Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

NEW: Susan Collins told @NorahODonnell she believes the president has learned a "pretty big lesson" from impeachment and will be "much more cautious" about seeking foreign assistance in the future.
 

:lmao:

Read it like this for maximum insanity and confirmation that the law doesn't matter any longer.

Quote

NEW: Susan Collins told @NorahODonnell she believes the president has learned a "pretty big lesson" from robbing banks and will be "much more cautious" about robbing banks in the future.

 

Edited by Sheriff Bart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Yes, this is why people don't take the impeachment whistleblower handwringing seriously.  The contempt people like you and Schiff have for a real one like Manning as she rots in prison.  They deserve this L.  

She’s not currently in prison for being a whistleblower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

I don't have contempt for Chelsea Manning.  She did what she felt was right, and spoke truth to power.  There are consequences for breaking the law in doing so, however.  It's a sad tale.

Do you think that if the laws provided real protections for someone like her, she wouldn't have done that?  If she'd 'followed the law' probably none of it would have seen the light of day.  When you pose it as if she should have subjected herself to the whistleblowing meatgrinder to tell us the truth, that's not being an ally to whistleblowers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Might as well be.  They didn't convene a grand jury on her because she jaywalked.  And there's hardly a peep about it from the "whistleblower" crew.  

 

25 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Do you think that if the laws provided real protections for someone like her, she wouldn't have done that?  If she'd 'followed the law' probably none of it would have seen the light of day.  When you pose it as if she should have subjected herself to the whistleblowing meatgrinder to tell us the truth, that's not being an ally to whistleblowers.  

So we should ignore what Rand Paul did because of Chelsea Manning?  He's the real jerkface here; let's not forget about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Might as well be.  They didn't convene a grand jury on her because she jaywalked.  And there's hardly a peep about it from the "whistleblower" crew.  

Eh this is about Schulte. I think I've posted about it in the WL thread. Do you care to talk about Schulte? Maybe an issue for a different thread, but Manning is waaayyyy past her WBer days now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Eh this is about Schulte. I think I've posted about it in the WL thread. Do you care to talk about Schulte? Maybe an issue for a different thread, but Manning is waaayyyy past her WBer days now.

It is, but I can't imagine what they think Manning has to do with the Vault7 leaks.  It's about crucifying Assange.  Didn't know there was a moratorium on how long a whistleblower could be considered a whistleblower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why people think it’s OK to name the alleged whistleblower.  If find this incredibly scary. 

What will it take for people to understand that crazy people will do crazy things?  Does this kid need to die for people to take things like this seriously?  This isn’t a game. 

I’m just so ashamed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JAA said:

I don’t understand why people think it’s OK to name the alleged whistleblower.  If find this incredibly scary. 

What will it take for people to understand that crazy people will do crazy things?  Does this kid need to die for people to take things like this seriously?  This isn’t a game

I’m just so ashamed.

I believe a lot of people think it is. Including Trump. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Might as well be.  They didn't convene a grand jury on her because she jaywalked.  And there's hardly a peep about it from the "whistleblower" crew.  

You mean the crew who thinks even the President should have to respond to a subpoena and testify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Where did I say that?  

You didn't, but then again I didn't see any comments from you commenting on Paul's actions, which are much more current and on topic than Manning's actions. Instead, you engaged in some whataboutism.

I take your silence and misdirection as cover for Paul's actions. 

Be like Chelsea Manning, and speak truth to power. Rand Paul's actions are deplorable. We should all codemn such acts and work towards getting a person like that out of the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ren hoek said:

It is, but I can't imagine what they think Manning has to do with the Vault7 leaks.  It's about crucifying Assange.  Didn't know there was a moratorium on how long a whistleblower could be considered a whistleblower. 

I take it DOJ has asked him about methods of transfer and how WL did things as a practical matter.

Maybe it’s about the whistle at issue. Manning outing Iraq war misdeeds was arguably whistleblowing, but Manning running interference for Schulte is not. Having said that it’s not clear to me why a person shouldn’t just be able to refuse to help an investigation if technically they didn’t have anything to do with the crime at hand. I’ll think on it.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

You didn't, but then again I didn't see any comments from you commenting on Paul's actions, which are much more current and on topic than Manning's actions. Instead, you engaged in some whataboutism.

I take your silence and misdirection as cover for Paul's actions. 

Be like Chelsea Manning, and speak truth to power. Rand Paul's actions are deplorable. We should all codemn such acts and work towards getting a person like that out of the Senate.

Hold the phone.  Bradley Manning was outed.  He was ripped apart in mainstream media as a traitor to his country.  I remember.  What makes it permissible for the govt to out one but not the other?  Because they followed the official guidelines?  She's in prison today!  

I haven't seen any of Paul's conference on this, just read a blurb online.  Although if there was a plot to get the president impeached I think that is relevant information the public should know about.  I don't think the "abuse of power" the Trump whistleblower revealed was all that consequential really.  In fact I think this sort of power dynamic happens all the time in DC.  Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it the impeachment crusade people tried to pretend it was either.  I know that's a controversial opinion around here. 

It's because I know people like Pelosi and Schiff will never in a million years have the moral courage to punish him for his serious crimes against humanity, rather than an inconsequential phone call, that they can not and will not present a serious opposition to what Trump represents.  When push comes to shove, they're on the take too.  

On a side, it's not really a whataboutism if Henry tags me in a conversation about whistleblowers.  We've talked about Manning & Ciaramella before.  Sometimes, "whataboutisms" are hypocritical deflections.  But other times they refer to important historical context.  Not a fan of dumbing down conversations this way.  

Edited by ren hoek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Hold the phone.  Bradley Manning was outed.  He was ripped apart in mainstream media as a traitor to his country.  I remember.  What makes it permissible for the govt to out one but not the other?  Because they followed the official guidelines?  He's in prison today!  

I haven't seen any of Paul's conference on this, just read a blurb online.  Although if there was a plot to get the president impeached I think that is relevant information the public should know about.  I don't think the "abuse of power" the Trump whistleblower revealed was all that consequential really.  In fact I think this sort of power dynamic happens all the time in DC.  Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it the impeachment crusade people tried to pretend it was either.  I know that's a controversial opinion around here. 

It's because I know people like Pelosi and Schiff will never in a million years have the moral courage to punish him for his serious crimes against humanity, rather than an inconsequential phone call, that they can not and will not present a serious opposition to what Trump represents.  When push comes to shove, they're on the take too.  

On a side, it's not really a whataboutism if Henry tags me in a conversation about whistleblowers.  We've talked about Manning & Ciaramella before.  Sometimes, "whataboutisms" are hypocritical deflections.  But other times they refer to important historical context.  Not a fan of dumbing down conversations this way.  

Because the law is only supposed to protect you if you follow the law. That’s what the law is. “If they do this, you can’t take any action against them.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Can he be prosecuted for that? 

ETA

You know, before Trump, when laws mattered. 

No

because no matter what your TV tells you, there is no law that says you can’t utter the name of an alleged whistleblower or confirmed whistleblower or any such thing and even the notion is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Because the law is only supposed to protect you if you follow the law. That’s what the law is. “If they do this, you can’t take any action against them.”

The law should protect you when you do the right thing.  Not just when you follow the rules entrenched power has set to protect itself.  Overclassification, torture, war crimes etc.  Manning did the right thing and it ruined her life.  But she was a whistleblower through and through.  

Anyway.  It was a long time ago, but I don't remember anyone having a problem with her anonymity being discarded.  In fact you derided Assange as a liar for trying to protect his source during a CBS interview.  

I draw a line between Manning, who revealed information that was crucial to Americans understanding the true nature of the Iraq War, and Ciaramella, a CIA spook who hated Trump and possibly plotted to get him impeached.  The guy went back to work like he wasn't worried about nothing.  The phone call was pretty inconsequential stuff.  The whole thing has just felt like hyper partisanship and heavy breathing from the very beginning.  Democrats will probably regret assigning so much power and influence to Schiff and his cold war-addled nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

The law should protect you when you do the right thing.  Not just when you follow the rules entrenched power has set to protect itself.  Overclassification, torture, war crimes etc.  Manning did the right thing and it ruined her life.  But she was a whistleblower through and through.  

Anyway.  It was a long time ago, but I don't remember anyone having a problem with her anonymity being discarded.  In fact you derided Assange as a liar for trying to protect his source during a CBS interview.  

I draw a line between Manning, who revealed information that was crucial to Americans understanding the true nature of the Iraq War, and Ciaramella, a CIA spook who hated Trump and possibly plotted to get him impeached.  The guy went back to work like he wasn't worried about nothing.  The phone call was pretty inconsequential stuff.  The whole thing has just felt like hyper partisanship and heavy breathing from the very beginning.  Democrats will probably regret assigning so much power and influence to Schiff and his cold war-addled nonsense.  

Did I?

Regardless, if you don’t follow the laws put in place for this, it isn’t whistleblowing under the law. That’s how we differentiate it from espionage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Did I?

Regardless, if you don’t follow the laws put in place for this, it isn’t whistleblowing under the law. That’s how we differentiate it from espionage.

Yep.  That's ok though.  

I think the law's kind of a joke on this one if it can't differentiate information in public interest from 'espionage.'  But I'll stop derailing here.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sam Quentin said:

No

because no matter what your TV tells you, there is no law that says you can’t utter the name of an alleged whistleblower or confirmed whistleblower or any such thing and even the notion is absurd.

The WB is supposed to be protected by law which is why I asked. You're correct though after doing some reading it isn't prosecutable.  I wouldn't say it's "absurd" though.  Do you it would be "absurd" if saw a drug kingpin murder people and you called the police to report it, it would be "absurd" to protect your identity from the murderer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Since October Trump has gone from 39% to 49% in the Gallup poll? That speaks volumes on how this charade went. 

It speaks volumes as to why the GOP fought tooth and nail to not allow the American people to hear witnesses.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

It speaks volumes as to why the GOP fought tooth and nail to not allow the American people to hear witnesses.

It was partisan theater from day 1 and only made it that far because of that, you aren’t fooling anyone with that mess. 

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

7 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It was partisan theater from day 1 and only made it that far because of that, you aren’t fooling anyone with that mess. 

Every single thing done in politics is partisan. Still doesn't excuse the cover-up and not allowing first-hand witnesses to speak. Trump got away with corruption. And the GOP got away with a cover-up. 

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

2 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Every single thing done in politics is partisan. Still doesn't excuse the cover-up and not allowing first-hand witnesses to speak. Trump got away with corruption. And the GOP got away with a cover-up. 

Everyone knew you would complain about something, no one is surprised by that or the result of the joke of an impeachment. Everyone knew the outcome day 1 and no one buys attempts like yours to create outrage over it....sorry. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Susan Collins says that Trump has been punished by being impeached and that “he’s learned his lesson”. That’s a direct quote. 

What lesson has he learned? 

That he can do about whatever he wants because the current Senate will cover for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Susan Collins says that Trump has been punished by being impeached and that “he’s learned his lesson”. That’s a direct quote. 

What lesson has he learned? 

wait....Trump did something wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Everyone knew you would complain about something, no one is surprised by that or the result of the joke of an impeachment. Everyone knew the outcome day 1 and no one buys attempts like yours to create outrage over it....sorry. 

I am included in the group that knew the outcome from day one. But I'm not included in the group that thinks it''s best to cover up the facts. Trump will get cleared solely because the Republicans have the majority in the senate. And every one of them is petrified of his base. No one is "outraged" that he's not getting removed from office. Because no one ever thought he would be. Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoBirds said:

It was partisan theater from day 1 and only made it that far because of that, you aren’t fooling anyone with that mess. 

This follow up question is for you or any Trump supporter.

I've seen lots of people describe the impeachment as a partisan sham. You hint at that with your response. 

Does that mean you do not believe that Trump withheld aid to get the Ukranians to help his personal political campaign? You think he did it but its ok for Presidents to do that? Or you think its not ok but just don't care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whoknew said:

This follow up question is for you or any Trump supporter.

I've seen lots of people describe the impeachment as a partisan sham. You hint at that with your response. 

Does that mean you do not believe that Trump withheld aid to get the Ukranians to help his personal political campaign? You think he did it but its ok for Presidents to do that? Or you think its not ok but just don't care?

It means I think posters like you jump on any conspiracy you didn’t care about a week before and run with it endlessly if it’s anti Trump even when it’s clearly unproven then act completely outraged when your unproven conspiracy falls flat as expected. It’s tired and I don’t think anyone in the real world buys this behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It means I think posters like you jump on any conspiracy you didn’t care about a week before and run with it endlessly if it’s anti Trump even when it’s clearly unproven then act completely outraged when your unproven conspiracy falls flat as expected. It’s tired and I don’t think anyone in the real world buys this behavior. 

I couldn’t help notice you didn’t answer his question.  could you?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

It means I think posters like you jump on any conspiracy you didn’t care about a week before and run with it endlessly if it’s anti Trump even when it’s clearly unproven then act completely outraged when your unproven conspiracy falls flat as expected. It’s tired and I don’t think anyone in the real world buys this behavior. 

You could have just said 'I do not think he did it.' All evidence says you're wrong, but the only facts that matter in 2020 are the ones that are convenient for my preconceived bias. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, joffer said:

I couldn’t help notice you didn’t answer his question.  could you?

Honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time when it seems those arguing their theory attempting to claim some moral high ground have a track record of always taking one side and if the tables were turned wouldn’t take the same position. It’s the same characters, same type of conspiracy, same lame insults if you don’t buy in, and same lack of results because it isn’t proven. Hard pass, but enjoy. 

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoBirds said:

Honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time when it seems those arguing their theory attempting to claim some moral high ground have a track record of always taking one side and if the tables were turned wouldn’t take the same position. It’s the same characters, same type of conspiracy, same lame insults if you don’t buy in, and same lack of results because it isn’t proven. Hard pass, but enjoy. 

answering the question isn't worth the time but your incoherent rant is?  interesting

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972, despite the Watergate break-in having hit the Washington Post pages. But then, things kept coming out.

It's hard to play the "Democrats are just out to get us" card when you keep doing partisan and illegal things, Mr. President. Clean up your act a little bit. Even your supporters don't believe you're clean; they're just ok with you being dirty because being dirty is better than being under Democratic rule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

It means I think posters like you jump on any conspiracy you didn’t care about a week before and run with it endlessly if it’s anti Trump even when it’s clearly unproven then act completely outraged when your unproven conspiracy falls flat as expected. It’s tired and I don’t think anyone in the real world buys this behavior. 

Even Senate Republicans now admit he did it, they just claim they don't think it's a good enough reason to remove him from office.

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

47 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time when it seems those arguing their theory attempting to claim some moral high ground have a track record of always taking one side and if the tables were turned wouldn’t take the same position. It’s the same characters, same type of conspiracy, same lame insults if you don’t buy in, and same lack of results because it isn’t proven. Hard pass, but enjoy. 

Wow. For someone with so much to say when criticizing others, you sure did pull up weak when asked to actually give your views on the subject.  Maybe you shouldn't be in the impeachment thread if you don't have an opinion on the matter but want to criticize those who do. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
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...