What's new
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*** (6 Viewers)

Ditkaless Wonders said:
I'll take a PM.
Click to expand...
on reflection, mine aren't as funny as others I've seen out there

#OtherDershowitzArguments

The president can grab anyone by the ###### if he believes doing so will help him get re-elected.

The president may recline his seat in coach PROVIDED he believes he is a good president.

Asking the president to bag his dog’s poop is unconstitutional if he believes said poop is in the country’s best interests.

 
Phil Elliott said:
Instead of each side saying "you're lying", it would be nice to see some hard evidence.
Click to expand...
My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.

 
Widbil83 said:
My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.
Click to expand...
It was the house committee staff first off. Kept his word?  When dod he claim we would hear from the wb beyond report?

None of which is even logical to make the claim that he knew the wb.  Which is what you claimed he lied about.

 
Widbil83 said:
My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.
Click to expand...
Still not proof that Schiff actually had contact with the whistleblower. I think he did have contact. Is there any "affidavit" or similar that someone within the govt actually met and can vouch for the whistleblower besides "he provided this information and is protected"?

 
Jefferies ending his "answer" with "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" goes to show how much work they've done to prepare the answers.  That goes for both sides. 

 
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and high-profile defense attorney, argued that Trump cannot be impeached for pressuring Ukraine for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden because doing so would be aimed at helping his reelection chances. Dershowitz said Trump's motivations would ultimately be fueled by the public interest because he believes his reelection is what's best for the country.

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Click to expand...
CNN

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:​

Actual President Dictator, folks.​
 
CletiusMaximus said:
Would it be a bannable offense to post some #OtherDershowitzArguments in here?  Because I just came up with a few while on a boring conference call.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'm late with my post but :censored: it needs to be on every page. Anything Trump does is in the public interest, hence therefore and ad infinitum he is always right and just in what he does by divine right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who submitted the 3rd question along with Cruz in regards to the Whistle blower?  Cruz IS really trying to make a point about the whistle blower. 

 
I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 

 
timschochet said:
I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 
Click to expand...
I believe that the House managers/Defense team wrote a lot of them.  But I'm also convinced Ted Cruz is writing his own. 

 
Biff84 said:
I love how Dersh calls out all other constitutional scholars as being politically biased. Everyone else but definitely not the person who recently did a complete 180 and started supporting Trump and changing all of his legal opinions to support Trump.
Click to expand...
It's weird.  Dershowitz is tied to the Epstein sex scandal and suddenly he changes his tune on Trump.  I'm sure there's nothing to see there.  

 
parrot said:
It's weird.  Dershowitz is tied to the Epstein sex scandal and suddenly he changes his tune on Trump.  I'm sure there's nothing to see there.  
Click to expand...
He was connected to him before this. Something changed with him and several others including Graham. Seems like he got incriminating information on them the way they’ve fallen in line. 

 
Widbil83 said:
My evidence is his entire whistleblower timeline and subsequent flip flop. For weeks Schiff said we would hear from the whistleblower and than pulled the rug out. Oh and the whistleblowers first stop was to his staff, give me a break. We could have totally cleared this up if Schiff would have kept this word in the first place.
Click to expand...
Can you help me understand what needs to be cleared up by the whistleblower?  I have heard the claim that Schiff knew who it was, or that the whistleblower is a partisan, but how does that actually change anything?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Click to expand...
I'm  not superstitious but it feels like bad luck to use the defense that sunk Nixon in an impeachment trial.  

 
CletiusMaximus said:
on reflection, mine aren't as funny as others I've seen out there

#OtherDershowitzArguments

The president can grab anyone by the ###### if he believes doing so will help him get re-elected.

The president may recline his seat in coach PROVIDED he believes he is a good president.

Asking the president to bag his dog’s poop is unconstitutional if he believes said poop is in the country’s best interests.
Click to expand...
How about a compelling #textual argument?  By rejecting "maladministration" the Founders manifested the intent to reject any other possible offenses that could begin with "M."

 
timschochet said:
I swear my high school daughter could come up with better questions than some of these. I always sort of believed that the Senate was the serious branch, somehow smarter than the House. Now I have my doubts. 
Click to expand...
With all due respect, how exactly did you think this was going to play out today?

 
bostonfred said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
Click to expand...
I'm  not superstitious but it feels like bad luck to use the defense that sunk Nixon in an impeachment trial. 
Click to expand...
Can’t say I’ve been surprised by much so far in this “trial”. Until this line of defense, it’s mind blowing. Just. Absolutely. Mind. Blowing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
I didn’t listen to the entire day, so maybe I missed it - Schiff and the House team stated several times that Roberts would be able to rule immediately on questions of privilege, did the Trump defense team ever dispute that point? Seems like an important point of contention because McConnell reportedly won some support back with the argument that if witnesses are called, questions of privilege will be drug out in court for months.

 
matuski said:
Speaking of quid pro quo - I'll vote Republican the next 2 elections if enough of them find the balls to remove Trump.
Click to expand...
Conversely, I am a registered independent who has voted for Democrat, republican and libertarian presidential candidates over the past 20 years who is looking forward to punishing EVERY  candidate with an R next to their name in every near-term election from president to dog catcher.  Am disgusted with this GOP and don't care that my local school board candidate had nothing to do with this clown show - out you go.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top