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*** (7 Viewers)

If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
What do you mean?

Are you asking if it was "hey, to get this invite to the White House, I want you to open an investigation into my political opponent" would it be different than "hey, to get this money from us, I want you to open an investigation into my political opponent"?  I'd say no. Still asking a foreign government to be part of our election process though, which has always been the problem IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny said:

If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?

Probably not, but that's largely because the aid had already been set in motion by Congressional vote (only to be put on hold by the President). Also because the aid is much more important to our national interests.
 
Two points have occurred to me: 

1. Remember how the Republicans kept arguing that only certain excerpts were leaked from the private hearings, which makes this whole process tainted and illegitimate? This has been Lindsay Graham’s whole reason for not watching these hearings (supposedly). I think that argument is now dead in the water. If anything, the full testimony is more damning than the excerpts. 

2. Remember how Schiff has been attacked for supposedly lying about the phone call? It sure seems like everything he said was 100% accurate.

 
Bill Taylor:

"I know that the Ukrainians were very concerned about the security assistance. And I know that they were prepared to make a CNN statement." 

Taylor continues to blow holes in the GOP narrative that Ukraine didn’t know about the withheld aid & the plot was unsuccessful.

 
Good summary so far -

Ann Couter@AnnCoulter Okay, fine, I backslid and listened to a few minutes, but now I have the whole picture:  It's a policy disagreement, featuring self-important bureaucrats telling us that their views are better than THE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/1194647800908304385?s=21
That "policy" being the withholding of Congressionally appropriated aid in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into a political rival of POTUS in anticipation of an upcoming election?  Doesn't seem like a "policy" to me - more like a shake down to solely benefit the President - not the USA's interests. 

 
Goldman: “whether it was a quid pro quo, or extortion, whatever you want to call it”

OK that was brilliant. They just destroyed yet another Republican defense. 

 
Taylor’s voice is so much better than Mueller’s. 

It’s really sad that as a society we put so much emphasis on things that really should be meaningless, like the power of a voice. But it’s true. 

 
Two points have occurred to me: 

1. Remember how the Republicans kept arguing that only certain excerpts were leaked from the private hearings, which makes this whole process tainted and illegitimate? This has been Lindsay Graham’s whole reason for not watching these hearings (supposedly). I think that argument is now dead in the water. If anything, the full testimony is more damning than the excerpts. 

2. Remember how Schiff has been attacked for supposedly lying about the phone call? It sure seems like everything he said was 100% accurate.
I think Graham's argument was dead in the water before he even said it.  He was just following the ordered dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge talking points.

 
I missed the beginning, but Kent and Taylor are both come across as knowledgeable and credible. I have no idea who Goldman is, but he is very impressive. Painting the picture of what happened one brush stroke at a time. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess is that Jordan will attempt to paint the picture that all of this is hearsay and just Taylor's and Kent's opinions, with no basis in firsthand conversations between the Trump and Ukraine officials.

 
Taylor’s voice is so much better than Mueller’s. 

It’s really sad that as a society we put so much emphasis on things that really should be meaningless, like the power of a voice. But it’s true. 
Hell, Mueller's body language was terrible, too. I'm pretty sure that's how I'd look at a baby shower. 

 
Steve Scalise@SteveScalise

Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:

- Neither have any firsthand knowledge

- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump 

- One got his info from The New York Times

This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!

 
only thing I can think the GOP does here is if they hammer on second-hand knowledge and lack of direct contact with Trump.  If they go after their character.....:popcorn:

 
My guess is that Jordan will attempt to paint the picture that all of this is hearsay and just Taylor's and Kent's opinions, with no basis in firsthand conversations between the Trump and Ukraine officials.
nailed it

Steve Scalise@SteveScalise

Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:

- Neither have any firsthand knowledge

- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump 

- One got his info from The New York Times

This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!

 
only thing I can think the GOP does here is if they hammer on second-hand knowledge and lack of direct contact with Trump.  If they go after their character.....:popcorn:
I kind of hope Jordan goes after Taylor's character. That would not go so well for old Jim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A bit curious if Holmes is the staffer that Taylor testified about hearing the phone call between Trump and Sondland.
Called it...

Olivia Gazis
@Olivia_Gazis

24m
NEW: Two sources tell me and @ArdenFarhi @CBSNews David Holmes is indeed the staffer who overheard the Trump-Sondland phone call, per a new revelation in Taylor’s testimony

 
Taylor’s voice is so much better than Mueller’s. 

It’s really sad that as a society we put so much emphasis on things that really should be meaningless, like the power of a voice. But it’s true. 
Voices matter. Sad but true.

Would you be able to take either Taylor or Mueller or anyone else testifying as seriously if they sounded like Joe Pesci?

 
Steve Scalise@SteveScalise

Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:

- Neither have any firsthand knowledge

- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump 

- One got his info from The New York Times

This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
“Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about ‘the investigations.’ Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.”

Taylor's staff overheard Trump talking about it. 

 
If the QPQ was based solely on the WH meeting and nothing to do with withholding aid, would this be going on?
It’s a good question that I’m not sure anyone can answer. My sense is that it wouldn’t have convinced Pelosi, but that’s just a gut feeling. The meeting is, at root, an act within POTUS’ discretion. This wasn’t. If he wanted to stop the assistance he would have needed to veto the appropriations bill. Once he didn’t do that, he had no discretion. 

 
Steve Scalise@SteveScalise

Meet the “star witnesses” Adam Schiff called today:

- Neither have any firsthand knowledge

- Neither spoke to @realDonaldTrump 

- One got his info from The New York Times

This hearing is a sham. Read the transcript—an actual firsthand account. It shows nothing impeachable!
The transcript is in itself bad for POTUS.  The surrounding sworn testimony  by over a dozen witnesses to the crime provides context and makes it even worse. 

 
Since the Republican narrative seems to be back to “these aren’t direct witnesses” why are they still bothering with wanting Hunter Biden and the WB to testify?  Also why aren’t they concerned that the ones with the most direct contact with Trump, including Trump himself, refuse to testify?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top