Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Mile High said:

The White House has a copy of the book. Trump said Bolton was lying, he didn't say Bolton never said it. What do you take from that?

Please provide copy of book so you can support your point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Daywalker said:

We all on the same plane with a drunk pilot.  Yet one side thinks they are winning.

Cause the pilot let them upgrade from Economy to First Class, as long as they keep bringing him drinks.   What could go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

No.

 

16 hours ago, whoknew said:

No. The Senate sets the rules for the impeachment.

I read a WSJ opinion the other day that argued that there is actually no vote required, and that it was within Roberts' purview to call witnesses. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edit: It was nytimes. Here it is

Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material.

But it turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice.

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


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

I still think the whole Hunter Biden thing is a ruse. But if they do call him, then the Senate will be doing  exactly what Trump was impeached for: using a fake scandal to try and bring down the Bidens. 

And assuming Trump is acquitted, and the Hunter Biden thing hurts his dad just enough to make Bernie the nominee and Trump is then re-elected, this whole thing becomes mission accomplished for Donald Trump. 

And the law of unintended consequences biting the Dems in the ###.  Maybe letting the voters decide with less than a year to go.  

The moderate dems hand over reigns of leadership  to the far left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Hence the mad genius of the programmers.  They’re clearly stretching the boundaries to find the breaking point. Genius. 

Edge cases, bruh, edge cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

The thong bikini was invented by an Austrian in the United States at the beginning of WWII.  I hypothesize that it was a weapon intended to distract this country and keep us from entering the coming war.

Seems like it would do the opposite.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Maybe letting the voters decide with less than a year to go.  

What is so magical about this one year cutofff? And somehow I wonder this excuse of timing would be used regardless of when an impeachment occurred. 

"he has been president less than a year - you can't impeach and tale away what the voters wanted!'

"the midterms are right around the corner, let's have the new Congress decide his fate. we must wait until after that election!"

on and on and on 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

And the law of unintended consequences biting the Dems in the ###.  Maybe letting the voters decide with less than a year to go.  

The moderate dems hand over reigns of leadership  to the far left.

The Democrats had no choice. Trump committed an impeachable crime. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stlrams said:

Has Bolton testified or have we seen manuscript yet.  Until either happens it’s hersey. 

Oh, so close! Do you want to see Bolton testify? Why do you think the Republicans are fighting it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I still think the whole Hunter Biden thing is a ruse. But if they do call him, then the Senate will be doing  exactly what Trump was impeached for: using a fake scandal to try and bring down the Bidens. 

And assuming Trump is acquitted, and the Hunter Biden thing hurts his dad just enough to make Bernie the nominee and Trump is then re-elected, this whole thing becomes mission accomplished for Donald Trump. 

Good posting except for the fact that Bernie is a much better candidate than a guy who is running in slo motion.  Trump would be torpedoing himself by taking out Biden.

Share this post


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

Oh, so close! Do you want to see Bolton testify? Why do you think the Republicans are fighting it?

Unless you are nipping at the bait to keep him trolling so he gets banned, why are you engaging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Unless you are nipping at the bait to keep him trolling so he gets banned, why are you engaging?

Lol. I'm trying to keep him trolling? I'm not going to comment on his posting style. It's against the rules. Keep it on topic please.

There are some who complain that Trump supporters can't post here. This is a prime example of why it can nearly impossible to have an honest conversation. Stlrams, I mean.

Edited by Amused to Death
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Democrats had no choice. Trump committed an impeachable crime. 

Oh.   No he didnt.  But sure he was impeached.   Just not gonna be convicted.  What's the remedy?

In this country its elections.  

No choice in a political  act.    That's funny.

Share this post


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

 

I read a WSJ opinion the other day that argued that there is actually no vote required, and that it was within Roberts' purview to call witnesses. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Edit: It was nytimes. Here it is

 

 

That article is wrong. The Democrats tried to pass an amendment to the impeachment rules so that Roberts would determine the relevancy of evidence but the Republicans voted it down. The Senate votes on the subpoenas. 

ETA: It appears the article is arguing that the Senate doesn't need to vote on subpoenas and the House managers naturally have subpoena power which may be valid, but that isn't how this is going to work. The Senators are going to vote on the subpoenas.

Edited by TheMagus

Share this post


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

Lol. I'm trying to keep him trolling? I'm not going to comment on his posting style. It's against the rules. Keep it on topic please.

There are some who complain that Trump supporters can't post here. This is a prime example of why it can nearly impossible to have an honest conversation. Stlrams, I mean.

I agree, although one could argue that the Trump supporters capable of engaging in discussion have been run off leaving the ones who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dickies said:

So we are back to “get over it”?

We all knew we'd get here eventually. The retreat to this point was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Republics don't call Bolton and his book comes out confirming what Donald did, that's going to be a bad look for them. Even low interest voters understand a cover up when they see one out in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Oh, so close! Do you want to see Bolton testify? Why do you think the Republicans are fighting it?

Yes let’s hear what he has to say or at least get the manuscript rather then relying on what the media says via their anonymous sources that everyone loves to run with..

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I still think the whole Hunter Biden thing is a ruse. But if they do call him, then the Senate will be doing  exactly what Trump was impeached for: using a fake scandal to try and bring down the Bidens. 

And assuming Trump is acquitted, and the Hunter Biden thing hurts his dad just enough to make Bernie the nominee and Trump is then re-elected, this whole thing becomes mission accomplished for Donald Trump. 

What ever happened to that banner.  I mean I know they could make up another to have him stand in front of it but it would not be as compelling as having the original.  A piece of Americana like that hopefully has been preserved, maybe in the Smithsonian.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Biff84 said:

Honestly the damage is done already. Just the fact that anyone knows about Hunter Biden means that it worked. There doesn’t need to be legitimate investigation for Trump to create the doubt that he needs. The goal is to make it a repeat of 2016 and make the average voter chose the lesser of two evils and I think they’ve already done that if Biden is the nominee.

If there’s an offer of witness swap, they should take it. What Bolton has to say is likely worth it.

I am starting to wonder about how much more we can get out of Bolton if he repeats that the President told him the aid was held back until Ukraine started an investigation into the Bidens. It could be a bit of “we already know that from the NYT article, what else do you have to say?” And if the only way is to get this is to make it is  a kangaroo court  about the Bidens, I don’t like it.

 

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

What ever happened to that banner.  I mean I know they could make up another to have him stand in front of it but it would not be as compelling as having the original.  A piece of Americana like that hopefully has been preserved, maybe in the Smithsonian.

Ah, I found my answer.  The Bush Presidential Library.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/18/political.circus/index.html

 

 

Turns out the Library does not have the complete set of first edition Curious George Books.  Whoever told me that is wrong!

 

 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump’s tweets these morning seem to indicate that, given the choice, he would prefer not to have witnesses. 

Share this post


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

President Trump’s tweets these morning seem to indicate that, given the choice, he would prefer not to have witnesses. 

A curious decision to not have people who could exonerate oneself testify in their defense.

Share this post


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

What ever happened to that banner.  I mean I know they could make up another to have him stand in front of it but it would not be as compelling as having the original.  A piece of Americana like that hopefully has been preserved, maybe in the Smithsonian.

My Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stlrams said:

Has Bolton testified or have we seen manuscript yet.  Until either happens it’s hersey. 

Several have testified corroborating what we know of the leak so far.

And only one side is pushing for Bolton to testify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stlrams said:

So no one can provide the actual manuscript....  shocking.  It’s the piranhas of fbgs that smell blood....

You're right. Since the actual manuscript can't be provided, it's too bad there's no way to find out what Bolton actually knows and says. Somebody ought to invent some way to do that. Maybe we could even come up with a catchy name for it like "witness testimony">

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

President Trump’s tweets these morning seem to indicate that, given the choice, he would prefer not to have witnesses. 

Nm

Edited by Sheriff Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quick-hands said:

And the law of unintended consequences biting the Dems in the ###.  Maybe letting the voters decide with less than a year to go.  

The moderate dems hand over reigns of leadership  to the far left.

Maybe we let the voters decide against these senators...but the actions of the President aren't jsut those that you ignore and let the voters decide.  As has been pointed out...that sets the precedent that in the last year and a half of a term that any president can do what they want...because, you know, we need to let the voters decide.

Far left?  You think Nancy is on the far left?  You think the far left were the only ones calling for his impeachment?

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

Oh.   No he didnt.  But sure he was impeached.   Just not gonna be convicted.  What's the remedy?

In this country its elections.  

No choice in a political  act.    That's funny.

If the GOP would allow witnesses and honestly look at what aTrump did...the remedy would be removal.  Because its coming to the point already that they admit he did what has been claimed.

Its a political act because the GOP are making it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I wonder how the Democratic Presidential nominee candidates will vote in this trial with the person they're going to run against being the one they're voting to remove?

Conflict of interest? naw ,,,, pffffttttt they'll be impartial I bet 

Less of a conflict of interest than Republican Senators who have accepted large campaign contributions from members of Trump's legal team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Yes let’s hear what he has to say or at least get the manuscript rather then relying on what the media says via their anonymous sources that everyone loves to run with..

Is anyone in here saying just rely about what the media says?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard on POTUS Radio that even if Trump is impeached he can still run again for POTUS as the Republican candidate.  Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

Oh.   No he didnt.  But sure he was impeached.   Just not gonna be convicted.  What's the remedy?

In this country its elections.  

No choice in a political  act.    That's funny.

For the first time since this all started, between yesterday and today, there’s about a 1% chance he does get removed.  It’s still obviously very unlikely but it’s infinitely more likely than it was before the Bolton leaks when that chance was 0.

Share this post


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

I heard on POTUS Radio that even if Trump is impeached he can still run again for POTUS as the Republican candidate.  Is that correct?

If he isn’t barred from running in a separate but related vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stlrams said:

Has Bolton testified or have we seen manuscript yet.  Until either happens it’s hersey. 

Hershey? Heresy? Hearsay? 
 

Assuming you mean the latter, hearsay testimony is very likely permitted in this sort of hearing. 
 

Share this post


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

Seems like it would do the opposite.

Now you see the miscalculation that led to the fall of the Reich. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

President Trump’s tweets these morning seem to indicate that, given the choice, he would prefer not to have witnesses. 

Which is kind of funny given Graham now wants to see the manuscript.  It's even more funny coming from Graham that he wants to see the manuscript but doesn't want the witnesses :lmao: 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

Oh.   No he didnt.  But sure he was impeached.   Just not gonna be convicted.  What's the remedy?

In this country its elections.  

No choice in a political  act.    That's funny.

I swear to God, I just read this post in Brick Tamland's voice from Anchorman and I can't stop giggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

I heard on POTUS Radio that even if Trump is impeached he can still run again for POTUS as the Republican candidate.  Is that correct?

He's already been impeached.  If he's removed, he can't run for President again, but that's not going to happen.  Not even worth discussing that scenario at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on the radio about a Nadler and Schumer video from Clintons impeachment.  Anything to it?

Share this post


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

Hershey? Heresy? Hearsay? 
 

Assuming you mean the latter, hearsay testimony is very likely permitted in this sort of hearing. 
 


801(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

803 The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

Share this post


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

Which is kind of funny given Graham now wants to see the manuscript.  It's even more funny coming from Graham that he wants to see the manuscript but doesn't want the witnesses :lmao: 

And he wants to view the manuscript (which is going to be sold on Amazon) in a SCIF. 

  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Which is kind of funny given Graham now wants to see the manuscript.  It's even more funny coming from Graham that he wants to see the manuscript but doesn't want the witnesses :lmao: 

And he wants to view the manuscript (which is going to be sold on Amazon) in a SCIF. 

:doh:

Can't make this stuff up :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quick-hands said:

Oh.   No he didnt.  But sure he was impeached.   Just not gonna be convicted.  What's the remedy?

In this country its elections.  

No choice in a political  act.    That's funny.

Definitely not as bad for the country as a BJ, amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

https://twitter.com/nbcpolitics/status/1222295395679854592?s=21
 

This Q&A feels so familiar. Can’t quite figure it out.

I realize Przybyla almost kills it but she does force Stefanik to step in and say yep that's the 'corruption' for Trump, it was Biden+Crowdstrike. Also let's face it Zeldin was about to go on a stemwinder with no content.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dickies said:

I wish she would shut up and let them answer (or give non answers). Did the reporter ever stop talking?

She seemed to chime in when he wouldn't answer the question asked.  It gets annoying...but at the same time, I wish more reporters would force the answers to what they are asking.

Too often we get the bogus non-answer and they move on.  Nobody is pressed on the actual questions.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

If we want a witness trade let’s get Biden and Trump in here and get it all figured out. 

Did you order the "code red"

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.