Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

 

 

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skoo 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.

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, E Street Brat said:

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. 

 

 

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

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."

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

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. 

 

 

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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."

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.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lutherman2112 said:

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?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

I've already given my thought on Mulvaney, I'm okay with getting something in return for financial aid. 

you're ok with who getting something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, adonis said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

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."

 

It's rather silly, but it's also a rather common reaction from somebody in trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 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? (1)  But Any way, I'd like to hear from him, Hunter (2) , the WB (3) 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 (4). It's at that point as the third equal branch the SCOTUS would step in and decide.   Am I wrong about that?

 

 

 

(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.

Edited by moleculo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zow said:

It's rather silly, but it's also a rather common reaction from somebody in trouble.

My kids sometimes use that excuse, to which I respond, "I'm not their dad, but I am yours." So since we are the government's dad(or mom, for any ladies here), and they're in trouble, I guess it's time to go get the belt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, adonis said:

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.

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Well yeah.  It's pretty much what I hear all day long.

"But..but..but...Jaeydin and Braeydon and Rhaedhen were talking too!"

Me too! :hifive:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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.

hope you're right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

Well yeah.  It's pretty much what I hear all day long.

"But..but..but...Jaeydin and Braeydon and Rhaedhen were talking too!"

Is that pronounced Raiden?

Follow-up: does the kid have a brother named Kano?

Edit: Sorry, "Khaehnoh"?

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jm192 said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal El said:

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.

And in fairness, the Dems have been looking to impeach him since November 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal El said:

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.

yup.  If Ukraine didn't want to play ball, Rudy spreading his conspiracies would be just as damaging as an actual investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

And in fairness, the Dems have been looking to impeach him since November 2016. 

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)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

And in fairness, the Dems have been looking to impeach him since November 2016. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jm192 said:

And in fairness, the Dems have been looking to impeach him since November 2016. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

He was a crook before 2016. There were plenty of other non-crook options for Republican voters to nominate.

So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment.  Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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.  When I got nothing but the same ole ####. I figured I got my answer.  

 

JFC you guys are too much,  

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jm192 said:

So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment.  Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

I think he is saying that because the Republicans knew he was a crook it should not come as a big surprise that he would be continue being one once he was elected.

  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

So...Because you don't like who the Republicans voted for, you agree with impeachment.  Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Not at all what he said.

Trump is a crook, which is why he's being impeached.

There were other candidates that aren't crooks.

It's not the Democrats fault the GOP nominated a grifter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Godsbrother said:

I think he is saying that because the Republicans knew he was a crook it should not come as a big surprise that he would be continue being one once he was elected.

  

It reads like "You should have voted for a different Republican."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Godsbrother said:

I do think that what he is saying.   My question to Republicans would be: if you voted for Trump in the 2016 primaries would he still be your choice?

I voted for a different Republican.

I was then presented with Trump vs Hillary.  Don't be mad at me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, timschochet said:

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.

I read somewhere its 82% specifically on Bolton. Navigator research. Not sure on their bonafides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jm192 said:
5 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I do think that what he is saying.   My question to Republicans would be: if you voted for Trump in the 2016 primaries would he still be your choice?

I voted for a different Republican.

I was then presented with Trump vs Hillary.  Don't be mad at me.

Like Godsbrother, I wouldn't get mad at somebody over who they voted for. Just wanted to nitpick and say that it wasn't simply Trump vs Hillary. You could always go third-party. I went Gary Johnson in 2016 as I hate voting for the lesser of two evils. Although, in 2020, I find Trump so bad that I'll probably vote for a democrat for president for the first time in my life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Republicans wanted Obama impeached by Election Night in 2008. What's your point?

I guess I forgot when someone said he was "the best man to lead an impeachment." against Obama.

We've not been without impeachment discussion/investigation since the election.  But everything Republicans say is "debunked conspiracy."  And everything Dems have said "has been proven beyond doubt."  So, really no reason for me to keep on posting about it.

 

  • Thanks 1
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...