Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • timschochet

    2277

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1831

  • Henry Ford

    1367

  • Sinn Fein

    1171

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The quid pro quo discussion is a red herring. Sondland’s statement and testimony is proof that the President was running a shadow diplomacy operation using his private attorney outside of normal execu

This is no longer something worth arguing about for the time being.  Until the administration puts forth some compelling evidence or allows some witness to testify as to its side of the story, there i

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. 

At least the Dems under Clinton said:  "yeah, he lied under oath, but I understand why he lied, and didn't endanger the country, and it's not an offense that should be impeachable or removable."

They didn't say "I'm not talking about it because the Republicans are so mean!" 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

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. 

Hey sounds good, I’ll leave it to you all to complain about another conspiracy that got away from you and didn’t pan out. Let me know when you notice the trend. :popcorn:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

So upholding the US Constitution is now "some moral high ground".  Got it.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

you know, not everyone is a partisan hack.  There are people amongst us who feel Clinton should have been removed from office. 

That being said, there clearly are partisan hacks amongst us who will refuse to consider evidence and defend, defend, defend at all costs when republicans are in the spotlight but attack, attack, attack any and all democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

That's too bad. I really did want to know what the general pro-Trump thought is on why the impeachment is a sham.

I forget exactly who it was but there was a pro-Trump person a couple of weeks ago who helped me understand the reason for disclosing the whistleblower's name. I still totally disagreed with it, but at least I understood - for the first time - what the theory was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

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? 

Protected from retaliation, not from having their name uttered.

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JuniorNB said:

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

The people were allowed to hear 17 out of 18 “prosecution” witnesses and 0 defense witnesses and the Ds fought tooth and nail to prevent any defense witness from being heard and Even limited cross examination.  

Edited by Sam Quentin
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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:

I don't think anybody could have seen this coming.

President Trump reportedly dismissed Republican Sen. Susan Collins's (Maine) suggestion that he had learned a lesson from impeachment just a day before his expected acquittal. 

Asked about Collins's comment during a private lunch with news anchors ahead of the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump said that he'd done nothing wrong, The Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the meeting. 

“It was a perfect call," Trump added, an apparent reference to his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he pushed the leader to announce investigations into his political opponents. Trump and his allies have repeatedly argued that his conversations with Zelensky were "perfect."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Protected from retaliation, not from having their name uttered.

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.

It would be a lot easier to protect the person from retaliation if their name isn't out there.  Also, the person doesn't always have to testify.  Often times they can gather enough evidence without eye witness testimony.  Plus, most lawyers prefer to NOT have eye witness testimony.

MT also posted in the Schiff thread that Trump is compiling an enemies list which is scary as hell.

Edited by Sheriff Bart
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whoknew said:

I don't think anybody could have seen this coming.

President Trump reportedly dismissed Republican Sen. Susan Collins's (Maine) suggestion that he had learned a lesson from impeachment just a day before his expected acquittal. 

Asked about Collins's comment during a private lunch with news anchors ahead of the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump said that he'd done nothing wrong, The Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the meeting. 

“It was a perfect call," Trump added, an apparent reference to his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he pushed the leader to announce investigations into his political opponents. Trump and his allies have repeatedly argued that his conversations with Zelensky were "perfect."

 

Yeah, wow. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Protected from retaliation, not from having their name uttered.

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.

For about the millionth time...the whistleblower is not the accuser.  The accusers testified under oath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whoknew said:

I don't think anybody could have seen this coming.

President Trump reportedly dismissed Republican Sen. Susan Collins's (Maine) suggestion that he had learned a lesson from impeachment just a day before his expected acquittal. 

Asked about Collins's comment during a private lunch with news anchors ahead of the State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump said that he'd done nothing wrong, The Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the meeting. 

“It was a perfect call," Trump added, an apparent reference to his July 25 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he pushed the leader to announce investigations into his political opponents. Trump and his allies have repeatedly argued that his conversations with Zelensky were "perfect."

 

The word announcement never even came up in the call....another media lie

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

The word announcement never even came up in the call....another media lie

It's not a lie, it's just incomplete reporting. We know from multiple sources that Trump was pushing for an announcement (Sondland, Zelensky's staff, Fareed Zakaria). The Hill's article skipped all that background stuff as an easy way to save time & words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney -

“An appalling abuse of public trust”

“A flagrant assault” on our elections

“Perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of ones oath of office that I can imagine."

--

Just a matter of time now before Trump and his fans conduct an all out assault on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Phil Elliott said:

It was bipartisan by the House not to impeach.

This whole debate is silly, but as long as we're picking nits, it was also bipartisan to impeach. The fact that Justin Amash was forced out of the party because he supported impeachment does not change that fact.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Calling Romney a Republican is a stretch.

Rooooooooooooooooooooooomneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

  • Laughing 3
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zftcg said:

This whole debate is silly, but as long as we're picking nits, it was also bipartisan to impeach. The fact that Justin Amash was forced out of the party because he supported impeachment does not change that fact.

I've thought I was taking actual crazy pills that this argument flew so easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

lol. He was the Republican candidate for President in 2012. And I voted for him. Pretty proud of that now.

No true Republican has ever criticized Trump.

Edited by zftcg
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zftcg said:

This whole debate is silly, but as long as we're picking nits, it was also bipartisan to impeach. The fact that Justin Amash was forced out of the party because he supported impeachment does not change that fact.

Point taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After an embarrassing Iowa Caucus that called into question the integrity of their party, and also revealed Biden to not be an actual contender for president (which negates the entire premise of the impeachment hoax), and after a SOTU in which the Democrats showed their ### booing American prosperity and American heroes (many of them women and minorities), and going into the final vote to acquit Trump from their latest deranged attempt to overthrow the president.....

Mitt ####### Romney is their hero.

🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sam Quentin said:

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.

Would you like to hear from Micheal Atkinson, Trump's ICIG who pushed it up the ladder after he investigated the claims and found them to be "credible and urgent"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

Hey sounds good, I’ll leave it to you all to complain about another conspiracy that got away from you and didn’t pan out. Let me know when you notice the trend. :popcorn:

Says the guys afraid to give an opinion on what Trump did with Ukraine/Biden. 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

After an embarrassing Iowa Caucus that called into question the integrity of their party, and also revealed Biden to not be an actual contender for president (which negates the entire premise of the impeachment hoax), and after a SOTU in which the Democrats showed their ### booing American prosperity and American heroes (many of them women and minorities), and going into the final vote to acquit Trump from their latest deranged attempt to overthrow the president.....

Mitt ####### Romney is their hero.

🤣

 

Huh? The timing on that doesn't make sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

After an embarrassing Iowa Caucus that called into question the integrity of their party, and also revealed Biden to not be an actual contender for president (which negates the entire premise of the impeachment hoax), and after a SOTU in which the Democrats showed their ### booing American prosperity and American heroes (many of them women and minorities), and going into the final vote to acquit Trump from their latest deranged attempt to overthrow the president.....

Mitt ####### Romney is their hero.

🤣

You mean the Mitt ###### Romney who was loved so much by what used to be the Republican party that he was the last pre-Trump presidential nominee?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Calling Romney a Republican is a stretch.

If it makes you think this sham is somehow more legit then good for you.

Of course it's not "legit"; they had an ex-cabinet member wanting to testify and refused to hear it.  But at least one Republican wasn't afraid to uphold his Constitutional duty while the rest were engaged in obstruction.   That's good.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sam Quentin said:

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.

nope

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this one of those wild mid-season finales?  Iowa caucus goes full wonky, SOTU and the handshake snub vs ripped up speech copy, Susan Collins announces Trump pulled a Costanza and now knows better, Trump continues to yell “READ THE PERFECT TRANSCRIPT!!”, Romney announces vote to convict and remove the president, and a gay man (most likely) carries the first Democrat primary in Iowa!

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Romney:

Asking foreign government for dirt on political opponent is high crime.

Withholding aid from foreign country is high crime.

Welp, guess its time to lock up Obama, Clinton, and Biden.

🤣

 

Poor Romney thinks that appeasing the Democrats will score him points in the future. They hated him on 2012, they will hate him in 2025. What a cuck.

 

Don't

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Hey sounds good, I’ll leave it to you all to complain about another conspiracy that got away from you and didn’t pan out. Let me know when you notice the trend. :popcorn:

Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were "clearly unproven" suggest that you lackthe objectivity to provide any sort of meaningful input on this issue. I mean, you can't even admit that maybe Trump's actions were at the very least unwise given the potential optics? 

For comparison's sake, I probably hold a minority opinion that the jury in the OJ trial issued the correct verdict. In other words, I firmly believe that there was reasonable doubt to his guilt. That said, do I think it was a conspiracy? That the defense clearly disproved the allegations? That the initial charges were baseless/lacked probable cause? That it was somehow an injustice for him to go through the time, energy and expense of defending himself? Absolutely not to all those questions. I'd have to be intentionally obtuse to refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't at least some evidence to suggest he may have committed the murder. 

It's worrisome that you, and others that share your extreme opinion, appear entirely unable to view issues via multiple lenses (and certainly not through an objective lens). By any objective measurement Trump's call wasn't perfect. By an objective measurement this wasn't a damned conspiracy. I think it is debatable from a legal perspective whether this was a high crime and whether it warranted removal. But by taking your extreme stance and using such absolute hyperbole you lose all credibility. 

Edited by Zow
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sam Quentin said:

Protected from retaliation, not from having their name uttered.

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.

The WB didn't accuse anybody of a crime. The house accused Trump of a high crime and misdemeanor. The WB is a witness who made an initial outcry. You're conflating the two. 

And the bold isn't an absolute right. I'd suggest reading Crawford v. Washington

  • Like 1
Link to post
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...