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*** (8 Viewers)

Something I haven’t posted yet but I’m bored waiting for the closing arguments: when the tape was released with Trump saying “Take her out”, for just a moment I truly thought the implication was to kill her. A failing on my part, watching too many crime movies, but scary that that’s even remotely plausible to consider re: a comment made by a sitting President about one of his ambassadors.

 
I've definitely started to question things in light of the Bolton testimony.  But the idea that the accused has to prove their innocence is not one of them. 
Prosecutor: The defendant’s gun with his fingerprints on it was found at the scene of the murder. Ballistics testing shows the bullet was fired from this type of gun. We still don’t have an alibi explaining where the defendant was the night of the murder  

Defense: This trial is a hoax!  It’s not our job to prove the defendant’s innocence!

 
Adolescents that stand on a street corner with a squirt bottle and a squeegee and spray your windshield (even if you don't want it), then squeegee it off, and then ask for money for the deed.  You can simply refuse to pay them, but sometimes they give you a dirty look or spray your windshield again without the squeegee afterwards, forcing you to turn on your wipers.

I understand the frustration about people doing things to your car that you don't want done.  I don't particularly enjoy getting a squeegee treatment.  However, I know that these adolescents would likely be doing worse to make some cash if they weren't squeegeeing windshields.
My 25 year old son drew a 2 foot long donger in the condensation on my windshield 4 days ago.  I keep forgetting to get out the Windex so every morning it reappears.

 
Listening to MSNBC this morning all the chatter in the Senate seems to point towards Bolton testifying and now looking how to respond. There’s talk about witness exchange and also bringing the manuscript into to a SCIF for Senators to read before voting. The circus McConnell wanted to avoid is here.

 
Something I haven’t posted yet but I’m bored waiting for the closing arguments: when the tape was released with Trump saying “Take her out”, for just a moment I truly thought the implication was to kill her. A failing on my part, watching too many crime movies, but scary that that’s even remotely plausible to consider re: a comment made by a sitting President about one of his ambassadors.
And it was directed at Lev Parnas, a known underworld thug. You know who had the power to fire her at any time? Trump.  So what exactly is he instructing Parnas to do?

 
I don't have squeegee kids around me but do see guys providing full service mobile car wash in your parking space. Squeegee kids, evolved!
I have a buddy who runs a detailing business around here. Apparently he does pretty well with it, but it's not for me.

 
And it was directed at Lev Parnas, a known underworld thug. You know who had the power to fire her at any time? Trump.  So what exactly is he instructing Parnas to do?
I've been trying to keep up but have certainly missed some things (pages)...who else was in the room when Trump said "get rid of her, take her out"? Was he speaking TO Parnas or just with him in the room? More specifically, could Trump have been speaking to Pompeo or Barr?

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
Something I haven’t posted yet but I’m bored waiting for the closing arguments: when the tape was released with Trump saying “Take her out”, for just a moment I truly thought the implication was to kill her. A failing on my part, watching too many crime movies, but scary that that’s even remotely plausible to consider re: a comment made by a sitting President about one of his ambassadors.
And it was directed at Lev Parnas, a known underworld thug. You know who had the power to fire her at any time? Trump.  So what exactly is he instructing Parnas to do?
Yep.  He didn't say "I'm going to fire her for that".  It is, IMO, exactly what @pecorino first instinct was.

 
I've been trying to keep up but have certainly missed some things (pages)...who else was in the room when Trump said "get rid of her, take her out"? Was he speaking TO Parnas or just with him in the room? More specifically, could Trump have been speaking to Pompeo or Barr?
He was at a private dinner with DJ Jr., Parnas and two others.

 
Listening to MSNBC this morning all the chatter in the Senate seems to point towards Bolton testifying and now looking how to respond. There’s talk about witness exchange and also bringing the manuscript into to a SCIF for Senators to read before voting. The circus McConnell wanted to avoid is here.
It would be awesome. I’ll believe it when I see it. 

This Kelly comment might make a difference; who knows? 

 
It seems this small group of Republicans have all the power on deciding who the witnesses are.  I hope they only want Bolton and the Democrats get on board.

 
It would be awesome. I’ll believe it when I see it. 

This Kelly comment might make a difference; who knows? 
Maggie Haberman Retweeted

Manu Raju

“Mr Bolton probably has some things that would be helpful for us and we‘ll figure out how we might be able to learn that,” Lisa Murkowksi says

 
I've been trying to keep up but have certainly missed some things (pages)...who else was in the room when Trump said "get rid of her, take her out"? Was he speaking TO Parnas or just with him in the room? More specifically, could Trump have been speaking to Pompeo or Barr?
Parnas’ lawyer said that they didn’t believe it was directed a Parnas but a WH aide that was also there. Still not someone in a position to do anything. Of course if it was Trump ordering a hit, Parnas probably wouldn’t want to implicate himself in the scheme. 

 
Parnas’ lawyer said that they didn’t believe it was directed a Parnas but a WH aide that was also there. Still not someone in a position to do anything. Of course if it was Trump ordering a hit, Parnas probably wouldn’t want to implicate himself in the scheme. 
Yeah, we he categorically denied the surveillance stuff, I began to really wonder what nefarious things he might have been up to

 
 with a little Rudy for Dessert.
This would be so much must watch TV. This guy is such a trainwreck yet can't not talk about all the illegal/stupid things he has done. You just need to give him the mic and an audience and ask him to explain all his Ukraine dealings and. 3 hours later we would still all be glued to our televisions. 

 
It seems this small group of Republicans have all the power on deciding who the witnesses are.  I hope they only want Bolton and the Democrats get on board.
They have all the power because they're the only ones vulnerable to losing their seat in November.

I'm not sure if the Senators individually have a vote on which witnesses are called.  I could be wrong. I just haven't heard how that will go. There will definitely be negotiations (or a big stand off) where Republicans will want to call a bunch of non-relevant witnesses like Hunter and Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and Adam Schiff in excahnge for actual material witnesses like Bolten.

 
Listening to MSNBC this morning all the chatter in the Senate seems to point towards Bolton testifying and now looking how to respond. There’s talk about witness exchange and also bringing the manuscript into to a SCIF for Senators to read before voting. The circus McConnell wanted to avoid is here.
Stop teasing me!

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Ned
Parnas’ lawyer said that they didn’t believe it was directed a Parnas but a WH aide that was also there. Still not someone in a position to do anything. Of course if it was Trump ordering a hit, Parnas probably wouldn’t want to implicate himself in the scheme. 
Even if it wasn't directed at Parnas, it seems like something the President probably shouldn't be discussing in the presence of someone without security clearance.

This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in my head, man.

 
Serious question. Adam Schiff bored to death on day 1 and I haven't watched since,  

Has anything been proven that DJT asked for or demanded a public announcement by the Ukrainians of a Biden investigation?

 
Serious question. Adam Schiff bored to death on day 1 and I haven't watched since,  

Has anything been proven that DJT asked for or demanded a public announcement by the Ukrainians of a Biden investigation?
Information just came out yesterday that Bolten directly heard Trump say it several times.  Now the GOP will fight to keep him from saying it under oath.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He also told someone that she's going to be 'going through some things' shortly.  He speaks exactly like a mobb boss. And this is about an American citizen. A great one with years of service to our country.  
She was the white hat fighting corruption in Ukraine. The people wanting to benefit from corruption in Ukraine wanted her gone and that included Trump, Rudy and their associates.

 
dems making a play for release of mueller GJ materials in connection with impeachment proceedings: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480289-house-dems-say-trump-impeachment-defense-contradicts-doj-in-mueller
Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Lawyers for the House Democrats sought to use remarks by Trump lawyer Ken Starr on Monday to its advantage in a case over access to grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

In that case, lawmakers and the White House have argued over whether the impeachment trial qualifies as a "judicial proceeding," which would give House Democrats a stronger claim to the Mueller evidence. The Justice Department, on behalf of the Trump administration, has argued that impeachment is not a judicial proceeding

“The Senate is a court," Starr said Monday during the impeachment proceedings. "In fact, history teaches us that for literally decades, this body was referred to in this context as the high court of impeachment. So we are not a legislative chamber during these proceedings. We are in a tribunal. We are in court.”

 
They have all the power because they're the only ones vulnerable to losing their seat in November.

I'm not sure if the Senators individually have a vote on which witnesses are called.  I could be wrong. I just haven't heard how that will go. There will definitely be negotiations (or a big stand off) where Republicans will want to call a bunch of non-relevant witnesses like Hunter and Joe Biden, the whistleblower, and Adam Schiff in excahnge for actual material witnesses like Bolten.
My understanding is that they will first vote on allowing witnesses. If that passes then they go to voting on each individual witness.

 
Serious question. Adam Schiff bored to death on day 1 and I haven't watched since,  

Has anything been proven that DJT asked for or demanded a public announcement by the Ukrainians of a Biden investigation?
If Schiff's indiferrence bothered you, I'm surprised you did not smash your tv as the Repubs strolled back and forth to the cloak room and the chocolate desk during the Dem managers' testimony.

 
And it was directed at Lev Parnas, a known underworld thug. You know who had the power to fire her at any time? Trump.  So what exactly is he instructing Parnas to do?
Exactly...doesn't say fire her...doesn't instruct someone who can actually do it...so it should be something Trump should have to answer the question...what do you expect Parnas to do when saying that?

 
I know this isn't a literal statement, but I have a hard time envisioning this administration having the capabilities to remove all traces given how the digital platforms are set up, protected and backed up.  They better start on that right now if they want any shot of being done by November  :lmao:  
"Where does the bleach go?"

 
I don't have squeegee kids around me but do see guys providing full service mobile car wash in your parking space. Squeegee kids, evolved!
Noice.

Also, I knew there was a reason I liked NOLA.  I thought it was the good food and good booze, but maybe I just feel at home there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Am I over-simplifying the defense as being that impeachment guidelines are purposefully vague, therefore making the process inherently political, and with no codified definition/parameters that any attempt is illegitimate?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top