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*** (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
From MSNBC legal contributor, former federal prosecutor and U of Alabama law professor, Joyce Alene:
Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance 6m6 minutes ago
First question is from Collins, Murkowski & Romney. They ask, if Trump had more than one motive-ie legitimate motives & illegitimate ones-for seeking a “favor” from Zelensky, how should Senators consider that in their deliberations?
This is a deceptively tricky question. We don’t know Trump’s motives because we haven’t heard from witnesses close to him. It highlights the need to hear testimony about what he was thinking from those in his orbit. This, of course, isn’t part of the answer Trump’s lawyers give.
Trump’s answer is that if he had any permissible motive, no matter what additional motives, even corrupt ones, he had, he can’t be convicted. Also, they say abuse of the public trust isn’t impeachable. Hamilton rolls over in his grave.
https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1222586478712279040
squistion
Footballguy
Q: "Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Nulvaney, and the other key eye witnesses ...?"
Schiff: "The short answer to that question is no. There's no way to have a fair trial without witnesses."
Schiff: "The short answer to that question is no. There's no way to have a fair trial without witnesses."
Henry Ford
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Don't forget the pride of the Falls City Brewing Company, Billy Carter and his Billy beer.
Last edited by a moderator:
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
They ("House and White House managers") all know the questions being asked by their party correct? (And trying to guess what questions will be asked by the opposing party).
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Marco Rubio's position (he's up for reelection in 2022) :
As I outlined 6 weeks ago, my threshold question in #SenateTrial is: “Assuming all the allegations & material facts alleged in Article of Impeachment are true, does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office”
https://mobile.twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1222512477818249218
As I outlined 6 weeks ago, my threshold question in #SenateTrial is: “Assuming all the allegations & material facts alleged in Article of Impeachment are true, does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office”
https://mobile.twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1222512477818249218
Herb
Footballguy
Alright! Please accept my heartfelt thanks for identifying yourself as just being here on a fishing trip. Shortens the amount of time it takes to dismiss your " contributions" to the thread.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Anything worth doing is worth doing over and over again until everyone on Earth is sick of you.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
So if the President were spreading Russian lies and disinformation, he'd be involved?
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
Almost assuredly.
I'm guessing The House managers and the Defense counsel wrote most of the questions. They wrote questions to emphasize the points they felt important. They also tried to anticipate questions that the other side would ask--and had questions to be asked so they could argue with the answers to those questions.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yep. And some of these questions are absolutely asinine. And so far, not a single challenging question.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There was an article yesterday that Gardner, and also Tillis and McSally, three Senators who were supposed to be Maybe's, were instead actually lobbying fellow Senators not to vote for witnesses. Why... I guess because 1. Trump, 2. the head on pikes threat from Trump, and 3. Trump - like with Van Drew last night - is offering Maga support in fundraising for those who proxy for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most likely. I believe that the questions go to the leaders and they are the ones that decide the questions and order. I imagine they are sharing them with their side.
jm192
Footballguy
I worry that none of them will be.
Let's switch it up. Democratic Senators: Ask the Defense questions. Republicans: Let's ask the House managers something.
I was really excited for this--no more of lawyers dragging on and on. But, so far it's just prompts to allow the lawyers to drag on and on.
cosjobs
Footballguy
With a five minute limit, it would seem reasonable to have the q's beforehand.Of I suppose maybe the managers wrote the questions.
I also think when a manager walks up to the podium, there should be a walkup song played on the PA.
timschochet
Footballguy
The very first question asked by Collins, Romney, and Murkowski, was the most telling and problematic. It sure sounds to me like this is how the "moderate" Republicans are going to explain away acquittal: "OK sure his motives might have been bad, but there was also the possibility that they were good too. And we can never know- no witness, not even Bolton, can ever tell us FULLY what was in the President's mind, and so....we can't justify removing him."
cosjobs
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm almost sure that none of them will be.
From the beginning of this process there has been no debate between the two sides. They talk past each other. The Senators listen to their own side and really aren't paying attention when the other side is talking (unless there is something said they find offensive.)
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Sylvia struggling to read the answer and gets cut off by Roberts.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Wait- a question for both sides. And it's a completely uninformed question. Trump has never once raised executive privilege.
I believe they expect some this in the questioning. Like the GOP asking Schiff what he knew and when. Then likely Democrats asking questions to Dershowitz and Starr about their defense arguments.
squistion
Footballguy
Ken DilanianVerified account @KenDilanianNBC 7m7 minutes ago
From @PeteWilliamsNBC: Despite what Patrick Philbin says on behalf of the White House lawyers, there is no standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial, nor are there any rules of evidence.
Pete adds: Neither the Constitution nor the history of impeachments provides any standard. As the Congressional Research Service concluded, “Individual senators are guided by their own consciences.
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1222594647215747074
From @PeteWilliamsNBC: Despite what Patrick Philbin says on behalf of the White House lawyers, there is no standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial, nor are there any rules of evidence.
Pete adds: Neither the Constitution nor the history of impeachments provides any standard. As the Congressional Research Service concluded, “Individual senators are guided by their own consciences.
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1222594647215747074
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Hakeem Jeffries:
"We did not challenge any claims related to executive privilege because, as the president's own counsel admitted during this trial, the president never raised the question of executive privilege. What the president did raise was this notion of blanket defiance."
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Are we making duplicate posts now?
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Are we making duplicate posts now?
The amazing thing is that there’s 75% of the country that want witnesses. There’s very few things that 75% of the country agrees on. If that number holds true and witnesses aren’t called there’s going to be a lot of angry people when even more bombshells drop that would have been revealed in witness testimony. It might even be better if they allow the witnesses then vote to acquit.
That one guy
Footballguy
With regard to the legitimate and lawful hold on aid, anti-corruption and burden sharing, what occurred to lift the hold and release aid?
The arguments of why all this was on the up and up seem to center around a generic “we didn’t do that, but if we did it was because of X”, but X never seems to get a proper resolution
The arguments of why all this was on the up and up seem to center around a generic “we didn’t do that, but if we did it was because of X”, but X never seems to get a proper resolution
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
That Dershowitz argument was insane.
Similar threads
