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*** (4 Viewers)

Serious question for all the folks that want Bolton to testify. 

What if he gets up there and basically says that he had no indication that there was any quid pro quo?  He just assumed that Trump was interested in confirming that any internal government corruption has been dealt with prior to releasing the funds.  What if he throws cold water on the House witnesses' presumption that this was intended as a quid pro quo?  

I'm not following this like most of you are, but is there really confidence that Bolton will testify POSITIVELY for the dems?  Because if he gets up and says the above, its not going to sway things the way that @timschochet believes it will.

 
unckeyherb said:
Serious question for all the folks that want Bolton to testify. 

What if he gets up there and basically says that he had no indication that there was any quid pro quo?  He just assumed that Trump was interested in confirming that any internal government corruption has been dealt with prior to releasing the funds.  What if he throws cold water on the House witnesses' presumption that this was intended as a quid pro quo?  

I'm not following this like most of you are, but is there really confidence that Bolton will testify POSITIVELY for the dems?  Because if he gets up and says the above, its not going to sway things the way that @timschochet believes it will.
Click to expand...
He is a first hand witness...id want him to tell the truth no matter what that is.

If he were going to say that...he would already have been allowed to testify.  As would others.  There is a reason none were allowed to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb said:
Serious question for all the folks that want Bolton to testify. 

What if he gets up there and basically says that he had no indication that there was any quid pro quo?  He just assumed that Trump was interested in confirming that any internal government corruption has been dealt with prior to releasing the funds.  What if he throws cold water on the House witnesses' presumption that this was intended as a quid pro quo?  

I'm not following this like most of you are, but is there really confidence that Bolton will testify POSITIVELY for the dems?  Because if he gets up and says the above, its not going to sway things the way that @timschochet believes it will.
Click to expand...
Then this will be over.

But in order to believe that, you also have to believe that he would throw his main assistant, Fiona Hill, under the bus, because it means she and several others will have committed perjury and face prison time.

 
unckeyherb said:
Serious question for all the folks that want Bolton to testify. 

What if he gets up there and basically says that he had no indication that there was any quid pro quo?  He just assumed that Trump was interested in confirming that any internal government corruption has been dealt with prior to releasing the funds.  What if he throws cold water on the House witnesses' presumption that this was intended as a quid pro quo?  
Click to expand...
If he tells the truth...I don't care which "side" it benefits.  

That's some junior high level civics right there.

 
timschochet said:
Then this will be over.

But in order to believe that, you also have to believe that he would throw his main assistant, Fiona Hill, under the bus, because it means she and several others will have committed perjury and face prison time.
Click to expand...
How would they have perjured themselves?  They testified as to what they thought about the call.

 
unckeyherb said:
Serious question for all the folks that want Bolton to testify. 

What if he gets up there and basically says that he had no indication that there was any quid pro quo?  He just assumed that Trump was interested in confirming that any internal government corruption has been dealt with prior to releasing the funds.  What if he throws cold water on the House witnesses' presumption that this was intended as a quid pro quo?  

I'm not following this like most of you are, but is there really confidence that Bolton will testify POSITIVELY for the dems?  Because if he gets up and says the above, its not going to sway things the way that @timschochet believes it will.
Click to expand...
Well, if there were supporting documents that the WH provided to substantiate that claim, it would provide a massive boost to Trump's numbers and acquittal on charge 1 would hopefully be bipartisan if not unanimous.

 
sho nuff said:
He is a first hand witness...id want him to tell the truth no matter what that is.

If he were going to say that...he would already have been allowed to testify.  As would others.  There is a reason none were allowed to.
Click to expand...
Fair enough and I agree with you except for the second part.  

 
BroadwayG said:
Well, if there were supporting documents that the WH provided to substantiate that claim, it would provide a massive boost to Trump's numbers and acquittal on charge 1 would hopefully be bipartisan if not unanimous.
Click to expand...
I think the testimony would stand on its own, personally.  Bolton has been one of the main witness targets for this whole thing.  If he doesn't come out with something close to a tape recording proving quid pro quo, its going to be a letdown, IMO.

 
sho nuff said:
You believe the White House is holding back multiple witnesses that could exonerate the President?
Click to expand...
I think he doesn't need to exonerate.  Like I said above, if he merely provides context without confirming facts, it does the same thing.  I think the masses are expecting him to slam dunk the case and I think there is a very good chance he falls way short of that.  Perception is reality and he could be a real letdown to this case. 

Or he could posterize Trump.

 
hagmania said:
Why? If truthful testimony from Bolton really does exonerate Trump, it's best to hear it and digest that information.

I don't wish for our President to have committed impeachable offenses.
Click to expand...
Good.  I agree with you.  I think a lot of folks in here do too.  I think there are at least as many or more that disagree with that viewpoint.

 
Phil Elliott said:
I’m guessing the White House managers may use a few quotes from Schumer and other senators concerning the Impeachment of Clinton. Both sides are filthy with hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Nadler in 1998.

Impeachment, he said, was reserved for "a president who would abuse the powers of the presidency to arrogate power to himself or to subvert the system of government."

I don't see anything hypocritical with his take then and now

 
unckeyherb said:
Good.  I agree with you.  I think a lot of folks in here do too.  I think there are at least as many or more that disagree with that viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Where we stand right now, I think he has. I would like to hear otherwise if I'm going to otherwise reach such an incorrect conclusion.

 
unckeyherb said:
also fair enough.  I just think you should be careful what you wish for.  That's all.
Click to expand...
I want to know the truth.  If that exonerates Trump, so be it.  I'd like to hear from Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, Giuliani, and anyone else involved.  I'd also like the documents that were requested by the House be released.  Again, if that exonerates Trump, that's a good thing for this country.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
BTW, Fox News is showing the video of the trial.  But once Schiff finished his portion, Fox dropped the audio of it and has their studio heads running commentary.  So people tuning in to Fox News to see the trial aren’t hearing it.

————
Click to expand...
What do you bet they'll air the entire defense portion unabridged? I'd bet a LOT. 

 
Mookie said:
I get it.  There's plenty of evidence to remove him from office now, and the facts aren't in dispute.  The additional evidence is corroborative, would provide more context, and would counter the inane procedural arguments being raised by those who have obstructed and control the procedure.  Ultimately though, I don't think any of it will alter what has sadly become a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
agreed, but the difference in the reaction of voters could be significant. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There used to be two classic hypothetical scenarios to make this point.

1. Imagine the President just stopped showing up to work altogether, saying that he didn't feel like doing his job anymore. That's not a crime, but it's impeachable.

2. Imagine the President used the power of his office to have his political opponents criminally investigated without probable cause.

It seems, unfortunately, that we're now down to just one classic hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...
Is this because it requires showing up for work in the first place?

 
Do you like me? [  ] yes [   ] no

Sen. Susan Collins was “stunned” by Rep. Jerry Nadler’s late-night diatribe this week against what he deemed a “cover-up” by Senate Republicans for President Donald Trump — so much so that she wrote a note to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. But the Maine Republican said it will not affect her votes during the Senate’s impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard this morning that in a normal trial if the defense refused to provide witnesses or evidence requested by the prosecution that the judge would instruct the jury that is proof of guilt.  Is that true?  @lawyerpeople

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I heard this morning that in a normal trial if the defense refused to provide witnesses or evidence requested by the prosecution that the judge would instruct the jury that is proof of guilt.  Is that true?  @lawyerpeople
Click to expand...
This doesn’t seem right for criminal trials. It’s a possible sanction in civil cases but really unusual.

ETA: this is a really crappy answer, it’s a lot more complicated but whatever

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
There used to be two classic hypothetical scenarios to make this point.

1. Imagine the President just stopped showing up to work altogether, saying that he didn't feel like doing his job anymore. That's not a crime, but it's impeachable.

2. Imagine the President used the power of his office to have his political opponents criminally investigated without probable cause.

It seems, unfortunately, that we're now down to just one classic hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...
Is it terribly crazy that if he chose one I'd prefer he not be impeached and just served out his term. You know, so Pence stays somewhat neutered?

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I heard this morning that in a normal trial if the defense refused to provide witnesses or evidence requested by the prosecution that the judge would instruct the jury that is proof of guilt.  Is that true?  @lawyerpeople
Click to expand...
Yeah there's a whole lot of wrong with the assertions made in your question. I'll try to break it down: 

1. In general, a defendant has the right to do absolutely nothing during his trial. I always joke with my client that while we would never do it we could sit on our hands, not say a word, and the state would still have the burden of proof and the jury would have to start with the presumption of innocence. 

2. The defense has a limited duty to disclose in a criminal trial, but that is really really limited and there aren't many situations where the state can demand evidence of the defendant. Now, obviously, if a defendant wanted to use a piece of evidence he would likely be precluded from doing so unless he provided a copy to the other side within a certain timeframe before trial. 

3. The state can subpoena any and all witnesses it wants for a criminal trial but for the defendant. The defendant doesn't have to "provide" any witnesses (unless it's a specific defense witness that the defense wants to call during its case in chief).. A defendant, of course, cannot tamper with any witness but, as i've explained to some clients, you certainly have no obligation to give a witness who isn't helpful a ride to court or something like that.

4. I can't imagine a scenario where the judge would instruct a jury that a defendant's inaction is proof of guilt. If a defendant pleads an affirmative defense he may have the burden to prove some things, but even there I can't think of a jury instruction with language as harsh as "proof of guilt." 

In short, it sounds like your source doesn't know what he or she is talking about. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops said:
Nadler in 1998.

Impeachment, he said, was reserved for "a president who would abuse the powers of the presidency to arrogate power to himself or to subvert the system of government."

I don't see anything hypocritical with his take then and now
Click to expand...
Nadler also said:

“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

:shrug:

 
Per CNN just now: 

1. Lisa Murkowski told a reporter that, while she is still undecided, if the House had wanted additional witnesses they should have subpoenaed them. Doesn’t sound good. 

2. McConnell is privately arguing that since the White House will invoke executive privilege on Bolton and the rest that could take months to adjudicate, so why waste time when they already know that they’re going to acquit? Better just to vote down any witnesses. 

This sure sounds to me like the trial will end next week. Murkowski will vote against witnesses which will allow Collins to vote for them, rescuing her from a terrible vote. This whole charade is being carefully staged but in the end there will be no new witnesses, no new evidence and EXONERATION! 

 
Phil Elliott said:
Nadler also said:

“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
And he was right--the opposition by the GOP has called into question its legitimacy.

 
Phil Elliott said:
Nadler also said:

“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added.

:shrug:
Click to expand...
That argument was made with the assumption that the party seeking impeachment might be willing to subvert justice. He never considered the alternative: what if the party opposing impeachment is willing to subvert justice.

Either way it was a terrible argument back then and a terrible argument now. Impeachment should occur when the President commits a high crime. How the two parties vote doesn’t matter. 

 
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: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top