Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.

Still not proof that Schiff actually had contact with the whistleblower. I think he did have contact. Is there any "affidavit" or similar that someone within the govt actually met and can vouch for the whistleblower besides "he provided this information and is protected"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jefferies ending his "answer" with "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" goes to show how much work they've done to prepare the answers.  That goes for both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and high-profile defense attorney, argued that Trump cannot be impeached for pressuring Ukraine for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden because doing so would be aimed at helping his reelection chances. Dershowitz said Trump's motivations would ultimately be fueled by the public interest because he believes his reelection is what's best for the country.

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

 

CNN

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Actual President Dictator, folks.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Would it be a bannable offense to post some #OtherDershowitzArguments in here?  Because I just came up with a few while on a boring conference call.

I'm sure I'm late with my post but :censored: it needs to be on every page. Anything Trump does is in the public interest, hence therefore and ad infinitum he is always right and just in what he does by divine right.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, what a time to be alive, where the President of the United States becomes a king!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who submitted the 3rd question along with Cruz in regards to the Whistle blower?  Cruz IS really trying to make a point about the whistle blower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 

Share this post


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

I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 

I believe that the House managers/Defense team wrote a lot of them.  But I'm also convinced Ted Cruz is writing his own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I believe that the House managers/Defense team wrote a lot of them.  But I'm also convinced Ted Cruz is writing his own. 

of course...have to keep up appearances.  these parties are an embarrassment.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Haley/Bondi 2024 ticket. :wub:

Definite no from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got to meet Cruz once.  no way he’s not a serial killer.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how Dersh calls out all other constitutional scholars as being politically biased. Everyone else but definitely not the person who recently did a complete 180 and started supporting Trump and changing all of his legal opinions to support Trump.

  • Like 4
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I don't think election interference is one of the charges, correct?

The assertion is that Trump abused the power of the office to ask Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.

Share this post


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

Q

If only we can be as perfect as you.

Nobody is perfect. I'll settle for people just generally acknowledging that they should defer to the experts on certain legal issues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biff84 said:

I love how Dersh calls out all other constitutional scholars as being politically biased. Everyone else but definitely not the person who recently did a complete 180 and started supporting Trump and changing all of his legal opinions to support Trump.

It's weird.  Dershowitz is tied to the Epstein sex scandal and suddenly he changes his tune on Trump.  I'm sure there's nothing to see there.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, parrot said:

It's weird.  Dershowitz is tied to the Epstein sex scandal and suddenly he changes his tune on Trump.  I'm sure there's nothing to see there.  

He was connected to him before this. Something changed with him and several others including Graham. Seems like he got incriminating information on them the way they’ve fallen in line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widbil83 said:

My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.

Can you help me understand what needs to be cleared up by the whistleblower?  I have heard the claim that Schiff knew who it was, or that the whistleblower is a partisan, but how does that actually change anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things I’ve learned from GOP

- Republican Presidents should be kings 

- Democrat Presidents should be removed for wearing tan suits 

- King Presidents are free to use any means to corrupt elections because it’s in the national interest

- If confronted with abuse of power by King Presidents, GOP Congress should use proceedings to assist King Presidents in corrupting elections 

 

Edited by Mr. Ham
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of quid pro quo - I'll vote Republican the next 2 elections if enough of them find the balls to remove Trump.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Who submitted the 3rd question along with Cruz in regards to the Whistle blower?  Cruz IS really trying to make a point about the whistle blower. 

Fir a guy who got slandered by Trump the same way... it’s just pathetic to be that servile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

I'm  not superstitious but it feels like bad luck to use the defense that sunk Nixon in an impeachment trial.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

on reflection, mine aren't as funny as others I've seen out there

#OtherDershowitzArguments

The president can grab anyone by the ###### if he believes doing so will help him get re-elected.

The president may recline his seat in coach PROVIDED he believes he is a good president.

Asking the president to bag his dog’s poop is unconstitutional if he believes said poop is in the country’s best interests.

 

How about a compelling #textual argument?  By rejecting "maladministration" the Founders manifested the intent to reject any other possible offenses that could begin with "M."

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 

With all due respect, how exactly did you think this was going to play out today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bostonfred said:
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

I'm  not superstitious but it feels like bad luck to use the defense that sunk Nixon in an impeachment trial. 

Can’t say I’ve been surprised by much so far in this “trial”. Until this line of defense, it’s mind blowing. Just. Absolutely. Mind. Blowing.

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 

Campaign finance laws. Anyone who might do the right thing when faced with a choice between that and vested interests has been weeded from contention. We now have pure corruption.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fir a guy who got slandered by Trump the same way... it’s just pathetic to be that servile.

I know it's an uncouth term, but the term cuck really does apply to people like Cruz.  To have been repeatedly publicly humiliated, and then totally kowtow to Trump is absolutely pathetic, I don't care what party you're in.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Speaking of quid pro quo - I'll vote Republican the next 2 elections if enough of them find the balls to remove Trump.

Should I put you down as “Democrat”, “Libertarian”, or “Green” for the next two?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t listen to the entire day, so maybe I missed it - Schiff and the House team stated several times that Roberts would be able to rule immediately on questions of privilege, did the Trump defense team ever dispute that point? Seems like an important point of contention because McConnell reportedly won some support back with the argument that if witnesses are called, questions of privilege will be drug out in court for months.

Share this post


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

Should I put you down as “Democrat”, “Libertarian”, or “Green” for the next two?

Likely Dem unless AOC is on the ballot.  Not replacing repugnant with bat #### crazy.  :thumbup: 

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Speaking of quid pro quo - I'll vote Republican the next 2 elections if enough of them find the balls to remove Trump.

Conversely, I am a registered independent who has voted for Democrat, republican and libertarian presidential candidates over the past 20 years who is looking forward to punishing EVERY  candidate with an R next to their name in every near-term election from president to dog catcher.  Am disgusted with this GOP and don't care that my local school board candidate had nothing to do with this clown show - out you go.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

How about a compelling #textual argument?  By rejecting "maladministration" the Founders manifested the intent to reject any other possible offenses that could begin with "M."

I don’t know how they overlooked you for this defense team.  Major mistake on their part. 

Share this post


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

I don’t know how they overlooked you for this defense team.  Major mistake on their part. 

My steamy history with Pam Bondi would have made the situation untenable.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, joffer said:

got to meet Cruz once.  no way he’s not a serial killer.

@YSR Let him hold her kid.  :oldunsure:

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again Hunter's "crime" is being appointed because of nepotism.  No shame or self awareness these nitwits. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Nobody is perfect. I'll settle for people just generally acknowledging that they should defer to the experts on certain legal issues.

Well look at Oliver Wendell Marshall over here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Once again Hunter's "crime" is being appointed because of nepotism.  No shame or self awareness these nitwits. 

And the people who have an issue with that have no problem with Jared Kushner representing the Trump Administration in the Middle East with his only qualification is being married to Ivanka. Go figure.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Nobody is perfect. I'll settle for people just generally acknowledging that they should defer to the experts on certain legal issues.

So we have experts in impeachment hearings posting here?  Please share and provide their impeachment hearing experience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now Trump's lawyers are acting like the last election in the Ukraine didn't happen.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, matuski said:

Speaking of quid pro quo - I'll vote Republican the next 2 elections if enough of them find the balls to remove Trump.

Similar, as a Colorado independent, I recently wrote to Cory Gardner and let him know that my vote for him in his upcoming 2020 reelection attempt is reliant upon any resemblance of independent thought displayed by him specific to the impeachment trail and let him know that I equated original thinking to strong leadership. I haven't heard back.

Share this post


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

So we have experts in impeachment hearings posting here?  Please share and provide their impeachment hearing experience.  

I was in the legal advisory team for two different witnesses in the Thomas Porteous impeachment. 
 

Edit: I did not appear at a hearing.

Edit2: “legal advisory team” sounds a lot bigger than it was. I was on the “oh, man, you should definitely respond to that” team. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question as to why all of a sudden Trump was concerned about "corruption" after already sending dozens of payments worth 1.5 billion to the Ukraine.  :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kwille said:

Similar, as a Colorado independent, I recently wrote to Cory Gardner and let him know that my vote for him in his upcoming 2020 reelection attempt is reliant upon any resemblance of independent thought displayed by him specific to the impeachment trail and let him know that I equated original thinking to strong leadership. I haven't heard back.

Here's your answer. 

BREAKING: Cory Gardner says he a NO on impeachment witnesses. “I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness” @SenCoryGardner sayswww.coloradopolitics… via @colo_politics

Twitter · 7 hours ago

Twitter › RadioFreeTom

Tom Nichols

 

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.