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)

Speaking of Schiff, remember when he was colluding with what he thought was a Ukrainian official to get **** pics of Trump? Sounds like interference in an election.

Schiff on tape asking for **** pics of Trump
Comedians prank called him and Schmidt continually referred them to the FBI, who they notified of the call before taking it and updated them after taking the call.

An unsolicited phone call that he referred to law enforcement is an example of collusion?

you guys have lost your way.

 
Dems need to get a lot tougher” and use tools such as fines, contempt charges, ultimately arrests if necessary.
I really think Nadler's weakness with Lewandowski last week played some part in Impeachment being given to Intelligence.  And I'd expect Schiff to use all the tools going forward.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By “public will not back”, are you suggesting poll will be < 50%?
Predict we see a poll by the end of next week that's over 50%.  But his disapproval/approval is at something like 53/43 (+/- 2).  So until polls show 60%+ they're really just reflecting people's opinions about Trump IMO.

 
Otis said:
Love seeing the GOP on the run and collectively going bananas.  I’m expecting some caution in the coming days followed by the dominos falling. 
I'm expecting exactly zero things to change.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
toshiba said:
We should probably impeach Bill Clinton after we get done with Trump then.
If Clinton were documented to have auctioned anything of value for personal gain, I’d be all for investigation and possible impeachment. If the thing he were negotiating for himself were votes, with a foreign government, it would be exponentially so. This should not be about party. It’s about country. 
you failed to see my point, who care about Bill Clinton? (oh and he was impeached 😉 )

 
Being the political strategy that it is,  I opine the left to be making a mistake (again).

You can beat him on his record of simply not achieving his stated goals and commitments.  You can beat him on a simple appeal to common sense and common decency.

Another sloppily articulated circus that doesn't effectively remove Trump from office only further motivates and weaponizes his base.
Then I opine its not the left that is the problem...but a base of people who ignore fact and corruption beyond what we have seen before and not only support the man, but increase support of the man the more that gets exposed.  That means we have a serious problem in this country with a large percentage of people if this is the case.

Even now, I have a little more faith in the electorate than that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then I opine its not the left that is the problem...but a base of people who ignore fact and corruption beyond what we have seen before and not only support the man, but increase support of the man the more that gets exposed.  That means we have a serious problem in this country with a large percentage of people if this is the case.

Even now, I have a little more faith in the electorate than that.
I used to think the left's base was better than the right's... falling for the same games/traps that previously made the right look foolish has demonstrably proven otherwise.

 
The Democrats believe that the quid pro quo of money is obvious and easily implied in the phone conversation. Trump defenders are forced to make a legalistic argument that it’s not 100% for sure because Trump doesn’t come right out and say it. 

The Democrats believe that Trump acting in his own interest rather than the country is obvious; why else would he bring up Biden? Trump defenders are forced to make the argument that it’s not 100% for sure; it might have been Trump trying to fight corruption. 

Public opinion is going to convict Trump even if the Senate doesn’t. And Republicans risk a huge backlash in the election if they attempt to make these weak arguments. 

 
They need to drop the quid pro quo stuff....it's not necessary and all it does is distract from the abuse of power portion that is important.  Abuse of power should be the central theme of this entire thing and how he continually shows that "rule of law" is the furthest thing from his mind IMO.

 
They need to drop the quid pro quo stuff....it's not necessary and all it does is distract from the abuse of power portion that is important.  Abuse of power should be the central theme of this entire thing and how he continually shows that "rule of law" is the furthest thing from his mind IMO.
I don’t agree. 

When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied. 

 
I don’t agree. 

When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied. 
They are arguing that because that was the talking point out.  We saw the distribution of those points.

The masterful thing Trump has done (as bad as he is) has always been marketing. Push the buzz words to the point they sink in...no matter how false and BS and meaningless it really is.

 
Well, I’m pretty unsurprised by systemic rot in our govt anymore. But I’m ok with an investigation into the Bidens/Ukraine because it looks like there really is some corruption there.  This is evidenced by Nuland and all the other Hillary neocons’ work overthrowing the Ukrainian govt in her infamous “#### the EU” phone call.  Biden was a pointman for their work in Ukraine, installing a far-right regime to badger/provoke further hostilities with Russia.  

Just seeing people do this ‘Trump is done’ thing for the 50,000th time is beyond parody at this point.  I’m trying to imagine a version of the past 3 years where we didn’t waste an honest, sober perception of Trump on a garbage conspiracy theory.  It would look so much more credible.  

Waiting until now to move on impeachment just looks like a political calculation.  I think this will drag the country into a hyperpartisan slugfest, and it’s not even his most impeachable conduct.  War crimes in Yemen?  His child prison camp system?  Of all things, THIS is what they choose to go with?  Why don’t they try him for war crimes?  Why don’t they do anything to meaningfully change any of his policies that are actively ruining millions of people’s lives, while they rake in cash from the same corrupt system? 

It’s another example of Democrats doubling down on oblique wrongdoings of the Trump administration, because to confront him on the substantive policy that actually matters would be to confront the same power structures that own them.  The reason they wasted years on TrumpRussia and now an impeachment inquiry is because they have nothing left to offer voters. 

I’m not with them on impeachment for this Ukraine thing- I would rather they lose to Trump again, accept accountability for their failures which led to Trump, and be destroyed as a party and replaced with a real one than go along with their continued use of Trump as a distraction for their failures.  It should hopefully go without saying that I think Trump is awful, but he’s not as dangerous as this pretend opposition.  
Has a post ever aged so poorly, so fast?

 
I don’t agree. 

When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied. 
Unlike the whole Russian thing, there is a “transcript” here, a “transcript” that reads like Tony Soprano shaking down the local pizza joint.  That’s at the central core of the matter.  Trump sycophants can try to muddy the water with strawmen like “proving quid pro quo”, but Americans know what mobsters do and say when they extort people (this is one of the big reasons this has resonance).  This isn’t complicated.  

 
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/757344-official-psf-moderation-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22186652

@jon_mx

To not further muck up the Moderation thread.

No...it does not even have to be tied to aid either.  He is asking a foreign leader to investigate his politcal rival for personal gain.  That is impeachable.

The fact that he also infers favors and not being reciprocated and that aid has been tied up during this is fuel to that.  Its obvious and clear.  

Add in too the alleged attempts to cover this up and hide phone call records and its even more clear.

This is exactly the type of stuff impeachment was created for.

 
Unlike the whole Russian thing, there is a “transcript” here, a “transcript” that reads like Tony Soprano shaking down the local pizza joint.  That’s at the central core of the matter.  Trump sycophants can try to muddy the water with strawmen like “proving quid pro quo”, but Americans know what mobsters do and say when they extort people (this is one of the big reasons this has resonance).  This isn’t complicated.  
Agreed. 

And once again I have to wonder: who told Trump that releasing that transcript would be a good thing??

 
I wonder if Pelosi will, at some nearby point in time, reach out to Rep. Richard Neal, who is quietly nursing along a second whistleblower charge through the courts. This one alleges that the White House improperly tried to influence the direction of the IRS audit into Trump's taxes, an audit performed on all sitting presidents and vice-presidents.

Yes, my Republican friends, the American voter understands simple things like taking advantage of power for personal financial gains, too.

Talk show hosts on Baltimore's leading news radio show are downplaying Trump's malfeasance and instead avidly warning that Democrats are overplaying their hand. Sounds familiar. I guess Trump supporters just want what's best for us and are advising us not to prosecute his crimes for our own good.

 
I don’t agree. 

When a Trump defender argues that there is no quid pro quo, the argument that you don’t need one is not going to help win over public opinion. The correct rebuttal is that of course there is a quid pro quo, even if he doesn’t come out and say it; it’s easily implied. 
All the time you spend arguing this point you aren't arguing his complete disregard for the rule of law and his willingness to abuse his power as President :shrug:   

 
The emperor has also condemned Peter Baker, a New York Times journalist, this morning: “he shouldn’t be allowed to write about me!” 

 
No...it does not even have to be tied to aid either.  He is asking a foreign leader to investigate his politcal rival for personal gain.  That is impeachable.
That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment  What makes a foreign leader so special?  What about a corporate CEO?  Or a foreign spy?   If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment. 

 
That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment  What makes a foreign leader so special?  What about a corporate CEO?  Or a foreign spy?   If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment. 
Perhaps the POTUS shouldn't be talking to foreign spies.

 
All the time you spend arguing this point you aren't arguing his complete disregard for the rule of law and his willingness to abuse his power as President :shrug:   
Plenty of room for those arguments as well. 
If we  take jon at his word and he's anti-Trump, you guys are arguing with him over this stupid footnote when that time could be spent discussing the portions you agree on.  And for what?

 
That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment  What makes a foreign leader so special?  What about a corporate CEO?  Or a foreign spy?   If you are only asking about finding out if something was true, I don't see the issue, let alone raising up absurdly to impeachment. 
If you don’t see the issue here then I’m afraid you never will. Thankfully it’s an easy one for the public to understand. 

 
That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set for impeachment  What makes a foreign leader so special? 
Well, people who lead countries tend to be pretty powerful, and asking someone to abuse their power for your personal benefit is pretty bad.  That said, you're right that foreign leaders aren't unique.

What about a corporate CEO? 
Impeachable.  If Trump asked Zuckerberg to manipulate Facebook to improve his reelection chances, that would be a clear abuse of office.

Or a foreign spy?   
Impeachable.  The president should not be working with foreign intelligence agencies to undermine our electoral process.  How can you not understand that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top