Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, cosjobs said:

It's on Rudy's phone

Its probably also on some random reporters phone when Rudy butt-dialed him while in the Oval Office.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What democrats were doing in 2016 is irrelevant to Trump's actions this year.

They could have been as dirty as can be in 2016...and it still would not make witholding aid and meetings for the announcement of an investigation.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to go to a meeting, can’t dodge it like some of you slackers! Marking the thread.

Take good notes for me...not you Sondland.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Nunes, it's the democrats that are ignoring subpoenas and refusing to hand over documents relevant to this case. THEY'RE THE ONES that are refusing to cooperate.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Bolded answers the bolded.

what federal statute does "abuse of power" fall under?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badmojo1006 said:

Nunes is flailing badly

This could have been posted any time in the last two and a half years.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Watson@tomwatson·

Wow, Ken Starr making a strong case for obstruction and contempt of Congress charges on Fox right now. Cites Nixon. Says he's changed his mind on these proceedings.

"It's over. There will be articles on impeachment."

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badmojo1006 said:

Nunes is flailing badly

Sure.  But I am more interested in how he is doing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Nunes still attacking democrats...operatives...2016 election stuff that has nothing to do with this testimony at all.

You dont believe the events in 2016 had anything to do with recent events?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

Share this post


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

is anything Sondland testified to a crime? This will be the last thing Republicans can cling to, IMO.  "so what if the president abused his power to coerce a foreign country to make up dirt* on his political opponent?  Where's the high crime or misdemeanor?" **

* asking the Ukrainians to publicly announce an investigation regardless of the investigation actually existing is making up dirt.

**as far as I know, this is not an actual quote at the time of this post.

No one is talking about it, but I would think there would be campaign finance laws being broken here. How is this not illegal? If it's not, it needs to be codified into law.

Share this post


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

Sondland is a worthless witness.

Pretty valuable to some, I'd think.  

Share this post


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

Sondland is a worthless witness.

I dunno, it seems to me like destroying Trump's entire defense is worthwhile but maybe I'm just a weirdo.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the POTUS tells you to talk to his personal attorney and then his personal attorney tells you something you would assume it's coming from the POTUS.

Not an exact quote from Sondland but very close.

Share this post


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

Sondland is a worthless witness.

That depends on how you define "worth," I'd say.

Share this post


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

what federal statute does "abuse of power" fall under?

Not sure that matters.

When the constitution mentioned "bribery" that was not a law on the books...

High Crime and Misdemeanors does not require a federal statute.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I dunno, it seems to me like destroying Trump's entire defense is worthwhile but maybe I'm just a weirdo.

We're just all being naive.  This is all totally normal goings on.  

Share this post


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

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

:goodposting:

Share this post


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

I dunno, it seems to me like destroying Trump's entire defense is worthwhile but maybe I'm just a weirdo.

From what I've seen he keeps refusing to confirm anything. Is that what you all want?

Share this post


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

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

He has dropped $0.02 ($0.79) on predictit to be the GOP nominee, and $0.01 ($0.41) to win next election 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Sondland is a worthless witness.

Then you better hope we don't hear from a better witness as his testimony has been devastating to Trump and Republicans. 

Share this post


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

what federal statute does "abuse of power" fall under?

25 CFR 11.448 or Artcile I Section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, depending on circumstances.  Among others.

Share this post


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

You dont believe the events in 2016 had anything to do with recent events?

No...I don't believe bogus claims of Democrats and Ukraine have anything to do with this hearing.  They are not relevant to Trump's actions.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under questioning from Republican lawyer Castor, Sondland says Trump never told him directly about preconditions for anything. (Sondland has testified that Trump told him to deal with Giuliani, who was pushing the preconditions.)

Share this post


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

From what I've seen he keeps refusing to confirm anything. Is that what you all want?

You may have missed his opening statement where he confirmed the quid pro quo.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

From what I've seen he keeps refusing to confirm anything. Is that what you all want?

He said he received express direction from trump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Not sure that matters.

When the constitution mentioned "bribery" that was not a law on the books...

High Crime and Misdemeanors does not require a federal statute.

you know that and I know that.  But, this is what republicans will hide behind.  I've heard this argued previously - "there was no crime".  Republicans may not vote to impeach or convict without a specific criminal charge.  

Share this post


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

Not sure that matters.

When the constitution mentioned "bribery" that was not a law on the books...

High Crime and Misdemeanors does not require a federal statute.

No crime, really, "requires" a statute as our laws were originally written.  We're a common law jurisdiction, federally.  That means judges get to recognize common law crimes.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You may have missed his opening statement where he confirmed the quid pro quo.

For the 2016 election interference and crowdstrike right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

He said he received express direction from trump.

I'm confused, he just said he didnt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

You dont believe the events in 2016 had anything to do with recent events?

Yes, I absolutely think that this case ties Into Putin and Russian collusion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

See: avenue, 5th

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For the 2016 election interference and crowdstrike right?

No.

Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President

Share this post


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

For the 2016 election interference and crowdstrike right?

Huh?

These impeachment hearings are about Trump abusing his power to pressure Ukraine to say they were investigating Joe Biden and Burisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Starr:

"There will be articles of impeachment, I think we've known that ... It's over ... This is his position, we now know that the president, in fact, committed the crime of bribery ... Articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven't already been drawn up."

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1197192997835808769

Share this post


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

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

Okay, but everyone saw the same testimony I did, right? Every single Republican defense was blown up. President, VP, Secretary of State all knew it was what can accurately be described as bribery. The facts are there. Sondland's testimony added an impeachment article today regarding withholding unclassified documents as consciousness of guilt. Only tack now is for the GOP Senate to deny reality and the Constitution and shield a conspiracy. It's a pivotal moment in our history, and one that either way will serve as a precedent and maybe a tipping point for the Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd at least wait until people see the news tonight to start gleaning anything from betting lines.

No one knows how bad the fallout will be right now.

Share this post


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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/13/kent-says-hed-love-see-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-investigated/4180372002/

Joe Biden, as Vice President, had ordered aid withheld to Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian officials to fire proesecutor Viktor Shokin. Republicans say that the halt on aid and the firing of Shokin in March 2016 was to protect Joe Biden's son, rather than part of an international coordinated anti-corruption effort in Ukraine.

Hey Bluto I've posting stuff in another thread on this, don't want to distract from the actual events here. I'll reply in that thread, fyi.

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Anyone who thinks today’s testimony is a nothingburger ... is probably right.

At electionbettingodds.com, Trump’s chance of being reelected is currently ~40%, same as it’s been for many months.

We won’t see a change in those odds until some months  after the Senate impeachment vote. What will change them decisively in the Democrats’ favor will not be as much Trump’s actions but the way Republicans in the Senate responded to them. But today is the key that unlocks the whole thing. 

Share this post


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.