Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jamny said:

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.

Fwiw it's a fulcrum for the Trump defense of "hearsay", here the discussion was overheard live by two people in real time.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“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.

  • Like 12

Share this post


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

“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.

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.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

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.

Edited by The General
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fwiw it's a fulcrum for the Trump defense of "hearsay", here the discussion was overheard live by two people in real time.

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.

Share this post


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

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.

I agree substantively. From that POV this is just further buttressing evidence of an already established fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fwiw it's a fulcrum for the Trump defense of "hearsay", here the discussion was overheard live by two people in real time.

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.)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I agree substantively. From that POV this is just further buttressing evidence of an already established fact.

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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamny said:


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.


Right. We're inching closer and closer to "YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED" territory.
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I agree substantively. From that POV this is just further buttressing evidence of an already established fact.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

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.

Share this post


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

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. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

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.

It is very odd watching this take hold in the US

Share this post


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

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.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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.

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamny said:


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.


Holmes overheard confirmation of the quo.

Share this post


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

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. 

Thanks. The bolded is like what I'm looking for.

Share this post


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

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 its 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.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

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

Why dont you ask the initial poster to do that.  He stated his opinion I stated mine.  But if you want to google 2016 election results, feel free.    

After that. He said his policies have been a failure.    I disagree.

He is driving republicans away.  We will find out in 2020.

Share this post


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

Thanks. The bolded is like what I'm looking for.

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?

Share this post


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

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind. Handled. No need to address factual inaccuracies. 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

timschochet said:


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?


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.

Share this post


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

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?

This is why Sondland is screwed. Trump already had begun saying he doesn’t even really know this guy. 

Share this post


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

Why dont you ask the initial poster to do that.  He stated his opinion I stated mine.  But if you want to google 2016 election results, feel free.    

After that. He said his policies have been a failure.    I disagree.

He is driving republicans away.  We will find out in 2020.

 :goodposting: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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is why Sondland is screwed. Trump already had begun saying he doesn’t even really know this guy. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

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.) 

I wont argue what the articles of impeachment might be, that was not the point of my post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 :goodposting: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. 

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.

He is also correct if he had just asked the original post to provide links to the assertions made.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:tebow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, msommer said:

If you do not accept the qpq or that it was illegal, this is meh

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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.

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. 

Edited by The General
Typing on phone is the worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

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 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. 

Share this post


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

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.

:tebow:

He’s not isolationist enough for us! It’s all a bunch of talk! 

Share this post


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

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. 

I appreciate  your responses tim.  

Share this post


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

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 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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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.

I think claims of not knowing someone is a pretty good indication that they're about to be made an escapegoat (or "thrown under the bus" if you prefer, but I've heard enough of that particular phrase lately).

Like when a coach gets the dreaded "vote of confidence" from ownership you have a pretty good idea what's coming next.

And to give a clearer answer to your question of how this new testimony contradicts Sondland,  it helps to look back at what Sonland testified to as it's too hard to keep track of everything mentally, at least for me.

Here's a report from Lawfare, which includes the transcript (an actual transcript, not a Trumpian made-up one): https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-amb-gordon-sondlands-deposition-testimony 

-Sondland's amended testimony included his new revelation that actually, yes, there was a quid pro quo, but it was only after hearing everyone else's testimony that he was able to put two and two together, like it was a tangled web of inferences one had to piece together. That's been put to bed.

-Sondland claimed that while there was a quid pro quo to investigate corruption, he only knew of an investigation into Burisma and had no idea it had any connection to Biden, his son, or US politics. That seemed absurd at the time and even more so now.

-He claimed the only time he spoke to Trump about it was after Taylor texted him, and Trump said "no quid pro quo". That now seems doubtful.

-He claims he never talked to anyone at State or the DOJ about quid pro quos or Biden. Now equally implausible.

-He made is seem like the Biden investigation was some vague notion that was, if anything, a secondary concern that he just happened to mention in passing to the Ukranians, like an afterthought. No big deal. Seems like a pretty big deal now.

I'm sure there's more but I think those are the main contradictions. I don't have the time to sit with Holmes' deposition and do a point-by-point analysis, but here's his transcript if anyone else wants to do it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/opening-statement-david-holmes-impeachment-inquiry

 

-

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

He’s not isolationist enough for us! It’s all a bunch of talk! 

You would rather Trump arm neonazi-linked groups in Ukraine?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

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.

Share this post


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

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.

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? :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

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? :popcorn: 

I predict a mixture of "I was acting on my own" and "I plead the Fifth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sondland testifies on Wednesday, I believe. Very happy to be off that day so I can watch it all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

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? :popcorn: 

His lawyers and advisors have their work cut out for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You would rather Trump arm neonazi-linked groups in Ukraine?  

I would rather he, and any president after him, oppose Russian aggression and expansion.  Romney was mocked for it, but he was right, Russia is our biggest threat on the world stage, when talking about overall stability.  I believe China poses a bigger threat to us economically, but there is a pragmatism there.  I don't see China pushing us into a shooting war.  I do not feel the same with Russia.  I think Russia has so much less to lose, and such a fundamental disdain for what we represent, that I do not believe there is a line they will not cross to oppose the West.  

I find you an interesting read here, I really do.  I don't agree with some of your views, but I do believe they are all well thought out.  However, I am always mystified by your desire to acquiesce when it comes to Russia.  They are a bad actor on the world stage.  It's just inarguable.  I really hope at some point we take a much more firm stance on opposing their actions.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

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? :popcorn: 

I get what you're saying, but Truth and Trump are so far apart it's not possible to support both. In this specific instance and in a wider sense. I think that's what has so many appalled and taken aback by the support he gets from people who pretend this is politics as usual when it's clearly not. 

There's no nuance or shades of gray here. What Trump is doing is so blatantly unconstitutional that to say you support both of them is simply not credible, especially when it's coming from the folks on Capitol Hill, many of whom are lawyers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I get what you're saying, but Truth and Trump are so far apart it's not possible to support both. In this specific instance and in a wider sense. I think that's what has so many appalled and taken aback by the support he gets from people who pretend this is politics as usual when it's clearly not. 

There's no nuance or shades of gray here. What Trump is doing is so blatantly unconstitutional that to say you support both of them is simply not credible, especially when it's coming from the folks on Capitol Hill, many of whom are lawyers.

Exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

Is 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.

Thanks @Maurile Tremblay

Agreed. If you see something you don't understand or know, ask for a link. Backing up, people can help the board overall by providing links when they post things. Eliminating the need to ask.

And for the second point, I'd add, If you see something you believe to be wrong, say you think it's wrong and also include your link to back up what you're saying. 

So much better this way. 

  • Thanks 2

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.