Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Senator Sasse (R-NE) after reading the whistleblower complaint: "...Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there’s no there there when there’s obviously lots that’s very troubling there..."

Just came to post this. More of the statement:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Wednesday that a whistleblower complaint concerning a call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky contained "lots that's very troubling," warning his GOP colleagues not to dismiss it.

"Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there's no there there when there's obviously lots that's very troubling here," Sasse said after reviewing the complaint, according to an NBC News reporter. "The administration ought not be attacking the whistleblower as some talking points suggest they plan to do."

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

48 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Any Republican who attacks Trump is a deep state globalist (like Romney.) The resentment of the base against these people is arguably stronger than their dislike of Democrats. 

On a previous Romney occassion when he sharply criticized Trump, a Trumper friend said how disgusting Romney is. So I said I didn't know you voted for Obama in 2012. She said don't be ridiculous. 

Edited by lazyike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, pecorino said:

I don’t get the “love” aspect of this. I’ve read that sentiment on both sides (Trump supporters “loving” that the Dems are hanging themselves) or the rolling laughter emoticons throughout these threads. What is to love or laugh about? We are talking about national security and the competency of our President. I don’t find it funny or heartwarming to see the mess this country is in. 

Oh I love the idea of a new president. Anyone. Anyone at all. And I love a good reckoning.  This man deserves and has heartily earned every bad thing coming to him. 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Just came to post this. More of the statement:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Wednesday that a whistleblower complaint concerning a call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky contained "lots that's very troubling," warning his GOP colleagues not to dismiss it.

"Republicans ought not to be rushing to circle the wagons to say there's no there there when there's obviously lots that's very troubling here," Sasse said after reviewing the complaint, according to an NBC News reporter. "The administration ought not be attacking the whistleblower as some talking points suggest they plan to do."

Boom. There it is. Beginning of the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, KCitons said:

What about the non hypothetical where Trump asks someone to remove a Special Counsel?

 

I have addressed this in the past McGahn has given like three different versions of his story.  Nevertheless, Trump asking due to conflict of interest is not obstruction.  Trump could have fired him himself but he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

We should get some leaks on this tonight - given that the House Intel committee is reviewing it now.

 

My prediction:

GOP - "Nothing there.  This was a waste of time."

DEM - "Very disturbing complaint.  The whistleblower should be commended for bringing this matter to our attention."

:coffee:

 

 

Schiff said: “I just want to say I’ve had the opportunity as have members of the committee to read the whistleblower complaint. I found the allegations deeply disturbing. I also found them deeply credible and I understand why the inspector general found them credible.”

I want a prize, damnit:

 

GOP Rep. Chris Stewart, who sits on House Intel, told me of the complaint: “There’s nothing in there that changes the way I felt this morning.” This morning, he said to me: “I think this is a great example of what the president said is true.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Don't Noonan said:

I have addressed this in the past McGahn has given like three different versions of his story.  Nevertheless, Trump asking due to conflict of interest is not obstruction.  Trump could have fired him himself but he didn't.

Only one of those versions is under oath which carried a penalty of perjury. 

Also, my wife could kill me herself. But, then she would have blood on her hands. (both literally and figuratively). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, badmojo1006 said:

So we are the Titanic and we know the ship is headed for the iceberg. I dont give a damn whether I like the crew or not. I will tell the Captain to do something instead of saying "We support you Captain! You are tge bezt captain aror!"

That's fine, albeit not the point I was trying to make, I would expect any person to try to make a sound decision, but almost all of what I have been seeing when it comes to politics is behavior I wouldn't think was out of place in a middle school. 

 

That said, I'm still a bit fuzzy on what exactly is going to happen, but it'll dominate the news cycle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Just got around to reading the transcript

- Zelensky's effusive praise of Trump was surprising

-Trump throwing serious shade at Merkel

-the grossest thing here is saying Rudy Giuliani is a highly respected man

Trump appeared to be convinced that Ukraine has the DNC/Crowdstrike server.  Wonder why he would ever think that. 

There is no quid pro quo here, at least not on the surface.  Trump couches any notion of it in the 'people are saying' 'some people say' 'very good prosecutor, what a shame' talk.  While it's the sort of lowbrow strong-arming that Trump engages in regularly, I'm having a hard time seeing how pursuing impeachment over it will be anything other than total disaster.  

Quid pro quo is not necessary. However it is there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’ve been thinking about Ukraine all day today. Much of my family comes from there. I can state with some assurance that no country on Earth has had a worse last 100 years than this one has. 

One of many great books on my very long to-do list:  https://www.amazon.com/Red-Famine-Stalins-War-Ukraine/dp/0385538855

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

McGahn has given like three different versions of his story. Nevertheless, Trump asking due to conflict of interest is not obstruction. 

Quote

 

In analyzing the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. As with the President’s firing of Comey, the attempt to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation from continuing under a new appointee, a factfinder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the investigation.

A threshold question is whether the President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts, and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice’s attention. See Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Some of the President’s specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed.

First, McGahn’s clear recollection was that the President directed him to tell Rosenstein not only that conflicts existed but also that “Mueller has to go.” McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.601 McGahn spoke with the President twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or misinterpreted the President’s request. In response to that request, McGahn decided to quit because he did not want to participate in events that he described as akin to the Saturday Night Massacre. He called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to “do crazy ####,” and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice.

Second, in the days before the calls to McGahn, the President, through his counsel, had already brought the asserted conflicts to the attention of the Department of Justice. Accordingly, the President had no reason to have McGahn call Rosenstein that weekend to raise conflicts issues that already had been raised.

Third, the President’s sense of urgency and repeated requests to McGahn to take immediate action on a weekend — “You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod.” — support McGahn’s recollection that the President wanted the Department of Justice to take action to remove the Special Counsel. Had the President instead sought only to have the Department of Justice re-examine asserted conflicts to evaluate whether they posed an ethical bar, it would have been unnecessary to set the process in motion on a Saturday and to make repeated calls to McGahn.

Finally, the President had discussed “knocking out Mueller” and raised conflicts of interest in a May 23, 2017 call with McGahn, reflecting that the President connected the conflicts to a plan to remove the Special Counsel. And in the days leading up to June 17, 2017, the President made clear to Priebus and Bannon, who then told Ruddy, that the President was considering terminating the Special Counsel. Also during this time period, the President reached out to Christie to get his thoughts on firing the Special Counsel. This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, KCitons said:

What about the non hypothetical where Trump asks someone to remove a Special Counsel?

 

That never happened 

McGahn never had any authority to fire a DOJ employee, so it is impossible for Trump to order him to fire a DOJ employee.  Moreover, if you read the Mueller Report, McGahn’s version reads something like tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can’t be Special Counsel.  Which is not an order to fire, but asking McGahn to raise the concern of conflicts of interest.  In the end, Rod, who was a witness and participant that was also in charge of the investigation, decided no conflicts and Trump did not raise the issue again....butyou can see where the corrupt media brainwashed you into typing what you typed as if it was factual and not a complete misreading of the actual events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sasse is a legit conservative, as Senor CIA points out he just shuts up when his convictions seem to be popping out of the crown of his forehead.

My neighbor was childhood best friends with Sasse, and is still very close with him.  Apparently he can't stand Trump and what he's done to the GOP, but tries to be diplomatic about it in public. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Impeached Presidents are 0-4 with them or their parties retaining control of the WH (including Buchanan who just had an inquiry as here).

Yes, I read that the other time you posted it.  Different times, different competition, too far left, great economy, immigration differences of opinion.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Sasse is a legit conservative, as Senor CIA points out he just shuts up when his convictions seem to be popping out of the crown of his forehead.

When Maher used the N-word, Sasse wasn’t even phased, so he is good at just shutting up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickies said:

My neighbor was childhood best friends with Sasse, and is still very close with him.  Apparently he can't stand Trump and what he's done to the GOP, but tries to be diplomatic about it in public. 

He’s one of those “deeply troubled” guys. Every once in a while they tell you how deeply troubled they are by something Trump says or does. But when it’s time to vote they’re pretty much lockstep. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rove! said:

That never happened 

McGahn never had any authority to fire a DOJ employee, so it is impossible for Trump to order him to fire a DOJ employee.  Moreover, if you read the Mueller Report, McGahn’s version reads something like tell rod that mueller has conflicts and can’t be Special Counsel.  Which is not an order to fire, but asking McGahn to raise the concern of conflicts of interest.  In the end, Rod, who was a witness and participant that was also in charge of the investigation, decided no conflicts and Trump did not raise the issue again....butyou can see where the corrupt media brainwashed you into typing what you typed as if it was factual and not a complete misreading of the actual events.

I didn't type it. I copy and pasted from the actual Mueller report. 

Quote

the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction , however, deciding that he would resign rather

Had McGahn done as instructed, Trump could just say that he didn't instruct McGahn to make the call. He said, he said. Plausible deniability. 

Quote

The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed

Why would he have to dispute something that never happened? Or create a record? You create lies. You tell the truth. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d97n8j/acting_director_of_national_intelligence/

Quote- 

Let's remember the timeline here.

July 25 - Ukraine phonecall

July 28 - Dan Coats resigns because he feels his duties are at odds with Trump.

July 28 - Trump announces Ratcliffe as his pick.

Aug. 2 - Ratcliffe denounces his pick less than a week later amidst criticisms of partisan loyalty and resume padding.

Aug. 8 - Trump picks Maguire.

Aug. 8 - Dan Coats interrupts a meeting to urge his deputy, Sue Gordon to resign. She announces her resignation.

Aug. 12 - Whistleblower complaint is filed.

Aug. 15 - Coats and Gordon depart (both are Trump admin nominees).

Aug. 26 - Intelligence IG forwards complaint to the acting DNI.

Aug. 28 - First reporting that Ukraine military aid is being withheld.

Sep. 2 - Deadline passes for complaint submission.

Sep. 9 - Intel IG notifies House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of an "urgent concern" that DNI has overruled.

Sep. 10 - Schiff demands DNI submit complaint.

Sep. 12 - Trump finally releases Ukraine military aid.

Sep. 13 - Schiff subpoenas Maguire.

Sep. 17 - Maguire refuses to testify - suspicions of WH/DOJ stonewalling.

Sep. 18 - Media revelations of the "promise" made to foreign nation.

Sep. 19 - Media revelations that Ukraine is involved.

Sep. 19 - The Intelligence inspector general gives a classified briefing to the House Intelligence Committee.

Sep. 20 - It's reported that Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate Biden's son during a call on July 25.

Sep. 22 - Trump acknowledges that he discussed Joe Biden in a July call with Zelensky.

Sep. 24 - Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry.

Maguire had sent a letter to the whistleblower's legal team noting that the executive is preventing his submission of the complaint, but reassures the whistleblower that they have followed procedure and they will be protected.

Sep. 25 - Officials report that Maguire threatened to resign if pressured to stonewall Congress by the WH.

Sep. 25 - Whistleblower complaint to be sent to Congress at 4 PM E.T.

Sep. 26 (tomorrow) - Maguire scheduled to testify.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intelligence officer who filed the complaint about President Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine raised alarms not only about what the two men said in a phone call, but also about how the White House handled records of the conversation, according to two people briefed on the complaint.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower.html

🤔

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...