Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

The precedents coming out of this administration:

  • Can't compel administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't compel non-administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't enforce a statute like the tax code law that says that all Americans even the president must submit their tax return if demanded by Congress.
  • Can't compel production of the supporting evidence of a special counsel investigation and can't compel production of the whole report.
  • Can't compel production of an inspector general report where the law mandates delivery.
  • The president can obstruct justice.
  • The president can use foreign policy for personal means.
  • The president can violate the emoluments clause.
  • The president can override the appropriations clause.
  • The president can ignore the appointments clause.
Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • timschochet

    2038

  • 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

So, summarizing: Trump receives help from Russia during the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton.  He knowingly accepts that assistance.  He does not report it to law enforcement.  Many of his

25 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

Quote

Now, however, we face an entirely new situation. In a call to the new president of Ukraine, Trump reportedly attempted to pressure the leader of a sovereign state into conducting an investigation—a witch hunt, one might call it—of a U.S. citizen, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden.

As the Ukrainian Interior Ministry official Anton Gerashchenko told the Daily Beast when asked about the president’s apparent requests, “Clearly, Trump is now looking for kompromat to discredit his opponent Biden, to take revenge for his friend Paul Manafort, who is serving seven years in prison.”

Clearly.

If this in itself is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning. Trump’s grubby commandeering of the presidency’s fearsome and nearly uncheckable powers in foreign policy for his own ends is a gross abuse of power and an affront both to our constitutional order and to the integrity of our elections.

The story may even be worse than we know. If Trump tried to use military aid to Ukraine as leverage, as reporters are now investigating, then he held Ukrainian and American security hostage to his political vendettas. It means nothing to say that no such deal was reached; the important point is that Trump abused his position in the Oval Office.

In this matter, we need not rely on a newspaper account, nor even on the complaint, so far unseen, of a whistle-blower. Instead, we have a sweaty, panicked admission on national television by Trump’s bizarre homunculus, Rudy Giuliani, that he did in fact seek such an investigation on Trump’s behalf. Giuliani later again confirmed Trump’s role, tweeting that a “President telling a Pres-elect of a well known corrupt country he better investigate corruption that affects US is doing his job.”

Let us try, as we always find ourselves doing in the age of Trump, to think about how Americans might react if this happened in any other administration. Imagine, for example, if Bill Clinton had called his friend, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, in 1996, and asked him to investigate Bob Dole. Or if George W. Bush had called, say, President Vicente Fox of Mexico in 2004 and asked him—indeed, asked him eight times, according to The Wall Street Journal—to open a case against John Kerry. Clinton, of course, was eventually impeached for far less than that. Is there any doubt that either man would have been put on trial in the Senate, and likely chased from office?

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

But her emails...

Let's not forget what got us down the Benghazi path to start with.  The Republicans were upset the Obama administration said the attack was spontaneous and not calculated terrorism, and they did this to downplay the event right before politics.

Downplaying an event for political reasons spurned months and months of investigation and hearings.

Now we have a president openly pressuring a foreign country to investigate a political opponent.  Will Republicans say a word?  I'm not holding my breath.  If there is any lesson from the Mueller report, not only is there nothing to see here but we must investigate the whistleblower leaker.

It's #### like this that has forever turned me off of the Republican party.

(in before the inevitable "but what about some unrelated thing that made an unrelated Democrat look bad?)

  • Like 4
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tonydead said:

If they try impeachment the entire election will rest on how well that turns out.  

I get that people think this way.

At some point Pelosi has to do her job here. If this Ukraine stuff is true then they need to impeach this guy. What is the point if they don't?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tonydead said:

If they try impeachment the entire election will rest on how well that turns out.  

That says more about the American people and our willingness to ignore rule of law, tbh. 

ETA: I'm not ok with it, but apparently there is a significant number of folks who prefer a president who is above the law.  If that were to happen, what makes us greater than any other Banana republic or despotic dictatorship?

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moleculo said:

That says more about the American people and their willingness to ignore rule of law, tbh. 

Exactly...its not about how it turns out as we have seen what Mitch will do to protect Trump and the party.

Its about proceedings needing to be done where facts come out exposing the corruption.  I doubt it removes him from office...but if they show all he has done in a factual manner...people will have to decide of they still want to support that level of corruption as POTUS

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The precedents coming out of this administration:

  • Can't compel administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't compel non-administration personnel to testify.
  • Can't enforce a statue like the tax code law that says that all Americans even the president must submit their tax return if demanded by Congress.
  • Can't compel production of the supporting evidence of a special counsel investigation and can't compel production of the whole report.
  • Can't compel production of an inspector general report where the law mandates delivery.
  • The president can obstruct justice.
  • The president can use foreign policy for personal means.
  • The president can violate the emoluments clause.
  • The president can override the appropriations clause.
  • The president can ignore the appointments clause.

It's up to the voters to punish the elected representatives that support these actions by Trump. There is no indication that the Trump/GOP/conservatives voters will do so. Would ignoring an adverse Supreme Court decision  do it? Doubtful at best.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

It's up to the voters to punish the elected representatives that support these actions by Trump. There is no indication that the Trump/GOP/conservatives voters will do so. Would ignoring an adverse Supreme Court decision  do it? Doubtful at best.

It is also up to every voter that is opposed to Trump to educate those supporters of the travesties that he has committed. Ask each voter if they are okay with the list presented and give examples of how Trump has done so. Not just tweets or snippets but actual evidence showing how Trump has violated the sacred Constitution. Many times people either refuse or just don't know what the actual evidence is because they are told something pro-Trump before they are given, if at all ever, any evidence demonstrating the crime.

That list is scary to think about and the same people I vaguely mentioned above will cry foul, IMPEACH, and "lock him/her up", every time a Dem does something in the future without realizing Trump is/was the catalyst to whatever action occurs in the future.

An uneducated populace plays into the GOP and Dems wheelhouse. Unfortunately, the GOP seems to love this or not care at all. And, any Trump supporter, in good faith, cannot defend any of Trump's actions... ever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slapdash said:

That hasn't stopped it from spreading like wildfire in the conservative echo-chambers.  So much so, even Tim is reconsidering Biden.  Amazing.

I didn’t know any details. If it’s uranium one style nonsense then forget it I’m not worried. I was concerned it might rise to a Hillary email type of level. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, msommer said:

Oh God, the other eight times someone asked DN for proof of Schiff lying weren't inconclusive enough?

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

Edited by Don't Noonan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

And he could have seen evidence of collusion and Mueller may have found proof of that but couldn't proceed because he believed that a sitting President can be indicted (which is based on a advisory opinion and has never been tested in the courts).

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

And he could have seen evidence of collusion and Mueller may have found proof of that but couldn't proceed because he believed that a sitting President can be indicted (which is based on a advisory opinion and has never been tested in the courts).

Read the report

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, timschochet said:

If I am reading this article correctly: 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/wsj-trump-ukraine-calls-biden-investigation-giuliani/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

then Trump was careful not to mention any specific quid pro quo in the phone call. 

If that is the case, then in my judgment, he will get away with this. 

I wrote this yesterday, and not being a lawyer, I didn’t understand the law. After watching several lawyers on TV explain this subject, I’m pretty sure I was wrong. If President Trump contacted the Ukrainian President and asked for dirt on Joe Biden,, even without an explicit quid pro quo, apparently that itself is a criminal act. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Very telling that you don't believe Schiff was lying when he kept saying he had proof of collusion with Trump and Russia.  I mean, at a certain point you have to own you are wrong, instead you post this making you look extremely foolish.

I think everybody reading this post already knows your opinion of Adam Schiff. It strikes me that your mention of him here is a distraction. I would be very interested instead in hearing your opinion on this current scandal. I’m guessing we all fully expect you will simply repeat the President’s line that this is all fake news and that he did nothing wrong, but I’d still like you to make it official anyhow. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sand said:

I'm sure you're waiting for one of the normal cadre to chime in with the "but Trump voters are to stupid to read so yeah".  

Took care of that to advance the line here so we can keep movin' on movin' on.

Too. 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I think everybody reading this post already knows your opinion of Adam Schiff. It strikes me that your mention of him here is a distraction. I would be very interested instead in hearing your opinion on this current scandal. I’m guessing we all fully expect you will simply repeat the President’s line that this is all fake news and that he did nothing wrong, but I’d still like you to make it official anyhow. 

Just like the Mueller report, I choose not to jump to conclusions and wait for more info to come out.  :shrug:

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I didn’t know any details. If it’s uranium one style nonsense then forget it I’m not worried. I was concerned it might rise to a Hillary email type of level. 

A current example of this ‘scandal’ might go something like this:

Imagine that the Epstein scandal becomes huge and there are loads of evidence against several rich and powerful people. Barr is investigating all of these claims but dragging his feet and many people doubt that he will ever do anything to them.

Many people including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren push for Barr to be removed. Warren convinces Trump to fire Barr by agreeing to help expedite the confirmation of some of his appointees.

Now here’s where the real scandal is. It’s discovered that Warren’s husband worked for a law firm that was being investigated in the Epstein scandal. But he did not work there during the scandal, only 5 years later. Pundits start saying that Warren pushed for Barr to be removed because he was investigating a company her husband worked for.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biff84 said:

A current example of this ‘scandal’ might go something like this:

Imagine that the Epstein scandal becomes huge and there are loads of evidence against several rich and powerful people. Barr is investigating all of these claims but dragging his feet and many people doubt that he will ever do anything to them.

Many people including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren push for Barr to be removed. Warren convinces Trump to fire Barr by agreeing to help expedite the confirmation of some of his appointees.

Now here’s where the real scandal is. It’s discovered that Warren’s husband worked for a law firm that was being investigated in the Epstein scandal. But he did not work there during the scandal, only 5 years later. Pundits start saying that Warren pushed for Barr to be removed because he was investigating a company her husband worked for.

Right. That makes sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Just like the Mueller report, I choose not to jump to conclusions and wait for more info to come out.  :shrug:

If it turns out that President Trump called the Ukrainian President and asked him several times to cooperate with Rudy Giuliani on securing political dirt about Joe Biden, would you be OK with that? Yes or no? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Just like the Mueller report, I choose not to jump to conclusions and wait for more info to come out.  :shrug:

I am sure Mueller made conclusions but felt he was prohibited from expressing them from his belief that a sitting President can not be indicted.

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

I am sure Mueller made conclusions but felt he was prohibited from expressing them from his belief that a sitting President can not be indicted.

Let’s stop talking about Mueller. You’re absolutely right, and he’s totally wrong, but even discussing Mueller in this thread allows the Trumpers to avoid discussing the issue at hand. 

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

Has anyone seen a good timeline on when Hunter was at the gas company, when the gas company was investigated and when this prosecutor was fired?

The more important aspect, which @Ramsay Hunt Experience brought up, is that Biden joined several other nations in demanding the firing of the prosecutor. So that does make this like uranium one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Can we, at least, all agree that if the allegations here are supported by the evidence, and the House does not impeach - then we should simply eliminate all impeachments?

I would be much more amenable to eliminating all the members of Congress that continue to ignore their sworn constitutional duty.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

I wrote this yesterday, and not being a lawyer, I didn’t understand the law. After watching several lawyers on TV explain this subject, I’m pretty sure I was wrong. If President Trump contacted the Ukrainian President and asked for dirt on Joe Biden,, even without an explicit quid pro quo, apparently that itself is a criminal act. 

Can you give a quick explanation of what they said? Or i guess just tell me what show they were on. 

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

Let’s stop talking about Mueller. You’re absolutely right, and he’s totally wrong, but even discussing Mueller in this thread allows the Trumpers to avoid discussing the issue at hand. 

Tim, please, they always avoid discussing the issue at hand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Did you read the Russia thread?  We nailed that nothingburger yet it was 99% anti-Trump posts predicting doom for Trump.  Our track record is much better than yours.

DN is right. 

Let's not underestimate the Republican (base and congressmen) desire to put party over country, and let's not overestimate the Democratic (base and congressmen/women)'s spine...again.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Can you give a quick explanation of what they said? Or i guess just tell me what show they were on. 

CNN. 

They made the point that when a President makes such a request AS President, there is the power of the United States behind him, with both implied promises and threats. But specific to this case there are two added points as well: 

1. The new Ukrainian President (PM? Not sure which) had long been seeking direct contact with Trump, first because he wanted to complete a loan promised by the USA, and second because he wanted assurance that the USA would stand behind Ukraine in their dealings with Russia. 

2. Trump had reportedly told associates he did not want to talk to the President of Ukraine because it might jeopardize his relationship with Putin. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, moleculo said:

DN is right. 

Let's not underestimate the Republican (base and congressmen) desire to put party over country, and let's not overestimate the Democratic (base and congressmen/women)'s spine...again.

The democrat party has been actively putting party over country during the Trump administration 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, moleculo said:

DN is right. 

Let's not underestimate the Republican (base and congressmen) desire to put party over country, and let's not overestimate the Democratic (base and congressmen/women)'s spine...again.

There are so few spines this congreff should be referred to as the jellyfish smack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

That would be squistion and sho nuff apparantly

False...and Id ask you to back up this claim as Ive only posted facts vs what you continue to post about Schiff, the report and thjngs like obstruction and Id ask you to stop making false claims about me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thinking today and however this turns out it'll just be an another example of how Democracy is broken.  Neither party seems to care about its people.  It's no longer about what's best for the country, not is it about getting to what is right.  It's about the two sides of politicians protecting themselves and their peers.  Additionally, victory is no longer measured in wins.  Its measured in the other side's losses.  We don't celebrate winning, we laugh at the other side's losses.  It's not about moving forward, it's about preventing our opponent's progression.  No one wins, we just stay stagnant.  

I think it won't be long until you see the rich, powerful, well-meaning philanthropists gathering more people with them.  They don't need approval or a vote.  They'll advance space travel, medical insurance, etc. and we'll follow them, because they're moving forward.  Bezos, Branson, Musk, Buffett....These are the people who will lead us into the future.  Government will just be a figurehead.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ClownCausedChaos2 said:

Been thinking today and however this turns out it'll just be an another example of how Democracy is broken.  Neither party seems to care about its people.  It's no longer about what's best for the country, not is it about getting to what is right.  It's about the two sides of politicians protecting themselves and their peers.  Additionally, victory is no longer measured in wins.  Its measured in the other side's losses.  We don't celebrate winning, we laugh at the other side's losses.  It's not about moving forward, it's about preventing our opponent's progression.  No one wins, we just stay stagnant.  

 

I’m reading and hearing a lot of this everywhere. Couldn’t disagree more. Now is not the time for despondency, or a loss of faith in the system. This sort of attitude lets the bad guys win. Now is the time to fight against them, to demand that the system do what it was meant to. Trump needs to be held to account. 

  • Like 2
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...