E Street Brat
Footballguy
I did. and under direct cross he said under oath that know one told him that aid was tied to a political investigation.
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*** (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
E Street Brat
Footballguy
I'm okay with that, depending on what the investigation is. As a tax payer, I'd like to know what happened to 1.8 billion dollars.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
A credibility conflict between Trump and Bolton is a fitty fitty? Bolton's worst enemies -- and they are legion -- call him a straight shooter. Donald's lawyers used to only meet with him in pairs.
Dickies
Footballguy
He said Trump just wanted the announcement of the investigation
E Street Brat
Footballguy
TheMagus
Footballguy
This is my understanding as well which is why I don't understand what this barter talk (Bolton for Biden) is about because of the Republicans want to call Hunter, they can.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
But you are aware that even though no one said the exact words, his distinct impression was that it was absolutely tied to the investigations, right?
There's also all the other people that testified the same thing, along with Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney flat-out admitting it in a press conference.
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
The "But Obama/Biden did the same thing!" is just silly.
"You're under arrest for punching a random old woman in the face on the street."
"Yeah well I saw Nick Bosa totally body slam a guy on TV yesterday."
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Yes this is the crux of the whole trial. The investigation was about getting dirt on Biden, a political opponent of the president. Bolton, Mulvaney have both said so (though not under oath). Sondland and a whole host of others did testify that's what it was all about. Yet it seems you are taking the President's word, a known compulsive liar and the only one with motivation to lie about this.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Because it wasn't the House's homework? You know there are often more witnesses in a trial than in the investigation of the issue, right?
And the House did request him to testify and didn't pursue in the court.
I won't pursue more about Hunter and the WB as their testimony would be completely irrelevant to the truth about what Trump did.
zoonation
Footballguy
Right. Sondland did say he was told the meeting was tied to the investigations. I suspect you don't care about that piece, given that you indicated upstream that you would not remove Trump even if/when Bolton destroys him because he got caught before the investigation was announced and had to abandon the freeze?
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow. In closing, Trump's defense only had one argument to offer: McConnell's Merrick Garland argument.
"It's too close to the election. We can't take this decision away from the voters."
"It's too close to the election. We can't take this decision away from the voters."
E Street Brat
Footballguy
I just went back and looked real quick. It was Morrison that felt the money was tied to a public announcement. And he got that feeling after talking to Sondland who as quoted above. Said nobody told him squat.
I've already given my thought on Mulvaney, I'm okay with getting something in return for financial aid.
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Today in "I dont know him", Florida version:
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/01/28/donald-trump-and-lev-parnas-discussed-rick-scott-in-secret-recording/
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/01/28/donald-trump-and-lev-parnas-discussed-rick-scott-in-secret-recording/
Dickies
Footballguy
We should absolutely get something in return for financial aid, but it should be something that benefits our national interests, not something that only personally benefits the President.
jm192
Footballguy
I heard "This is clearly a political tool, not a legit impeachment." And he even cited video of people on the House manager team predicting this would happen. I thought some of their arguments were pretty weak, but I thought they closed on a really good note.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
adonis
Footballguy
So for all you aspiring presidents...if you're going to commit an impeachable offense in the future, do it close to an election. Congress is only supposed to do its job of oversight 3 out of every 4 years.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
How many pictures and recordings of Trump with Parnas will it take to convince his supporters that Trump isn't telling the truth when he said he doesn't know guy?
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah did you notice the flaw in that? He had video of Chuck Schumer saying it would happen to the next Republican. Then he turned it off and said "You (Schumer) were right.)".
Actually he was wrong. Because the next Republican was George W. Bush who served 8 years. And though a few Democrats certainly did want to impeach him, it didn't happen. Why not? The House was Democrat controlled in 2007 and 2008. Why not impeach Bush then?
Because there was no clear impeachable offense, despite what my friend @ren hoek believes. Here there is.
joffer
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Back to work guys, Thanks for the talk. I'll try and come back again later,
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Yep. This has to be the stupidest argument of all time.
Not surprised Trump's team came up with it and the GOP senate will go along for the ride.
Zow
Footballguy
It's rather silly, but it's also a rather common reaction from somebody in trouble.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
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.
moleculo
Footballguy
(1) I've heard this argument several times. Here's my reply:
(1.a.) The house did not subpoena him, but they did subpoena his assistant, who asked a judge to rule on it. Bolton was asked to testify; he said he would pending the judges ruling. for point of reference, Don McGhan was also asked to testify during the Mueller hearings last march. McGhan refused. They subpoenad him April 22, and finally last November the courts ruled against him. He appealed and the case is on-going. This court delay would be similar to a court challenge for Bolton.
(1.b) The Senate, including CJ Roberts, has the power to do what the House could not - get an immediate, un-appealable decision to compel testimony.
(2) The only question to Hunter that has any relevance, at all, would be this: "Are you related to the Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden?" Why Hunter was employed by Burisma is none of the Senates business, nor is how much he made, or the investment strategies of his holding company. It's all completely irrelevant to whether Trump withheld aid to pressure Ukraine to smear a political rival.
(3) what could the whistleblower possibly add? Assume the whistleblower was Hillary Clinton herself - does that change anything? Does that mean we can all say, "oh, gee, it really sucks someone saw that the president was corrupt and told on him, the real crime is tattle-telling".
(4) I don't believe privilege extends to breaking the law. Withholding congressional appointed aid violated the law. Further, Trump already commented on what he talked about with Bolton (via tweet, yesterday). By doing so, he surrenders any privilege claim.
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
The Dems are rushing this investigation and not waiting for the courts to tell the administration that illegally ignoring subpoenas is in fact illegal!
The Dems are moving too slow and holding up the process!
The Dems needed to act sooner because we’re now too close to the election!
Zow
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
Republicans fall in line.
They may mentally flirt with voting their conscience, but when push comes to shove, as it always does at the highest levels, they fall in line.
joffer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't.
I know it's better politically for Democrats if the Republicans make a sham of this. But it's not good for the country. I'd rather we get the truth and go wherever it leads us.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Is that pronounced Raiden?
Follow-up: does the kid have a brother named Kano?
Edit: Sorry, "Khaehnoh"?
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
I mean, it was the 2nd Republican instead of the 1st. It's still fair to say that we didn't get through many Republicans before the Dems did it.
In fairness, Trump brought this on himself. He could have let the aid go, asked for an investigation anyway, and it probably wouldn't have gotten this far.
jm192
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
yup. If Ukraine didn't want to play ball, Rudy spreading his conspiracies would be just as damaging as an actual investigation.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
ericttspikes
Footballguy
He was a crook before 2016. There were plenty of other non-crook options for Republican voters to nominate.
moleculo
Footballguy
all Dems or some Dems? Fringe Dems, or leadership? I mean, it's odd they didn't pursue impeachment for the Russia stuff, right? Or emoluments, or even sexual harassment (what they pursued Bill Clinton for)?
timschochet
Footballguy
No they weren't.
I was one of those who, after I read the Mueller Report, wanted Trump impeached. I started a thread about it. Elizabeth Warren of all people, whom I disagree with on a variety of issues, changed my mind on that one; I found her argument compelling.
But Nancy Pelosi and the majority of Democrats disagreed with me. I think they disagreed with me for political reasons. They feared the backlash. They only impeached Trump after the Ukraine scandal came out because the evidence of his crime was OVERWHELMING. They didn't want to do it, they were forced to do it. So the idea that they've been looking to impeach him since 2016 is complete nonsense. A few extreme members were, certainly. But nowhere near the majority.
Skoo
Footballguy
Which Dems are you talking about?
They absolutely could have and should have impeached over Russia, but they didn't.
They actually showed quite a lot of restraint.
But I know I know, the "Dems have been trying this since 2016" has become a meme at this point. It's just not accurate.
timschochet
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.
Here is the link you are asking for:
"President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton."
sho nuff
Footballguy
Similar threads
