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*** (10 Viewers)

I had a hot yoga class and missed the opening statement.   Pretty busy all day so updates here are appreciated.  

Anyhow, was it something like this? . We - We intend to prove that prosecution's case is circumstantial and, oh, uh, coincidental. Thank you! 

 
JB Breakfast Club said:
One side of mouth: Trump was worried about corruption in Ukraine 

Other side of mouth: we gave Ukraine the biggest guns ever!
Click to expand...
Out of both sides of the mouth, I care so much about bribery from foreign nations I WANT TO MAKE IT LEGAL!

ETA

Oh I see corruption isn't the concern now, it's burden sharing. :lmao:   This is like a shooting gallery at the crooked carnival. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If you believe the New York Times yes. 
Click to expand...
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified at a hearing in the impeachment inquiry into Trump that has largely focused on the decision to withhold nearly $400 million in security aid.

She said Ukrainian officials had known in July about the holdup in the security aid, which was new information she had not had when she was interviewed behind closed doors on Oct. 23.

Reuter’s article from November 20

 
jm192 said:
The Dems talked for 21 hours.  Let’s give the Defense more than 30 minutes before drawing conclusions.
Click to expand...
Have they talked about the actual details yet?

Do you agree what had been discussed at that point had nothing to do with the actual case?

 
timschochet said:
That’s it??? 
Click to expand...
Doing a quick closing and even calling no witnesses is an old ploy. Boom the argument goes 'they got nothin''. But that was ridiculous, you couldn't be a fair judge and watch those two presentations and not think that Parnas and Bolton aren't needed for evidence at a minimum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
“Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?" 
 

Edit: do you need links to Republicans saying they would not be impartial?
Click to expand...
Also a prayer that is about the way the TRUTH and the light.

Their defense started with lies already with Cipollone in the first place.  There is no search for truth with the GOP...hence the lie.

But the question wasn't being asked actually expecting an answer...that much is clear.

 
sho nuff said:
Have they talked about the actual details yet?

Do you agree what had been discussed at that point had nothing to do with the actual case?
Click to expand...
Even CNN said afterwards that Trump HAS discussed Burden share in the past.  It makes sense that it’s a concern, one that he discussed on the call.

I’m pretty convinced anything the defense says won’t be relevant to some of you.

 
quick-hands said:
Thanks my only point is that ukraine was stumbling around in the 2016 election.  Its not debunked.

Were they effective...Obviously  not.  But trump didn't win cuz of Russia.  
Click to expand...
I understand the point, it’s an old one, but turning public events in any foreign country into “election interference” in ours is a falsity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
Even CNN said afterwards that Trump HAS discussed Burden share in the past.  It makes sense that it’s a concern, one that he discussed on the call.

I’m pretty convinced anything the defense says won’t be relevant to some of you.
Click to expand...
Burden share has nothing to do with the articles of impeachment.  Its not relevant that he discussed it at all.

How is it relevant?

 
Sheriff Bart said:
I had a hot yoga class and missed the opening statement.   Pretty busy all day so updates here are appreciated.  

Anyhow, was it something like this? . We - We intend to prove that prosecution's case is circumstantial and, oh, uh, coincidental. Thank you! 
Click to expand...
Oops, need to get in the roomba, time to Zumba! Thanks for the updates. KA-POW!! 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
John Blutarsky said:
The defense against impeachment started this morning. 
Click to expand...
Eh the impeachment argument has been going on since October, including in the House. Even Jordan and Meadows didn’t raise it.
Click to expand...
This sounds like the GOP argument that it's not appropriate to introduce new information in the Senate trial (hence no Parnas stuff, no Bolton, etc.).

I think it's worth remarking when some argument is new -- but just as a curiosity, not as a criticism.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
good point....the popular vote and turnout in November will tell us what we need to know for sure.  When I made that comment, I was thinking primarily of the 2018 midterms and the demographics we observed there.  If that continues I will be convinced.
Click to expand...
You know I’m pretty confident that Trump and the Republicans will be punished for this in November. But if it doesn’t happen, if Trump gets re-elected, that doesn’t really matter either. In the end he’ll still be a pariah. 

Trumpism (corrupt white populism) is a passing phase. Demographics are dooming this current Republican Party. Trump represents a last defiant gasp, and it may last the next 5 years- I doubt it but it may. Beyond that it’s done. The main conflict in this country in years to come will be between centrist Democrats and progressive Democrats, with the winner in charge. The Republican Party will be regional and impotent in terms of national politics. 
Click to expand...
I see no evidence that the GOP will act any different if someone else comes crashing through the door with a Trumplike approach.  All this will embolden any/everyone willing to push the envelope.  Every indication is that if another "character" like him is pushed through by the GOP electorate, the GOP will support said "character".....not the other way around.

 
So it appears I may have been wrong this morning (and correct before) when I changed my prediction of 1-2 Republican votes for witnesses to no Republican votes for witnesses: CNN is now reporting that Romney and Collins are likely to vote for witnesses. 

I still don’t trust either of them at all and I think Collins especially is just trying to cover herself (the way she did when she pleaded for that bogus “investigation” of Kavanaugh that delayed the vote for a week.) Still, that’s 2 votes leaving them 2 short, at least for the moment offering some possible drama to the debate next week? 

I’ve also heard some suggest that if there are 3 votes, resulting in a 50-50 tie, that Roberts could be the tiebreaker. I don’t mean to be skeptical about any possibility but from the beginning of this process I’ve been hearing claims about Roberts’ power and authority that hasn’t turned out. So far he has been nothing but a glorified bystander. 

 
bostonfred said:
In case anyone is curious

1. Yale 

3. University of Chicago 

138. Mercer

146. Hamline
Click to expand...
That really wasn't called for.  @Woz appears to be pretty successful and at least he's helping people and not defending Trump.  I'm kind of surprised that both you and @Henry Ford are on the elitist education bandwagon.  When Bernie is paying for everyone's education, it's going to be hard to fit everyone into yale or UofC.

 
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: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top