Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

33 minutes ago, Morton Muffley said:

Works for me.  And as long as we are interviewing the Bidens, let's be sure to investigate EVERY senator's children, spouse, and siblings who has ANY income from ANY source that SEEMS suspicious.  

Jacob Dylan, Frank Stallone, Daniel Baldwin...

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Aaron

 

I presume I am Ed Norton and HF is Brad Pitt.  What I want to know is who is Helena Bonham Carter.  I find her very attractive, so attractive, in fact, that I got a bit excited by her in Planet of the Apes.

I love her, but she looked like Micheal Jackson in Planet of the Apes

:yucky:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

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).

probably?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Involved yes. You don't think spreading lies and false information isn't being involved?

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. 

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

They ("managers") all know the questions being asked by their party correct? (And trying to guess what questions will be asked by the opposing party).

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Gardner announces he opposes witnesses. 

GOODBYE, COREY! 

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.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

They ("managers") all know the questions being asked by their party correct? (And trying to guess what questions will be asked by the opposing party).

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.

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

Yep. And some of these questions are absolutely asinine. And so far, not a single challenging question.

 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.

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

Of I suppose maybe the managers wrote the questions. :)

With a five minute limit, it would seem reasonable to have the q's beforehand.

I also think when a manager walks up to the podium, there should be a walkup song played on the PA.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

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."

2-3% of the 75% might buy that argument.

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

 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.

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.)

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

 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.

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biff84 said:

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.

Are the managers under oath during this process?

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

Wait- a question for both sides. And it's a completely uninformed question. Trump has never once raised executive privilege.

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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Dershowitz seriously arguing that since all Presidents believe that their own reelection is in the national interest that there can be nothing wrong with using their office to affect their reelection because they believe it is in the national interest?

 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biff84 said:

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.

I think most people answer it honestly and they would like to see witnesses.  I don't believe in the end it's a "I demand witnesses," to the point they're going to put their nickel down and vote a certain way.  Sure, they want witnesses.  People want a lot of things.  I don't know that the witnesses or lack thereof will determine votes. 

Maybe I'll be wrong. 

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

Is Dershowitz seriously arguing that since all Presidents believe that their own reelection is in the national interest that there can be nothing wrong with using their office to affect their reelection because they believe it is in the national interest?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Dershowitz just admitted to Trump trying to start a dictatorship, because what he just said is what dictators do.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jm192 said:

I think most people answer it honestly and they would like to see witnesses.  I don't believe in the end it's a "I demand witnesses," to the point they're going to put their nickel down and vote a certain way.  Sure, they want witnesses.  People want a lot of things.  I don't know that the witnesses or lack thereof will determine votes. 

Maybe I'll be wrong. 

People do want lots of things.  Like a functioning democracy and separation of powers.  Or evidence presented at trials and stuff.

But we can't have everything can we?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dershowitz just claimed that even if President Trump was looking out for his own political interests when withholding the aid and pushing for the probes, that is still not impeachable.

Dershowitz also claims that Trump's own political interests are in the public interest? :confused:

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

People do want lots of things.  Like a functioning democracy and separation of powers.  Or evidence presented at trials and stuff.

But we can't have everything can we?

I made a simple point.  You're sarcastic response doesn't change it. 

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

Dershowitz just claimed that even if President Trump was looking out for his own political interests when withholding the aid and pushing for the probes, that is still not impeachable.

Dershowitz also claims that Trump's own political interests are in the public interest? :confused:

Trump knows what is best for the public interest.

  • Laughing 2
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...