Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

Just now, E Street Brat said:

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. 

What would constitute "proof" to you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, E Street Brat said:

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

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 .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal El said:
6 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zoonation said:

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.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, E Street Brat said:

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'm not following?  He has a large ego and therefore he is more likely to lie?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phil Elliott said:

Can Bolton just hold a press conference or do an interview with the mainstream media?

Absolutely.  He's a private citizen. I doubt he'd do that unless his publishers are prepared to push the book out immediately following. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

And that Bolton has volunteered to testify under oath while Trump avoids it like kryptonite.

Avoiding something like kryptonite implies one is Superman.  Perhaps a better analogy for him is that he avoids it like its Kale.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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.

Edited by Juxtatarot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

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?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, E Street Brat said:

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Juxtatarot said:

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? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Did you listen to the Gordon Sondland testimony?  In my opinion, Sondland combined with Bolton should be enough for everyone to believe it.

I did. and under direct cross he said under oath that know one told him that aid was tied to a political investigation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

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 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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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 .

 

 

3 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

I did. and under direct cross he said under oath that know one told him that aid was tied to a political investigation.  

 

He said Trump just wanted the announcement of the investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dickies said:

 

He said Trump just wanted the announcement of the investigation

 

Quote

 

“Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio asked.

“That’s correct,” Sondland said.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff84 said:

My understanding is that they will first vote on allowing witnesses. If that passes then they go to voting on each individual witness.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

“Mr. Sondland, let’s be clear: no one on this planet—not Donald Trump, Rudy Guiliani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo—no one told you aid was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio asked.

“That’s correct,” Sondland said.

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

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. 

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."

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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.   

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

Link to comment
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.

×
  • Create New...