jamny
Footballguy
Definitely interested in the bolded. Who are the "other officials" and how rare of a thing is it to do. Thanks!
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)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
TheMagus
Footballguy
You know the whistleblower didn't go to Schiff, right? He went to the House Intelligence Committee, which is apparently pretty common for potential whistleblowers and the committee staff field a couple of these a week. What leads you to believe that Schiff wrote (crafted) the complaint and that the whistleblower isn't real?
Sammy3469
Footballguy
I’d just point out that that strategy didn’t go over so well in Kentucky. In general, I think tying local/state races to what’s going on in Washington is a losing strategy.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Walk into a bank and yell THIS IS NOT A ROBERRY! GIVE ME ALL OF THE MONEY! Then if you get caught you have a defense that you said NOT a robbery. Don't forget to demand a thorough investigation of the police department that arrests you. Also the name and address of the person that identified you.
Last edited by a moderator:
E Street Brat
Footballguy
E Street Brat
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
What are your thoughts on the potential impact, if any, of the dems hiring an actual trial lawyer to ask the questions and help present the facts in a more cogent way?
I ask, b/c I’m always amazed at how poor the questioning is in these things. But I don’t know if I’m just jaded b/c I am a trial lawyer and The average citizen doesn’t see it the same way.
Dickies
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
Link
Following the hearing, CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin suggested that the vocal observation from Trump's defenders was "legitimate."
"The one criticism of these two witnesses, which I think is very much legitimate -- it's not really a criticism, it's a factual statement, is that neither of them had direct contact with the president," Toobin said.
"Ever," CNN anchor Jake Tapper stressed.
"Ever," Toobin responded. "And, that's a problem if you're going to impeach the president."
Following the hearing, CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin suggested that the vocal observation from Trump's defenders was "legitimate."
"The one criticism of these two witnesses, which I think is very much legitimate -- it's not really a criticism, it's a factual statement, is that neither of them had direct contact with the president," Toobin said.
"Ever," CNN anchor Jake Tapper stressed.
"Ever," Toobin responded. "And, that's a problem if you're going to impeach the president."
The Commish
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Just a point here...these are not the only two witnesses. This is a case being built up and showing the layers and time lines of what went on...and showing that it quite clearly wasn't just about one phone call.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
If it was only these two witnesses, I would have a problem. But you are right, many more witnesses to go.
Or Trump could come and testify and clear everything up.
sho nuff
Footballguy
True...just seems odd some of the quotes Ive seen from the right on this...almost spiking the football this evening as if...thats it?
Also, yeah, many who were there refuse to testify or Trump won't let them.
The Commish
Footballguy
Not sure what the significance of this is in the big picture. If it were the ONLY testimony they had, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have even started the impeachment inquiry in the first place. This is one piece of the puzzle. I suspect they are going to go down the "the intention was so clear people hearing 3rd, 4th hand understood it as well as those those on the call and /or close to the President" path. I guess time will tell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
I was reading the tweeter feeds of some of the GOP house members and there was a general theme of the replys. If the call was so perfect, why is Trump refusing to let so many people to testify.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
If only there were some way to hear from the people who had direct contact with the President.
mr roboto
Footballguy
I keep seeing people mention that nothing new came out today. Maybe not for those of us who have been following the story closely over the last couple months. But this inquiry is for the general public who has largely not been paying that close of attention but will probably listen to some of the testimony given over the next few days. I just don’t see how somebody who’s trying to listen impartially could come to the conclusion that this was not an impeachable offense.
That one guy
Footballguy
The staff member of Taylor* who overheard Trump on a phone call with Sondland* that now a closed door testimony this Friday, that’s only new to us and not those running the hearings correct? There’s no way that was just learned out in the open, right?
Zow
Footballguy
It wasn't in his prior testimony. I think Taylor found out about it since his deposition, and today it was new to everybody.
Zow
Footballguy
The more I think on it my post was just a bad one. I haven’t watched the first half yet.
But, I suppose judging on general sentiment here, the questioning was good but not overly impactful.
I really haven't been following it too closely but watched some of Ambassador Taylor live and then NBC News and PBS this evening.
My take is that it's no different than the Mueller investigation. Common sense will tell you he's guilty of an offense. But without a smoking gun or stronger evidence (overheard conversation doesn't exactly cut it) this is going nowhere with the GOP Congressional members and won't move the needle either way on what the public thinks about Trump. People already have formed their opinions.
That one guy
Footballguy
That seems a rather large reveal that could be a bomb for either prosecution or defense depending on how testimony around this new claim goes? I didn’t get to watch any of the hearing, how was this new information received by those questioning? I almost always assume prosecution knows the answer to every question they ask, so this tidbit must’ve thrown them off a bit
It was in the middle of his opening statement. It was then the first thing he was asked about (by Schiff) after his opening statement concluded and he started taking questions.
moleculo
Footballguy
Imo, today isn't about the smoking gun. Today is establishing that there's a there there - Ukraine is important, there is strong suspicion that Trump was up to shenanigans, and the investigation is worth pursuing.
Smoking gun comes later. Could be Sondland, could be Bolton. We may not see the smoking gun until Senate trial... It could be Mulvaney or Pompeo being compelled to testify.
Smoking gun comes later. Could be Sondland, could be Bolton. We may not see the smoking gun until Senate trial... It could be Mulvaney or Pompeo being compelled to testify.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
It was part of his opening statement, and that was available ahead of time, right?That one guy said:
Ultimately just something even a GOP Senator couldn't ignore?Tolstoy said:
More tapes and transcripts of conversations/actions with those directly carrying out Trump's instructions. Taylor hearing it directly together with other high-ranking officials corroborating. With Nixon you couldn't ignore that some of those guys had direct ties to the Oval Office.
IMO the release of aid also muddies the waters quite a bit.
zoonation
Footballguy
For sure. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the President leveraged his office, and US foreign policy (applicable to a country actively engaged in war), for his personal benefit in domestic elections.Godsbrother said:
the only meaningful question remaining is: how does this play going forward in terms of his re-electability?
The evidence is damaging and overwhelming. But he will survive it in my view, and the only test he cares about will be the 2020 election. And as ####ed up as that is, I’d give him 50/50 right now, which is mind blowing given what we know, what happened today, and what will play out in the next couple of weeks.
but my view is that none of this will ultimately matter. He’ll survive impeachment and the battle lines will be drawn for 2020. He’ll get there. And he thinks he can win on the College if he does. And, honestly, as much as I think he is a malignant tumour on the face the of everything that makes democracy worth fighting for, the electoral college represents a path to reelection for him.
He will survive this. Because, even if the facts are proven, which they seem to be, half the country doesn’t care.
Edit: apologies for typos
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That’s right. The point about the javelins was pushed out to show Trump’s Russian-fighting credentials (no puppet he) but as it turns out the use of the javelins was neutered.Sinn Fein said:
I thought it poignant when one of the witnesses pointed out that Ukraine has lost over 14,000 people in the war, losses which are ongoing to this current day. This is the tragedy that Trump was holding over their head.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
meanwhile on lou dobbs....
Fox guest says George Soros controls the State Department, FBI agents, and wants to control Ukraine using the US government https://t.co/U5vTX3db6M
Fox guest says George Soros controls the State Department, FBI agents, and wants to control Ukraine using the US government https://t.co/U5vTX3db6M
Kruppe
Footballguy
Near the end of his opening statement.
"As the Committee knows, I reported this information through counsel to the State Department’s Legal Adviser, as well as to counsel for both the Majority and the Minority on the Committee. It is my understanding that the Committee is following up on this matter."
Politico
timschochet
Footballguy
I think one of the biggest things that came out today was the discussion of how Ukraine is at war right now, how people are dying right now, and how Trump’s actions here were not some game; the delay probably cost lives. Also how keeping Ukraine independent is a matter of OUR national security.
KCitons
Footballguy
The biggest thing I took away from today is that many of our elected officials are not representing us in looking for the truth. Instead, they are looking for excuses. I don't remember who was asking Taylor the question, but the comment as to whether or not the conversation could have been misunderstood. Could it be possible? Sounds like a the line from My Cousin Vinny "two sets of guys met up at the Sac-O-Suds, at the same time, driving identical metallic mint green 1964 Buick Skylark convertibles". It's funny when it's party of a movie. Not so much when it's the fabric of our country unraveling.
Regardless of which side you're on, you should want to find the truth. If you aren't willing to do that then you should resign immediately. Someone that does will take your place.
timschochet
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
IIRC it was new to us, but not the committee. He informed both the majority and minority counsels when his staffer came to him subsequent to his testimony.Maurile Tremblay said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Look, I get calling the Republicans cowardly and I don’t disagree. But at the same time, it’s easy for the Democrats, because they represent constituents who are good with impeachment.
The fact is that in all of our history, politicians who are willing to defy their own voters in the name of truth and justice are pretty rare. Margaret Chase Smith comes to mind, a few others. Maybe John McCain. It doesn’t happen very often.
timschochet
Footballguy
Actually I guess Justin Amash is a recent example. Pretty brave guy.
KCitons
Footballguy
I believe you and I have had a conversation about this in the past. I have very little faith in our elected officials. You're stance was that we still have good people in DC. This impeachment process is trending down a path that just confirms my beliefs.
When you use time during a hearing to ask if it's possible that a staff member misunderstood what was said, even in light of having a transcript confirming the transgression, it shows me that it's not about finding the truth. It's about finding an excuse.
I don't agree with your stance on defying voters. As voters, we elect people to represent us. Once elected they take an oath:
It says nothing about constituents over Constitution. Actually, it says nothing about obligation to constituents at all.
beef
Footballguy
He is, and it cost him the (R) to go against the trump party. I've found it interesting that Democrats can disagree, pretty strongly at times, but they all keep the (D). Those that didn't vote in favor of starting the impeachment aren't (I)'s.
moleculo
Footballguy
Watching the evening news shows, I'm struck by the fact that the State Department is stonewalling on turning over notes made by Taylor and others, despite subpoenas. How is this OK?
IMO, defying legal subpoenas is almost as big of a deal as Trump's shakedown. The House letting this go sets a bad precedent. I don't get why they aren't forcing this issue. Oversight is Soo important - Congress cannot abdicate that responsibility.
IMO, defying legal subpoenas is almost as big of a deal as Trump's shakedown. The House letting this go sets a bad precedent. I don't get why they aren't forcing this issue. Oversight is Soo important - Congress cannot abdicate that responsibility.
Similar threads
