Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

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

Meh, I think the problem is you are suggesting Republicans are interchangeable. I don't believe for a minute that any Republican president would be impeached. There are political consequences/realities that make impeachment a very difficult thing to happen. Beyond that, you have to be pretty cynical to ignore the underlying facts here... a president breaking the law (holding Congressional earmarked funding) to bribe a foreign country to influence a future US election via announcement of a manufactured investigation against his political rival. That conduct from a sworn US president is about as bad as it gets.   

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • timschochet

    2277

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1831

  • Henry Ford

    1367

  • Sinn Fein

    1171

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The quid pro quo discussion is a red herring. Sondland’s statement and testimony is proof that the President was running a shadow diplomacy operation using his private attorney outside of normal execu

This is no longer something worth arguing about for the time being.  Until the administration puts forth some compelling evidence or allows some witness to testify as to its side of the story, there i

2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

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.

There's an entire thread dedicated to Trump supporters right here in this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skoo said:

There's an entire thread dedicated to Trump supporters right here in this forum.

Are we seriously using that argument?  You guys are constantly told there are dozens of other threads, but Tim always says something about the cake is better in that thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

Are we seriously using that argument?  You guys are constantly told there are dozens of other threads, but Tim always says something about the cake is better in that thread.

Wait.

They have cake in there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Are we seriously using that argument?  You guys are constantly told there are dozens of other threads, but Tim always says something about the cake is better in that thread.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of people here that agree with you.

It's not "Dems are always right, Republicans are always wrong" as you claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

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.

Thanks Tim

This is what I'm looking for. If this can be proved then I'm on the train to to impeachment land. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, E Street Brat said:

Thanks Tim

This is what I'm looking for. If this can be proved then I'm on the train to to impeachment land. 

 

unfortunately, it appears that anyone who had direct communication with the president on the subject has been barred from cooperating.   Trump actually cited, get this, "absolute immunity".

Hence, impeachment article II.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole witness swap thing has to be one of the silliest tactics of attempted bipartisanship ever.  The reps control the Senate in such a majority that Hunter Biden would be there right now if they wanted, regardless of Bolton or Pompeo or Rudy.  If they wanted anyone under the guise of seeking the truth, the votes are there and plenty 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

No, because the public will see it as the Dems wanting to hide Hunter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, moleculo said:

unfortunately, it appears that anyone who had direct communication with the president on the subject has been barred from cooperating.   Trump actually cited, get this, "absolute immunity".

Hence, impeachment article II.

Then it was even more important for the House to issue subpoenas.  Of course the WH would have fought it all the way, but it still should have done.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

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.

Consider Nancy the Jim Valvano of impeachment proceedings.  Her delay was equivalent to repeatedly fouling the other team down the stretch, forcing them to make foul shots and extending the game, hoping for a break or two to let you avoid the apparently inevitable outcome. It may not be pretty and it's not likely to work, but every once in a while, those breaks happen and you win a National Championship.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

Couldn’t the Republicans call Hunter Biden and deny Bolton if they really wanted to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

If I was the Dems I'd take that deal. 

What Hunter did was not illegal. You let the R's make  the Biden's look like the shady political family they are, and you get your star Bolton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

No, because the public will see it as the Dems wanting to hide Hunter.

Then the public is incomprehensibly stupid. What knowledge of Trump’s actions would Hunter Biden bring to the table?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

I just can’t understand the determination to keep Hunter out of it.

Bolton seems like a slam dunk.  I’d trade anything for that.

But they won’t because they care so much about the holy legal principle of “relevance?”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dickies said:

Then the public is incomprehensibly stupid. What knowledge of Trump’s actions would Hunter Biden bring to the table?

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

We have a number of posters on this board who won't see through it. Despite it being explained to them on a continuous loop. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm192 said:

I just can’t understand the determination to keep Hunter out of it.

Bolton seems like a slam dunk.  I’d trade anything for that.

But they won’t because they care so much about the holy legal principle of “relevance?”

There's no determination. If the Republicans want him, call him.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

It's perverse. We have to enable them in their original goal of slandering Biden to get a fair trial. 

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that works out for them. 

Edited by Jackstraw
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Then the public is incomprehensibly stupid. What knowledge of Trump’s actions would Hunter Biden bring to the table?

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

It's perverse. We have to enable them in their original goal of slandering Biden to get a fair trial. 

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see how that works out for them. 

Biden is already toast. Wait till the shoe drops on brother Jim and the tax payer money he got way with,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So now per reports McConnell is trying to pull a fast one. He's going to offer the Democrats the Bolton for Hunter Biden deal. And when the Democrats don't agree, they will say, "hey we wanted to have witnesses but the Democrats wouldn't agree."

The problem with this is: they don't need the Democrats to agree. They can call whoever they want. If they want to call just Hunter Biden, they can do it. The Democrats can't stop it.

But that's what they're going to try and sell: we tried to make a deal, Democrats wouldn't agree, so no witnesses. Acquit!

Will the public see through this farce?

If I'm the Democrats, I announce the offer and say, "We are willing to accept that both witnesses can be called and that either or both can testify if the Chief Justice determines that a proffer of proof shows the witness's testimony to be relevant."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.  

It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory.  That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory.  That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.

Can he refuse to answer any questions unrelated to Trumps actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory.  That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.

It seems central to the defense.

Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?

 

 

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory.  That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.

It does if you're trying to do literally anything to distract from the president's abuses of power.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 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.

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, 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.  

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.   

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Laura Ingraham is apparently threatening that any Republican who votes for witnesses will be public enemy #1 on her show, and she will use all her power to ruin them.

Obviously Laura is interested in the truth!!

Dangerous propaganda. Nazi-like. Horrible for the country. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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, 

Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.  🤷‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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, 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm192 said:

It seems central to the defense.

Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?  

 

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.

Link to post
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...