Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 

Does he get to decide this?

If he has the votes he can pretty much do whatever the heck he wants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump on Ken Starr in 1999  https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/trump-in-1999-ken-starr-is-a-freak-and-i-bet-hes-got-something-in-his-closet/

Quote

"I  think Ken Starr’s a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster."

"Starr’s a freak. I bet he’s got something in his closet” 

 

Edited by OrtonToOlsen
  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Zow said:

This is absolutely not a case of semantics. 

I understand your confusion. Many of my clients are likewise understandably confused - especially after they receive the transcript from the grand jury proceeding, which many of my clients likewise errantly think is a trial. As such, it is very common for me to spend a substantial amount of time explaining the differences in the burdens of proof, the applicability of the rules of evidence, and why any witness who testified at the grand jury will very likely have to testify at trial in order for their tesimony to be considered by the jury. 

Now, there are some differences between a grand jury proceeding and the impeachment proceeding in the house, but they are probably more similar than not and they are most certainly similar in that neither is a "trial" in the legal sense.  Accordingly, when you make comments in conjunction like "this has been a farce" and "the house trial" people are appropriately correcting you because you appear to share an understandable but fundamental misunderstanding of the process. 

You aren't helping at all but bless you for trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

The House could have gotten every witness it wanted if it was willing to wait.

So you believe the house would have won all the court cases because they were legal? Then what was all the  stalling for, other then to obstruction?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Am I a bad person for really wanting to hear this?

No, I am curious also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Zow said:

In my personal experience, it's not an anomally here that few to no lawyers are on the "Trump side" because there are few to no lawyers that I know (most of which are in very conservative, rural areas of AZ and at least 1/2 are registered republicans) that openly defend Trump on legal issues.

I would hope that would tell Trump supporters something. But, in my personal experience (where not adamantly defending Trump on a legal issue likely cost me a judgeship), most non-lawyer Trump supporters just dismiss what lawyers think about the law. 

This is one of the more lawyerly written sentences any of us have ever typed on this site that doesn't actually talk about a law or somesuch.  The parentheticals are awesome.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A lawyer telling you how trials and lawyerly things work is not helping you understand how trials and lawerly things actually work?

This has nothing to do with how trials actually work.  

Share this post


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

I think we've found the problem.

I think you guys still have no idea personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Zow said:

where not adamantly defending Trump on a legal issue likely cost me a judgeship

for reals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

Ken Starr

Alan  Dershowitz 

named to Trump’s defense team. 

Also Pam Bondi. 

Cool, we can call Bondi as a witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This may have been reported before but I hadn't read it anywhere. According to somebody just now on MSNBC, McConnell has stated that even if there are witnesses, he will not allow them to testify publicly. Only behind closed doors.

Does he get to decide this?

"Democracy dies in darkness"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, miapug said:

You aren't helping at all but bless you for trying.

Not excellent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This may have been reported before but I hadn't read it anywhere. According to somebody just now on MSNBC, McConnell has stated that even if there are witnesses, he will not allow them to testify publicly. Only behind closed doors.

Does he get to decide this?

Wasn’t this the case during Senate portion of Clinton impeachment?  Testimony filmed behind closed doors and relevant sections provided via video during proceedings?

Share this post


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

This has nothing to do with how trials actually work.  

You're very confusing as to your position....

To this comment:

Quote

The House's job is to Impeach.  The Senate's job is to remove.  In an ideal situation, the House proves the crime.  The Senate decides if it warrants removal. 

You said:

Quote

This is where I am at too.  The House did a very poor job demonstrating Trump committed an impeachable offense.

First, the jobs as outlined (that you agree with and reiterate) aren't correct for either part.  Second, It's the House's job to collect the information on the events in question.  It's the Senate's job to listen to the case as presented by the House during the Senate trial.  No "case" has been presented yet.

Apologies if you realize that this isn't about actual trials...it should be pretty clear why reasonable people would read it that way.  An honest mistake on my part and I'm sure that's true for the others as well (though I don't speak for them).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, the moops said:

for reals?

Long and not that interesting of a story (and one I'd prefer not to get into), but yeah. 

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mr. Pickles said:

You know she said to herself afterwards “nailed it!

It was a perfect interview. 

Share this post


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

Long and not that interesting of a story (and one I'd prefer not to get into), but yeah. 

Didn’t like beer enough during your confirmation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, miapug said:

This has nothing to do with how trials actually work.  

I ask these questions genuinely: 

1. Do you have a specific question about how trials work that maybe I could help answer? 

2. Do you think there were portions of my two paragraph post to you that you responded to with the above that were either errant or inconsistent with criminal or civil trial procedure? 

3. I... am at a loss.... wat?

Share this post


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

Didn’t like beer enough during your confirmation?

I can assure you that such would have not been a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

This is one of the more lawyerly written sentences any of us have ever typed on this site that doesn't actually talk about a law or somesuch.  The parentheticals are awesome.

Thanks, I think. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Joe Burrow. Its not bad enough that he's going to be on the Bengals next year, he had to smile and laugh as Trump says, "They're going to impeach me, Joe! Can you believe that?"

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz, perhaps thinking about his legacy, asserted today that he is NOT on the President's legal team. "I'm going to make an argument in defense of the Constitution and the power of the Presidency."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Dershowitz, perhaps thinking about his legacy, asserted today that he is NOT on the President's legal team. "I'm going to make an argument in defense of the Constitution and the power of the Presidency."

St. Peter "So, Mr. Dershowitz, I see you defended O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump...."
Dershowitz: "Now wait a minute. I didn't defend Donald Trump!"*

*Disclaimer--not an actual conversation, yet.

  • Like 5
  • Laughing 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

I have to say, two guys who repped Epstein, and one of them: interviewed Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends, and various peripheral figures around Katherine Willey's lives and around the White House. And they are going to argue against new witnesses.

Pam Bondi who took money from Trump's closed "charity".

And Jay Sekulow, who's a witness in this whole thing.

Louisiana can't do this justice, really can't come close to this.

If I recall, this was the payoff for her dropping an investigation into Trump University when she was FLA AG correct?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

St. Peter "So, Mr. Dershowitz, I see you defended O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump...."
Dershowitz: "Now wait a minute. I didn't defend Donald Trump!"*

*Disclaimer--not an actual conversation, yet.

Are you suggesting that these men weren't deserving of or entitled to competent defense consistent with the rules of professional responsibility?

Share this post


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

Are you suggesting that these men weren't deserving of or entitled to competent defense consistent with the rules of professional responsibility?

Where did I suggest that? Just pointing out that Dersh had no issue with representing two of the three and one that he is firmly denying representing.

Share this post


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

St. Peter "So, Mr. Dershowitz, I see you defended O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump...."
Dershowitz: "Now wait a minute. I didn't defend Donald Trump!"*

*Disclaimer--not an actual conversation, yet.

It would certainly be a surprise if Dershowitz is talking to St Peter...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Where did I suggest that? Just pointing out that Dersh had no issue with representing two of the three and one that he is firmly denying representing.

Ah, good point. Sorry, sensitive topic for me. 

Share this post


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

Ah, good point. Sorry, sensitive topic for me. 

You mean all those trials that happen in the House?

Share this post


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

You mean all those trials that happen in the House?

I don't think I can be sensitive about something that I don't know much about. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If I recall, this was the payoff for her dropping an investigation into Trump University when she was FLA AG correct?

And a pretty obvious one as well. He’s done a good job draining the swamp except the drain empties into the White House. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't think I can be sensitive about something that I don't know much about. 

[insert Hamline joke here]

Share this post


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

For whatever reason I broke out in laughter at the use of Jeff Sessions' full name. :lmao: 

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

For whatever reason I broke out in laughter at the use of Jeff Sessions' full name. :lmao: 

Because it is absolutely hilarious.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ranethe said:

If I recall, this was the payoff for her dropping an investigation into Trump University when she was FLA AG correct?

I think that is how it looked, it seemed roughly transactional.

Share this post


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

Dershowitz, perhaps thinking about his legacy, asserted today that he is NOT on the President's legal team. "I'm going to make an argument in defense of the Constitution and the power of the Presidency."

So he is going to argue the presidency has way to much power? Cause from my point of view the presidency seems to be way more above  an equal branch.

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


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

Yes? And? 

It just blew up another liberal narrative. And the fact that so many of the other anti Trump responded negatively means it was a masterful move by Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HellToupee said:

Imo this isn’t true, isn’t true at all. Imo.

Maybe his TV doesn’t get CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dershowitz, perhaps thinking about his legacy, asserted today that he is NOT on the President's legal team. "I'm going to make an argument in defense of the Constitution and the power of the Presidency."

And if you believe that, you also believe that O.J. was innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

It just blew up another liberal narrative. And the fact that so many of the other anti Trump responded negatively means it was a masterful move by Trump. 

This is a self-fulfilling narrative right here. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Mike Pence wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, urging Democrats to emulate Edmund G. Ross -- a Republican who voted against his party to acquit Andrew Johnson in 1868.

Just one problem, though: Ross was a corrupt KKK sympathizer who probably accepted bribes for his vote.

Why would someone invite a comp to Andrew Johnson in the first place? Yeesh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zow said:

In my personal experience, it's not an anomally here that few to no lawyers are on the "Trump side" because there are few to no lawyers that I know (most of which are in very conservative, rural areas of AZ and at least 1/2 are registered republicans) that openly defend Trump on legal issues.

I would hope that would tell Trump supporters something. But, in my personal experience (where not adamantly defending Trump on a legal issue likely cost me a judgeship), most non-lawyer Trump supporters just dismiss what lawyers think about the law. 

A judgeship?!  #### me we’re old. 

In fact, I'm old enough to remember when you were pining over an ex and just going into law school.  

life moves pretty fast...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, miapug said:

You aren't helping at all but bless you for trying.

This post is a perfect example of why American institutions are eroding.  

one side describes legal and constitutional norms as “semantics” and then, when that notion is totally disabused, they double down with faux condescension.   

crazy times.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Dershowitz, perhaps thinking about his legacy, asserted today that he is NOT on the President's legal team. "I'm going to make an argument in defense of the Constitution and the power of the Presidency."

Lol, what? It is odd how Dersh seems to insist that Trump is not his client. Weird, I wonder if there’s a reason for that.

Share this post


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

For whatever reason I broke out in laughter at the use of Jeff Sessions' full name. :lmao: 

What do you think is the reason you'd break out in laughter at his name? 

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.