Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, jm192 said:

He’s withheld other aid.  So have other presidents.  It’s not automatically abuse power.  Motives matter.

You repeating there isn’t legitmacy doesn’t make it fact.  And if there isn’t any, no harm in putting Hunter on the stand.

I'm going to need to see a link where other presidents have withheld congressionally approved aid to investigate a political opponent.

Putting Hunter on the stand is completely irrelevant to this proceeding. He was working for a company in the Ukraine, not the government.

  • Like 1
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, Kal El said:

I'm going to need to see a link where other presidents have withheld congressionally approved aid to investigate a political opponent.

Putting Hunter on the stand is completely irrelevant to this proceeding. He was working for a company in the Ukraine, not the government.

No.  I was responding to you saying “he held the aid.  It’s abuse of power.”

If the ONLY problem is irrelevance—why not put him on the stand?  You’re suddenly worried about how much time we’re wasting with this?

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

Nobody can protect Biden. If they want to call him, they can call him.

(Hint: they don't want to call him. This is just a talking point. There will be no witnesses. Trump will be acquitted on Friday.)

Of course they don't want to call him. The questioning would make it immediately clear that there is no reason for him to be there. They aren't even able to articulate a real allegation of wrongdoing, only vague nonsense. However they have learned the power of vague nonsense. 

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

Of course they don't want to call him. The questioning would make it immediately clear that there is no reason for him to be there. They aren't even able to articulate a real allegation of wrongdoing, only vague nonsense. However they have learned the power of vague nonsense. 

They’ve made their allegation multiple times over.  You just don’t want to hear it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Rick Wilson, an apostate Republican and Never Trumper, has turned on his old party.  And, of course, has put together attack ads 10x as effective as anything a Dem would come up with.  It's disappointing.

Martha McSally is pummeled in this one for her ties to Trump.

Collective internet response

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

No.  I was responding to you saying “he held the aid.  It’s abuse of power.”

If the ONLY problem is irrelevance—why not put him on the stand?  You’re suddenly worried about how much time we’re wasting with this?

A President cannot withhold congressionally approved aid unless extreme circumstances merit such. I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do it at all.

 

Why do you want Hunter Biden so badly? He isn't going to help Trump's case at all, so why bother?

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

They’ve made their allegation multiple times over.  You just don’t want to hear it.

It's a baseless allegation, but the GOP is bent on wasting everyone's time, apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

A President cannot withhold congressionally approved aid unless extreme circumstances merit such. I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do it at all.

 

Why do you want Hunter Biden so badly? He isn't going to help Trump's case at all, so why bother?

Bolton isn’t going to lead to removal.  It’s all a political show.  

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

Bolton isn’t going to lead to removal.  It’s all a political show.  

I know. The GOP is going to go down with the Trump ship. They won't remove him, and they'll likely pay for it in November.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I know. The GOP is going to go down with the Trump ship. They won't remove him, and they'll likely pay for it in November.

Right.  Which is the ENTIRE point of this political show.

If they can spend months playing politics, so can the Republicans.

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

He’s withheld other aid.  So have other presidents.  It’s not automatically abuse power.  Motives matter.

You repeating there isn’t legitmacy doesn’t make it fact.  And if there isn’t any, no harm in putting Hunter on the stand.

Do you honestly believe that Trump withheld the money because he was concerned with Ukrainian corruption generally?   That American national security interests were somehow compromised because Hunter was sitting on the Burisma board?

you think that is what Trump was doing?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thing would be far less complicated if they just let Roberts decide whether a witness is relevant or not. Both sides make their case why they want Biden or Bolton or whoever. He weighs the merits and issues a ruling. Done

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I know. The GOP is going to go down with the Trump ship. They won't remove him, and they'll likely pay for it in November.

I doubt it.  Even if Mitch succeeds tonight in quashing witnesses, I doubt the price they pay is even measurable.  

Mitch knows this.  And he is happy to roll those dice.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Right.  Which is the ENTIRE point of this political show.

If they can spend months playing politics, so can the Republicans.

you’re essentially making the case that a President should never be impeached, since it’s political.

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

Right.  Which is the ENTIRE point of this political show.

If they can spend months playing politics, so can the Republicans.

The point is to try and keep any president from becoming a dictator, in this case Trump. The GOP has decided to put party over country, and it's up to the American people to do what they lack the fortitude to do.

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

I think it should be egrgious and have bipartisan support.  This isn’t that.

egregious is subjective.  many think this is.  bipartisan is virtually impossible right now.  so yes, you’re essentially making that argument.

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

Right.  Which is the ENTIRE point of this political show.

If they can spend months playing politics, so can the Republicans.

The problem with this is it ignores what Trump actually did.  Which was withhold aid to benefit himself.  

i don’t think anyone can reasonably dispute this at this point.  Every senator knows he did it.  

people have to just come out now and say they don’t care.  Own it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I think it should be egrgious and have bipartisan support.  This isn’t that.

No impeachment is ever going to have bipartisan support.  That will never happen once a Supreme Court seat was stolen.  It just won't, ever again.  Just like no Justice will ever be approved again if the President and Senate are held by opposing parties.  It's called precedent.  The Banana Republicans are setting tons of awful precedents.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I think it should be egrgious and have bipartisan support.  This isn’t that.

This obviously needs bipartisan support since there aren't 67 Democrat Senators.  The charges against him are egregious though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jm192 said:

They’ve made their allegation multiple times over.  You just don’t want to hear it.

Hunter is the Hillary of this political cycle. The specter of a "shady dealings" Hunter escaping justice is worth more to Republican politicians than attempting to bring him to justice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I would like to add the Hamburglar to this list. Although no direct connection to Ukraine it seems like he's always up to something. 

There used to be a poster here named Hamburglar way back. For a period of time me and a couple of other idiots would reply to all of his posts with “robble robble” .

IIRC he eventually got mad about it:

  • Laughing 5
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

There used to be a poster here named Hamburglar way back. For a period of time me and a couple of other idiots would reply to all of his posts with “robble robble” .

IIRC he eventually got mad about it:

Liberals have chased all the conservatives away.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.  

I'm going to try one more time to use an analogy here to try to describe the legal aspect here. 

1. Barring an extreme necessity type situation, it is unlawful to steal. As such, a modern day Robin Hood would still be legally-speaking, a thief even if he stole money from the bank to hand out to the poor. If Robin Hood went to trial it's very likely that a court could and would actually preclude some presentation of evidence as to what Robin Hood did with the money after the theft.  

2. It is very likely a high crime/misdemeanor for a president to withhold (or threaten to withhold)  congressionally authorized aid from a country on the condition that the country engage in action which appears to smear a political opponent. This is legally accurate even if Hunter Biden were Jack the Ripper. As such, and similar to the good intentions of Robin Hood above, even if Trump were well-intentioned of getting some bad guy in Hunter Biden it doesn't lawfully defend his actions. And, therefore, from a legal perspective, Hunter Biden remains to be irrelevant. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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.

Well they started 14 months before and since the Senate too needs to act on it they can only attempt to impeach about 2 out of every 4 years

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Rick Wilson, an apostate Republican and Never Trumper, has turned on his old party.  And, of course, has put together attack ads 10x as effective as anything a Dem would come up with.  It's disappointing.

Martha McSally is pummeled in this one for her ties to Trump.

I had such hopes for McSally when she first came onto the scene...

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, the moops said:

This thing would be far less complicated if they just let Roberts decide whether a witness is relevant or not. Both sides make their case why they want Biden or Bolton or whoever. He weighs the merits and issues a ruling. Done

Why would anyone care what a lawyer or a judge thinks about the law?

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

Liberals have chased all the conservatives away.

I'm still here, though I'm more of a libertarian now. Still a few conservative views on things, but I'm keeping an open mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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. 

No, he still wouldn't be justified. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jm192 said:

And the ONLY way you can claim Abuse of power is if you claim the Biden thing is just to smear Biden.  If there’s legitimacy to it, it looks very flimsy.

No...because it involved Biden and Trump improperly used his office to withhold congressional approved aid to claim something was needed to look jnto his opponents son (while not actually using the word corruption in the call).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Friday or whatever day the vote happens will long be remembered as the day the republican senate saved the country from an attempted coup.

It isnt a coup...save us :lmao:  Thats a good one man.

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

That seems encouraging.  I don't think Lankford was even on the radar as someone that might call for witnesses.

He isn’t calling for a witness, he just wants to see the manuscript 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Street Brat said:

We know that Trump and Giuliani were looking into Ukrainian corruption before Joe announced he running for President. 

Didn't Giuliani explicitly state that he worked for Trump the individual and not Trump the president?    But I agree that Trump and Rudy were looking for corruption to participate in and then it all went to :censored: when the Ukraine went and elected a reformer for president.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

It isnt a coup...save us :lmao:  Thats a good one man.

I don't think he actually knows what "coup" means. It's very obvious Trump doesn't know, however.

 

ETA: I looked it up just to make sure, realized it has 2 pretty different definitions. Learning new stuff everyday.

Edited by Kal El
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

No impeachment is ever going to have bipartisan support.  That will never happen once a Supreme Court seat was stolen.  It just won't, ever again.  Just like no Justice will ever be approved again if the President and Senate are held by opposing parties.  It's called precedent.  The Banana Republicans are setting tons of awful precedents.  

 

And trying to set another that a President can hijack foreign policy to go after opponents without probable cause.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Street Brat said:

We know that Trump and Giuliani were looking into Ukrainian corruption before Joe announced he running for President.

Eh, Moleculo has a great timeline.

And I'm not sure if it's in there but you ought to mark when Giuliani came on - hint it was right after Cohen was blocked out.

And it would be worth noting when Parnas and Fruman came on with Trump, because they may have been operating with him independently before they teamed up with Giuliani.

And IMO the way to view this is that Giuliani came on having known Trump back in the day in NYC but also having established his own foreign consulting business in Ukraine and Eastern Europe dating back to the early 00's (post 2002 or so). And I rather think that Giuliani and Trump were initially trying to tamp down investigation sharing from Ukraine's NABU & General Prosecutor's office with Mueller. And I suspect a relationship was made with Poroshenko some time in advance of Zelensky's having gotten elected, and maybe some kind of deal was in place even then.

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

Didn't Giuliani explicitly state that he worked for Trump the individual and not Trump the president?    But I agree that Trump and Rudy were looking for corruption to participate in and then it all went to :censored: when the Ukraine went and elected a reformer for president.

So you are saying it’s perfectly fine having Trump the President to tell ambassadors and diplomats working for the State Department to report to Giuliani who is working for Trump the individual? Wrong but not impeachable is starting to sound like Abuse of Power in that scenario.

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

Rick Wilson, an apostate Republican and Never Trumper, has turned on his old party.  And, of course, has put together attack ads 10x as effective as anything a Dem would come up with.  It's disappointing.

Martha McSally is pummeled in this one for her ties to Trump.

https://giphy.com/gifs/friday-myposts-ddd0HBTakik00

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No...because it involved Biden and Trump improperly used his office to withhold congressional approved aid to claim something was needed to look jnto his opponents son (while not actually using the word corruption in the call).

 

Sometimes people imply things

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been repeated many times, it doesn't matter if Biden is corrupt.  What matters is if Trump suspects he is.  If Trump had probable cause, I'd like to see it. 

Has the White House defense presented anything beyond unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

  • Like 1
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...