Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

:lmao: No, no he did not.  OMG

Pundits on your own channel were saying that tweet was a bad idea. The timing was the icing on the cake, though. Badmouthing her in the middle of her testimony? Smells like witness intimidation to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Pundits on your own channel were saying that tweet was a bad idea. The timing was the icing on the cake, though. Badmouthing her in the middle of her testimony? Smells like witness intimidation to me.

And it’s hardly a laughing matter. 
 

We used to hold our President to a higher standard. Now daily lies, self dealing, bribing/extorting other nations leaders, and apparently witness intimidation is totally acceptable by a third of our populace. 
 

This isn’t the America I was raised to believe in, and it’s not the America that we should accept. Regardless if “our” party retains power as a result. We’ve lost our soul.

Edited by Koya
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

I hear ya but I am worried if nothing pans out we could blow the 2020 elections.   Shiff got all off track today after Trumps tweet saying it was witness intimidation but the witness had no idea until Shiff told her.  Then everything went haywire again.  I just heard on POTUS radio that it was not intimidation but an opinion.

That was actually well done by Schiff and not off track at all.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump cannot be accused of a crime while in office, thus he cannot be convicted of a crime, therefore he is not guilty of a crime, and hence he cannot be impeached for a high crime or misdemeanor.

QED

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 2

Share this post


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

And it’s hardly a laughing matter. 
 

We used to hold our President to a higher standard. Now daily lies, self dealing, bribing/extorting other nations leaders, and apparently witness intimidation is totally acceptable by a third of our populace. 
 

This isn’t the America I was raised to believe in, and it’s not the America that we should accept. Regardless if “our” party retains power as a result. We’ve lost our soul.

Dont forget obstruction of justice right out in the open.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Pundits on your own channel were saying that tweet was a bad idea. The timing was the icing on the cake, though. Badmouthing her in the middle of her testimony? Smells like witness intimidation to me.

bad idea....yes I agree.  Crime?  not even close

Share this post


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

And it’s hardly a laughing matter. 
 

We used to hold our President to a higher standard. Now daily lies, self dealing, bribing/extorting other nations leaders, and apparently witness intimidation is totally acceptable by a third of our populace. 
 

This isn’t the America I was raised to believe in, and it’s not the America that we should accept. Regardless if “our” party retains power as a result. We’ve lost our soul.

Exactly. The days of America being "great" are long gone, and Trump is not the one to try to bring it back. Working together, agreeing to disagree while remaining friends, simple civil behavior, even just being neighborly. That's what would make America great. Trump wanted walls and dirt(on Biden). He seeks to separate us, but we are stronger together than he is alone.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per CNN 

Testimony this afternoon

Sondland: "President doesn't give a #### about Ukraine."

Cared only about investigation into Biden.

Share this post


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

Dont forget obstruction of justice right out in the open.

We already know that bullying, name calling like a 5 year old, and making fun of someone with a disability is fair game. In that respect is suppose there is a level of consistency. I just can’t for the life of me imagine how we ended up here.  
 

and I have a pretty pessimistic world view and view of humanity. Somehow I bought into the lie we told ourselves: that we were somehow better, different, dedicated to greater ideals.

All of the above examples, and the fact they we democratically* elected Trump shows how wrong is was. 
 

 

* maybe with a little assist by our greatest historical adversary. There is certainly no effort on the GOP side to buttress against such interference in 2020, that’s for sure. Wonder why. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Pundits on your own channel were saying that tweet was a bad idea. The timing was the icing on the cake, though. Badmouthing her in the middle of her testimony? Smells like witness intimidation to me.

Teeeeeechnicallly..... she couldn't have been intimidated. She wasn't using her phone during the testimony. Therefore she couldn't have seen the tweet. It could intimidate her for future testimony or other witnesses.

Hows that for spin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

bad idea....yes I agree.  Crime?  not even close

Witness intimidation(or tampering): Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.

 

Trump attempted to call her credibility into question while she was under oath. That's witness tampering. She also perceived it as an attempt to coerce her to change her testimony. That's witness intimidation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Exactly. The days of America being "great" are long gone, and Trump is not the one to try to bring it back. Working together, agreeing to disagree while remaining friends, simple civil behavior, even just being neighborly. That's what would make America great. Trump wanted walls and dirt(on Biden). He seeks to separate us, but we are stronger together than he is alone.

As long as 30% of our nation supports his actions, behaviors, and policies, we are sadly not close to together. 
 

As has been stated before, when it was ok to mock that disabled gentleman on the public stage, nothing else can become beyond the pale. When in reality, almost all of it is.

Share this post


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

Teeeeeechnicallly..... she couldn't have been intimidated. She wasn't using her phone during the testimony. Therefore she couldn't have seen the tweet. It could intimidate her for future testimony or other witnesses.

Hows that for spin?

I believe she was told about the tweets during her testimony(I didn't watch today, us electricians have actual work to do), which I believe still applies.

Share this post


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

As long as 30% of our nation supports his actions, behaviors, and policies, we are sadly not close to together. 
 

As has been stated before, when it was ok to mock that disabled gentleman on the public stage, nothing else can become beyond the pale. When in reality, almost all of it is.

thankfully much higher than 30%

Share this post


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

Witness intimidation(or tampering): Witness tampering is the act of attempting to alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.

 

Trump attempted to call her credibility into question while she was under oath. That's witness tampering. She also perceived it as an attempt to coerce her to change her testimony. That's witness intimidation.

If we are being intellectually honest, I don’t see how this is even debatable.

Then again, we’ve seen things that were debated until some realized they weren’t debatable. Which then shifts the talking point to “it’s not really that bad” or “everyone does it” or “but Hillsteelomey” along the way to “well, the President CANT commit a crime - so take that!”

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I believe she was told about the tweets during her testimony(I didn't watch today, us electricians have actual work to do), which I believe still applies.

Then Schiff intimidated the her?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

thankfully much higher than 30%

Never thought I’d live in a world when people would be thankful that over 30% of our nation is ok with a president that openly mocks a disabled man... forget about literally everything else.

What does that say about us? Really? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

Then Schiff intimidated the her?

I don't see how, because I'm not sure someone can use another's tweet as intimidation. The context in which it was brought up also matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Witness intimidation is a crime. Whether anyone else thinks it was intimidation, the witness felt that way, ergo, Trump committed a crime.

It clearly was witness intimidation.  But, I don't think Yovanovich's feelings are particularly relevant or should be considered in the determination of whether the act is criminal or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I believe she was told about the tweets during her testimony(I didn't watch today, us electricians have actual work to do), which I believe still applies.

So it was Schiff that was intimidating here...man, he really is quite, whats the word? Shifty!

Share this post


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

Never thought I’d live in a world when people would be thankful that over 30% of our nation is ok with a president that openly mocks a disabled man... forget about literally everything else.

What does that say about us? Really? 

It says that about 30% of the country needs to do some serious soul searching, if they truly think that a bigoted conman actually represents where they want this nation to go.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

thankfully much higher than 30%

Not really because 40% don't give a #### one way or the other. I have miles more respect for the 30% I don't agree with, then the 40% who don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I don't see how, because I'm not sure someone can use another's tweet as intimidation. The context in which it was brought up also matters. 

He was kidding I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

It clearly was witness intimidation.  But, I don't think Yovanovich's feelings are particularly relevant or should be considered in the determination of whether the act is criminal or not. 

I think they're at least partially relevant, but the intent and timing of the words matters about as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Teeeeeechnicallly..... she couldn't have been intimidated. She wasn't using her phone during the testimony. Therefore she couldn't have seen the tweet. It could intimidate her for future testimony or other witnesses.

Hows that for spin?

Technically, if POTUS might reasonably assume that his communication would be relayed in real time to the witness.  So, I think we are squarely back in the camp of intimidation of that witness who had many remaining hours (5-6?) of testimony to offer.  That's not withstanding the other point about future testimony/witnesses.

Share this post


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

I was not watching, but I get the sense the applause was for Yovanovitch.

That’s what I thought too - after watching several on the sides act like children it came across as an applause of appreciation for her acting like an adult.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Koya said:

Never thought I’d live in a world when people would be thankful that over 30% of our nation is ok with a president that openly mocks a disabled man... forget about literally everything else.

What does that say about us? Really? 

Link?  I never said anything about mocking a disabled guy.  I would not be happy if Trump were to do that.  Thankfully he did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Link?  I never said anything about mocking a disabled guy.  I would not be happy if Trump were to do that.  Thankfully he did not.

Yes, he did.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Yep, there is the direct connection to Trump: 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-15-19/h_34db04b99f225b7df850d06f0bce0f03

Sondland is going to have to clarify this. Honestly I’m wondering if he refuses to testify now or takes the 5th. He’s already committed perjury, I think. 

Overheard a call, such a weak last ditch effort by the Dems.  Shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Holmes, the aide to diplomat Bill Taylor who overheard President Trump’s conversation with European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, said that Sondland told the President that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to,” and that he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to “do the investigation."

“Sondland told Trump that Zelensky ‘loves your ###,’” Holmes said, according to a copy of his opening statement reviewed by CNN. “I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘He’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelensky will do ‘anything you ask him to.’”

Holmes explained that Sondland placed the call to Trump, and he could hear Trump because the call was so loud in the restaurant where they were with two others.

“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” Holmes testified.

“Even though I did not take notes of those statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made,” Holmes added.
Holmes also confirmed Taylor's testimony about the President’s thoughts on Ukraine, saying he asked Sondland “if it was true that the President did not ‘give a s—t about Ukraine.'” 

Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded "'big stuff' that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-15-19/h_8bc780e4312cc3037f88cde4fd5e7481

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Not really because 40% don't give a #### one way or the other. I have miles more respect for the 30% I don't agree with, then the 40% who don't care.

show your work.  Who doesn't care?

Share this post


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

This morning, President Trump blamed the situation in Somalia on Yovanovitch

That’s not fair though - the tweet said fair-minded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

show your work.  Who doesn't care?

You don't vote, you don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Heck, none of the witnesses so far have agreed this is an impeachable offense when asked.  Lady today agreed there was no crime committed.

This is false.

Share this post


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

This is false.

I heard this exact statement on radio driving home.  I will see if I can find what he was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Is it really 40% of people that don't vote?  That is crazy 

In 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizenvoting-age population reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012.May 10, 2017

https://www.census.gov › 2017/05

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for getting lured off topic. 
 

Back to today’s events and the subject matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:
2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

This is false.

I heard this exact statement on radio driving home.  I will see if I can find what he was referring to.

Did you hear the statement from the actual person who said it, or are you attempting to quote hearsay that you heard from someone else?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

This is false.

This is a fair case to argue. Again, an example of the final most essential command. 
 

Do not believe what you see and hear. 
 

Crazy times in which we live. I guess we could be living our Fahrenheit 451.  Maybe that’s just next up with today’s events laying a foundation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, [scooter] said:

Did you hear the statement from the actual person who said it, or are you attempting to quote hearsay that you heard from someone else?

Wait...isn't hearsay better than actual evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

David Holmes, the aide to diplomat Bill Taylor who overheard President Trump’s conversation with European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, said that Sondland told the President that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to,” and that he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to “do the investigation."

“Sondland told Trump that Zelensky ‘loves your ###,’” Holmes said, according to a copy of his opening statement reviewed by CNN. “I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘He’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelensky will do ‘anything you ask him to.’”

Holmes explained that Sondland placed the call to Trump, and he could hear Trump because the call was so loud in the restaurant where they were with two others.

“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” Holmes testified.

“Even though I did not take notes of those statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made,” Holmes added.
Holmes also confirmed Taylor's testimony about the President’s thoughts on Ukraine, saying he asked Sondland “if it was true that the President did not ‘give a s—t about Ukraine.'” 

Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded "'big stuff' that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-15-19/h_8bc780e4312cc3037f88cde4fd5e7481

Maybe we ought to get Trump to testify and clear up what he meant here...

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I guess we could be living our Fahrenheit 451

Climate change is #FakeNews

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I heard this exact statement on radio driving home.  I will see if I can find what he was referring to.

It’s doesn’t matter - I watched the entire thing, she never once said that.  She did however, say she had no information or knowledge.  I know you want to be accurate on this and not mislead people so believe me when I say the bolded part of your post was false.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the good news with these late breaking developments - Yovanovitch should be off Trump's radar by morning. 🥴

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

David Holmes, the aide to diplomat Bill Taylor who overheard President Trump’s conversation with European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland, said that Sondland told the President that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would do “anything you ask him to,” and that he confirmed the Ukrainians were going to “do the investigation."

“Sondland told Trump that Zelensky ‘loves your ###,’” Holmes said, according to a copy of his opening statement reviewed by CNN. “I then heard President Trump ask, ‘So, he’s gonna do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that ‘He’s gonna do it,’ adding that President Zelensky will do ‘anything you ask him to.’”

Holmes explained that Sondland placed the call to Trump, and he could hear Trump because the call was so loud in the restaurant where they were with two others.

“While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speakerphone, I could hear the President’s voice through the earpiece of the phone. The President’s voice was very loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” Holmes testified.

“Even though I did not take notes of those statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made,” Holmes added.
Holmes also confirmed Taylor's testimony about the President’s thoughts on Ukraine, saying he asked Sondland “if it was true that the President did not ‘give a s—t about Ukraine.'” 

Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded "'big stuff' that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-15-19/h_8bc780e4312cc3037f88cde4fd5e7481

Jeebuz this is damning. And, I might note, NOT hearsay.

  • Like 1

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.