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*** (6 Viewers)

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?
Click to expand...
I apologize if this has already been asked (I'm kind of Hippling) but why is it important for you to hear from Hunter Biden in Trump's impeachment trial?

 
Max Power said:
I know you think the public is stupid.  I think the Dems fear is that Hunter says something that justifies trump's inquiry to the rest of America.
Click to expand...
The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”.  Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications, 

 
jm192 said:
Classic dem logic:  anyone who doesn’t share my view is stupid.

You ONLY want to hear about how Trump is bad.  The defense is arguing Trump was right to investigate it.  Hunter is relevant to that.  The defense needs to be able to call witnesses to support their argument.  Or no one does.

Why would you be opposed to Hunter?  Because you think we’re wasting time with it?  We’re wasting tons of time.  
Click to expand...
Out of all the possible corruption in all the world, he just so happened to want to know about this guy, who just so happened to be the son of his percieved chief political rival. When he's showed virutally no interest in any other corruption except perhaps the corruption he was doing himself? AND when they got busted they scattered like rats and covered everything up, because of the, you know, legitimate corruption investigation, that, you know, we have the FBI for.  

This is what you really want us to believe? It's just absurd.   

 
Dickies said:
The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”.  Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications, 
Click to expand...
Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.  🤷‍♂️

 
Dickies said:
The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”.  Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications, 
Click to expand...
The Democrats brought up the Bidens 400 times before the defense even started speaking.  So that opened them up to replies in regards to the Bidens. 

 
jm192 said:
It seems central to the defense.

Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?  
Click to expand...
What would Republicans ask him that's central to the defense?  

Joe and Hunter are relevant in all this but I don't think as witnesses.

 
We don't need anything from the Bidens. We just need to know what Donald knew when he asked the Ukrainians to investigate. His staff should have all the data.

 
jm192 said:
It seems central to the defense.

Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?  
Click to expand...
If you need an impeachment trial to explore and find probable cause...your defense sucks.

(the you here is not you personally but the legal defense of Trump)

 
whoknew said:
I apologize if this has already been asked (I'm kind of Hippling) but why is it important for you to hear from Hunter Biden in Trump's impeachment trial?
Click to expand...
I don;t think what Hunter/Joe did was illegal but I think it shows signs of corruption. It's the corruption that Trump claims he wanted investigated.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
What would Republicans ask him that's central to the defense?  

Joe and Hunter are relevant in all this but I don't think as witnesses.
Click to expand...
Again:  for like the 18th time today:  The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption.  If they were, then Trump is justified. 

 
jm192 said:
Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.  🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
He wasn't concerned about that the previous years he was in office. If you look at the countries we are sending aid to, it’s basically a list of the most corrupt nations on earth. Let’s see the documents from the State Dept with details of the investigation conditions in order to get the aid released. Let’s see communications from the WH detailing concerns about corruption and justifying investigating the Bidens. All I’ve seen is communications through Rudy Giuliani and the goons surrounding him trying to dig up political dirt. 

 
jm192 said:
Again:  for like the 18th time today:  The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption.  If they were, then Trump is justified. 
Click to expand...
So what would they ask him?  Just stuff like, "how did you get the job?  Why were you paid what you got?"  

 
If it's a matter of a trade Bolton for Biden(s) on the witness stand then I'm all for it.

Since I'm NPA it wouldn't bother me if we got a two for one or even three for one bust.

Trump removed, Biden leaves the race and Hunter scrambles for his innocence.

Then we all Bern with Bernie!

 
Dickies said:
He wasn't concerned about that the previous years he was in office. If you look at the countries we are sending aid to, it’s basically a list of the most corrupt nations on earth. Let’s see the documents from the State Dept with details of the investigation conditions in order to get the aid released. Let’s see communications from the WH detailing concerns about corruption and justifying investigating the Bidens. All I’ve seen is communications through Rudy Giuliani and the goons surrounding him trying to dig up political dirt. 
Click to expand...
Well why don't we sweep all the corruption under the rug since we've ignored it this long?

Maybe we smile as a corrupt Democrat is sworn into the Presidency?  All while yelling for impeachment of the Republican we feel is corrupt? 

God double standards are great!

 
roadkill1292 said:
We don't need anything from the Bidens. We just need to know what Donald knew when he asked the Ukrainians to investigate. His staff should have all the data.
Click to expand...
We know that Trump and Giuliani were looking into Ukrainian corruption before Joe announced he running for President. 

 
jm192 said:
Again:  for like the 18th time today:  The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption.  If they were, then Trump is justified. 
Click to expand...
So a President can request investigations are launched into political opponents so long as the investigation turns up dirt?

That precedent seems like a sure fire way to ensure that any investigation of the sort turns up some kind of dirt, fabricated, embellished, or not.

What a terrible idea to allow this.

 
Juxtatarot said:
That seems encouraging.  I don't think Lankford was even on the radar as someone that might call for witnesses.
Click to expand...
They're mulling over whether his book draft can sit in place of his testimony.

Literally everything possible is being considered to avoid having to call witnesses. It's absurd.

 
Republicans should also call to testify:

Cosmo Kramer, what he mean by "the Ukraine is weak"?

Brian Goldner--CEO of Hasbro, maker of Risk.  What does he know?

Steve Buscemi for directing the Pine Barrens episode with the Ukranian

Yakov Smirnoff-He makes fun of Russia but how do we know he isn't really a corrupt secret agent working with Biden?

Mila Kunis-No explanation needed

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Republicans should also call to testify:

Cosmo Kramer, what he mean by "the Ukraine is weak"?

Brian Goldner--CEO of Hasbro, maker of Risk.  What does he know?

Steve Buscemi for directing the Pine Barrens episode with the Ukranian

Yakov Smirnoff-He makes fun of Russia but how do we know he isn't really a corrupt secret agent working with Biden?

Mila Kunis-No explanation needed
Click to expand...
Sharon Stone does a good interview.

 
adonis said:
So a President can request investigations are launched into political opponents so long as the investigation turns up dirt?

That precedent seems like a sure fire way to ensure that any investigation of the sort turns up some kind of dirt, fabricated, embellished, or not.

What a terrible idea to allow this.
Click to expand...
And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?

 
timschochet said:
New Quinniapac poll: 75%  of the public in favor of witnesses.
Click to expand...
Along party lines, 49 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans said that they thought there should be witness testimony while 95 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said the same.

 
So bottom line is its totally legal and totally cool to sick foreign justice organizations on American citizens. 

I mean if we REALLY REALLY think they did something. 

In what world is that OK? 

 
MSNBC is reporting that Republican Senators have calmed down. They are going to be able to "hold the line" on witnesses. McConnell has convinced them how long it will take.

I just don't think this is going to happen. The whole Hunter Biden thing is a ruse to be able to talk to reporters. Trump will win this. No witnesses.

 
jm192 said:
And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?
Click to expand...
Apparently he's only a target because he's running for president.  Where was this investigation in 2016? 2017? 2015?

The point is that if you excuse the behavior of the President encouraging the investigation of a political rival IF it turns up dirt, that's a terrible idea.  What kind of pressure do you think a president will put on an investigation, or what kind of spin will be put, to make the investigation turn up (or seem to turn up) dirt?

Probable cause matters...if it was coming from our intelligence agencies, and through proper channels, this would likely not be an issue.  It wasn't.  There's a reason for that.  That reason is corruption, but not on Biden's part.  Trump is corrupt, and he's using the power of the office for his own personal gain...if this was a legitimate issue, it would've gone through proper channels.

 
jm192 said:
And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?
Click to expand...
No.   If the Justice Department believes they have just cause for an investigation into Joe Biden they should open one.   Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both investigated by the FBI while they were running for President and I have no problem with either one.    The Senate could initiate their own investigation if they want to.  That's fine.

The President extorting a foreign government to work with his personal attorney to investigate a political opponent is the problem.   There are proper channels to initiate an investigation and this is not one of them.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top