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*** (7 Viewers)

jm192 said:
So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment.  Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that because the Republicans knew he was a crook it should not come as a big surprise that he would be continue being one once he was elected.

 
jm192 said:
So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment.  Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Click to expand...
Not at all what he said.

Trump is a crook, which is why he's being impeached.

There were other candidates that aren't crooks.

It's not the Democrats fault the GOP nominated a grifter.

 
timschochet said:
So I still predict: no witnesses.

In the caucus, McConnell will say something like this: "Look, we all know he's going to be acquitted anyhow. Why are we going to drag this out more weeks or months? Dershowitz was right. Even if Bolton's telling the truth it's still not an impeachable offense. So what the heck is the point? The Super Bowl is Sunday. Let's go home."

New Quinniapac poll: 75%  of the public in favor of witnesses.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere its 82% specifically on Bolton. Navigator research. Not sure on their bonafides. 

 
jm192 said:
Godsbrother said:
I do think that what he is saying.   My question to Republicans would be: if you voted for Trump in the 2016 primaries would he still be your choice?
Click to expand...
I voted for a different Republican.

I was then presented with Trump vs Hillary.  Don't be mad at me.
Click to expand...
Like Godsbrother, I wouldn't get mad at somebody over who they voted for. Just wanted to nitpick and say that it wasn't simply Trump vs Hillary. You could always go third-party. I went Gary Johnson in 2016 as I hate voting for the lesser of two evils. Although, in 2020, I find Trump so bad that I'll probably vote for a democrat for president for the first time in my life. 

 
Kal El said:
Republicans wanted Obama impeached by Election Night in 2008. What's your point?
Click to expand...
I guess I forgot when someone said he was "the best man to lead an impeachment." against Obama.

We've not been without impeachment discussion/investigation since the election.  But everything Republicans say is "debunked conspiracy."  And everything Dems have said "has been proven beyond doubt."  So, really no reason for me to keep on posting about it.

 
jm192 said:
And in fairness, the Dems have been looking to impeach him since November 2016. 
Click to expand...
Meh, I think the problem is you are suggesting Republicans are interchangeable. I don't believe for a minute that any Republican president would be impeached. There are political consequences/realities that make impeachment a very difficult thing to happen. Beyond that, you have to be pretty cynical to ignore the underlying facts here... a president breaking the law (holding Congressional earmarked funding) to bribe a foreign country to influence a future US election via announcement of a manufactured investigation against his political rival. That conduct from a sworn US president is about as bad as it gets.   

 
jm192 said:
We've not been without impeachment discussion/investigation since the election.  But everything Republicans say is "debunked conspiracy."  And everything Dems have said "has been proven beyond doubt."  So, really no reason for me to keep on posting about it.
Click to expand...
There's an entire thread dedicated to Trump supporters right here in this forum.

 
Skoo said:
There's an entire thread dedicated to Trump supporters right here in this forum.
Click to expand...
Are we seriously using that argument?  You guys are constantly told there are dozens of other threads, but Tim always says something about the cake is better in that thread.

 
jm192 said:
Are we seriously using that argument?  You guys are constantly told there are dozens of other threads, but Tim always says something about the cake is better in that thread.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people here that agree with you.

It's not "Dems are always right, Republicans are always wrong" as you claimed.

 
timschochet said:
GOLDMAN: Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

SONDLAND: I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. ... President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.

GOLDMAN: You never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations.

SONDLAND: I didn’t hear either way.
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim

This is what I'm looking for. If this can be proved then I'm on the train to to impeachment land. 

 
E Street Brat said:
Thanks Tim

This is what I'm looking for. If this can be proved then I'm on the train to to impeachment land. 
Click to expand...
unfortunately, it appears that anyone who had direct communication with the president on the subject has been barred from cooperating.   Trump actually cited, get this, "absolute immunity".

Hence, impeachment article II.

 
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

 
The whole witness swap thing has to be one of the silliest tactics of attempted bipartisanship ever.  The reps control the Senate in such a majority that Hunter Biden would be there right now if they wanted, regardless of Bolton or Pompeo or Rudy.  If they wanted anyone under the guise of seeking the truth, the votes are there and plenty 

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
No, because the public will see it as the Dems wanting to hide Hunter.

 
moleculo said:
unfortunately, it appears that anyone who had direct communication with the president on the subject has been barred from cooperating.   Trump actually cited, get this, "absolute immunity".

Hence, impeachment article II.
Click to expand...
Then it was even more important for the House to issue subpoenas.  Of course the WH would have fought it all the way, but it still should have done.  

 
Phil Elliott said:
Not sure if Nancy has a Honda but did we ever hear why Nancy was delaying delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate? There have been allegations it was to help Biden out with the Iowa caucuses. Seems to align with the release of Bolton's version of Trumps intentions of holding up aid. I have said before I thought if Bolton had something negative to say against Trump it would already be leaked out but timing is everything.
Click to expand...
Consider Nancy the Jim Valvano of impeachment proceedings.  Her delay was equivalent to repeatedly fouling the other team down the stretch, forcing them to make foul shots and extending the game, hoping for a break or two to let you avoid the apparently inevitable outcome. It may not be pretty and it's not likely to work, but every once in a while, those breaks happen and you win a National Championship.

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
Couldn’t the Republicans call Hunter Biden and deny Bolton if they really wanted to?

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
If I was the Dems I'd take that deal. 

What Hunter did was not illegal. You let the R's make  the Biden's look like the shady political family they are, and you get your star Bolton.

 
Laura Ingraham is apparently threatening that any Republican who votes for witnesses will be public enemy #1 on her show, and she will use all her power to ruin them.

Obviously Laura is interested in the truth!!

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Ned
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
I just can’t understand the determination to keep Hunter out of it.

Bolton seems like a slam dunk.  I’d trade anything for that.

But they won’t because they care so much about the holy legal principle of “relevance?”

 
Dickies said:
Then the public is incomprehensibly stupid. What knowledge of Trump’s actions would Hunter Biden bring to the table?
Click to expand...
I know you think the public is stupid.  I think the Dems fear is that Hunter says something that justifies trump's inquiry to the rest of America.

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
We have a number of posters on this board who won't see through it. Despite it being explained to them on a continuous loop. 

 
jm192 said:
I just can’t understand the determination to keep Hunter out of it.

Bolton seems like a slam dunk.  I’d trade anything for that.

But they won’t because they care so much about the holy legal principle of “relevance?”
Click to expand...
There's no determination. If the Republicans want him, call him.

 
I'm fine with the Hunter Biden for Bolton exchange.  I have no idea if Romney and friends even care to have Hunter testify though. Have they said anything about him?

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
It's perverse. We have to enable them in their original goal of slandering Biden to get a fair trial. 

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that works out for them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies said:
Then the public is incomprehensibly stupid. What knowledge of Trump’s actions would Hunter Biden bring to the table?
Click to expand...
Classic dem logic:  anyone who doesn’t share my view is stupid.

You ONLY want to hear about how Trump is bad.  The defense is arguing Trump was right to investigate it.  Hunter is relevant to that.  The defense needs to be able to call witnesses to support their argument.  Or no one does.

Why would you be opposed to Hunter?  Because you think we’re wasting time with it?  We’re wasting tons of time.  

 
Jackstraw said:
It's perverse. We have to enable them in their original goal of slandering Biden to get a fair trial. 

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that works out for them. 
Click to expand...
Biden is already toast. Wait till the shoe drops on brother Jim and the tax payer money he got way with,

 
timschochet said:
So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?
Click to expand...
If I'm the Democrats, I announce the offer and say, "We are willing to accept that both witnesses can be called and that either or both can testify if the Chief Justice determines that a proffer of proof shows the witness's testimony to be relevant."

 
jm192 said:
Classic dem logic:  anyone who doesn’t share my view is stupid.

You ONLY want to hear about how Trump is bad.  The defense is arguing Trump was right to investigate it.  Hunter is relevant to that.  The defense needs to be able to call witnesses to support their argument.  Or no one does.

Why would you be opposed to Hunter?  Because you think we’re wasting time with it?  We’re wasting tons of time.  
Click to expand...
It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory.  That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top