What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (5 Viewers)

Thanks

Are they doing a closed door for every new testimony before the open hearings? Would that be the same for Bolton or Mulvaney if they testify?
They could, but they don't have to - one of the objectives to the closed door is so various witnesses can't align their stories. Makes it easier to sniff out any liars. If they're telling the truth then the stories line up and there's no issue. Bolton or Mulvaney could also negotiate one or the other if they don't want to do both (for any reason), doesn't mean the house needs to accept it though.

 
It's in the transcript, so no, there isn't anything that said he would withhold aid to get an investigation on Biden.  He has that right as President to request an investigation into Biden.
He sure as hell implies it and definitely asks for the investigation. Why was aid withheld?

Asking for the investigation alone is highly inappropriate. 

 
I wonder why we aren't able to hear from the people with first hand knowledge. Wouldn't you like to hear Rudy, Mulvaney, Trump, etc. under oath? Why is the WH blocking the people WITH first hand knowledge? They could put an end to this in one afternoon and make it all go away. Yet they choose not to.
I think that's the big takeaway for me, as a centrist.
I think it would have a big impact on the public's perception if the Dems counter the "no first hand knowledge" narrative with "then let those with first hand knowledge sit under oath". Hammer the point that the WH is blocking them from testifying. I know one of the Dems did bring it up yesterday but, imo, it needs to be a bigger issue.

"Why would the WH block testimony from those who could exonerate the president?" Hammer it.

 
What if we have no reason to distrust Bill and he says "I was inside all day and didn't check but my wife said it was raining and I trust she was telling me the truth"?

In this case, I'd rather trust Bill's hearsay account than what John said.
The testimony you want is from Bill’s wife. Her non-hearsay testimony is preferable to Bill’s hearsay testimony.

 
Removing the President of the United States isn't compared to FBGs forum.  If there is a whistleblower, then the defense has the right to confront in court. 
The principle of identifying the accuser is the same. Are you saying the President has more rights to due process than a poster on FBGs?

 
These forums have sure taught me a lot when it comes to legal processes, terms, etc.  Probably the two biggest:

1. When it comes to legal discussions, don't argue with Tremblay.  Just sit back, read and learn.

2. When it comes to legal discussions, don't argue with Tremblay.  Seriously STOP, really read it, understand it and accept the truth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have repeatedly asked a hypothetical about a situation that doesn't exist. Clearly there's some angle you're working. Do you believe they won't be able to demonstrate that fact? What? 
dude

I'm asking questions. Sorry if you believe there is some ulterior motive.

yeah, see...workin' an angle, see....lmao

 
The testimony you want is from Bill’s wife. Her non-hearsay testimony is preferable to Bill’s hearsay testimony.
I agree with that.  I guess I don't understand exactly what Quigley meant.  

By the way, is this part of what he said true?

... countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay.

 
Removing the President of the United States isn't compared to FBGs forum.  If there is a whistleblower, then the defense has the right to confront in court. 
Yeah this isn't a criminal proceding. So that part of the sixth doesn't apply. In the Senate it may. 

But multiple witnesses have corraborated his story. Why? 

Mostly to misdirect with more BS about process I assume. Anything but the fact the President extorted another country for personal gain. 

 
dude

I'm asking questions. Sorry if you believe there is some ulterior motive.

yeah, see...workin' an angle, see....lmao
Ok sure. Just seems kind of random to keep brininging it up. 

Also too anyone who ever says they are "just asking questions" is never just asking questions. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is kind of curious.

For all the bluster the GOP is doing about Hunter Biden - I mean this is a real corruption problem - why haven't the GOP-led senate issued a subpoena and/or called him to testify before any number of Senate committees that could investigate and get to the bottom of this?

Why are the GOP not calling for the testimony of Joe Biden - in the House or the Senate?

Why - if this is such a big deal - are the GOP doing nothing here to investigate?

 
Removing the President of the United States isn't compared to FBGs forum.  If there is a whistleblower, then the defense has the right to confront in court. 
If the impeachment relied on the testimony of the whistleblower - I think you would find a more receptive audience.

As it is - it does not appear that the whistleblower is a necessary witness to the case against the President.

Fortunately for the President, the witnesses who are testifying at this stage are subject to rigorous cross-examination (even if the GOP is not up to that task).

 
Did anyone really think that on Day 1, that minds would be changed?   This is a process not a TV show where you get the gotcha moment.  This is building the case to remove the President of the United States.  Its crazy to see Fox News and others say well there was nothing significant from the testimony so far.  Is it impeachable or not, that is still coming, but it does layout the story from two creditable witnesses.

The (Fox News, CNN MSNBC and others) are what is killing this story.  Let the American public decide on if it was a big day or not.  and let the story play out before you say it was a good or bad day.  

 
It is kind of curious.

For all the bluster the GOP is doing about Hunter Biden - I mean this is a real corruption problem - why haven't the GOP-led senate issued a subpoena and/or called him to testify before any number of Senate committees that could investigate and get to the bottom of this?

Why are the GOP not calling for the testimony of Joe Biden - in the House or the Senate?

Why - if this is such a big deal - are the GOP doing nothing here to investigate?
Right. If there’s any legitimate reason to believe that Biden did something illegal, they should refer it to the FBI or the DOJ. (It would be appropriate for the Senate — not the President — to make such a referral, as I understand things.)

If there’s a legitimate reason to think that Biden did something legal but of questionable ethics, the appropriate Senate committee could hold hearings about it and consider legislation to bar such conduct in the future.

The problem for the Republicans seems to be that Joe Biden did nothing wrong, and Hunter Biden did the kind of wrong (but legal) thing that lots of Senators’ relatives do, so the Senate doesn’t want to shine a light on it.

 
Did anyone really think that on Day 1, that minds would be changed?   This is a process not a TV show where you get the gotcha moment.  This is building the case to remove the President of the United States.  Its crazy to see Fox News and others say well there was nothing significant from the testimony so far.  Is it impeachable or not, that is still coming, but it does layout the story from two creditable witnesses.

The (Fox News, CNN MSNBC and others) are what is killing this story.  Let the American public decide on if it was a big day or not.  and let the story play out before you say it was a good or bad day.  
Agreed.  No matter how many times Jim Jordan wants to say it, Taylor was not "the" star witness.  Only one of the first.  And him and Kent confirmed the facts to then move forward to more witness testimony.    

 
Right. If there’s any legitimate reason to believe that Biden did something illegal, they should refer it to the FBI or the DOJ. (It would be appropriate for the Senate — not the President — to make such a referral, as I understand things.)

If there’s a legitimate reason to think that Biden did something legal but of questionable ethics, the appropriate Senate committee could hold hearings about it and consider legislation to bar such conduct in the future.

The problem for the Republicans seems to be that Joe Biden did nothing wrong, and Hunter Biden did the kind of wrong (but legal) thing that lots of Senators’ relatives do, so the Senate doesn’t want to shine a light on it.
DRAIN THE SWAMP!  ;)

 
Random?

I think it's pretty relevant to ask if they can still impeach him if they can't prove he actually ordered the QPQ.

But maybe that's just me.
I think there are two misconceptions to your point:

1.  "proof" is a very nebulous word - I suspect what you mean is "direct proof" - e.g. someone to testify that Trump said "No investigation.  No money."  There is already "proof" that Trump did make such a declaration - albeit it is circumstantial, and relies a little on inferences drawn from Trump prohibiting people with direct knowledge from testifying.

2.  Perhaps even more worrying, is this concept of "quid pro quo" being a necessary element to impeachment.  An abuse of power/office does not require a quid pro quo - simply that Trump is using his public office to benefit himself personally, rather than the United States.

 
I'll pose this question again and perhaps @JohnnyU or any other Trump defender will address it.

If Trump truly held up the aid because of corruption concerns, why was it NOT an issue in 2017 or 2018 when the Trump administration gave Ukraine a combined $800 million? Was the Ukraine corruption just brought to light in 2019? What made the 2019 aid different from the previous 2 years? Other than Joe Biden suddenly being his top opponent for the 2020 election.

As a bonus, please address why the investigation needed a public announcement? Wouldn't a normal investigation be sufficient without the public declaration?

 
Some of the arguments made in defense of President Trump that have been repeated here and elsewhere are going to change some people’s minds on this issue I believe. Not because they are so compelling, but because they are so appallingly weak. 

 
I think there are two misconceptions to your point:

1.  "proof" is a very nebulous word - I suspect what you mean is "direct proof" - e.g. someone to testify that Trump said "No investigation.  No money."  There is already "proof" that Trump did make such a declaration - albeit it is circumstantial, and relies a little on inferences drawn from Trump prohibiting people with direct knowledge from testifying.

2.  Perhaps even more worrying, is this concept of "quid pro quo" being a necessary element to impeachment.  An abuse of power/office does not require a quid pro quo - simply that Trump is using his public office to benefit himself personally, rather than the United States.
So would the burden then be on them to prove that it was to benefit himself and not the US?  Could it be both?

See Jack, a conversation. That's how it goes...hth.

 
The American people has the right to know if the Vice President of the US or his family profited from his position. 
I guess the disconnect for me is that it seems that supporters of this current administration DON"T see it this way in regards to the Trump Family.  

I think we all know that Hunter Biden got the job because of his father.  If we're REALLY concerned with that....why aren't we casting a similar gaze to the Trump children?

 
I'll pose this question again and perhaps @JohnnyU or any other Trump defender will address it.

If Trump truly held up the aid because of corruption concerns, why was it NOT an issue in 2017 or 2018 when the Trump administration gave Ukraine a combined $800 million? Was the Ukraine corruption just brought to light in 2019? What made the 2019 aid different from the previous 2 years? Other than Joe Biden suddenly being his top opponent for the 2020 election.

As a bonus, please address why the investigation needed a public announcement? Wouldn't a normal investigation be sufficient without the public declaration?
I think the defense is that Zelensky was newly elected in 2019 and they were trying to test if he would continue investigating corruption.

 
I think the defense is that Zelensky was newly elected in 2019 and they were trying to test if he would continue investigating corruption.
But we've heard from Republicans that Ukraine corruption was rampant for a long time. And that this concern was not just about Biden. Yet they didn't hold up aid in the previous years and only focused on Trump's likely 2020 opponent?

 
Trump has the right to confront his accusers.  At least in the mind of Americans he does.
His accusers are the witnesses.  This has been described over and over.

There is a reason the identity is protected and its because of things people like Trump have said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the defense is that Zelensky was newly elected in 2019 and they were trying to test if he would continue investigating corruption.
But it wasn't about investigating corruption in Ukraine ...it was about publicly announcing an investigating into the Bidens.  The new dimension in 2019 was Biden's early lead as the potential Democratic nominee.  

 
So would the burden then be on them to prove that it was to benefit himself and not the US?  Could it be both?
This is the argument that John Kennedy is making (Republican Senator from Louisiana): that in investigating the Bidens, Trump was seeking to benefit the USA (by rooting out corruption) and whether or not he himself benefits because Biden is a political opponent is coincidental or ultimately irrelevant. 

There are several obvious flaws with this argument: Trump has no record of seeking to root out corruption, If he wanted to go after corruption in the Ukraine why isn’t he going after the oligarchs who cause it? If he truly thinks the Bidens are guilty of corruption, why isn’t the DOJ investigating? Or some other government agency? Why use Giuliani? 

But the biggest flaw of all is that Trump insisted that Ukraine publicly announce an investigation. When, per Taylor’s testimony, Ukraine asked for the USA to formerly request an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens and put the reasons down on paper, the White House declined- the investigation, they insisted, had to appear to originate from Ukraine, and there had to be a public announcement. 

I think this tells you all you need to know about what was behind this effort. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shameful lack of transparency from the Democrats. Strictly partisan party line vote and zero of the other sides witnesses allowed. Enjoy your teams little theatre show, because they are going to pay for it next year at the voting booth. 
What?  Zero of the other sides witnesses?  Which ones...you mean people who aren't even witnesses to what happened?  The whistleblower isn't a witness...Hunter Biden isn't a witness.

That would have been the actual theatre show and clown show to call those people.

I disagree...this won't hurt democrats at the polls.

 
But we've heard from Republicans that Ukraine corruption was rampant for a long time. And that this concern was not just about Biden. Yet they didn't hold up aid in the previous years and only focused on Trump's likely 2020 opponent?
I think it comes down to, as with a lot of things, a loyalty issue with Trump. It could be argued whether it's a loyalty to him or the US but being that Zelensky was newly elected, maybe Trump felt his loyalty should be tested. Just a perception on my part, don't know how true it is. I've seen you ask this question without a response and figured I'd give you my thoughts on it.

 
All I know is that if there is a whistle blower, he/she should be made to testify and identity known to the defendant and their lawyers, or their whistle blowing should not be considered.
Thats not how any of this works.

That is the point of a whistle blower...he pointed out who to talk to, that is what congress is doing.   They are the witnesses.  They are the accusers.

Their testimony is what is being considered.

 
This is the argument that John Kennedy is making (Republican Senator from Louisiana): that in investigating the Bidens, Trump was seeking to benefit the USA (by rooting out corruption) and whether or not he himself benefits because Biden is a political opponent is coincidental or ultimately irrelevant. 

There are several obvious flaws with this argument: Trump has no record of seeking to root out corruption, If he wanted to go after corruption in the Ukraine why isn’t he going after the oligarchs who cause it? If he truly thinks the Bidens are guilty of corruption, why isn’t the DOJ investigating? Or some other government agency? Why use Giuliani? 

But the biggest flaw of all is that Trump insisted that Ukraine publicly announce an investigation. When, per Taylor’s testimony, Ukraine asked for the USA to formerly request an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens and put the reasons down on paper, the White House declined- the investigation, they insisted, had to appear to originate from Ukraine, and there had to be a public announcement. 

I think this tells you all you need to know about what was behind this effort. 
I think he did this to hurt Biden and the announcement itself was actually more important than an actual investigation. 

But again...can it be proven? Can they separate the personal benefit from the benefit to the country to root out corruption?

(forgive me for asking, Jack)

 
It’s amazing how bad Schiff boxed himself in with his flip flop on the whistleblower testifying. 

Adam Schiff wasn't square with us when he said he hadn’t talked with the whistleblower," he said. "The whistleblower had met with Schiff’s staff. So the thing I keep coming back to is -- 435 members of Congress, only one knows who the whistleblower is and only one member of Congress has had their staff meet with the whistleblower."

"[Schiff's] now had three positions. First, he said the whistleblower should testify, then he said the whistleblower shouldn't testify -- now he's saying, 'I don't even know how the whistleblower is, even though my staff met with them,''' Jordan added. "He's been all over the place on this whistleblower. We all want the whistleblower to hold up their right hand and testify so we can see what kind of motivations and bias they have."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/jim-jordan-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-testify.amp

 
The (Fox News, CNN MSNBC and others) are what is killing this story.  Let the American public decide on if it was a big day or not.  and let the story play out before you say it was a good or bad day.  
You're grossly overestimating the general public. Not only in their ability to make sense of what comes out of these hearings on their own, but more importantly that the average, everyday American will take the time to tune in.

It's why I've been saying from the start of this mess that a slam dunk was needed. A "hit you over the head" statement that couldn't be parsed or left open for interpretation. Something SPECIFICALLY along the lines of "If you don't conduct an investigation into Biden, your aid is being cut off". And I'm not even sure that would be enough. It might have had to been followed by Trump actually withholding the aid and declaring that the failure to uncover dirt on Biden was the reason why.

Dems and dem voters wanted Trump impeached for 10 different things before this Ukraine incident even took place. Which as a sidenote, lessens the impact of the current attempt. Crying wolf from day one of his Presidency was the first huge mistake. You'd have liberals in favor of his impeachment if the charge was jaywalking. To actually get conservatives and independents on board you need something that knocks people over. This isn't that no matter how much Dems want it to be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nixon W.H. lawyer John Dean:

The first day of the Trump impeachment hearings yielded more damning testimony than all of Watergate.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/nixon-wh-lawyer-john-dean-first-day-of-trump-hearings-yielded-more-damning-testimony-than-all-of-watergate/
If I could use a 100 laughing emojis I would. I mean really, word for word. 

Former Nixon administration White House counsel John Dean said special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is “more damning” than the Watergate findings that led President Richard Nixon to resign, as well as other political scandals since then.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5cb8f7abe4b068d795cabbc6?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACg9DocCV6Rd_u6K476Y6rZK6jDIBKuubV5hOyuflcggX48RwoFuRLc_R3b8pKhX6nmcXQuVmfq-9tDgLsz0BRHhY4YZ0Bns6d6tDZ_ifGgOSdJrFZLi2TpiSZ_emyoM-nt2ZZQSLLylb4n9xINu6GOjxgDLBfhHJSk6ZlEjJEVh

 
Will any evidence be presented formally on Cohen hush money payments as campaign finance violations?  That seems like a slam dunk, no brainer to me as Cohen has already been convicted of felonies and has already testified before House Oversight.  Trump's fixer paid off porn stars to prevent any negative publicity during the election.  He committed a felony in doing so that is for more grave and salacious than lying about sexual relations with an intern.  Cohen also provides context of the inner workings within Team Trump, in the absence of any cooperation, that provides a bridge between the Zelinsky ask and the porn star payoffs in that the "ask" was typical Trump behavior in not so subtly strong-arming someone else to do his dirty work.

And what about obstruction counts?  Those too are no brainers to me proof-wise (we sent a subpoena and they didn't show up or comply).  In response, these counts also require verbal gymnastics from republicans to argue that (1) Presidential compliance with Congressional subpoenas is voluntary and cloaks every official within the executive branch with a blanket privilege from compliance; and (2) in the absence of any cooperation, hearsay is not admissible within an impeachment inquiry.  They can't have it both ways saying that everything the President and his minions do is privileged and then whine when 3rd party evidence is offered.   Furthermore, this isn't a criminal trial like Stone or Manafort's, where hearsay would be allowed under numerous exceptions to the general rule.  This is a political process and the Rules of Evidence governing hearsay simply do not apply.  Those who parrot hearsay as an ongoing objection are simply incorrect.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top