "anti corruption". That's the pro quo.
So there's three angles Trump can take
1 acknowledge the quid but deny the pro quo. "We never specifically said they had to dig up dirt on Biden."
2 deny that it was a precondition. "Sondland is lying! "
3 deny that the president was the one who wanted dirt on Biden. "I never asked for that, it was Giuliani!"
None of these holds any kind of water but my guess is they go with 3 and throw Giuliani under the bus, but also try to compel him not to testify and try to give him a pardon for denying participation in an unlawful witch hunt.
TheMagus
Footballguy
So Mulvaney is giving a press conference right now and is saying that the "investigations" they wanted Ukraine to pursue were about the DNC server, not Joe Biden. WHY THE %$%#$% do these reporters not ask him what server and WTF he is talking about??? It's like they just accept that there is a server investigation in Ukraine that is happening.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Also, how is "We pressured Ukraine to investigate a rival political party" any better than "We pressured Ukraine to investigate a rival political party's candidate"?
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
In that Mulvaney presser, Trump's Ukraine call defense went from "no quid pro quo" to "hell yeah, quid pro quo, get over it" in the blink of an eye.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I take it back.
They will probably go with option 4 - it doesn't matter if there was quid pro quo because the president is allowed to do whatever he wants.
And that's a big political risk because they've been inundating their supporters with "there was no quid pro quo" until now, and those people have been parroting that message. By changing the message, some non zero portion of trump supporters will finally realize that something is not right. A lot won't. But they're not going to acknowledge that there should be any consequences.
They will probably go with option 4 - it doesn't matter if there was quid pro quo because the president is allowed to do whatever he wants.
And that's a big political risk because they've been inundating their supporters with "there was no quid pro quo" until now, and those people have been parroting that message. By changing the message, some non zero portion of trump supporters will finally realize that something is not right. A lot won't. But they're not going to acknowledge that there should be any consequences.
They must have gotten word that there’s no way to avoid admitting to quid pro quo, so they’re making what they think is a better reason. If this is the best they have, it’s gonna get ugly for everyone involved.
Koya
Footballguy
Honestly, I think the near entirety of the non zero portion has all but moved on. You have die hards that believe every lie (or are simply ok with lying in general, at least from the POTUS), support every position (including those that he waffles and changes on... they waffle and change in lockstep), and follow him like lemmings off the cliff.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Trump has been pulling the rug out from under his supporters for 4 years now. It has had zero effect on his support.
They support him because of who he represents, not because of what he does.
timschochet
Footballguy
Mulvaney says the media should be ashamed of themselves for even asking these questions.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Among presidential voters? Maybe. But the more relevant population might be voters in close Senate races.
ffldrew
Footballguy
Yesterday the current President of the United States accused his predecessor of being behind the hidden server affair. Without anyone challenging him on evidence on why he believes that and which he certainly doesn't have. Think about that? I'm struggling to recall a President calling a former President a criminal without any evidence.
Can you imagine - Obama could have easily called Bush and Cheney war criminals - and had actual evidence to back up the claim at least for an investigation. How the country would have exploded if Obama had done such a thing.
Yesterday? Crickets.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that they have to be worried about primaries before they worry about their general elections. Public sentiment would have to move a lot before any Republican Senator risks being primaried for being too supportive of Trump.
For Trump to be removed, I almost think we have to count on Republican Senators to sacrifice their political capital in order to do the right thing.
Some will. (Some have.) But how many?
apalmer
Footballguy
"You think we're going to give you an honest answer and admit that the President is a criminal? You should be ashamed of yourselves."*
*Disclaimer: Not an actual quote (at least not out loud).
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
mulvaney says get over it......lmfao....fool just admitted it
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is arguably sociopathic. These guys have no idea what crime is.Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 · 27m
Mick Mulvaney acknowledges that Trump held up Ukraine aid partly over a conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election. "We do that all the time," he said. "Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy."
Skoo
Footballguy
That's usually what I tell the judge when I'm in court.
"Yeah, I did it. Get over it."
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Can anyone explain why the $250 million that was approved by congress swelled to $450 million in aid to Ukraine? I mean, we held up $250 million because we were worried about corruption, then release almost double that amount. Where/why did the $200 million extra get added?
bostonfred
Footballguy
In my opinion, that's exactly why McConnell just said he wants to get this done by the end of the year. And that's the calculus Pelosi has to weigh against the possible backlash of this going into the Democrats races. The longer the house waits to bring this to the Senate, the less sway McConnell and trump have from the threat of primaries, and the more those senators have to worry about the general elections. Everything Pelosi and the Democrats are doing right now is to change public sentiment and put pressure on those senators to break from trump and McConnell. It's the only way this happens in the Senate.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'll propose something and I don't think it's been discussed much in the media or here but I'll give it a shot. If you look at the news from the Ukraine angle a big deal that happened almost immediately after Zelensky left the White House on his personal visit was Ukraine accepted a long rejected Kremlin crafted armistice/peace deal. It's possible the extra money was a sweetener to make that happen. The Javelins and such are almost window dressing considering what just happened there. And Trump flatly and blankly said 'I had to say that' when he awkwardly interjected that Zelensky would (!) have to deal with Putin. - The peace deal has been extremely controversial, and hated by many, and it's not really clear why else that extra 250 mill would be needed or come in. No idea past this.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Actually not so new: Nixon, in his interview with David Frost after he resigned, made the exact same argument
Shtick aside - Trump/Mulvaney just gave his loyal senator's cover with their base, when they vote to acquit despite obvious impeachable offenses.
Trump's base will take this to mean - this is normal behavior, and not impeachable.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Mr. Mulvaney can you please tell us more about these other times you’ve done this. How many other crimes would you like to confess?Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 · 27m
Mick Mulvaney acknowledges that Trump held up Ukraine aid partly over a conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election. "We do that all the time," he said. "Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy."
cosjobs
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Trump's criminal attorney says that Trump's chief of staff's public confession about acts by Trump's other criminal attorney was not coordinated in advance.
apalmer
Footballguy
Well, not with the criminal attorney, anyhow. It may well have been coordinated with Trump's criminal attorney's client.
ffldrew
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
So this is the new argument I’ve been reading and hearing:
The President can conduct foreign policy in any way he chooses. He can start deals, hold up deals, do whatever he wants. He can use whomever he wants; it doesn’t need to be the State Department. He can pursue whatever interests he thinks are important, including political interests. None of this is illegal; the Constitution grants him these powers. If we are unhappy with how the President handles foreign policy, the correct remedy is to elect someone else. But since no crime was involved, there is no impeachable offense.
What’s the best way to refute this argument?
The President can conduct foreign policy in any way he chooses. He can start deals, hold up deals, do whatever he wants. He can use whomever he wants; it doesn’t need to be the State Department. He can pursue whatever interests he thinks are important, including political interests. None of this is illegal; the Constitution grants him these powers. If we are unhappy with how the President handles foreign policy, the correct remedy is to elect someone else. But since no crime was involved, there is no impeachable offense.
What’s the best way to refute this argument?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Probably ignoring the person who said it? Because they aren’t likely to agree with what you say to refute it.
Re-writing history:
Zoe Tillman@ZoeTillman
Mick Mulvaney said today that the White House contacted DOJ "almost immediately" after Trump's July 25 call with the Ukrainian president to have them look at the transcript. DOJ spox says they were first "made aware of the transcript in mid-August."
Following up on this, DOJ spox made clear DOJ was first made aware of Trump's call with Zelensky, not just about the existence of a written record (the transcript, which isn't a verbatim transcript but is often referred to as a "transcript"), in mid-August
Zoe Tillman@ZoeTillman
Mick Mulvaney said today that the White House contacted DOJ "almost immediately" after Trump's July 25 call with the Ukrainian president to have them look at the transcript. DOJ spox says they were first "made aware of the transcript in mid-August."
Following up on this, DOJ spox made clear DOJ was first made aware of Trump's call with Zelensky, not just about the existence of a written record (the transcript, which isn't a verbatim transcript but is often referred to as a "transcript"), in mid-August
Similar threads
