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)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Hearsay, no QPQ, bad guy who drinks too much, Hunter Biden, aid was released, Benghazi, Butterymales... etc etc
The General
Footballguy
Joe Sumner gave a good summary of Holmes stuff from yesterday upthread.
I’m not sure if Holmes contradicted what Sondland has previously said. Sondland did that himself when he “remembered” new things and had to change his original testimony.
Holmes added that he was able to hear Sondland (along with others) talking to Trump about his investigations along with conversations he had with Sondland talking about the nature of how the money was being given to Ukraine.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Basically...they knew he was a corrupt man before so that makes it all ok. Pretty awful there but not unexpected anymore from Barr.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
Can you please provide reasons and links to support this assertion? And keep in mind the poster has already corrected the vote total issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny
Footballguy
That's why i'm wondering if what Holmes knows is important. Nothing from the phone call that he heard seems to contradict anything. We know Trump was looking into Biden and that it was very important to him.
TripItUp
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Fwiw it's a fulcrum for the Trump defense of "hearsay", here the discussion was overheard live by two people in real time.
Last edited by a moderator:
“The impeachment inquiry goes against the voters’ intent” is such a weird argument. As with Nixon, the impeachment inquiry concerns events that occurred after the voters cast their votes.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I hate to say it but it's an argument that's been made in other countries by authoritarians - in Ukraine, Venezuela and now Bolivia. This is an argument against republican democracy and it makes perfect sense when viewed as ideology. Basically the assembly, legislature, duma, congress does not have legitimate authority. - The weird thing to me is it took place at the Federalist Society where Barr got a standing O, which is really odd for a speech that is the antithesis of federalism.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
Sondland says (after he realizes they have the goods) there was going to be no money without these personal investigations.
That’s the end of this. He got caught. They tried to fix it.
Trump did all this for his personal benefit - investigate my main political rival. Not to mention wanting to investigate some crazy conspiracy about a magic server hidden in the Ukraine. That adds to the insanity here.
Give him the boot.
Holmes also added the conversations with Sondland saying Trump only cares about “big things” which are not war and supporting one of our allies but investigating his main political rival.
Sondland is dead man walking on Monday. Trump is going to act like he never heard of this guy. Tweets are all lined up, all the Trump hacks will be begin piling on this Sondland guy toot sweet unless he has some amazing trick up his sleeve.
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny
Footballguy
But what was said in the conversation that is incriminating to Trump. We know from the "transcript" that Trump was looking into Biden's son and the investigation was important to him.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree substantively. From that POV this is just further buttressing evidence of an already established fact.
And just as a point of order, somebody saying “I overheard Trump say X” is not hearsay when Trump is the subject of the inquiry.
The problem with hearsay is that “somebody else told me X” is unreliable because it's hard to judge somebody else’s credibility without hearing from them directly.
But when the “somebody else” is the defendant, he can clear up any misunderstandings by providing his own testimony. Statements attributed to the defendant are therefore exempt from the definition of hearsay.
(It’s also non-hearsay for the separate reason that, in this case, the important thing is not whether what Trump said is true, but just the mere fact that he said it.)
Last edited by a moderator:
jamny
Footballguy
That's all I'm trying to get at. It doesn't appear that Holmes is all that important to this case and doesn't really add a lot to it.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Right. We're inching closer and closer to "YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED" territory.
msommer
Footballguy
If you accept there was an illegal qpq in the "transcript", this is the confirmation. If you do not accept the qpq or that it was illegal, this is meh
jamny
Footballguy
I accept that there was QPQ in the transcript and think this is meh. There doesn't seem to be any mention of QPQ in the phone call that Holmes overheard.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
It all comes down to common courtesy and lately Henry Ford does not have it. His posts are snarky and condescending, I am sure he thinks he is clever but it is exactly what @Joe Bryant does not want. Making bread generalizations to a Trump supporter like Trump could admit a crime and you wouldn't believe it is not cool. Don't ever put words in my mouth. He is better than that.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s absolutely critical. It’s direct knowledge, it moves Trump very close to the entire situation (the Republican argument has been all hearsay so far) and it contradicts Sondland’s statement that he wasn’t ever instructed by Trump, and it contradicts Trump’s assertion that he barely knows Sondland.
I’m wondering if it would be wise of the House to postpone Sondland’s public testimony until after Holmes has offered public testimony.
Why did Sondland's call from the restaurant, and perhaps others, not go though secure channels. Because it would've been recorded or transcribed? At some point, not sure if it was the initial or revised testimony, Sondland denied such contacts.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/1195491521195315201
https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/1195491521195315201
This is the kind of post we don’t want. (Without looking them up, I think it’s rules #2 and #5.)
I’ve been hiding a lot of these kinds of off-topic posts without giving suspensions. I’m going to stop doing that and start giving suspensions again. Starting after this post.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Holmes overheard confirmation of the quo.
jamny
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Your explanations, and @Henry Ford‘s as well, of legal terminology has been absolutely terrific and very informative. I’ve learned a lot reading them.
That said I think they’re also irrelevant. This battle is 100% about public opinion. Therefore words like “hearsay”, in this battle, have no precise legal meaning; they mean only what one side or the other can convince the public what they mean.
timschochet
Footballguy
Now to be fair there is always the possibility that Sondland may end up saying, “Sure we (Trump and I) had several conversations about the investigations, sure he wanted the investigations, but he never instructed me that the money or the White House meeting was tied to that.” That statement, while contradicting what Sondland said before, would likely still be enough for those who have doubts.
But of course the follow up question would be “if that is the case, why then by your own testimony did you insist to Ukraine that it was a quid pro quo? Are we to believe this was done at your own initiative?” And I can’t think of a reasonable answer to this, can you?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
It just seems to me if a defendant says it wasn’t his directive and his defenders respond to accusations that he did by saying, “all you have is hearsay,” then if a witness says, “no, I actually heard him give the code red,” the witness has something substantive to add.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Never mind. Handled. No need to address factual inaccuracies.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Sondland can just say "Yeah, I did it by myself. Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell ya, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing."
Of course, that still contradicts Trump's own words in the (non-)transcript, but it will provide enough cover to Trump to get him through November 2020.
The General
Footballguy
This is why Sondland is screwed. Trump already had begun saying he doesn’t even really know this guy.
timschochet
Footballguy
I want to back you up on this. I think it’s reasonable that if somebody states, “this happened,” to ask for links to provide evidence of it if they haven’t been offered, particularly if it’s a highly disputable point.
But it’s unreasonable that if somebody states, regarding an issue of polling or public opinion, “this is happening” or “this is going to happen” to ask for a link. We’re talking about predictions here and the only links that could be offered are other predictions. As you wrote, ultimately we will find out. Now as it happens I agree with the previous take and not yours. But links would add nothing to either prediction.
jamny
Footballguy
Well, he said he barely knows him. That's a gray area. I work with plenty of people and have phone conversations with them and can say I barely know them.
ren hoek
Footballguy
The commencement of public impeachment hearings this week may have been excruciatingly dull, but for the attentive observer one moment stood out. George Kent, the very first witness whose testimony Democrats elected to showcase, dutifully outlined his sterling diplomatic credentials as well as his undying commitment to lifelong public service. He then proceeded to sketch out a short synopsis of the Cold War, providing what one might describe as a slightly oversimplified historical narrative to bolster his subsequent claims about Ukraine, and the matter of President Trump purportedly withholding military aid to that country for corrupt purposes.
Having summarized approximately seven decades of capacious geopolitical conflict in the span of several minutes, Kent reached the present-day and opined on Ukraine’s situation since 2014. After Russia encroached upon Ukrainian territory that year, Kent pronounced, Ukrainian civil society gallantly “answered the challenge.” The struggle to counteract “Russian aggression,” he declared, was waged by the "Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen of 1776.”
If Kent had been sitting in an undergraduate seminar room rather than a congressional hearing, he might have been pressed to further elucidate the alleged parallels between the American Revolutionary War and the conflict in Ukraine’s eastern provinces, as there would seem to be a few notable differences. However, Kent’s goal was not to formulate any coherent historical theory; it was to interweave American historical mythology with that of Ukraine, and therefore make Trump’s supposed betrayal of Ukraine -- in the form of temporarily withholding military aid -- that much more damning.
One potential problem with Kent’s analogy is that the militia forces he praised as carrying forth the best traditions of American heroism happen to be comprised of a large share of outright, unvarnished neo-Nazis. The Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian militia that Kent evidently views as a virtuous successors to the Minutemen of American lore, proudly brandish the symbols of the German Nazi Party, and its commanders have espoused such flattering statements as "the historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival."
Kent never clarified how that squares with his glorious invocation of the Minutemen, but then again few in Congress (or the media) have ever been especially interested in critically analyzing the U.S. relationship with Ukraine since the 2014 coup -- except of course as it relates to the current impeachment flare-up. After four years of ignoring the fact that the U.S. government had firmly sided with a fascist paramilitary fighting force, the House of Representatives finally prohibited the sending of “military assistance” to Azov Battalion in 2018. (“Fascist” is a drastically overused term per the standards of U.S. political discourse, but in this case it’s apt, making the fact that this was ignored all the more curious.)
Those now touting the everlasting virtue of the “military assistance,” and denouncing Trump for temporarily withholding it, conveniently seem to omit any mention of how the “assistance” was actually used in the recent past. Instead, the provision of lethal arms to Ukraine has entered into the realm of magnificent bipartisan consensus, whereby members of both parties solemnly avow the necessity of plying Ukrainian forces with an endless supply of lethal weapons. The issue is no longer up for debate. That would come as a shock to Barack Obama, for instance, who staunchly opposed providing such arms to Ukraine on the legitimate ground that it would needlessly inflame conflict and commit the U.S. to a dangerous proxy war on Russia’s border. Evidently, Obama’s position is now a fringe one per the confines of Democratic messaging circa 2019.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/16/george_kents_myth_of_ukraines_modern-day_minutemen_141750.html
Having summarized approximately seven decades of capacious geopolitical conflict in the span of several minutes, Kent reached the present-day and opined on Ukraine’s situation since 2014. After Russia encroached upon Ukrainian territory that year, Kent pronounced, Ukrainian civil society gallantly “answered the challenge.” The struggle to counteract “Russian aggression,” he declared, was waged by the "Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen of 1776.”
If Kent had been sitting in an undergraduate seminar room rather than a congressional hearing, he might have been pressed to further elucidate the alleged parallels between the American Revolutionary War and the conflict in Ukraine’s eastern provinces, as there would seem to be a few notable differences. However, Kent’s goal was not to formulate any coherent historical theory; it was to interweave American historical mythology with that of Ukraine, and therefore make Trump’s supposed betrayal of Ukraine -- in the form of temporarily withholding military aid -- that much more damning.
One potential problem with Kent’s analogy is that the militia forces he praised as carrying forth the best traditions of American heroism happen to be comprised of a large share of outright, unvarnished neo-Nazis. The Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian militia that Kent evidently views as a virtuous successors to the Minutemen of American lore, proudly brandish the symbols of the German Nazi Party, and its commanders have espoused such flattering statements as "the historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival."
Kent never clarified how that squares with his glorious invocation of the Minutemen, but then again few in Congress (or the media) have ever been especially interested in critically analyzing the U.S. relationship with Ukraine since the 2014 coup -- except of course as it relates to the current impeachment flare-up. After four years of ignoring the fact that the U.S. government had firmly sided with a fascist paramilitary fighting force, the House of Representatives finally prohibited the sending of “military assistance” to Azov Battalion in 2018. (“Fascist” is a drastically overused term per the standards of U.S. political discourse, but in this case it’s apt, making the fact that this was ignored all the more curious.)
Those now touting the everlasting virtue of the “military assistance,” and denouncing Trump for temporarily withholding it, conveniently seem to omit any mention of how the “assistance” was actually used in the recent past. Instead, the provision of lethal arms to Ukraine has entered into the realm of magnificent bipartisan consensus, whereby members of both parties solemnly avow the necessity of plying Ukrainian forces with an endless supply of lethal weapons. The issue is no longer up for debate. That would come as a shock to Barack Obama, for instance, who staunchly opposed providing such arms to Ukraine on the legitimate ground that it would needlessly inflame conflict and commit the U.S. to a dangerous proxy war on Russia’s border. Evidently, Obama’s position is now a fringe one per the confines of Democratic messaging circa 2019.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/16/george_kents_myth_of_ukraines_modern-day_minutemen_141750.html
I wont argue what the articles of impeachment might be, that was not the point of my post.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I more commented because we have been asked not to just post proclaiming something is false or wrong. And therefore ask politely for a link.
I think it’s reasonable that if somebody states, “this happened,” to ask for links to provide evidence of it if they haven’t been offered, particularly if it’s a highly disputable point.
But it’s unreasonable that if somebody states, regarding an issue of polling or public opinion, “this is happening” or “this is going to happen” to ask for a link. We’re talking about predictions here and the only links that could be offered are other predictions. As you wrote, ultimately we will find out. Now as it happens I agree with the previous take and not yours. But links would add nothing to either prediction.
He is also correct if he had just asked the original post to provide links to the assertions made.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Trump campaigned on decreasing tensions with Russia, but nonetheless has fueled a proxy war with Russia that his predecessor disavowed. In a more sane political climate, the opposition party might seek to call attention to this discrepancy. Instead, they have adopted all manner of hawkish, interventionist foreign policy premises as their own: exalting figures like Kent and Taylor to make the case again Trump, from the standpoint that Trump is insufficiently committed to the objectives of the national security bureaucracy. (The irony of course being that Trump nevertheless capitulates to that bureaucracy, over and over again, with “military assistance” to Ukraine being just one example.)
If, as we are constantly told, impeachment is a “political process” -- then the political significance of this perverse dynamic ought to be considered as the hearings drag on, and more witnesses of a similar ideological disposition to Taylor and Kent are trotted out before the public as savior-like figures who can finally deal a decisive blow to Trump. Oversight and accountability are needed, especially with a president as erratic as the current occupant of that office. But in the process, Democrats are valorizing national security officials whose presuppositions about U.S. foreign policy are highly perilous in their own right.
If, as we are constantly told, impeachment is a “political process” -- then the political significance of this perverse dynamic ought to be considered as the hearings drag on, and more witnesses of a similar ideological disposition to Taylor and Kent are trotted out before the public as savior-like figures who can finally deal a decisive blow to Trump. Oversight and accountability are needed, especially with a president as erratic as the current occupant of that office. But in the process, Democrats are valorizing national security officials whose presuppositions about U.S. foreign policy are highly perilous in their own right.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Sure but if the obstacle is ‘hearsay’ and if the refusal to accept QPQ still holds then I’d say the refusal is not intellectually honest but partisan driven or ideologically driven.
The General
Footballguy
I suppose.
Sondland gave 1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee and Trump appointee him to be the ambassador to the EU.
Add that Kent testified that the experienced Ukrainian diplomatic team was replaced with a group of three that include Sondland (plus Voker and Perry).
Seems pretty suspect that Trump hardly knows the guy.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I get your point. But in this situation the proper response would be “please explain why you believe this will be so”, instead of asking for a link.
On the other hand, the original poster (whom again I agree with) didn’t offer an explanation for his belief either.
In previous posts I have offered detailed explanations as to why I believe the public will decisively turn against Trump much more than they have already as a result of these proceedings; @quick-hands or anybody else is free to explain to me why I am incorrect in this prediction.
timschochet
Footballguy
He’s not isolationist enough for us! It’s all a bunch of talk!Trump campaigned on decreasing tensions with Russia, but nonetheless has fueled a proxy war with Russia that his predecessor disavowed. In a more sane political climate, the opposition party might seek to call attention to this discrepancy. Instead, they have adopted all manner of hawkish, interventionist foreign policy premises as their own: exalting figures like Kent and Taylor to make the case again Trump, from the standpoint that Trump is insufficiently committed to the objectives of the national security bureaucracy. (The irony of course being that Trump nevertheless capitulates to that bureaucracy, over and over again, with “military assistance” to Ukraine being just one example.)
If, as we are constantly told, impeachment is a “political process” -- then the political significance of this perverse dynamic ought to be considered as the hearings drag on, and more witnesses of a similar ideological disposition to Taylor and Kent are trotted out before the public as savior-like figures who can finally deal a decisive blow to Trump. Oversight and accountability are needed, especially with a president as erratic as the current occupant of that office. But in the process, Democrats are valorizing national security officials whose presuppositions about U.S. foreign policy are highly perilous in their own right.
I want to clarify this point.
If somebody posts something that is new info to you and you're unsure of the basis for it, go ahead and ask for a link.
If somebody posts something that you have good reason to believe is wrong, you don't have to do the Socratic irony thing by asking questions. Pull the ball out from hiding and state your reason for thinking it's wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Like most honest-broker conservative institutions (the WSJ, AEI, the Republican Party, etc) the Federalist Society has been taken over by the radical right and generally bent towards the purposes you describe above.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
I'm very interested to see how Sondland handles his appearance. Does he try to walk a fine line of truth telling but still being supportive of Trump? Or does he drop all pretense and bare his soul?
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I predict a mixture of "I was acting on my own" and "I plead the Fifth."I'm very interested to see how Sondland handles his appearance. Does he try to walk a fine line of truth telling but still being supportive of Trump? Or does he drop all pretense and bare his soul?
The General
Footballguy
His lawyers and advisors have their work cut out for them.I'm very interested to see how Sondland handles his appearance. Does he try to walk a fine line of truth telling but still being supportive of Trump? Or does he drop all pretense and bare his soul?
I think the rest of November will be Trump throwing various people under the bus which is the worst thing he can do.
Today the first OMB official will testify about how the withholding and release of the funds happened. Mulvaney likely will be highly implicated.
On Wednesday Sondland will testify publicly and will have to decide how forthcoming he will be about his conversations with Trump.
If they bring in Parnas and he starts spilling his guts like he claims to be willing to, Rudy will be deep into everything he did. Trump will be implicated but the bigger question will be how involved he was with everything Rudy was doing.
The question in all three will be how much was directed by Trump and Trump’s biggest impulse will be to throw all of them under the bus as rogue actors. At the same time it’s the worst thing he can do because any of them can make things very difficult if they decide to turn on him.
Today the first OMB official will testify about how the withholding and release of the funds happened. Mulvaney likely will be highly implicated.
On Wednesday Sondland will testify publicly and will have to decide how forthcoming he will be about his conversations with Trump.
If they bring in Parnas and he starts spilling his guts like he claims to be willing to, Rudy will be deep into everything he did. Trump will be implicated but the bigger question will be how involved he was with everything Rudy was doing.
The question in all three will be how much was directed by Trump and Trump’s biggest impulse will be to throw all of them under the bus as rogue actors. At the same time it’s the worst thing he can do because any of them can make things very difficult if they decide to turn on him.
Similar threads
