Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

He said this is the first impeachment in history not to hear from witnesses. That is not correct. They may not have brought in new witnesses but there were many witnesses that were heard from.

On video tape. Not questioned or cross examined. Not close to the same thing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hagmania said:

I think Trump ought to be convicted, but McConnell's speech here is important in many ways.

I'm not watching, but what is he talking about? This is a post just now from Tom Nichols - who nobody would accuse of being liberal - 

"This speech by McConnell is not only a stream of lies, but he *knows* it they are lies. Nauseating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

On video tape. Not questioned or cross examined. Not close to the same thing at all.

“Didn’t hear from witnesses”. The Senators wanted to make there individual case as this is going into the history books. They are selecting every word they say very deliberately.

Edited by Phil Elliott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zow said:

Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were clearly "unproven" suggest that you like the 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. 

The bolded is so :potkettle: it's amazing, and I don't question that you all truly believe it too. The fact that you all don't realize that is why it's not even worth the time. Not my job to show you your extreme bias, time with family/friends is a much better use. Enjoy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

...or maybe the President can stop meddling in our elections and violating the Constitution.

I'd have been for it, if we knew the GOP was going to play this fairly. Literally everybody ahead of time knew that nobody was going to put this through on the right. It was a massive waste of money, and an interruption to candidates campaigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

I'd have been for it, if we knew the GOP was going to play this fairly. Literally everybody ahead of time knew that nobody was going to put this through on the right. It was a massive waste of money, and an interruption to candidates campaigning.

Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sam Quentin said:

Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election

There was no probable cause though.  The former VP did not brag of any crime.  Do you have anything that supports this assertion?

Abuse of power?  Yeah, you are going to have to back that up with something as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Ham said:

Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.

I agree that it’s silly to expect senators, who are political, to fairly judge a process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

USA, now 0-3 all time for impeachments, maybe time to alter or get rid of this clearly useless measure.

Well months ago almost every pundit on the left and right felt this was not impeachment worthy or lead to Trumps removal from office and they were proved right.  Hell Pelosi was not 100% on board with this and she was right.  A censure was the shark move and move on with country business.   Now again all this wasted time and money for naught.  Have to see how this plays out but I stated months ago the only way the dems lose in November is if they blow it themselves.   I hope not but it might be happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.

Dems lose the election:  Let's Change the electoral college.  

Dems lose Impeachment:  Let's change who presides over Impeachment

You can't change the rules just because you lose.

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

7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

There was no probable cause though.  The former VP did not brag of any crime.  Do you have anything that supports this assertion?

Abuse of power?  Yeah, you are going to have to back that up with something as well.

He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.

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

9 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.

Convicted of what?  He did nothing wrong. He was performing his diplomatic and chief executive duties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sam Quentin said:

He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.

No...he did not say this.  In addition, the investigator wasn't actually investigating.  Which is the reason the US (with bipartisan support of congress and through Biden) took that position along with our European allies.  Again...all this has been explained and shown many times over.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zow said:

Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were clearly "unproven" suggest that you like the 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. 

Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election

 

So your argument is 1) from my earlier list - he did not withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigated (or announced an investigation into) a political rival for his own benefit. 

Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zoonation said:

Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   

The OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:

 

So your argument is 1) from my earlier list - he did not withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigated (or announced an investigation into) a political rival for his own benefit. 

Ok.

He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.

So that isn’t what happened.  At all.  Good lord.  The information is everywhere.  Take a stroll outside of your bubble.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.

 

 

Right. I get that is your view.

Earlier I was ... someone from the Trump side to explain why they thought this was a sham investigation. He or she refused to do so. And I was disappointed with that because I truly want to understand the pro-Trump view.

You seem to be clearly on the "because none of it ever happened" camp. I think that is an ... unreasonable position to take. But I appreciate you explaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

That’s one way of looking at it, if you ignore the evidence that he was soliciting a personal favor related to an American election, which is a high crime.

The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

He delivered aid within the time required by law

The Ukraine did not initiate the investigation

the Ukraine has said they did not feel pressured to do so 

if there is no exchange there is no quid pro quo.  The phone call and the public statements from Ukraine indicate that quid pro quo was not even offered.

 

Even if there was a quid pro quo, it doesn't matter.  It's not a "High Crime".

Just ridiculous.  Dems deserve to lose every congressional seat as far as I'm concerned...and I'm an independent that would have no problem voting for Klobuchar.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 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...