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*** (8 Viewers)

A person isn’t a troll if they respond to their twenty notifications.  Back in the day when I had opinions the majority didn’t agree with, I’d make a post, fifteen people would jump to correct some mistake, or perceived mistake, and then when I tried to respond to them all, was accused of trolling.  It’s a vicious circle.

Noonan is a far-right guy, or which there are tens of millions in the USA. A little respect goes a long way. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm not following the impeachment stuff closely.

All this with fish and others today yelling about noonan for "lying" because he called it a transcript? And he posts links from CNN, CBS, FOX and NBC where they refer to it as a transcript?

:wall:  
Click to expand...
Narrator:  Its not a transcript.

From the document itself:  MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation.· (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty "Officers and-NSC policy staff assigned to listen.and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

 
shader said:
A person isn’t a troll if they respond to their twenty notifications.  Back in the day when I had opinions the majority didn’t agree with, I’d make a post, fifteen people would jump to correct some mistake, or perceived mistake, and then when I tried to respond to them all, was accused of trolling.  It’s a vicious circle.

Noonan is a far-right guy, or which there are tens of millions in the USA. A little respect goes a long way. 
Click to expand...
Respect  is also earned...

edit to add...and realize that goes for me too.  Not going to get into anything  about any individual posters.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickies said:
Regardless of whether parts were removed, the memo that was released was still inappropriate.  It's telling that one side has stuck to the same story. and the new information we keep getting only strengthens that story, while the other side needs to completely re-write their story every time a new piece of information comes out.  I'm probably missing 10+ here since they change multiple times a day, but they are all hilariously contradict previous excuses

No QPQ

Get over it

So what if there was QPQ?

The President cannot break the law

What's wrong with withholding aid for political favors?

We understand how serious the allegations appear, but we can't believe any of them because the accusers may have ties to Democrats
Click to expand...
Most of this is irrelevant to what I am discussing. I'm simply trying to find a common ground that everyone can agree on.

1 - A partial transcript of the call was released. (Noonan linked to the media outlets that have called it a transcript)

2 - We don't know what was removed from the transcript. There could be more incriminating evidence that was hidden to prevent Trump from getting in more trouble. There could be sensitive information that should not be released to the public. (which I'm okay with, if it has nothing to do with abuse of power). Or there is nothing more damaging and things were left out for brevity. 

 
timschochet said:
The problem with this is that much of the news media has incorrectly called what we know a "transcript" as well- I'm talking about CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. The word "transcript" has become shorthand for what the White House released.

@Don't Noonan's weakness is not in using the word "transcript"; his weakness is arguing that what he read is not an abuse of power. Furthermore, he has not at all addressed the 15 page opening statement by Mr. Taylor, which has also been released, and which completely contradicts and destroys DN's defense.
Click to expand...
Bump. I made this point a few hours ago. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm not following the impeachment stuff closely.

All this with fish and others today yelling about noonan for "lying" because he called it a transcript? And he posts links from CNN, CBS, FOX and NBC where they refer to it as a transcript?

:wall:  
Click to expand...
You're getting a very distorted explanation of what's happening from him.  I'm over discussing it with him and find the whole "transcript" debate tiresome.  It's been explained to him probably 50+ times.  What I find more objectionable is his misrepresentation of the impeachment process and where we are currently at in that process.  His stance is essentially that there is not enough evidence against Trump to warrant Congress gathering evidence.  He's not currently being impeached.

 
timschochet said:
Don’t Noonan did not lie. He’s absolutely right that all the major media called it a transcript. It’s a very silly argument to have. 
Click to expand...
Why add the bolded?

It's not silly if you believe that there is nothing in the redacted portion? Which we don't know. So, anyone's stance that there is more evidence in the redacted portion is no more right than someone who says there is nothing of substance. We don't know. So, neither are right or wrong. 

What we can discuss is that the entire context of the conversation should be reviewed by someone within our government (not necessarily released to the public) to determine if it needs to be part of the inquiry. That would put this to bed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Why add the bolded?

It's not silly if you believe that there is nothing in the redacted portion? Which we don't know. So, anyone's stance that there is more evidence in the redacted portion is no more right than someone who says there is nothing of substance. We don't know. So, neither are right or wrong. 

What we can discuss is that the entire context of the conversation should be reviewed by someone within our government (not necessarily released to the public) to determine if it needs to be part of the inquiry. That would put this to bed. 
Click to expand...
It's not worth speculating what else was said on the call.  What was released is enough to remove him from office.

 
Dickies said:
It's not worth speculating what else was said on the call.  What was released is enough to remove him from office.
Click to expand...
Speculating no.

But, I believe we need all facts to determine the truth. Because of that, I would want someone to have access to the entire record of the call. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm not following the impeachment stuff closely.

All this with fish and others today yelling about noonan for "lying" because he called it a transcript? And he posts links from CNN, CBS, FOX and NBC where they refer to it as a transcript?

:wall:  
Click to expand...
It says it right in the document he links that it is NOT A TRANSCRIPT. Maybe you wouldn’t be banging your head against a wall if you read the points that everyone else was making.

The entire point is that he knows it’s not a transcript but is only posting continuously about it because he knows that it will cause problems. The definition of a troll. You really need to think if this is what you want your board to stand for.

 
KCitons said:
Why add the bolded?

It's not silly if you believe that there is nothing in the redacted portion? Which we don't know. So, anyone's stance that there is more evidence in the redacted portion is no more right than someone who says there is nothing of substance. We don't know. So, neither are right or wrong. 

What we can discuss is that the entire context of the conversation should be reviewed by someone within our government (not necessarily released to the public) to determine if it needs to be part of the inquiry. That would put this to bed. 
Click to expand...
Two reasons it’s silly: 

1. Because any time you argue over the name of a document, rather than what’s in it, is silly. 

2. Because even heavily edited, what was released is evidence enough to impeach Trump. 

 
moleculo said:
This is the most pointless debate I'm the history of the PSF.  The only winning move is not to play.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating. Trying to find common ground so we can move forward. 

Too often posters here carry unresolved conflict from thread to thread.

 
timschochet said:
Two reasons it’s silly: 

1. Because any time you argue over the name of a document, rather than what’s in it, is silly. 

2. Because even heavily edited, what was released is evidence enough to impeach Trump. 
Click to expand...
Then the question that pops into my mind is, "why care about what the document is called"? You're the second person to state that the evidence in the released document is enough to impeach Trump, you've got your "win". Convincing someone that it's not a transcript gains you nothing more.

 
KCitons said:
Speculating no.

But, I believe we need all facts to determine the truth. Because of that, I would want someone to have access to the entire record of the call. 
Click to expand...
Agreed.  How do we get past the fact that people read the memo and draw polar opposite conclusions from it?

 
Kal El said:
Here's an idea: whenever someone refers to the memo as a transcript, keep calling it a memo. Everyone knows they're wrong anyway, so don't fall into the trap.
Click to expand...
You know what would be even better - behind the scenes use the autocorrect setting to automatically replace "transcript" with memo.

I know they can do this because I once used a naughty british term - and they created a unique filter once they realized the normal filter did not include %^&*@!

 
Dickies said:
Agreed.  How do we get past the fact that people read the memo and draw polar opposite conclusions from it?
Click to expand...
We don't.

Make you case for what you think it shows.  Don't worry about what someone else thinks it shows.  You aren't changing their mind - but maybe you give a neutral something to think about.

In an ideal world - everyone would read the document themselves anyway and draw their own conclusions.

 
Dickies said:
Agreed.  How do we get past the fact that people read the memo and draw polar opposite conclusions from it?
Click to expand...
The same way we get past the way people look at a picture and some see dots, while others see a 3d spaceship. Or some see a young woman, while others see an old lady. People are different. Call it right vs wrong. Or call it the freedom to make your own opinions. 

The more important question is why do we feel the need to make others convert to opinion? The world will always be filled with people that we disagree with. Finding common ground will make us all more productive. Bickering endlessly will only make us unhappy and bitter. The choice is ours to make.

 
Dickies said:
You're getting a very distorted explanation of what's happening from him.  I'm over discussing it with him and find the whole "transcript" debate tiresome.  It's been explained to him probably 50+ times.  What I find more objectionable is his misrepresentation of the impeachment process and where we are currently at in that process.  His stance is essentially that there is not enough evidence against Trump to warrant Congress gathering evidence.  He's not currently being impeached.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  I never once said this. Stop lying.  I said there is not enough evidence to warrant impeachment as it stands now, I have no problem with them gathering evidence.

 
Dickies said:
It's not worth speculating what else was said on the call.  What was released is enough to remove him from office.
Click to expand...
This is where we disagree.  My opinion is much different than yours.  The country is divided on this down the middle.  The difference is I am a minority on this board and I don't believe it is right to call others liars who don't agree with me.

 
The General said:
You would want to see the whole call, correct?
Click to expand...
For national security reasons this is not possible.  Think about it, this published call already has damaged our relationships with foreign leaders.  How many foreign leaders will want to jump on phone calls with our President in the future knowing the call could be published publicly for whistleblower or partisan complaints?

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Schrodinger's Hooker.
Click to expand...


Mr. Ham said:
Way White House handed over the incriminating transcript is like a guy who tells the officer he’ll show them the meth in the glove box, as long as they don’t look in the trunk. It doesn’t mean for sure there’s a dead hooker in that trunk, but the only other option is there’s a live hooker in the trunk. 
Click to expand...
He probably had some.

Also, I don't know how to do nested quotes...

 
Don't Noonan said:
For national security reasons this is not possible.  Think about it, this published call already has damaged our relationships with foreign leaders.  How many foreign leaders will want to jump on phone calls with our President in the future knowing the call could be published publicly for whistleblower or partisan complaints?
Click to expand...
What if they got something in exchange for that phone call? Something that could help them domestically? 

 
KCitons said:
Why do you think it wasn't substantial? If that were true, wouldn't they have included it in what was released? What would the purpose be in not releasing everything?
Click to expand...
Redacted staff for security purposes.  So far both parties on the phone have said there was no pressure to investigate Biden.  The call shows no pressure to investigate Biden.  Now we are interviewing folks and so far Taylor is the only one who claims there was pressure.

 
Sinn Fein said:
You know what would be even better - behind the scenes use the autocorrect setting to automatically replace "transcript" with memo.

I know they can do this because I once used a naughty british term - and they created a unique filter once they realized the normal filter did not include %^&*@!
Click to expand...
That would be an issue if/when the actual transcript is released, because then the filter would have to be taken down for that.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Redacted staff for security purposes.  So far both parties on the phone have said there was no pressure to investigate Biden.  The call shows no pressure to investigate Biden.  Now we are interviewing folks and so far Taylor is the only one who claims there was pressure.
Click to expand...
I believe the bolded could be true. Would it make sense that someone should have access to everything on that phone call? At this point, the allegations are serious. The threat of impeachment is serious. To leave a shadow of a doubt about "what else" only leads to discussions and doubt similar to what you and I are doing right now. The truth will set you free. Or not. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Way White House handed over the incriminating transcript is like a guy who tells the officer he’ll show them the meth in the glove box, as long as they don’t look in the trunk. It doesn’t mean for sure there’s a dead hooker in that trunk, but the only other option is there’s a live hooker in the trunk. 
Click to expand...
Ahhh, schrodingers hooker.

:kicksrock: late to the party...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
For national security reasons this is not possible.  Think about it, this published call already has damaged our relationships with foreign leaders.  How many foreign leaders will want to jump on phone calls with our President in the future knowing the call could be published publicly for whistleblower or partisan complaints?
Click to expand...
So obviously you’re angry with the President for publicly releasing it while Congress is trying to keep things secure. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Redacted staff for security purposes.  So far both parties on the phone have said there was no pressure to investigate Biden.  The call shows no pressure to investigate Biden.  Now we are interviewing folks and so far Taylor is the only one who claims there was pressure.
Click to expand...
What is your evidence that the complete transcript wasn't released due to "redacted stuff" or "security purposes"?  or are you just making things up again?

 
Don't Noonan said:
For national security reasons this is not possible.  Think about it, this published call already has damaged our relationships with foreign leaders.  How many foreign leaders will want to jump on phone calls with our President in the future knowing the call could be published publicly for whistleblower or partisan complaints?
Click to expand...
Since when do any Trump enthusiasts care about long term repercussions of actions?  I mean, we have blown right on past emoluments, sexual assault admissions, making fun of handicapped people, calling third world countries #### holes, white supremacy dog whistling, threatening allies, paying off whores, trying to fire Mueller, calling political opponents traitors, and abandoning the Kurds.  So why are you so worried about a couple phone calls?  

 
-fish- said:
What is your evidence that the complete transcript wasn't released due to "redacted stuff" or "security purposes"?  or are you just making things up again?
Click to expand...
I won't speak for Noonan. But, I asked his opinion. He was answering my question. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there is redacted parts for National security reasons. But, we don't know. At this point, anyone that makes any claim to anything about what the redacted portion contains is "just making things up". 

 
Sabertooth said:
Since when do any Trump enthusiasts care about long term repercussions of actions?  I mean, we have blown right on past emoluments, sexual assault admissions, making fun of handicapped people, calling third world countries #### holes, white supremacy dog whistling, threatening allies, paying off whores, trying to fire Mueller, calling political opponents traitors, and abandoning the Kurds.  So why are you so worried about a couple phone calls?  
Click to expand...
I would care if it puts information about our military forces at risk. I don't want that information made public. For me, that would be an acceptable reason and why I am suggesting that a neutral party review the entirety of the call and move forward based on specific guidelines. If there is nothing we can move on. If there is something then it should be turned over to the impeachment inquiry. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be considered a win-win for both sides?

 
timschochet said:
Don’t Noonan did not lie. He’s absolutely right that all the major media called it a transcript. It’s a very silly argument to have. 
Click to expand...
Actually, if you read the links provided by DN:

- the NBC article called it a "transcription memo", then clarified that it was a "so-called transcript" and "not a verbatim transcript".

- CBS called it a "transcript summary" and then further clarified that it was "not a verbatim transcript".

- Fox News showed front page of the actual memo (which contains the phrase "not a verbatim transcript").

Further, all of these links that DN provided were from September 25, in the immediate aftermath of the memo being released. It's not really shocking to see media outlets use an inaccurate description during "breaking news".  I would expect all of these media outlets to be more careful about using the word "transcript" in the FOUR WEEKS since these stories were published.

 
KCitons said:
I won't speak for Noonan. But, I asked his opinion. He was answering my question. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there is redacted parts for National security reasons. But, we don't know. At this point, anyone that makes any claim to anything about what the redacted portion contains is "just making things up". 
Click to expand...
Here’s why terminology matters: transcript with redactions is the whole conversation with lines blacked out. The White House released a memorandum of the call, recreated by note takers to the best of their ability. It isn’t required to be everything; they could, if they wanted, selectively edit. 
Personally, the parts where it trails off with dots.....then picks back up, to me, implies something was left out. 

 
[scooter] said:
I would expect all of these media outlets to be more careful about using the word "transcript" in the FOUR WEEKS since these stories were published.
Click to expand...
Eh, I heard it called that multiple times on NPR this morning.  People just aren't being careful with their language, or they have an agenda.

 
KCitons said:
I won't speak for Noonan. But, I asked his opinion. He was answering my question. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there is redacted parts for National security reasons. But, we don't know. At this point, anyone that makes any claim to anything about what the redacted portion contains is "just making things up". 
Click to expand...
I kind of doubt there was any national security stuff on this particular call.  Obviously its possible, but this was a congrats on winning seats in parliament call.  

 
Snorkelson said:
Here’s why terminology matters: transcript with redactions is the whole conversation with lines blacked out. The White House released a memorandum of the call, recreated by note takers to the best of their ability. It isn’t required to be everything; they could, if they wanted, selectively edit. 
Personally, the parts where it trails off with dots.....then picks back up, to me, implies something was left out. 
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that things weren't left out. I asked upstream if there is a copy of the unredacted version of the Mueller report? I don't believe there is. I don't think the general public has a right to see everything that our government discusses. I do believe there needs to be transparency through checks and balances. 

I understand the memorandum is damning. I understand that it's not the complete transcript. I don't know what's missing. I could assume the worse, but that's not the due process we established in this country. Do we even know if a full transcript even exists?

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top