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

11 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don’t get it. History will get it right. We know who Trump is. Just ride this out for the 12 days and he’s gone.

Impeachment is appropriate - as both a symbolic severing of people who would support and instigate an insurrection against the government, and also as a specific means of prohibiting Trump from holding Federal office in the future - i.e. no fundraising for a 2024 run.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Impeachment is appropriate - as both a symbolic severing of people who would support and instigate an insurrection against the government, and also as a specific means of prohibiting Trump from holding Federal office in the future - i.e. no fundraising for a 2024 run.

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the 25th Amendment thread, but applies here as well:

Speaker Pelosi says she spoke to top US general about Trump and nuclear codes

"This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike," Pelosi wrote. "The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy."

And from the same link:

"Nearly fifty years ago, after years of enabling their rogue President, Republicans in Congress finally told President Nixon that it was time to go. Today, following the President’s dangerous and seditious acts, Republicans in Congress need to follow that example and call on Trump to depart his office – immediately. If the President does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action," Pelosi wrote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean - what Trump did specifically on Wednesday - is deserving of impeachment.  He incited a mob to go storm the Capitol while a joint session of Congress was on-going.

That act alone is crossing a bright line that should never be crossed, nor should it ever be shrugged off.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Impeachment is appropriate - as both a symbolic severing of people who would support and instigate an insurrection against the government, and also as a specific means of prohibiting Trump from holding Federal office in the future - i.e. no fundraising for a 2024 run.

Wouldn't the Senate have to hold a trial and convict for that to happen?  No way that happens in the next 12 days.  The house won't even vote to impeach until next week.

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

Wouldn't the Senate have to hold a trial and convict for that to happen?  No way that happens in the next 12 days.  The house won't even vote to impeach until next week.

When does the Senate with the two new GA Senators convene?

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

Wouldn't the Senate have to hold a trial and convict for that to happen?  No way that happens in the next 12 days.  The house won't even vote to impeach until next week.

Both houses make their own rules when it comes to impeachment.

In theory - it could all be done in a day.  No need for a debate.  No need for witnesses.  No need for anything in the Senate other than a yes/no vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

I'd like to see him removed from office, but the shark move for the Dems would be to sit tight.   Trump in 2024 is a huge problem for the GOP; impeaching him removes that problem.

:shrug:

Who is going to vote for a 78 year old guy in 2024

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Impeachment is appropriate - as both a symbolic severing of people who would support and instigate an insurrection against the government, and also as a specific means of prohibiting Trump from holding Federal office in the future - i.e. no fundraising for a 2024 run.

Are you barred from office again legally if you've been removed from office?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don’t get it. History will get it right. We know who Trump is. Just ride this out for the 12 days and he’s gone.

What if something worse happens in the next 12 days?  Would we look back at this moment and say "We should have known better"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Future Champs said:

I'd like to see him removed from office, but the shark move for the Dems would be to sit tight.   Trump in 2024 is a huge problem for the GOP; impeaching him removes that problem.

Im thinking the Shark Move is to see who votes against the articles

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shatner! said:

Are you barred from office again legally if you've been removed from office?

I don't think so automatically  - I think it has to be a specific "punishment" from the Senate as part of the impeachment conviction.

 

But, the broader question - barring future public office is an option for an impeachment conviction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I posted this in the 25th Amendment thread, but applies here as well:

Speaker Pelosi says she spoke to top US general about Trump and nuclear codes

"This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike," Pelosi wrote. "The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy."

And from the same link:

"Nearly fifty years ago, after years of enabling their rogue President, Republicans in Congress finally told President Nixon that it was time to go. Today, following the President’s dangerous and seditious acts, Republicans in Congress need to follow that example and call on Trump to depart his office – immediately. If the President does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action," Pelosi wrote. 

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

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

Four days too late.

Pelosi really irks me some times.

Even if she is negotiating a resignation from Trump = you negotiate from a position of strength.  Act boldly and swiftly, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I maybe missed it with all the excitement, but when is the trial by combat scheduled and who will be squaring off in the octagon against Rudy?

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

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

Can they? It just says that Pelosi spoke to Milley about it. It doesn't really say what what their options are.

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

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

I have no idea, but it shows where they're at with this guy.

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

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

It's a good question and technically I think they aren't supposed to - this is one of those theoretical exercises though so I'll go along with them doing it now that it's a reality.  Better to complete the impeachment process and get him out of there.  Or invoke 25th immediately if you have to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:
5 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

It's a good question and technically I think they aren't supposed to - this is one of those theoretical exercises though so I'll go along with them doing it now that it's a reality.  Better to complete the impeachment process and get him out of there.  Or invoke 25th immediately if you have to. 

It may have been nothing more than discussions about the available safeguards should Trump go completely off the rails and decide he wanted to nuke Iran next week. I mean, is there nothing they can do but sit back and watch him start a nuclear war?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgreen said:

Can they? It just says that Pelosi spoke to Milley about it. It doesn't really say what what their options are.

In fairness - I was responding more to this tweet from a CNN reporter - 

After speaking with Mark Milley today, Pelosi told her caucus that she has gotten assurances there are safeguards in place in the event President Trump wants to launch a nuclear weapon, according to multiple sources on a caucus call,

--

Maybe she was misinterpreting or maybe the Speaker was. Not sure.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Final cabinet picks.

Even mix of men and women. First ever majority people of color. Named record 50 high level appointments. More than ever done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Get them on record not doing the right thing then.

 Americans have the memory span of a fruit fly. No one is going to remember who voted for what two years from now. There will be the "new" thing to be outraged about at that point.

The Democrats can do whatever theater they want on Monday on impeachment. Great, vote to impeach. It goes to the Senate and as I understand it, I don't think there is a timeline on holding a vote. I imagine there would be debate, which Cruz and his ilk could talk for days. Then  there needs to be a 2/3rd consensus. which is going to be hard to come by. When it is all said and done, the clock has run out. If I am wrong on the timelines or procedure--please someone let me know.

I say let's just put this chapter behind us and build towards a better future. Next year is going to suck between the virus, the economy and gosh knows whatever else this crazy world will throw at us. Let Trump go out, isolated and with a whisper rather than a bunch of hoopla and attention--which is thrives on.

The immediate priority needs to be about securing the safety of the inauguration. I say hold it on a military base. Don't give the protester's the ability to interfere or be heard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

 Americans have the memory span of a fruit fly. No one is going to remember who voted for what two years from now. There will be the "new" thing to be outraged about at that point.

The Democrats can do whatever theater they want on Monday on impeachment. Great, vote to impeach. It goes to the Senate and as I understand it, I don't think there is a timeline on holding a vote. I imagine there would be debate, which Cruz and his ilk could talk for days. Then  there needs to be a 2/3rd consensus. which is going to be hard to come by. When it is all said and done, the clock has run out. If I am wrong on the timelines or procedure--please someone let me know.

I say let's just put this chapter behind us and build towards a better future. Next year is going to suck between the virus, the economy and gosh knows whatever else this crazy world will throw at us. Let Trump go out, isolated and with a whisper rather than a bunch of hoopla and attention--which is thrives on.

The immediate priority needs to be about securing the safety of the inauguration. I say hold it on a military base. Don't give the protester's the ability to interfere or be heard. 

A vote on record would be used as ammo by opponents running against these people in future elections. That's one of its main values.

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

 

I don't understand this. How can the military and the Speaker unilaterally deprive the President of his military authority?

Shadowban.  Maybe disrupt network connectivity inside the White House - and send in this guy to fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernies puts it succinctly:

 

Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders · 6m

Some people ask: Why would you impeach and convict a president who has only a few days left in office?

The answer: Precedent. It must be made clear that no president, now or in the future, can lead an insurrection against the U.S. government.

 

 

You would think that last part would be common sense.  But, here we are.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Bernies puts it succinctly:

 

Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders · 6m

Some people ask: Why would you impeach and convict a president who has only a few days left in office?

The answer: Precedent. It must be made clear that no president, now or in the future, can lead an insurrection against the U.S. government.

 

 

You would think that last part would be common sense.  But, here we are.

It is common sense and what happened this week was reprehensible, but there simply is not enough political will and/or days left in the month for it to happen.

The Dems are going to come off looking like a group trying to settle a score here. In my opinion, going down this road serves zero purpose other than to continue to give Trump the chance to play victim and tweet a lot. 

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

It is common sense and what happened this week was reprehensible, but there simply is not enough political will and/or days left in the month for it to happen.

The Dems are going to come off looking like a group trying to settle a score here. In my opinion, going down this road serves zero purpose other than to continue to give Trump the chance to play victim and tweet a lot. 

Trump is going to play victim anyway.  That is who he is.

 

What he did was instigate a mob to storm the Capitol, and 5 people died, including a Police officer.  If you don't act in that situation - just repeal the impeachment clauses in the constitution.  

Actions must have consequences.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Trump is going to play victim anyway.  That is who he is.

 

What he did was instigate a mob to storm the Capitol, and 5 people died, including a Police officer.  If you don't act in that situation - just repeal the impeachment clauses in the constitution.  

Actions must have consequences.

Yep, we need to reestablish that people, particularly public servants, will be held accountable for their transgressions.

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

I posted this in the 25th Amendment thread, but applies here as well:

Speaker Pelosi says she spoke to top US general about Trump and nuclear codes

"This morning, I spoke to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley to discuss available precautions for preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike," Pelosi wrote. "The situation of this unhinged President could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy."

And from the same link:

"Nearly fifty years ago, after years of enabling their rogue President, Republicans in Congress finally told President Nixon that it was time to go. Today, following the President’s dangerous and seditious acts, Republicans in Congress need to follow that example and call on Trump to depart his office – immediately. If the President does not leave office imminently and willingly, the Congress will proceed with our action," Pelosi wrote. 

I've mentioned it here before, but I have a really good friend who works in the Office of The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (and one in the secret service too) and they are NOT concerned about the nuclear codes at this point.  I know that some want to think our military will blindly do whatever they are commanded because that's what we think they are trained to do, but if neither of them are concerned, I'm not concerned.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shatner! said:

So I maybe missed it with all the excitement, but when is the trial by combat scheduled and who will be squaring off in the octagon against Rudy?

I don't know but I hope they have a roll of paper towels to wipe up the oil from Rudy's head.   Maybe Trump can throw a roll to them, he's good at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Bernies puts it succinctly:

 

Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders · 6m

Some people ask: Why would you impeach and convict a president who has only a few days left in office?

The answer: Precedent. It must be made clear that no president, now or in the future, can lead an insurrection against the U.S. government.

 

 

You would think that last part would be common sense.  But, here we are.

Exactly. I don't care if there is only 14 days left. Because if there was only 30 days left, the same excuse would be applied. And before you know it, there would be no impeaching anyone in an election year because, well, let the people speak with their vote and all that malarkey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's (and I assume the rest of the GOP) argument for moving forward with the Barret nomination was basically "because we can". Seems like an applicable argument here, too.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dgreen said:

Trump's (and I assume the rest of the GOP) argument for moving forward with the Barret nomination was basically "because we can". Seems like an applicable argument here, too.

💯

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

Four days too late.

In a way there is a bit of illogic with what the House is doing: if it is so urgent to impeach the President because it’s too dangerous to wait until the 20th, then why wait until Monday? Why not have an emergency session of the House right now? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dgreen said:

Trump's (and I assume the rest of the GOP) argument for moving forward with the Barret nomination was basically "because we can". Seems like an applicable argument here, too.

The appropriate action is to do the right thing for the right reasons and hold them accountable for doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. This is a horrendous suggestion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Trump is going to play victim anyway.  That is who he is.

 

What he did was instigate a mob to storm the Capitol, and 5 people died, including a Police officer.  If you don't act in that situation - just repeal the impeachment clauses in the constitution.  

Actions must have consequences.

Agreed and if we had a month or two for this happen, I would say go for it. We have 8 days once the bill is introduced. It is political theater at best. 

With almost 4k dying in this country a day due to a virus, efforts are better spent elsewhere. Get together and focus on DAY ONE--what we are going to introduce and get passed. DAY TWO--we are going to do this. The Dems have a real opportunity here to get some things done, but if they get sidetracked trying to advance an agenda or grind axes, they are going to blow it,

Condemn him, isolate him and ignore him and let him be judged by the history books. But that is just my opinion. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Courtjester said:

Agreed and if we had a month or two for this happen, I would say go for it. We have 8 days once the bill is introduced. It is political theater at best. 

With almost 4k dying in this country a day due to a virus, efforts are better spent elsewhere. Get together and focus on DAY ONE--what we are going to introduce and get passed. DAY TWO--we are going to do this. The Dems have a real opportunity here to get some things done, but if they get sidetracked trying to advance an agenda or grind axes, they are going to blow it,

Condemn him, isolate him and ignore him and let him be judged by the history books. But that is just my opinion. 

 

Meh, I disagree here.  It takes what, 10 minutes to vote for impeachment?  It's not like the actual members write any of the other legislation that they may or may not want to introduce in the future.

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

The Dems have a real opportunity here to get some things done, but if they get sidetracked trying to advance an agenda or grind axes, they are going to blow it,

Dems can't do anything - in terms of legislation, right now.

I also think there will be more than a few GOP members who would like to sever ties to the Trump era, so they can move forward also.

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...