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*** (10 Viewers)

Mulvaney said that the military aid was withheld for three reasons: Trump’s worries about corruption in Ukraine, his feeling that other countries were not contributing enough money to aid Ukraine, and “whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice” into Democrats and the origin of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The obvious follow-up (and I am pretty sure Team Trump has not thought that far ahead):

1.  What evidence does the White House have that Ukraine did any of that (or in the case of additional support from other countries - what did they contribute)?

2.  Why did Trump authorize more aid?

3.  Lets see the paper trail on all of this.

4.  If this is so simple, why has the White House refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight?  This should be pretty easy to clear up.

 
Mulvaney said that the military aid was withheld for three reasons: Trump’s worries about corruption in Ukraine, his feeling that other countries were not contributing enough money to aid Ukraine, and “whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice” into Democrats and the origin of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The obvious follow-up (and I am pretty sure Team Trump has not thought that far ahead):

1.  What evidence does the White House have that Ukraine did any of that (or in the case of additional support from other countries - what did they contribute)?

2.  Why did Trump authorize more aid?

3.  Lets see the paper trail on all of this.

4.  If this is so simple, why has the White House refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight?  This should be pretty easy to clear up.
If I had to guess it’s because they are guilty. 

 
For those of you scoring at home, I think this provides a good summation:

Katy Tur@KatyTurNBC

It’s Day 24 of #theinquiry and on Ukraine Mick Mulvaney basically admitted to everything.

***But still, see the follow-up questions above.  The press may have been a bit stunned at the admission, but there is still work to be done here.

 
Trump did not collude with Russia, read the report.  He did not attempt to collude with Ukraine.  Transcript was clean on call and no quid pro quo.  Looking more and more like another nothing burger.

Serious question, if the FISA report comes back showing Trump's campaign was illegally spied upon under the Obama/Biden Presidency is that an issue to you?
Still think there was no quid pro quo?

The New York Times‏ @nytimes 2h2 hours ago

Breaking News: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said the U.S. froze aid partly to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. He undercut President Trump's denials of a quid pro quo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/us/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-news.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes#link-55fe453b

 
:lmao:

I am laughing just thinking about how the last few weeks must have been for Trump and Mulvaney trying to get a handle on the impeachment inquiry.

[re-enactment, some literary license taken]

Trump:  "Mulvaney, get in here!  What are we going to do about this impeachment inquiry?"

Mulvaney: "Just ignore it.  It will go away on its own."

a few days pass

Trump:  "Mulvaney, get in here!  The impeachment inquiry is not going away!"

Mulvaney: "I think you should release the [air-quotes] Transcript of the call!

Trump:  "Great idea - that was a perfect call."

a few days pass

Trump:  "Mulvaney, get in here.! People are not reading the [air-quotes] transcript properly.  We need a new strategy!"

Mulvaney: "I think what you need is a good distraction from Ukraine.  You know, make people forget all about it.  How about you ask your good buddy Erdogan if he has any ideas!

Trump: "Great idea, get Erdogan on the phone!"

a few days pass

Trump: "Mulvaney, get in here!  This whole deal with Turkey seems to be blowing up - figuratively!"

Mulvaney: "I think you mean literally."

Trump:  "I need something to distract everyone from seeing that we abandoned the Kurds!"

Mulvaney:  "You just need to find someone to scapegoat!"

Trump: "Thats a great idea.  I want you to hold a press conference on the Ukrainain stuff that everyone forgot, and admit to everything!"

Mulvaney: "Brilliant!"

 
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? 
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE

"no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

(From wikipedia) The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has opined that

[t]he language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the "drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability"). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from "any . . . foreign State" unless Congress consents. U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (emphasis added). . . . The decision whether to permit exceptions that qualify the Clause's absolute prohibition or that temper any harshness it may cause is textually committed to Congress, which may give consent to the acceptance of offices or emoluments otherwise barred by the Clause.[20]

And

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—(A)

a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B)

a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C)

an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2)

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

(b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—(1)

a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2)

an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 😎 and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

 
Trump is obsessed with this server because he knows (thinks, it doesn't exist in the Ukraine) there's evidence of Russian hacking at his request, correct? 

 
This guy is past impeachment. If it weren't for the chaos that would be caused by his 30% true believers who blame everything on the media and the deep state, the 25th Amendment should come into play.

 
Osama Bin Laden is more trustworthy then Trump.  Can anyone argue against that?

Not saying i think Bin Laden is a better person.  Just that he is more trustworthy.

I would buy a used car from Bin Laden before Trump.
Well, yeah. OBL said what he meant.

 
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? 
Impeach and remove him.

 
Schiff staffer met with impeachment witness on Ukraine trip

Itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Atlantic Council think tank reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting during the trip with acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, now a key witness for Democrats pursuing impeachment.
Edit to add:

The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schiff pressures witness to lie about Ukraine call

Volker testimony destroys Schiff narrative

Democratic lawmakers leaked portions of his testimony and text messages to paint a misleading narrative that he had confirmed an alleged quid pro quo of military aid for investigation of Ukrainian corruption.

Instead, Volker told lawmakers under oath that he was never asked to do anything wrong by any member of the administration, including President Trump. He further described the relationship with Ukraine as extremely positive and as good as anyone could hope for given the tumult in the region.

 
It's a dang good thing Trump released the transcript of his call as quickly as he did.  With all of this nonsense going on behind closed doors with only Democrats creating the narrative (for an all-too receptive anti-Trump media), that transcript proving Trump's innocence is making this whole thing look like a foolish waste of time.

 
It's a dang good thing Trump released the transcript of his call as quickly as he did.  With all of this nonsense going on behind closed doors with only Democrats creating the narrative (for an all-too receptive anti-Trump media), that transcript proving Trump's innocence is making this whole thing look like a foolish waste of time.
I don't think it was a transcript.

 
Burisma funded the trip.  
You didn't answer my question. Seems disingenuous on your part.

I'll ask again. When the intelligence committee staffer met with a U.S. Ambassador, was it after Trump's phone call?

I'll ask another one while we're here - did that meeting also happen after the whistleblower had provided notification of Trump's possible wrongdoing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a dang good thing Trump released the transcript of his call as quickly as he did.  With all of this nonsense going on behind closed doors with only Democrats creating the narrative (for an all-too receptive anti-Trump media), that transcript proving Trump's innocence is making this whole thing look like a foolish waste of time.
:rolleyes:

 
It's a dang good thing Trump released the transcript of his call as quickly as he did.  With all of this nonsense going on behind closed doors with only Democrats creating the narrative (for an all-too receptive anti-Trump media), that transcript proving Trump's innocence is making this whole thing look like a foolish waste of time.
OOOOOPS

 
Peter Alexander‏ @PeterAlexander 16m16 minutes ago

NEW:

Mulvaney walks back today's press briefing:

“There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.”
Why sure there was a jumpy& pro quo but that's perfectly normal. It was about corruption Biden's son election interference in 2016  wait what you're talking about?!! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Retired......not dead
Ah, I see  you're still here, good, maybe you can answer my questions now.

So, when this intelligence committee staffer met with the U.S. Ambassador (August 24 or so), was that after Trump's phone call, and after the Whistleblower filed their complaint?

 
Democrat-Controlled House Passed Bill with ‘Quid Pro Quo’ on Election Interference

the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that imposes restrictions on transactions with Russia until it had been cleared of election interference.

The House bill amended an earlier Senate bill — S. 1790, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020” — that required the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to investigate possible Russian interference in elections.
You guys really need to quit clutching your pearls about this

 
Ah, I see  you're still here, good, maybe you can answer my questions now.

So, when this intelligence committee staffer met with the U.S. Ambassador (August 24 or so), was that after Trump's phone call, and after the Whistleblower filed their complaint?
Why does it matter?  The link was to prove there are ties between Schiff, this witness, and Burisma.  If you don't understand why that connection is disturbing, I can't put any more dots together for you.

If you'd like some history on this whole thing and why Burisma is important to this Schiff-show, I'd be happy to provide it.

 
the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that imposes restrictions on transactions with Russia until it had been cleared of election interference.
If the Director of National Intelligence determines and reports under paragraph (1) that neither the Government of Russia nor any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of that government knowingly engaged in interference in an election for Federal office, and the Director subsequently determines that such government, or such a person, did engage in such interference, the Director shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report on the subsequent determination not later than 30 days after making that determination.
What is the comp here exactly?

- The US government is punishing individuals and the Russian government for active measures and election interference.

 
Why does it matter?  The link was to prove there are ties between Schiff, this witness, and Burisma.  If you don't understand why that connection is disturbing, I can't put any more dots together for you.

If you'd like some history on this whole thing and why Burisma is important to this Schiff-show, I'd be happy to provide it.
Maybe I'm not stating the question well enough, I'll try again.

Did the intelligence committee staffer in question meet with the U.S. Ambassador (August 24 or so) after Trump's phone call, and after the Whistleblower filed their complaint?

I'd find it strange if there wasn't a relationship between an intelligence committee staffer and a congressman who serves on the committee. Maybe you need some new dots? 

 
Mulvaney is a lot of things, but he's not dumb.  He was very careful in what he did and did not admit to, and it seemed to be where the defense will eventually come down to.  Investigating allegations of Ukranian interference in the 2016 election* is a legitimate national security interest.  So I didn't think the admission was a huge deal this afternoon.  I think the walkback is far, far worse.  We know there was a quid pro quo.  We're past that.

* Bat#### crazy allegations, but you work with what you have.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top