- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Graham: Impeachment 'dead on arrival' in Senate if Dems keep whistleblower from testifying
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:16 pm
LINK
quote:
“It’s impossible to bring this case forward, in my view, fairly without us knowing who the whistleblower is and having a chance to cross-examine them about any biases they may have," he said. "So if they don’t call the whistleblower in the House, this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate.”
quote:
"This is not about Schiff finding the truth, this is about Schiff trying to destroy the Trump presidency," Graham said.
This post was edited on 11/10/19 at 7:18 pm
10
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:17 pm to WPBTiger
He said “if”. Wtf, it’s dead no matter what.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:21 pm to CDawson
quote:
Wtf, it’s dead no matter what.
I take that to mean there will not even be a trial, vote to dismiss/acquit right after it is sent over.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:22 pm to WPBTiger
A trial is better for Trump tbh if the whistleblower doesn't testify.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:24 pm to WPBTiger
Why does it matter, what could they possibly have to ask him? It wouldn’t matter if it were Hillary herself, Trumps actions are what’s under question and the motive of the whistleblower should be irrelevant.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:25 pm to WPBTiger
Graham on the right, Schiff on the left.
So this being the case, Schiff MAAAAY want to reconsider his position on calling the whistleblower to appear. Unless, of course, this isn't at all about an impeachment actually going to trial, and instead simply and exclusively intending to damage his political rival. Obviously we know it's the latter.
So this being the case, Schiff MAAAAY want to reconsider his position on calling the whistleblower to appear. Unless, of course, this isn't at all about an impeachment actually going to trial, and instead simply and exclusively intending to damage his political rival. Obviously we know it's the latter.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:25 pm to CDawson
quote:
He said “if”. Wtf, it’s dead no matter what.
You are exactly right. If we expand his statement then it is possible the Senate trial is AOk if they let the whistleblower testify??
I increasingly get the feeling that there are a pile of people both from the left and former Trump administration officials that think he needs to go. What a clusterfricke these last three years have been.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:26 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
he motive of the whistleblower should be irrelevant
I'm sure you'd say the same thing if you were accused of something.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:26 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Why does it matter, what could they possibly have to ask him? It wouldn’t matter if it were Hillary herself, Trumps actions are what’s under question and the motive of the whistleblower should be irrelevant.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:28 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Why does it matter, what could they possibly have to ask him? It wouldn’t matter if it were Hillary herself, Trumps actions are what’s under question and the motive of the whistleblower should be irrelevant.
This is hilarious.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:29 pm to Bunk Moreland
I wonder where gnome thinks credibility comes into play in a trial/prosecution/impeachment? Maybe he thinks it doesn't come into play at all. But surely not. Even my unborn child who hasn't even been conceived knows that.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:31 pm to WPBTiger
Everyone is screaming at Senate Republicans to do something; hold hearings.
Democrats are going to screw this up all by themselves.
Democrats are going to screw this up all by themselves.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:33 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I'm sure you'd say the same thing if you were accused of something.
If there was evidence that I committed whatever I’m accused of why would the motive of the accuser matter? Are the cops gonna go ohhhhh DTG your ex is just pissed, flush the kilo of coke on you and we’re cool. Just don’t do it again though ok? Yessir officer.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:33 pm to WPBTiger
Terrible strategy by Graham - good thing McConnell would actually be calling the shots. We could end the campaigns of all 4 senators and cause a huge rift on the left when brain addled Biden emerges as the nominee
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
If there was evidence that I committed whatever I’m accused of why would the motive of the accuser matter? Are the cops gonna go ohhhhh DTG your ex is just pissed, flush the kilo of coke on you and we’re cool. Just don’t do it again though ok? Yessir officer.
I hope you are in no way, shape, or form involved in the legal system.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:34 pm to Jcorye1
I’m not, so fill me in on how I’m wrong.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:34 pm to davyjones
quote:
I wonder where gnome thinks credibility comes into play in a trial/prosecution/impeachment? Maybe he thinks it doesn't come into play at all. But surely not. Even my unborn child who hasn't even been conceived knows that.
"Sir, you've been accused of murder. We have an eyewitness that says he saw you do it."
"Well, we're certainly gonna need to have him as a witness so we can question him."
"Sorry, we can't let you do that. It's really not necessary. He says he saw you do it. This is now about you. Not him."
"Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm"
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:37 pm to SSpaniel
I thought we had a transcript of the call, ie a pic of me shooting the guy in your scenario. It’s no longer just the word of an eye witness.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:39 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I thought we had a transcript of the call, ie a pic of me shooting the guy in your scenario. It’s no longer just the word of an eye witness.
But, in this scenario, the transcript (pic) shows you not shooting the guy.
Posted on 11/10/19 at 7:40 pm to WPBTiger
There is no whistleblower, someone who heard third hand bullshite, it’s already dead on arrival
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News