Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Zow said:

Exactly. And, frankly, I don't think it's a terrible strategy if his defense on the actual facts isn't a good one. 

He's done it every time he's been caught doing something. It's his only strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how they blur out the face of people testifying against mob bosses? We need to stop that too. It's only fair for the mob bosses. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

“How many times did Rudy meet with the Ukrainians? What did Rudy advise the Ukrainians to do? How much was the President involved in this? Did Rudy recommend that the Ukrainians give the 'dirt' to the media, even though this was an attack on a political opponent, so the President could be reelected?”

Let's keep the appropriate focus here.  

 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Hey guys, just because MLB managers wear a uniform it doesn't mean they are going to take an AB. 

Said Carlos Beltran, never....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

- Mulvaney has been asked to testify on Friday. I doubt he will agree to it. 

agreed.  And the republicans will pound the table that democrats are selectively asking people to testify.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Stay cool SID

Well, always, I appreciate it, but the information you're looking for is in the article you published. So I'm wondering why you're asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well, always, I appreciate it, but the information you're looking for is in the article you published. So I'm wondering why you're asking.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/780181-official-donald-j-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22284046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, oh . :oldunsure:

 

 

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html

  • Like 3
  • Love 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sondland news seems significant.

Edited by D_House
  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

 

Mr. Pence to the white courtesy phone, Mr. Pence, to the white courtesy phone please.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, apalmer said:

And if he met with him, told him he needed to file a WB complaint, and told him how to do it, so what? What does that have to do with the facts corroborated by numerous witnesses?

Try this: The police dept. gets a phone call: "Hello, police, i was just told be a friend who works at a bank that his boss is stealing money from customers' accounts. What should I do?"*

Police: "What's your name, sir?"*

Caller: "I don't want to tell you that. Can't I tell you what I heard without that?"*

Police: "Ok, tell us the name of your friend, what bank is involved, who the boss is, and anything else you know."*

Caller: "OK, here goes.....(detailed summary given)"* 

The police investigate, talk to the friend who confirms the facts, subpoena bank records, match up missing money with deposits into bank manager's personal account. When they show up to arrest the bank manager, he demands "Tell me who the anonymous caller was. I think he's someone who doesn't like me." *

Do you really believe the charges can't proceed if the police don't identify the caller?

*Disclaimer: All quotes are fictitious.

Better yet, the teller at the bank can't ID the robber because he didn't hold up her lane he held up the one next to her...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 9:46 AM, Sinn Fein said:

This is going to be a quietly important day in the impeachment inquiry.

I just saw a tweet of Sondland heading into the capitol to review his testimony - now would be the time he "corrects" anything he might have mis-remembered in the first go-round....

Its amazing how a few days to clear your mind (and hear other testimony, and see the word "perjury" next to your name) will go towards "remembering" key facts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, D_House said:

Sondland news seems significant.

I assume he's a never Trumper, how has he voted in the past?

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

 

Mr. Pence to the white courtesy phone, Mr. Pence, to the white courtesy phone please.

So that destroys a couple talking points. The next question is who told him to say that. Has he mentioned Trump directing it? Are they going to paint Sondland as a rogue agent? Or is this the start of throwing Pence under the bus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.

emergency perjury avoidance 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we talked about Voker's testimony about setting up a back-door communication channel with Ukraine?

Seems like this administration likes the idea of backdoor communications to avoid normal communications.

 

Excerpt from Volker’s testimony!!!

So official channels wouldn’t work, they decided on a back door. Here’s the counter intelligence concern.

They knew their info would get to Trump.

Ukrainian’s “asked to be connected” to Mr. Giuliani as a direct conduit to President Trump.

 

testimony

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yak651 said:

I assume he's a never Trumper, how has he voted in the past?

Actually I think he was right up until he decided to donate a million so he could be an ambassador.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But remember quid pro quo for election help is no longer bad according to the GOP.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually I think he was right up until he decided to donate a million so he could be an ambassador.

Well, I guess we can consider him an "insurance policy" in future tweets by the President then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

He should be cross examined behind closed doors. And so far we really have a fraction of the testimony in that the first transcripts were released yesterday. Other than that we have leaks.

Those are my thoughts. Have a great day guys.

Thanks for the response, though I’m not sure that answers the question I was asking.  And for clarity sake I’m not trying to pick a fight or prove a point, I’m honestly trying to understand the thought process for the counter argument. So I’ll the question more clearly. 
 

Let’s assume for arguments sake the whistleblower is completely 100% biased toward being anti-Trump. Based on what we know from the opening statements of a few of the other witnesses and everything else that has been reported which is not being disputed, of what importance is the whistleblower anymore within the context of the accusations that are being made toward the POTUS (other then being political talking points of course). TIA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whoknew said:

 

Why 58%?

also 42 percentage points from a hundred (42 being the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything)

Edited by msommer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

He may not be telling the truth. He wasn't honest about contact with the WBer before the complaint was filed.

Consider the opposite - what if Schiff would have leaked the information through the press? Or if WBer had leaked documentation such as Snowden & Manning? Would these paths have been preferable to you?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if i receive an anonymous tip that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in Trump's back yard, and i find his body in Trump's back yard, the really important thing is who gave me the tip, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Sondland must have done it on his own? 

No. Zekensky’s aide pinged Sondland in order to contact Rudy after Parnas & Fruman approached Zelensky’s office and told them go through Rudy - their lawyer and the President’s- if they wanted their aid. Sondland also testified that Trump personally directed him to go through Giuliani.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joffer said:

if i receive an anonymous tip that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in Trump's back yard, and i find his body in Trump's back yard, the really important thing is who gave me the tip, right?

I think tip giver would be relevant if some question as to how the body got there, etc.  But I'd be less interested in the tip giver if next to Jimmy Hoffa's body, there was a videotape of Trump bragging to Billy Bush about how he killed Jimmy Hoffa and buried his body in back yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think you misunderstood me the last time i was hear.....allow me to clarify my remark"

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, joffer said:

if i receive an anonymous tip that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in Trump's back yard, and i find his body in Trump's back yard, the really important thing is who gave me the tip, right?

I'd say it could be somewhat important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, joffer said:

if i receive an anonymous tip that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in Trump's back yard, and i find his body in Trump's back yard, the really important thing is who gave me the tip, right?

Seems to be the GOP argument I keep hearing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Republicans would have taken the security guard who discovered the Watergate burglary and ruined his life.

-Jeff Tiedrich

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

uh, oh . :oldunsure:

 

 

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html

Which is why McConnell and gang are switching from there isn't a quid to of course there was but nothing wrong with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, joffer said:

if i receive an anonymous tip that Jimmy Hoffa is buried in Trump's back yard, and i find his body in Trump's back yard, the really important thing is who gave me the tip, right?

Yes, just the tip. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

 

Mr. Pence to the white courtesy phone, Mr. Pence, to the white courtesy phone please.

READ THE TRAAAAAANSCRIPT!!!!!!!!!

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

President Pelosi has a nice ring to it. 

Won’t happen. I’m actually hoping that Pence isn’t tied too much into it. If it Pence goes down with Trump, Trump isn’t going down. There’s a slim (but increasing) chance that they could remove Trump. There’s no chance that GOP members will hand the presidency to Nancy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Today's Republicans would have taken the security guard who discovered the Watergate burglary and ruined his life.

-Jeff Tiedrich

"I heard he voted for McCarthy in 1968 so clearly the burglary at the Watergate didn't happen"

I still love the "well it failed so no harm no foul" excuse.  Really that is the standard for illegal acts now.  

 

Edited by hammerva

Share this post


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

"I heard he voted for McCarthy in 1968 so clearly the burglary at the Watergate didn't happen"

I still love the "well it failed so no harm no foul" excuse.  Really that is the standard for illegal acts now.  

 

I bet all those guys Chris Hansen busted when they were trying to get with little kids will be relieved to find out they're in the clear too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

President Pelosi has a nice ring to it. 

If both Trump and Pence go down and are removed, does that happen?

 

:shudders:

 

Still, even at that high price, removal still needs to happen. At least she'll put the country before her personal agendas, or at least try to do it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, (HULK) said:

If both Trump and Pence go down and are removed, does that happen?

 

Yes.  Speaker of the House is next in line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, I also think Pence would put country first too. I strongly dislike him as well. Unsure if I dislike him or Pelosi more, and I dislike them both for completely different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

Won’t happen. I’m actually hoping that Pence isn’t tied too much into it. If it Pence goes down with Trump, Trump isn’t going down. There’s a slim (but increasing) chance that they could remove Trump. There’s no chance that GOP members will hand the presidency to Nancy.

If the GOP was suddenly filled with a patriotic zeal to actually put country over party and it looked like Trump and Pence would both have to go, I'm sure they'd learn from Watergate. Pence would step down and be replaced by McConnell before Trump goes down. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:
5 minutes ago, (HULK) said:

If both Trump and Pence go down and are removed, does that happen?

 

Yes.  Speaker of the House is next in line.  

To be fair the order of the removals matter as well as how long between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, apalmer said:

And if he met with him, told him he needed to file a WB complaint, and told him how to do it, so what? What does that have to do with the facts corroborated by numerous witnesses?

Try this: The police dept. gets a phone call: "Hello, police, i was just told be a friend who works at a bank that his boss is stealing money from customers' accounts. What should I do?"*

Police: "What's your name, sir?"*

Caller: "I don't want to tell you that. Can't I tell you what I heard without that?"*

Police: "Ok, tell us the name of your friend, what bank is involved, who the boss is, and anything else you know."*

Caller: "OK, here goes.....(detailed summary given)"* 

The police investigate, talk to the friend who confirms the facts, subpoena bank records, match up missing money with deposits into bank manager's personal account. When they show up to arrest the bank manager, he demands "Tell me who the anonymous caller was. I think he's someone who doesn't like me." *

Do you really believe the charges can't proceed if the police don't identify the caller?

*Disclaimer: All quotes are fictitious.

And, at trial, somebody like me may very well be precluded from talking about the original informant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a weird thing to say if Trump is innocent:

Jordan Fabian@Jordanfabian · 14m.

@PressSec says Sondland and Volker transcripts "show there is even less evidence for this illegitimate impeachment sham than previously thought. "

 

 

How much evidence did they think was out there?  :oldunsure:

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a day goes by when Trump isn't on our national consciousness, and almost never in a good way.

Man, we need to clean house starting at the top.  Get some good people in office and put folks around them who will stand up for their values, but will be willing to compromise and move things forward.

We've fallen a long way as a nation to where any of this could be normal.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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.