Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ken Starr didn't "compile the facts and findings." He conducted the investigation. For four years.
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*** (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I was all for "I'm good with expecting both Nunes and Schiff to testify"....until I read this. Hadn't thought about that.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
And Schiff conducted this one. Again, I concede the methodology was different but both were the ones who compiled a report for submission for the House as the basis to conduct Impeachment hearing were they not?
That one guy
Footballguy
Is there an update timeline now that articles have been formally introduced? More hearings, a floor debate, the vote itself?
jamny
Footballguy
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
And it can be argued that the reason Schiff conducted the investigation himself was to avoid having the report author testify. If you task it to a 3rd party, that person makes the choice. By Schiff doing it himself he can ensure the conductor doesn't testify because it's up to no one but himself.
ren hoek
Footballguy
I am convinced- Dem leadership doesn’t care about removing Trump. They want to sideline progressives, look like they’re fighting Trump, keep the corporate state happy, and push the new Cold War. But most importantly, they want distract the public from stuff that actually matters. If they can remove him from office without having to actually beat him, even better. It’s remarkably similar to the Russia conspiracy that they wasted 2 years on.
All roads lead to Putin, but they’ll gladly toss Trump $87 billion dollars to go start some wars and overthrow some govts. Gladly gift him billions to build new detention camps. Gladly reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and ignore his war crimes in Yemen. Gladly let the Bush admin skate for the Iraq War, and pretend that this inconsequential phone call is somehow worse than that. It is because their corporate ownership is ok with it that they are moving forward here.
I really can’t stand the GOP but I have had it with this pretend resistance. At least the GOP, which is totally reprehensible, isn’t credulously propped up as the good guys. It’s easy enough to square up with that. The contempt I feel for a party that claims to be better than that, and isn’t, is much more complex, has much more depth. They may hate Trump, but they REALLY hate the idea of addressing actual problems in this country.
All roads lead to Putin, but they’ll gladly toss Trump $87 billion dollars to go start some wars and overthrow some govts. Gladly gift him billions to build new detention camps. Gladly reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and ignore his war crimes in Yemen. Gladly let the Bush admin skate for the Iraq War, and pretend that this inconsequential phone call is somehow worse than that. It is because their corporate ownership is ok with it that they are moving forward here.
I really can’t stand the GOP but I have had it with this pretend resistance. At least the GOP, which is totally reprehensible, isn’t credulously propped up as the good guys. It’s easy enough to square up with that. The contempt I feel for a party that claims to be better than that, and isn’t, is much more complex, has much more depth. They may hate Trump, but they REALLY hate the idea of addressing actual problems in this country.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No. He heads a committee that produced a report. That's not at all the same thing.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I have been waiting for this declaration of grudging support for the GOP for years. Now it just feels anticlimactic.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
Schiff is testifying through his report, so to speak.
There's a reason why district attorneys do not testify at trial to explain their motives for filing charges. Their motives are baked in to the charges.
If the Senate believes that Schiff's charges are wrong, then the proper move is to simply dismiss them.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If only the State had had the foresight to make Johnny Cochran testify in the OJ trial.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Do you not see how that can be viewed as controlling the process himself as a way to avoid having the fact compiler face questions? I get that you can dismiss it but I don't know how you can expect everyone to view it the way you do. It adds a layer of distrust that doesn't need to be there. Bring in the 3rd party otherwise it looks like you have something to hide.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Yeah and not taking questions gives ammunition to the opposition. I get that you don't agree but the ammunition has been provided.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's not like he was appointed to the committee for this purpose. He's not "the fact compiler." He's the head of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. He's been the top Democrat on that committee for four years.
Bring in what third party? Another independent counsel?
There are 61 Democrats listed on that Report as being part of the process. Three of them are Committee heads. And they want Schiff to testify. You think that's legitimate?
Last edited by a moderator:
apalmer
Footballguy
If Schiff not taking questions gives ammunition to the opposition, what does Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney and Bolton not taking questions do?
Mile High
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Well, at least we will all be able to agree that Trump and Republicans will have a fair chance to defend himself at the Senate trial.
Dickies
Footballguy
Why would you want the person conducting the investigation to testify when you can ask more relevant questions to the witnesses themselves? Why is the GOP demanding Schiff, Hunter Biden and the WB testify as opposed to OMB or State Dept staffers who can provide documentation directly refuting the claims against Trump?
Mile High
Footballguy
Exactly. Why bring in Biden etc? Why not call the witness that can exonerate the President?
jamny
Footballguy
This post would have been funnier if you'd tagged yourself instead of The Commish.
This seems backwards. They'd need to go through the courts to prove obstruction of justice. They don't need the courts at all to prove obstruction of Congress.
toshiba
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
From my perspective (as discussed with HF after this post) it seems like a good idea to have Congress and the Judicial branch on the same page. It'd be nice if they had a ruling of support from the Judiciary. It takes away the partisan talking point that is going to come up. As it stands right now, if the goal is to sway voters in some meaningful way I don't see this argument helping since they didn't even issue subpoenas for some of them and the ones they did issue for simply flipped them the finger with no real pushback from the committee. I'm pretty sure we'll see arguments like "Obstruction? You didn't even issue a subpoena to compel them to testify"...those sorts of things. They may not play well with the legal types and those paying close attention, but I think they will with those who are sort of, not really paying attention. I could be wrong though.
[scooter]
Footballguy
How can Trump fairly defend himself if he's not allowed to call witnesses such as Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Haydn, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Steele, Sean Hannity, F. Murray Abraham, Rick D. Sanchez III, and John Barron?
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I'm getting the impression that they will be allowed to call Hunter and others if they want to. Maybe Roberts would rule against it but the Republicans can overrule Roberts if they want.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
I can see this argument happening and the simplest rebuttal would be, “we’ve issued subpoenas to other witnesses and the President said via Twitter and other reports for those witnesses to disobey any subpoenas.” Actions speak louder than words and the Dem argument should be pretty clear. The Dems had to act, and they did, and they are. More power to the party that isn’t acting corrupt.
Zerp
Interdisciplinary Research
So. We can't unwind the clock. But we got our wake up call. Voter registration trends up. Several signs are non political centrists are starting to pay attention; e.g. the number of R governors [some good, but guilt by association] getting voted out. I believe people right from wrong. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wouldn't want this guy for a neighbor, a colleague at work, and I certainly wouldn't work for him. Leader of the free world? We can do better. Much better.
There should have been, but Bill Barr refused to appoint someone in that role, maintaining that there was nothing to investigate about the perfect call. As if we need another reminder that Barr's judgments seem to be influenced by political calculations.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Requesting foreign election interference is fine.
Macron and Merkel, if you're listening...
Macron and Merkel, if you're listening...
Congress issued subpoenas that were flatly ignored. That's a fairly open-and-shut case of obstruction.
timschochet
Footballguy
You know if I was Schiff I’d be tempted to pull a “Wrath of Khan” move on Trump- which means, I would publicly challenge him to come into the Senate and testify on his own behalf, and if he doesn’t call him a coward. Would Trump take the bait?
The Commish
Footballguy
I understand that, but that's not the case for Pompeo or Bolton. I can't remember if Mulvany was actually subpoenaed. Is it true that "Obstruction of Congress" and "Obstruction of Justice" are pretty different in terms of gravity/consequences?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Better...either get Obama to tweet or say in an interview that if he were to be accused of such things, he would welcome the opportunity to clear his name in testimony.
Maybe even better, off the record and get a sources close to Obama are reporting he said that. Get Trump going over unnamed sources (and definitely use the NYT, WashPo, or CNN) and about Obama.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
By the way, since we had this discussion the President called a press conference at the White House to let Sergey Lavrov go on camera to the American people and deny that Russia had any involvement whatsoever. In a joint presser with Mike Pompeo.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I’m not sure that would work. Trump likes to do the opposite of Obama. Maybe Obama could say that he wouldn’t testify.
Edit: Reporters would ask, “Mr. President, President Obama said that if he were in your shoes, he wouldn’t testify. Is he right?”
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Oh yes, great point.
”I agree with President Trump, he is right in not testifying or letting others testify”
”No way would I have testified or cooperated“
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The problem is that it isn't plausible. The Ukraine had no rhyme or reason to interfere in the 2016 election, whereas Russia did, and they did so several times. The Ukraine is currently at war with Russia(I think), and Trump is choosing the wrong side.
“Okay, I robbed all eight houses on the block in question, but there were other blocks nearby with houses that I didn’t rob or even go to” is not a good defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
apalmer
Footballguy
Or somewhere in the middle to lay the trap: "I know President Trump won't testify. He may prove me wrong, but I don't think he has the courage or the ethical standards to do it."
Similar threads
