What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (8 Viewers)

Well, Don pretty much has to abandon the argument that he didn't do it now; his credibility pales against almost anyone else's. So he's left with only the "it's all right for a president to do" argument. If he's not censured somehow for suborning the smear of  an election rival, then the things he's going to do during the real campaign this year will make you throw up. Because if he gets away with it, he's going to do it even worse.

 
He's trolling. Leave him be. He's ignored every Bolton comment because it doesn't fit his agenda. Just ignore.
No I'm not. I stated from the beginning that I haven't been paying attention. Since the Dems opening statements. 

I'm just now/today hearing about the leaked Bolton book and was hoping for a link that would prove or disprove the demand for a public announcement.  When I got nothing but the same ole ####. I figured I got my answer.  

JFC you guys are too much,  

 
Well, Don pretty much has to abandon the argument that he didn't do it now; his credibility pales against almost anyone else's. So he's left with only the "it's all right for a president to do" argument. If he's not censured somehow for suborning the smear of  an election rival, then the things he's going to do during the real campaign this year will make you throw up. Because if he gets away with it, he's going to do it even worse.
What's telling is that if he truly thought that the behavior he vehemently lied about was actually within his powers, he would have just come out and told the truth from the beginning. He obviously knew it was unconstitutional and impeachable or he wouldn't have tried several lies before needing to admit the whistleblower was 100% correct.

 
Won't that ultimately be up to John Roberts or the SC?  
Roberts is nothing but a figurehead.  He may as well be wearing a powdered wig and using a feather pen. Just there to make the process look more like something our forefathers created. He's heard actual lies and doesn't even have the power to hit the gavel on the table.  And even if he does vote on something, McConnell can overrule him.  

 
What would constitute "proof" to you?  
That's a good question.  I don''t know. A smoking gun memo would be nice. Maybe direct testimony from Bolton would do it for me.

If comes down to the word of Bolton vs Trump.  I would probably lean towards Bolton on a coin flip.  I'm just not sure a coin flip is good enough for removal.  

I'm no big fan of Trump, and like I've said, for the 3rd time now, It's the public announcement that would push me to removal .

 
That's a good question.  I don''t know. A smoking gun memo would be nice. Maybe direct testimony from Bolton would do it for me.

If comes down to the word of Bolton vs Trump.  I would probably lean towards Bolton on a coin flip.  I'm just not sure a coin flip is good enough for removal.  

I'm no big fan of Trump, and like I've said, for the 3rd time now, It's the public announcement that would push me to removal .
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.

 
That's a good question.  I don''t know. A smoking gun memo would be nice. Maybe direct testimony from Bolton would do it for me.

If comes down to the word of Bolton vs Trump.  I would probably lean towards Bolton on a coin flip.  I'm just not sure a coin flip is good enough for removal.  

I'm no big fan of Trump, and like I've said, for the 3rd time now, It's the public announcement that would push me to removal .
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.
Also, the publicly available info from Bolton is supported by countless hours of sworn testimony. How many hours of testimony do we have that refutes it?

 
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.
I would be fascinated to know the analysis that goes on to arrive at a conclusion that a Trump vs. Bolton credibility test would be a coin flip.  

On the one hand you have a guy who started a fake University to scam people out of money.  On the other you have a guy who is always described as honest to a fault.  Coin flip?  wow.

 
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.
I'm well aware of his history telling the truth. I also know if anyone has an ego large enough to challenge Trumps, It would be Bolton. 

 
I would be fascinated to know the analysis that goes on to arrive at a conclusion that a Trump vs. Bolton credibility test would be a coin flip.  

On the one hand you have a guy who started a fake University to scam people out of money.  On the other you have a guy who is always described as honest to a fault.  Coin flip?  wow.
There's also the part where one guy would be under oath and under threat of perjury and the other guy would just be spewing more drivel on Twitter.  

 
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.

 
Tuned in for a minute and must have missed when Obama withheld funds in exchange for a country announcing investigations into McCain and Romney as Seklow is arguing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.
And that Bolton has volunteered to testify under oath while Trump avoids it like kryptonite.

 
He's always been very hawkish for my liking, and just something that rubs me wrong.  It's just the way I feel about him. Maybe it's the stash.
I can't really stand the guy either.  But I have absolutely no reason to question his honesty.  Especially when people who know him far better than me do not and speak about his character in that regard glowingly.

Trump on the other hand?  I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  Not to say he does not sometimes tell the truth.  Just that when someone lies as instinctively and compulsively as Trump, you can never take them at their word.

 
If it has to come down to Bolton vs. Trump for you, please remember that Trump has lied over 15,000 times since taking office, and his word is definitely not to be trusted.
13.6 lies a day.  I'm cogitating on that figure.  Seems high.  Then again on a lie per waking hour rate maybe not so much.  I wonder too about material matters in his service of public office and those in his private life.  Does this include "foot wedges" in golf, a sort of lie in its own right?

 
That's a good question.  I don''t know. A smoking gun memo would be nice. Maybe direct testimony from Bolton would do it for me.

If comes down to the word of Bolton vs Trump.  I would probably lean towards Bolton on a coin flip.  I'm just not sure a coin flip is good enough for removal.  

I'm no big fan of Trump, and like I've said, for the 3rd time now, It's the public announcement that would push me to removal .
Did you listen to the Gordon Sondland testimony?  In my opinion, Sondland combined with Bolton should be enough for everyone to believe it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or everyone can just agree that Bolton needs to be heard. No need to involve the SCOTUS or Roberts unless there's a reason to fight to keep Bolton quiet.
Sure, but the House did not subpoena him. So in the words of that Olson fellow. Why would the Senate do the House's homework? But Any way, I'd like to hear from him, Hunter, the WB and anyone else that may shed light on the truth.

As for the procedure. It's my understanding that after the opening statements, The senate votes on witnesses.  If they subpoena  Bolton the WH can claim executive privilege to keep him from testifying. It's at that point as the third equal branch the SCOTUS would step in and decide.   Am I wrong about that?

 
Sure, but the House did not subpoena him. So in the words of that Olson fellow. Why would the Senate do the House's homework? But Any way, I'd like to hear from him, Hunter, the WB and anyone else that may shed light on the truth.

As for the procedure. It's my understanding that after the opening statements, The senate votes on witnesses.  If they subpoena  Bolton the WH can claim executive privilege to keep him from testifying. It's at that point as the third equal branch the SCOTUS would step in and decide.   Am I wrong about that?
Bolton has said that if he was subpoenaed, he would testify. 

 
Sure, but the House did not subpoena him. So in the words of that Olson fellow. Why would the Senate do the House's homework? But Any way, I'd like to hear from him, Hunter, the WB and anyone else that may shed light on the truth.

As for the procedure. It's my understanding that after the opening statements, The senate votes on witnesses.  If they subpoena  Bolton the WH can claim executive privilege to keep him from testifying. It's at that point as the third equal branch the SCOTUS would step in and decide.   Am I wrong about that?
What's preventing both sides from agreeing to hear what Bolton has to say? Didn't Trump say he never discussed this with Bolton? If that's true, how can Trump claim executive privilege over a conversation he said never happened?

It seems to me the Senate can vote on letting Bolton testify and it would happen - unless the WH somehow tries to prevent it. 

 
Did you listen to the Gordon Sondland testimory?  In my opinion, Sondland combined with Bolton should be enough for everyone to believe it.
How about Mulvaney when he twice admitted that they were holding up funding unless there was an investigation and then told us they do it all the time and to get over it? 

 
I’m trying to imagine how calm, cool, and collected the Republicans would have been if Clinton refused to testify in the Benghazi hearings. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top