Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I need more than hearsay sorry.  Taylor, Kent, and the former ambassador today have not helped the Dems case at all.

You may revise your opinion on this matter after reading the Holmes transcript. Let's see if Sondland takes the 5th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through Holmes' opening statement, here are his key statements about Sondland:

1. Sondland told Taylor on 6/27 that Zelenskyy needed to approve "investigations" into Burisma and Biden.

2. Sondland participated in a phone call on 6/28 in which it was made clear that a quid pro quo was required to get a White House meeting.

3. Sondland excluded Holmes from a one-on-one meeting with Zelenskyy's top aide on 7/26.

4. after that meeting, Sondland went to lunch with Holmes and 2 other staffers. During that lunch, Sondland called Trump, and Holmes heard Trump ask "He's gonna do the investigation?"

5. Sondland told Holmes that Trump only cares about "big stuff that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing."

6. Sondland's aide told Holmes on 9/13 that "Sondland said the Zelenskyy interview [with CNN] is supposed to be today or Monday and they plan to announce a certain investigation."


I have not read all of Sondland's statements, so I don't know if any of this contradicts anything that Sondland has previous stated.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Yes- exactly.  That's the problem.  

I agree. But that doesn’t make this person not a whistleblower. It makes this person a whistleblower the rules work for.  The solution is not to make them not work for him. It’s to make them work for everyone. 
 

You remove them for him, they’re gone completely. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I need more than hearsay sorry.  Taylor, Kent, and the former ambassador today have not helped the Dems case at all.

Not in your eyes.  But to be fair the President’s chief of staff could go on national television and say the aid was dependent on the investigations into Democrats and you wouldn’t believe it. 

  • Like 11
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

Not in your eyes.  But to be fair the President’s chief of staff could go on national television and say the aid was dependent on the investigations into Democrats and you wouldn’t believe it. 

Full stop.  Please don't assume anything about me.

Share this post


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

Full stop.  Please don't assume anything about me.

He did and you don’t believe it. 

  • Like 12
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I agree. But that doesn’t make this person not a whistleblower. It makes this person a whistleblower the rules work for.  The solution is not to make them not work for him. It’s to make them work for everyone. 
 

You remove them for him, they’re gone completely. 

Good point.  I hadn't really thought of it like that.  

  • Like 7
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Full stop.  Please don't assume anything about me.

Right, where would we get any ideas about you.

Share this post


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

Again, full stop.  

I’m confused.  Full stop usually means “what preceded this was a complete and true statement.”

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Full stop.  Please don't assume anything about me.

Based on this post, it appears that many of us here, including myself, may have misinterpreted some of your earlier posts? 

If so, would you please explain exactly what you think happened in this situation? That would help prevent future confusion. 

Share this post


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

EXCLUSIVE: At last year's WH Hanukkah party, Lev Parnas & Igor Fruman had a private meeting w Trump & Giuliani during which Trump tasked the two men with “a secret mission” to pressure the Ukrainian gov't to investigate Joe & Hunter Biden, sources say. https://t.co/LoeQ7msJIA

 

Only the best people...

Not only did they fail, they got themselves arrested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contrast between Trump's hate-tweets towards the "bad news" Ambassador after saying she "might go through some things" and the standing ovation she recieved at the end makes me hopeful. A stirring, real- life version of David and Goliath. 

May he never have to go all the way to a baseball game to be booed ever again. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

I need more than hearsay sorry.

Well.  Kent, Taylor, and Yovanovich stories all align to the same corrupt scheme.  If you were truly interested in the truth, they provided the names of those who have direct knowledge of the events that transpired.  Certainly, you must be curious why those individuals have been blocked by Trump from testifying.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Not in your eyes.  But to be fair the President’s chief of staff could go on national television and say the aid was dependent on the investigations into Democrats and you wouldn’t believe it. 

Objection:  hypothetical.

OVERRULED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After private White House meeting, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas said he was on a 'secret mission' for Trump, sources say

Quote

 

Among the many guests who had their pictures taken with President Donald Trump at the White House's annual Hanukkah party last year were two Soviet-born businessmen from Florida, Lev Parnas and Igor  Fruman. 

In the picture, which Parnas posted on social media, he and Fruman are seen smiling alongside Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Rudy Giuliani, the President's personal lawyer.

At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting.

Word of the encounter in the White House last December, which has not been previously reported, is further indication that Trump knew Parnas and Fruman, despite Trump publicly stating that he did not on the day after the two men were arrested at Dulles International Airport last month.

Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night. According to those two confidants, Parnas said that "the big guy," as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as "a secret mission" to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Not in your eyes.  But to be fair the President’s chief of staff could go on national television and say the aid was dependent on the investigations into Democrats and you wouldn’t believe it. 

Right now he has the odds at 1/225 chance that it happened. But if it did he does not believe it’s impeachable. HTH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Parnas testifies to this in front of Congress (which seems to be an eventual likelihood given his apparent cooperation with the investigators,) the pressure on Rudy will be overwhelming. Will he go down with the Trumptanic?  Or will he also cooperate?

Edited by Workhorse

Share this post


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

If Parnas testifies to this in front of Congress (which seems to be an eventual likelihood given his apparent cooperation with the investigators,) the pressure on Rudy will be overwhelming. Will he go down with the Trumptanic?  Or will he also cooperate?

He can't cooperate IMO.  His best bet is Manafort-style omerta and to hope Trump doesn't die in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

He can't cooperate IMO.  His best bet is Manafort-style omerta and to hope Trump doesn't die in office.

Trump, after a bad day in the impeachment testimony, will pardon several of his associates in an effort to deflect from whatever bombshell was dropped. It will become another article of impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a link to Lutsenko's retraction on getting a do not prosecute list from Yovanovich?

The only thing I can find is this, with the headline which references this article, neither of which quote him actually retracting his accusation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Good point.  I hadn't really thought of it like that.  

But- and this is something I feel isn't explained by 'individual' vs. 'institution' whistleblowing- this person has institutional backing from the CIA, Democratic establishment, and mainstream media.  This simply does not happen for whistleblowers.  It might explain the first one, and partisanship (or "respect for the rule of law" if you must) might explain the second, but it doesn't really explain the last one. 

There has been a different standard applied to this person than to people like Kiriakou, Manning, Snowden etc.  Assange has done more for whistleblowing than any journalist in the world, and he's treated like the antichrist.  It's a pretty cynical doublestandard being applied here, and I think it's reasonable for people to be skeptical of that.  

Share this post


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

Trump, after a bad day in the impeachment testimony, will pardon several of his associates in an effort to deflect from whatever bombshell was dropped. It will become another article of impeachment.

Now that will be legally interesting.  Pardoning your alleged co-conspirators who are awaiting trial? Would certainly test that “acceptance of a pardon is an admission” opinion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But- and this is something I feel isn't explained by 'individual' vs. 'institution' whistleblowing- this person has institutional backing from the CIA, Democratic establishment, and mainstream media.  This simply does not happen for whistleblowers.  It might explain the first one, and partisanship (or "respect for the rule of law" if you must) might explain the second, but it doesn't really explain the last one. 

There has been a different standard applied to this person than to people like Kiriakou, Manning, Snowden etc.  Assange has done more for whistleblowing than any journalist in the world, and he's treated like the antichrist.  It's a pretty cynical doublestandard being applied here, and I think it's reasonable for people to be skeptical of that.  

Sure they do.  That’s how investigations into powerful people happen. Someone blows the whistle and the CIA, FBI, whoever gets involved.  
 

The thing to be skeptical of is when they won’t protect a whistleblower, not when they will. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dollars to donuts when someone properly reports violations through the proper channels and then is vilified and destroyed, that person was right. That person should be protected at all costs.  
 

And yes, all of them not just this one. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Dollars to donuts when someone properly reports violations through the proper channels and then is vilified and destroyed, that person was right. That person should be protected at all costs.  
 

And yes, all of them not just this one. 

How the above mentality is not adhered to by all "law and order" people is astounding. The above behavior is exhibited from young children to adults to domesticated animals t o wild animals. It's sadly amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The articles of Impeachment against the President will possibly include:

-Bribery

-Extortion

-Seeking the aid of a foreign nation to win an election

-Abuse of Power

-Witness Intimindation

-Obstruction of Justice

Would it be in the Democrat's interest to ask the Republicans to present their case how their requested witnesses such as Hunter Biden can provide evidence that the President is not guilty of these potential charges? With the stipulation they not simply try to make it an investigation of the Bidens which has nothing to do with the President's innocence or guilt.  If they do so their presentation over. No Whisteblower exposure either, we don't want the House breaking the law.

Share this post


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

The articles of Impeachment against the President will possibly include:

-Bribery

-Extortion

-Seeking the aid of a foreign nation to win an election

-Abuse of Power

-Witness Intimindation

-Obstruction of Justice

.

I don’t think there will be that many articles. A lot of this is talk designed to paint an overall picture of corruption. But Pelosi is far too smart to allow that many articles of impeachment. Look for one or two, at most three, of the clearest charges that the public can understand and which will be the hardest for the Republicans to refute. If I had to guess: 

1. Abuse of power (for the attempt to extort Ukraine for personal goals) 

2. Obstruction of justice (for refusing to allow key witnesses to testify and withholding evidence.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, whoknew said:

This argument makes zero sense. This argument throws legal history into turmoil as this argument has zero, I think, backing in the centuries of legal history.

The one huge thing that has been hinted at, looked at slightly, not as emphasized as it should be, but how Republicans are so short sighted when it comes to policy, law, ethics, and so on. Very few things Republicans have done in my lifetime (40 years) is plan for the future. Such a short sighted mentality has on display for far too long.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr makes some interesting points. He's essentially saying "This is all part of Trump's plan to 'Drain The Swamp', and he should not be removed for using his powers to fulfill a campaign promise."

Not sure if The Federalist Society is the right place to be making that argument, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Not in your eyes.  But to be fair the President’s chief of staff could go on national television and say the aid was dependent on the investigations into Democrats and you wouldn’t believe it. 

I don't like the heat

Might lose a SCOTUS seat

Thousands of lost votes from churches 

So many bench warrant searches 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, whoknew said:

That's a stupid argument. Trump lost the popular vote by 5 million votes, his policies have been one abject failure after another, and he's driving everyone who dares think differently than him away from the party.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That's a stupid argument. Trump lost the popular vote by 5 million votes, his policies have been one abject failure after another, and he's driving everyone who dares think differently than him away from the party.

All 3 of your statements are wrong.

Share this post


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

What will be the GOP response if Sondland comes clean and throws Trump under the bus? 

I'll ask you since I don't think there was an answer yesterday.

 

What is Holmes saying that disputes or contradicts what Sondland has said?

Share this post


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

What will be the GOP response if Sondland comes clean and throws Trump under the bus? 

My guess is "he lied before so he's lying again" which was the main defense against Cohen's testimony. 

Share this post


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

This is a full throated argument for authoritarian nationalism.

It's okay because abortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:

What will be the GOP response if Sondland comes clean and throws Trump under the bus? 

Hearsay, no QPQ, bad guy who drinks too much, Hunter Biden, aid was released, Benghazi, Butterymales... etc etc

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I'll ask you since I don't think there was an answer yesterday.

 

What is Holmes saying that disputes or contradicts what Sondland has said?

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.

Share this post


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

Basically...they knew he was a corrupt man before so that makes it all ok.  Pretty awful there but not unexpected anymore from Barr.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

All 3 of your statements are wrong.

My bad, 3 million votes. Everything else is spot on, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

All 3 of your statements are wrong.

Can you please provide reasons and links to support this assertion?  And keep in mind the poster has already corrected the vote total issue.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The General said:

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.

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.

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.