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*** (14 Viewers)

Bucky86 said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-11/giuliani-associate-parnas-got-1-million-from-russia-u-s-says

He forgot that he received $1 million from Russia a month before he was arrested. :lol:  
Click to expand...
Huh.

A guy working with Trump & Rudy to further Russian propaganda about Ukraine and the 2016 election was secretly receiving $12MM a year from Russia?

Weird how all these not witches have green skin.  And warts.  And a flying broom, black dress and pointy hat.  And cackle.

Oh well.  What a coincidence I guess!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
No, they don't have current bipartisan or public support for Ukraine.  Nothing burger.  Now, if during the Senate trial we have Bolton or Rudy testify and it is damaging to Trump you may be correct.  As of now it is a nothing burger.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate this response honestly. If we do hear from the central players and it’s damning would you agree he should be removed?

 
Henry Ford said:
Because Nunes and Jim Jordan have been heavily aiding in obstructing justice, Nunes also went to Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden in what appears to be a coordinated effort, Don, Jr. published the name of the alleged whistleblower, Eric has spent time in Ukraine while President of his father's company, Ivanka was with the organization at that time and is now in the White House, which seems pretty shady to me, Mark Burnett employed all three during that time period, and Geraldo Rivera has been helping get the false narratives and obstructionist statements into the media.

I'd be fine with Hannity instead of Geraldo.
Click to expand...
:lmao:   opps

Well done HF!  I guess these "word games" CAN be fun...who knew?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
Sure, if it is damning.  Nothing presented so far is damning.  In a football reference it's like the Dems are trying to throw a player out of a game for a standard personal foul.
Click to expand...
What we have right now is multiple people reporting that they heard the Pats were taping the sidelines. And we have the NFL beginning an investigation and the Pats refusing to let the videographer, editor, coach and owner testify. And 50% of the fans screaming ‘nothingburger’. 

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Huh.

A guy working with Trump & Rudy to further Russian propaganda about Ukraine and the 2016 election was secretly receiving $12MM a year from Russia?

Weird how all these not witches have green skin.  And warts.  And a flying broom, black dress and pointy hat.  And cackle.

Oh well.  What a coincidence I guess!
Click to expand...
A good guy, who I barely even know, is having his life ruined!

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Huh.

A guy working with Trump & Rudy to further Russian propaganda about Ukraine and the 2016 election was secretly receiving $12MM a year from Russia?

Weird how all these not witches have green skin.  And warts.  And a flying broom, black dress and pointy hat.  And cackle.

Oh well.  What a coincidence I guess!
Click to expand...
It happens.  I sometimes forget about my Christmas bonus, too. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Sure, if it is damning.  Nothing presented so far is damning.  In a football reference it's like the Dems are trying to throw a player out of a game for a standard personal foul.
Click to expand...
The correct football reference would be throwing the coach out of a game for tackling a player. 

 
mr roboto said:
What we have right now is multiple people reporting that they heard the Pats were taping the sidelines. And we have the NFL beginning an investigation and the Pats refusing to let the videographer, editor, coach and owner testify. And 50% of the fans screaming ‘nothingburger’. 
Click to expand...
Incorrect.  This is a minor penalty as is.

 
Kal El said:
This isn't a standard foul. This is offering the ref some of the team's money to call the next game heavily in the briber's favor. Money which he had no authority over, by the way.
Click to expand...
Well, at least that is what we were told by people who heard someone who heard someone or by someone who assumed something.  Reasonable adults can disagree, though.

 
If I have a good job and supply my wife with all the things she desires, a big house, a fancy car, lots of money to buy whatever she wants; but, I abuse her a couple of times a year when she doesn't have dinner ready or buy me the socks I asked for, will the law overlook my crimes?

Will the GOP stop pointing the positive things that Trump has done as a reason to overlook impeachable offenses. The two have nothing to do with each other. 

 
KCitons said:
If I have a good job and supply my wife with all the things she desires, a big house, a fancy car, lots of money to buy whatever she wants; but, I abuse her a couple of times a year when she doesn't have dinner ready or buy me the socks I asked for, will the law overlook my crimes?

Will the GOP stop pointing the positive things that Trump has done as a reason to overlook impeachable offenses. The two have nothing to do with each other. 
Click to expand...
Well, that's the 100K Question:  Did you really abuse her?  Or is someone assuming something that isn't there?

 
sho nuff said:
The evidence in this case is clear as to what Trump did.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion on this matter.

However, I don't think it is at all.  "Flimsy" is probably the best word I would describe it as.  However, lots of people can disagree and I agree that - depending on where your looking from - the "evidence" is either 100% clear or it's not there at all.

 
BladeRunner said:
Well, that's the 100K Question:  Did you really abuse her?  Or is someone assuming something that isn't there?
Click to expand...
If the police show up and my wife has any marks on her, are they going to assume that I did it? 

Can I point to her new car in the driveway or the diamond earrings as a reason the police should not investigate? 

And what if an anonymous person called the police, would the police need to talk to that caller before I get arrested?

 
They could at least get off this process nonsense and offer the defense of "doesn't rise to the level of impeachment" as their rebuttal. At least that is intelligent-ish. 

 
KCitons said:
If the police show up and my wife has any marks on her, are they going to assume that I did it? 

Can I point to her new car in the driveway or the diamond earrings as a reason the police should not investigate? 

And what if an anonymous person called the police, would the police need to talk to that caller before I get arrested?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you have a great analogy here with equating spousal abuse with what is going on with Trump.  It needlessly slants your position with a "OMG" factor.

Anyways, if the police do show up sure they will may take you into custody but they still need to prove that you did it, no?  Do I understand your post correctly?

Again, I think your analogy is off comparing them.  Like comparing apples to oranges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
I'm not sure you have a great analogy here with equating spousal abuse with what is going on with Trump.  It needlessly slants your position with a "OMG" factor.

Anyways, if the police do show up sure they will may take you into custody but they still need to prove that you did it, no?  Do I understand your post correctly?
Click to expand...
Since you're "new" here, I'll give you the benefit of doubt. I am the king of bad analogies. It's what I'm best known for here. 

They will take me into custody. They won't need to prove it, a prosecutor will need to prove that I did it. If I don't show up for my court date, what happens to me? 

You failed to answer the other two questions. 

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: SWC
BladeRunner said:
Well, at least that is what we were told by people who heard someone who heard someone or by someone who assumed something.  Reasonable adults can disagree, though.
Click to expand...
We had firsthand evidence, and could have either had more, or this could have gone away altogether if Trump didn't obstruct Congress in their own investigation.

 
Bucky86 said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-11/giuliani-associate-parnas-got-1-million-from-russia-u-s-says

He forgot that he received $1 million from Russia a month before he was arrested. :lol:  
Click to expand...
Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas got $1 million from an account in Russia in September, a month before he was charged with conspiring to funnel foreign money into U.S. political campaigns, according to U.S. prosecutors who asked a judge to jail him for understating his income and assets.

“The majority of that money appears to have been used on personal expenses and to purchase a home,” prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday. Parnas failed to disclose the payment to the government, prosecutors said.

...There was little detail or explanation about the source or purpose of the payment to Parnas in the court filing. Prosecutors said the money was sent to an account in the name of Parnas’s wife, Svetlana Parnas. It appeared “to be an attempt to ensure that any assets were held in Svetlana’s, rather than Lev’s, name,” prosecutors claimed.

The payment came the same month that Parnas and Fruman received the first of two requests for documents from Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration’s actions in Ukraine. The pair initially refused to comply with the requests, and were arrested days later on a jet bridge at Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C., as they sought to board a plane with one-way tickets to Vienna. Parnas’s lawyer has subsequently said his client is willing to comply with the congressional investigation.

...Parnas and Fruman are also accused of using an unnamed Russian national as the source of funds for political donations to curry favor with state and federal officials for support in starting a retail marijuana business. The government didn’t say whether the same Russian was the source of the $1 million payment in September.

...Prosecutors asked the judge to revoke Parnas’s bail, saying he also lied about his income. While he presented varying pictures of his financial condition to authorities on three different occasions, prosecutors say he never disclosed the $1 million payment, or a $200,000 escrow deposit he had made on a $4.5 million Boca Raton property -- and that he really received $200,000 for his work on Firtash’s legal team, not the $50,000 he claimed. ...
Click to expand...
- Fair amount packed in here.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
The Senate trial is going to last one day, right?  No new testimony, no witnesses, just declare the whole thing is a witch hunt and go right to a vote?
Click to expand...
I thought you were kidding.

Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial early next year that would include no witnesses, a plan that could clash with President Trump’s desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.

...The emerging Senate GOP plan would provide sufficient time, possibly two weeks, for both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s attorneys to make their arguments before a vote on the president’s fate, according to 13 senators and aides familiar with the discussions, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talks.

...

The tension now is over whether to allow witnesses who could turn the trial into an even more contentious affair.

Trump’s desired witness list includes House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint about the president’s conversations with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky led to the House impeachment inquiry.

...

At a Senate GOP luncheon this week, McConnell warned his colleagues against calling witnesses. “Mutually assured destruction,” he said, according to a Republican in the room.

McConnell is not sure Republicans have enough votes to only call Trump’s preferred list, the person said. Any agreement to call a witness would require 51 votes, and if Democratic votes were needed to end an impasse among Republicans, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would demand his own list of witnesses as part of any compromise.

Under McConnell’s thinking, this could possibly mean calling Vice President Pence and top White House aides, such as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, to testify.

“Witnesses would be a double-edged sword,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said. ...
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing with the tenor of disenfranchisement, media mistreatment and persecution has always been the highest priorities in the Trump movement. That it's the tip of the spear here should not be surprising. I have no idea what this kind of resentment and conspiracism means for our country, I'm afraid I've read to much history to be objective about it.

 
McConnell plans to have a vote not just to dismiss impeachment but to acquit Trump of all charges: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html

He also is suggesting to reporters that they won’t allow any witnesses at all, just have the managers make their opening statements and then vote that the Senators have “heard enough” and move straight to an impeachment vote. 

I think he’s scared that Roberts might allow forcing Bolton and the rest to testify. So he wants to eliminate that and make it a very short trial- not really a trial at all. How will the public react to this? 

 
timschochet said:
McConnell plans to have a vote not just to dismiss impeachment but to acquit Trump of all charges: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html

He also is suggesting to reporters that they won’t allow any witnesses at all, just have the managers make their opening statements and then vote that the Senators have “heard enough” and move straight to an impeachment vote. 

I think he’s scared that Roberts might allow forcing Bolton and the rest to testify. So he wants to eliminate that and make it a very short trial- not really a trial at all. How will the public react to this? 
Click to expand...
Most won't care. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I thought you were kidding.
Click to expand...
The good news is the biggest thing preventing him from doing this is Trump himself. He will demand a show even if McConnell assures him that he can make it go away quietly if he does it his way. The compromise will likely lead to someone like Schiff testifying, maybe the whistleblower but in return the Democrats will get some of the holdouts. Who knows what the end results are but I doubt it will go as Mitch expects.

 
mr roboto said:
This is an opinion. In my opinion a scary one. 
Click to expand...
It's all fun and games until a Democrat president does the same or less than what Trump has done. The Republican fans will go ape#### no matter what the next Dem does because that is what the Republican fandom has been programmed to do. [/dijonmustard]

 
timschochet said:
McConnell plans to have a vote not just to dismiss impeachment but to acquit Trump of all charges: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-acquittal/index.html

He also is suggesting to reporters that they won’t allow any witnesses at all, just have the managers make their opening statements and then vote that the Senators have “heard enough” and move straight to an impeachment vote. 

I think he’s scared that Roberts might allow forcing Bolton and the rest to testify. So he wants to eliminate that and make it a very short trial- not really a trial at all. How will the public react to this? 
Click to expand...
My guess is... liberal-leaning people will be outraged, and their ire towards Trump will spread towards more Republicans as a whole.  Trump supporters will take victory laps, flexing on how McConnell outsmarted the process yet again like he did with Scalia’s Supreme Court seat.  Independents will be a mix of outrage for the disregard for the rule of law, disappointment-but-not-disqualifying because ensuring a conservative judiciary is worth the trouble, or disengagement in whole process because they are all corrupt and nothing matters and nothing will make a difference.  
 

I said before the result of the trial will be either about 50-50 with maybe a Republican or two up for re-election in a purple state voting with the facts, or a wholesale revolt against Trump with a 90-10 vote to remove from office.  It won’t be a slow shift, either.  The longer the trial lasts, the more likely the tide shifts and a need to vote to remove to protect the party.  But making a sham of the trial won’t  cause many Trump supporters to leave.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I thought you were kidding.
Click to expand...
Trump will want a big spectacle, right?  Hold a trial that will last weeks, get Joe Biden, Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower to testify, keep the Senators in Washington and off the campaign trail, have Fox News spend all day every day talking about how unfair the process is to Trump and blocking him from making America great again and therefore we must re-elect him to fulfill his vision.  If it were up to Trump, I think that’s what he would demand
Click to expand...
Re: my previous post

In conversations with the White House, the Kentucky Republican has made clear he hopes to end the trial as soon as he can, an effort to both get impeachment off his lap and protect his conference from potentially damaging votes should the process break out into partisan warfare. That will include a continuous whip count until McConnell feels he has the votes to acquit the President and end the show. He has even floated a 10-day minimum during these talks, one person said.

But the show is exactly what Trump wants. He's made clear to advisers privately that rather than end the trial as quickly as possible, he is hoping for a dramatic event, according to two people familiar with his thinking. He wants Hunter Biden, Rep. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower to testify. He wants the witnesses to be live, not clips of taped depositions. And he's hoping to turn it into a spectacle, which he thinks is his best chance to hurt Democrats in the election.

People close to the President say this is because he has been sitting back and watching as current and former aides testified for hours before lawmakers about his behavior that they described as inappropriate, problematic and potentially dangerous.

Infuriated, Trump has been told he will have his day to defend himself soon, one person said.
Click to expand...

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Most won't care. 
Click to expand...
If Mitch gets his way, they will get away with it pretty easily. If Trump gets his way, all bets are off. Mitch wants nothing to do with voting to override Roberts. Voting to save Trump is one thing, voting against the Chief Justice is another thing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 15 (members: 0, guests: 15)
Top