Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

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

Good question, though this entire topic is not really relevant to this thread. But the answer is yes. Since it’s Saturday, let me explain in some detail. 

Prior to World War II, Winston Churchill devised a strategy for preserving world peace: you identify the countries that are the threats to their neighbors, and you arm and support the neighbors. Pretty simple but if the British had followed it they might have avoided Dunkirk. Later on this basic strategy was revised by George Kennan in our State Department and given a name: containment. It essentially won us the Cold War. 

Now this policy necessitates a realpolitik approach to foreign policy in which we have to overlook moral issues at times. Sometimes we have to arm Communists to fight Fascists. Sometimes we have to arm Fascists to fight Communists. Sometimes we have to arm Islamic terrorists to fight more powerful Islamic terrorists. Etc, etc.: each time we oppose the more powerful threat. In this case,  between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is clearly the more powerful threat. It would be a much more wonderful world if all of the people we support were freedom loving democracy types; but unfortunately some of them are neo Nazis. 

Yes in this case we need to arm the neo Nazis. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

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

This is pure Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian people have lost 14,000 people in the course of this war.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 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: 

The problem is that Sondland already went on record under oath saying that he had had no conversations with Trump about the "investigations." He has a binary choice here, either continue the lie or admit to the lie before.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

The commencement of public impeachment hearings this week may have been excruciatingly dull

I’d like to address this one point because Devin Nunes said the same thing in his closing remarks. I considered it wishful thinking and still do. 

I find the testimony absolutely riveting so far and I expect it will be more so next year week, especially Sondland and Vindman. On the other hand I’m quite obviously a political junkie so my opinion on this is not to be trusted. So let’s put it out there: putting aside your views on the issues, have the two days of hearings so far been interesting to watch? Dull? What do you think? 

Share this post


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

This is pure Russian propaganda. 

This isn’t completely true. The Ukrainians fighting over there DO have some ties to neo-Nazis, some of them anyhow. It’s well documented. It may have been overblown by Russian propaganda but it’s just a little true anyhow. I’m not saying it should change our policy but we shouldn’t ignore it either. 

Share this post


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

This is pure Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian people have lost 14,000 people in the course of this war.

It's the truth. The FBI has tracked white nationalists that go to Ukraine to train with other neonazis.  Monuments celebrating past Nazi collaborators go up all the time around Kyiv.  It's a big problem in Ukraine whether you believe it or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 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.

I should have added an or to my posts...what i first asked was: “ could you please provide reasons and links to support ...“. An and/or would have been better on my part.

Share this post


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

.  Monuments celebrating past Nazi collaborators go up all the time around Kyiv.  

Yep. As well as antisemites who preceded the Nazis. 

If you kill a lot of Jews the Ukrainians tend to like you. Sad but true. (Of course it’s true in Russia as well.) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This isn’t completely true. The Ukrainians fighting over there DO have some ties to neo-Nazis, some of them anyhow. It’s well documented. It may have been overblown by Russian propaganda but it’s just a little true anyhow. I’m not saying it should change our policy but we shouldn’t ignore it either. 

But it’s not who is receiving US aid, that’s the Ukrainian military, which is professional.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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.

I think the point Jamny has been trying to make is that the “code red” is not the investigation into Biden, but rather that the money was contingent on that.  His written statement doesn’t seem to go that far.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

It's the truth. The FBI has tracked white nationalists that go to Ukraine to train with other neonazis.  Monuments celebrating past Nazi collaborators go up all the time around Kyiv.  It's a big problem in Ukraine whether you believe it or not.  

But Ren those are groups, that’s not who the US is supplying.

Share this post


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

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

I assume you’re talking about Azov.  I’m also not a huge fan of its makeup but one another hand I know if the US was invaded and we created a volunteer militia in a day it would probably have a pretty sizable contingent of Neo Nazis because you need everyone who can handle a gun and has any experience with violence at all and... they fit the bill. 
 

Azov is a serious quandary.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

there certainly was interest in the quo (would the investigation happen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

Can you explain the first part?

Share this post


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

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

Apart from the inauguration, being appointed to be ambassador to the EU, he knew him well enough To call after the meeting (or accept his call after the meeting ) asking about whether the Ukrainians had accepted to do the favor he asked....

(and yes to your further point, the donald does this to most he throws under the bus)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natasha Bertrand@NatashaBertrand

As I reported in May 2018: McMaster and Mattis pushed for Trump to approve Javelins sale & convinced him, at least in part, by noting that Obama had balked at the sale. Poroshenko then won favor with Trump by facilitating an $80 million coal deal w/the US. https://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/ukraines-successful-courtship-of-trump/559526/

 

In the months following the weapons sale, Poroshenko also ordered Ukraine’s top anti-corruption prosecutor tasked with probing corruption under Yanukovych to stop cooperating with Mueller. Democrats want to know whether that, too, was a quid pro quo

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

Apart from the inauguration, being appointed to be ambassador to the EU, he knew him well enough To call after the meeting (or accept his call after the meeting ) asking about whether the Ukrainians had accepted to do the favor he asked....

(and yes to your further point, the donald does this to most he throws under the bus)

Perhaps my distrust of Trump clouds my perception but it seems laughable to me that Trump barely knows Sondland.

Trump’s ability to tell blatant lies is one of his best skills.

Share this post


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

Can you explain the first part?

Sure. Before tim answered my question and pointed out an example of how Holmes' testimony might conflict with what Sondland has said, I didn't see much that was compelling from this new development. I see now that there might be something to it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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. 

And I am only half kidding, when I say that if Trump did indeed hardly know the guy, he should be impeached because of that. How the #### do you hardly know the ####### ambassador to the EU? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only bombshell last week was Yovanovitch saying the Obama regime was so worried about Hunter’s corruption (they weren’t) that they actually gave her talking points for her 2015 confirmation hearing. If this thing wasn’t such a ridiculous and costly waste of time for the country it would be hilarious.

Quote

Of all the supposedly shocking revelations that have emerged from the impeachment hearings this week, here’s one that the Democrats in Congress hope you don’t hear about: The Obama White House knew that Hunter Biden’s extremely lucrative appointment to the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which occurred the month after his father was named the administration’s “point person” on Ukraine, reeked of corruption — and they didn’t do anything about it.

In Congressional testimony Friday, former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch confirmed for Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), that in 2016 the Obama State Department privately ran her through a series of practice questions and answers to prepare Yovanovitch for her Senate confirmation hearing.

Stefanik confirmed that one specific question Yovanovitch was asked to prepare for was, “What can you tell us about Hunter Biden’s being named to the board of Burisma?” Incredibly, Yovanovitch later testified that the State Department told her to deflect any questions she might get about Hunter Biden and Burisma by referring Senators’ questions to the vice president’s office.

This admission regarding her senate confirmation prep session was startling, and it flatly contradicted a prior statement Yovanovitch had made in the hearing: “Although I have met former vice president several times over the course of our many years in government service, neither he nor the previous administration ever raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.”

Yovanovitch admits Obama admin prepped her on Hunter Biden

Rep. Stefanik proceeded to hammer this point. “For the millions of Americans watching, President Obama’s own State Department was so concerned about potential conflicts of interest from Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma that they raised it themselves while prepping this wonderful ambassador nominee before her confirmation,” Stefanik said. “And yet our Democratic colleagues and chairman of this committee cry foul when we dare ask the same question that the Obama State Department was so concerned about.”

If the Obama administration thought the vice president’s son as much as a $1 million a year and, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, dropping Hunter Biden’s name to get meetings at the State Department was a problem, well, the case for impeachment is much harder to make.

It also speaks to the circumstances which triggered the impeachment hearings. Various national security and State Department bureaucrats have emerged from the woodwork to condemn Trump’s alleged quid pro quo with the Ukrainian president. If the State Department was concerned about corruption in the vice president’s office in 2016, why were they directing bureaucrats to avoid answering questions about it? Where were the whistleblowers and patriotic truth-tellers then? One unavoidable conclusion is that congressional Democrats and federal bureaucrats developed their sudden interest in the White House corruption only after Trump won an election.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/obama-administration-knew-hunter-biden-was-shady-witness-admits/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

So the only bombshell last week was Yovanovitch saying the Obama regime was so worried about Hunter’s corruption (they weren’t) that they actually gave her talking points for her 2015 confirmation hearing.

The bombshells were: 1. Taylor stating he was aware of a Sondland-Trump phone call, 2. Kent stating Trump was pursuing political dirt for his own interests and was not acting for US interests, 3. Yovanovitch describing an oligarch driven campaign to fire her which Trump complied with, and 4. The announcement that David Holmes would testify to personal knowledge of the Trump-Sondland discussion,

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

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

 

-

What a patriot.  Trump is destroying America’s reputation with his rampant corruption.  That Barr had the gall to describe removing Ambassador Y as “draining the swamp” is almost unbelievable.  
 

The only line left for the GOP to retreat to is that Trump did it but who cares.   And the base will be waiting with a warm embrace when they finally get there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty funny that the silly "hearsay" arguments are what prompted Holmes to come forward as a direct witness to the Trump-Sonderland conversation.  And he brought receipts -- including the names of two others who heard the conversation as well as two+ others he debriefed on the call within hours of it happening.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

So the only bombshell last week was Yovanovitch saying the Obama regime was so worried about Hunter’s corruption (they weren’t) that they actually gave her talking points for her 2015 confirmation hearing. If this thing wasn’t such a ridiculous and costly waste of time for the country it would be hilarious.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/obama-administration-knew-hunter-biden-was-shady-witness-admits/

You want to investigate a U.S. citizen and/or crimes against the U.S. such as corruption, go ahead. We have U.S. laws that dictate the legal and appropriate means to do so. Let our agencies and institutions do what they are designed to accomplish, ESPECIALLY if you are the President and lead the Executive branch.

Whether or not Biden or others were unscrupulous or even ran afoul of the law does not in anyway excuse:

1. asking foreign leaders to usurp and run around our laws, agencies, and institutions - it's one of the most anti-law and order approaches I can think of, and it should anger anyone who support our laws, and our order

2. As awful as the above it, it pales in comparison to interjecting not only a quid pro quo, but one based on political motivations that cut to the very heart of our democracy and freedom. This is more an affront to our law and order than even the above.  Worse yet, done for personal political gain.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

...

clear them PMs good buddy. :thumbup:

Share this post


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

The bombshells were: 1. Taylor stating he was aware of a Sondland-Trump phone call, 2. Kent stating Trump was pursuing political dirt for his own interests and was not acting for US interests, 3. Yovanovitch describing an oligarch driven campaign to fire her which Trump complied with, and 4. The announcement that David Holmes would testify to personal knowledge of the Trump-Sondland discussion,

No, there were no bombshells at all last week a gigantic waste of time.  None of these people helped the Dems case at all as they have no first hand knowledge and admitted when asked they knew of no crime or impeachable offense.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

You want to investigate a U.S. citizen and/or crimes against the U.S. such as corruption, go ahead. We have U.S. laws that dictate the legal and appropriate means to do so. Let our agencies and institutions do what they are designed to accomplish, ESPECIALLY if you are the President and lead the Executive branch.

Whether or not Biden or others were unscrupulous or even ran afoul of the law does not in anyway excuse:

1. asking foreign leaders to usurp and run around our laws, agencies, and institutions - it's one of the most anti-law and order approaches I can think of, and it should anger anyone who support our laws, and our order

2. As awful as the above it, it pales in comparison to interjecting not only a quid pro quo, but one based on political motivations that cut to the very heart of our democracy and freedom. This is more an affront to our law and order than even the above.  Worse yet, done for personal political gain.

 

 

This line of thinking battles me.  Why would you not want to out corruption?

Share this post


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

Pretty funny that the silly "hearsay" arguments are what prompted Holmes to come forward as a direct witness to the Trump-Sonderland conversation.  And he brought receipts -- including the names of two others who heard the conversation as well as two+ others he debriefed on the call within hours of it happening.

As well as the equally irrelevant request for the identity of the WB and their testimony.  

ETA Also the "corruption" aka nepotism while the POTUS'S son, daughter and SIL all hold prominent positions in the highest levels of our government without any experience whatsoever. Not to mention all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN taxpayer and foreign money spent at Trump properties. But Trump and republicans are worried about "corruption". Laughable. 

Edited by Sheriff Bart

Share this post


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

The problem is that Sondland already went on record under oath saying that he had had no conversations with Trump about the "investigations." He has a binary choice here, either continue the lie or admit to the lie before.

Agree with you here but not your last line as you are assuming Holmes is telling the truth and not Sondland which shows your bias.  You have no idea which one is lying.  I am confident Sondland will stick to his story and unless they can obtain phone records or audio of conversation this is a nothing burger conspiracy theory.  Even if they get a phone record it is a he said she said argument which is not enough to impeach.  

You need a smoking gun and there simply is none.

Share this post


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

The problem is that Sondland already went on record under oath saying that he had had no conversations with Trump about the "investigations." He has a binary choice here, either continue the lie or admit to the lie before.

To which Roger Stone would say "top bunk or bottom?"

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

This line of thinking battles me.  Why would you not want to out corruption?

I did not say anything about not wanting to root out corruption. I absolutely do.

Which is why I stated how important it is that we utilize the proper channels. We have laws. We have an order to this.  I do believe in our laws and order, especially in regard to investigating wrong doing done by Americans and/or that run counter to U.S. law.

To go outside the boundaries of our legal system and investigative agencies is dangerous, if not illegal itself. Breaking more laws is not an acceptable means to stop corruption, especially by the head of the executive branch. It is also an affront to the men and woman charged with pursuing such matters, and sets a dangerous precedent that runs counter to a Democratic nation.

We have means to investigate, be it Biden or anyone else.  Use those legal channels.  If not, expect to be held accountable if you run afoul of U.S. law.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No, there were no bombshells at all last week a gigantic waste of time.  None of these people helped the Dems case at all as they have no first hand knowledge and admitted when asked they knew of no crime or impeachable offense.

Just so I understand, you do not think that trump demanded an investigation into the Bidens as a condition of him releasing the money?  Correct?

Share this post


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

The problem is that Sondland already went on record under oath saying that he had had no conversations with Trump about the "investigations." He has a binary choice here, either continue the lie or admit to the lie before.

What happens if he tries to plead the 5th instead of correcting testimony he's already given?

I'd think the Stone reminder would be front of mind either way.

Share this post


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

I did not say anything about not wanting to root out corruption. I absolutely do.

Which is why I stated how important it is that we utilize the proper channels. We have laws. We have an order to this.  I do believe in our laws and order, especially in regard to investigating wrong doing done by Americans and/or that run counter to U.S. law.

To go outside the boundaries of our legal system and investigative agencies is dangerous, if not illegal itself. Breaking more laws is not an acceptable means to stop corruption, especially by the head of the executive branch. It is also an affront to the men and woman charged with pursuing such matters, and sets a dangerous precedent that runs counter to a Democratic nation.

We have means to investigate, be it Biden or anyone else.  Use those legal channels.  If not, expect to be held accountable if you run afoul of U.S. law.

 

 

No investigation was started, no laws were broken, no impeachable offense.  :shrug:  

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here.  Nothing in the transcript of the call shows wrongdoing by Trump and we are left with witnesses who have no first hand knowledge so far.

Share this post


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

Just so I understand, you do not think that trump demanded an investigation into the Bidens as a condition of him releasing the money?  Correct?

Not that can be proven, yes.

Share this post


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

Agree with you here but not your last line as you are assuming Holmes is telling the truth and not Sondland which shows your bias.  You have no idea which one is lying.  I am confident Sondland will stick to his story and unless they can obtain phone records or audio of conversation this is a nothing burger conspiracy theory.  Even if they get a phone record it is a he said she said argument which is not enough to impeach.  

You need a smoking gun and there simply is none.

Have you read the Holmes statement?  If so, you think he is lying?  He flew back home from the Ukraine to author that statement (which could easily be outed as a lie, if it was, by several people he refers to in the statement) and give perjured evidence at an inquiry?

That’s what you’re going with?  Not that Sondland, Trump’s hand picked shadow diplomat, who has already had to change his testimony, is the liar here?  Wow.  

Share this post


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

Have you read the Holmes statement?  If so, you think he is lying?  He flew back home from the Ukraine to author that statement (which could easily be outed as a lie, if it was, by several people he refers to in the statement) and give perjured evidence at an inquiry?

That’s what you’re going with?  Not that Sondland, Trump’s hand picked shadow diplomat, who has already had to change his testimony, is the liar here?  Wow.  

He doesn't have to be lying for this to be dismissed.  He may think he heard the conversation but I give little validity to overhearing a phone call he wasn't even on.  It seems very crazy and very very very very very weak evidence.

Share this post


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

Not that can be proven, yes.

Ah. K. But you think he did it, right?

Share this post


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

He doesn't have to be lying for this to be dismissed.  He may think he heard the conversation but I give little validity to overhearing a phone call he wasn't even on.  It seems very crazy and very very very very very weak evidence.

Well, let’s see if Sondland has the balls to get in front of that committee and tell more lies.  
 

I’d be instructing him to take the fifth. 
 

Btw - The only reason Sondland was in Ukraine was to secure the commitment to announce an investigation. Ukraine did not fall within his mandate as ambassador to the EU.  I mean, the facts here are overwhelming. 

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


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

Ah. K. But you think he did it, right?

I have no idea.  I choose not to assume guilt on someone and presume innocence.  No way I convict someone based on evidence we have seen on this.

Share this post


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

Well, let’s see if Sondland has the balls to get in front of that committee and tell more lies.  
 

I’d be instructing him to take the fifth. 

I would be willing to bet he does not plead the 5th.

Share this post


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

No investigation was started, no laws were broken, no impeachable offense.  :shrug:  

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say here.  Nothing in the transcript of the call shows wrongdoing by Trump and we are left with witnesses who have no first hand knowledge so far.

Appreciate the response - we certainly disagree as to the substance of what occurred / what was asked / what those actions arise to, legally, but at least we seem to agree that if indeed Trump (or anyone in that position or similar) asks a foreign leader to investigate rather than go through our legal channels and appropriate authorities, that would be an issue.  And I believe we agree that if such were done to in any way gain personal/political gain, it would be worse.

(think I'm reading you correctly in that... just you don't believe Trump did any of those things, but "if" someone were to, it would not be ok and, quite possibly, impeachable)

Share this post


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

I would be willing to bet he does not plead the 5th.

He’s in very perilous territory given what just happened to Stone.  If I were his counsel I’d be worried.  His first statement was basically a full on lie at worst and totally misleading at best.  

Share this post


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

I have no idea.  I choose not to assume guilt on someone and presume innocence.  No way I convict someone based on evidence we have seen on this.

We aren't convicting anyone here.  But we can postulate if we "think" someone did something wrong, immoral, illegal, unethical.  We might think its likely, but not probably. Or probable. Or 95% but not "beyond a reasonable doubt" - our bar is not set at what is necessary to convict.

And from what I've seen, its closer to the 95%, and far more than just "probable" that Trump committed impeachable offenses and well overstepped boundaries in an egregious abuse of Presidential power, the usurping of authority to investigate by our agencies, and for self serving political benefit, at that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

For me, to impeach a President you need to be 100% sure he committed an impeachable offense.  It seems obvious many on this board and in Congress disagree on what is an impeachable offense.  This will be decided by the public in 2020.  I believe he will be re-elected.

I agree that to impeach you must have beyond any reasonable doubt - call it 100% as can be. But, we here on this board are not impeaching, we are postulating. We are saying if we "think" he should be impeached.  Different bar for that imo.  We can be "pretty sure" or "almost sure" he should be impeached, based upon what we know now - knowing we don't know "everything"

That said, we may or may not agree on what amounts to an impeachable offense. For me, asking foreign leaders to go around U.S. investigatory channels to investigate your perceived greatest political threat/rival for an upcoming election and dangling any sort of bribe/extortion (whether carried out or not) is CLEARLY impeachable.  It's far below what we should demand at base from a President: to uphold our laws and constitution; not to mention to honor and respect our democratic institutions, which this cuts across at its very heart. That's the worst part of it all.

I don't see how anyone who believes in democracy and free elections can be ok with a President eliciting any such assistance from a foreign entity for political gain.  Of course, I also don't know how anyone who believes in democracy and free elections are so willing to disenfranchise voters (make it difficult for certain communities to access locations, gerrymandering, and those such behaviors and policies). While this may seem a tangent, I don't believe it is.  To me, the GOP (and certainly some folks on the Dem side as well, but the GOP en masse) has as a basic strategy to consolidate power at all costs. Even if that means working to prevent or lesson the number of voters who may vote for another party; or to protect a President who literally asked Russia, in public, for dirt on his opponent in the last election; or to not pass legislation to freaking protect our next election!  To me, these tactics all support one overarching strategy that connects gerrymandering with voter suppression with the Russia incident, and now the Ukrainian matter. 

Have to admit, thats a LOT of smoke and a LOT of coincidence if all those items, which all serve to gain and reinforce political power, are completely unrelated.  And that is why I feel our very democracy and the basic tenets of the American ideal are at risk.  Because, imo, the party with the most power is intent on holding that power, even if it means destroying the fabric of the nation I thought we had strove to become.  That's scary for someone who values freedom above all else.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I agree that to impeach you must have beyond any reasonable doubt - call it 100% as can be. But, we here on this board are not impeaching, we are postulating. We are saying if we "think" he should be impeached.  Different bar for that imo.  We can be "pretty sure" or "almost sure" he should be impeached, based upon what we know now - knowing we don't know "everything"

That said, we may or may not agree on what amounts to an impeachable offense. For me, asking foreign leaders to go around U.S. investigatory channels to investigate your perceived greatest political threat/rival for an upcoming election and dangling any sort of bribe/extortion (whether carried out or not) is CLEARLY impeachable.  It's far below what we should demand at base from a President: to uphold our laws and constitution; not to mention to honor and respect our democratic institutions, which this cuts across at its very heart. That's the worst part of it all.

I don't see how anyone who believes in democracy and free elections can be ok with a President eliciting any such assistance from a foreign entity for political gain.  Of course, I also don't know how anyone who believes in democracy and free elections are so willing to disenfranchise voters (make it difficult for certain communities to access locations, gerrymandering, and those such behaviors and policies). While this may seem a tangent, I don't believe it is.  To me, the GOP (and certainly some folks on the Dem side as well, but the GOP en masse) has as a basic strategy to consolidate power at all costs. Even if that means working to prevent or lesson the number of voters who may vote for another party; or to protect a President who literally asked Russia, in public, for dirt on his opponent in the last election; or to not pass legislation to freaking protect our next election!  To me, these tactics all support one overarching strategy that connects gerrymandering with voter suppression with the Russia incident, and now the Ukrainian matter. 

Have to admit, thats a LOT of smoke and a LOT of coincidence if all those items, which all serve to gain and reinforce political power, are completely unrelated.  And that is why I feel our very democracy and the basic tenets of the American ideal are at risk.  Because, imo, the party with the most power is intent on holding that power, even if it means destroying the fabric of the nation I thought we had strove to become.  That's scary for someone who values freedom above all else.

 

Yes, we are on a message board and we all should state and respect others opinions.  Although we disagree I respect your posts.  It should be interesting next week.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bombshell, among others, was the real time unfolding of an impeachable offense committed by the president in the midst of the testimony. Tampering with a witness or intimidating a witness will be followed up. The evidence is clear. Add it to the pile.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It should be interesting next week.

So you don’t find it boring either? 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

What happens if he tries to plead the 5th instead of correcting testimony he's already given?

I'd think the Stone reminder would be front of mind either way.

I really don't know. I'm guessing he is appearing voluntarily so he will try to clean up whatever he has to to stay clear.

Share this post


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

Agree with you here but not your last line as you are assuming Holmes is telling the truth and not Sondland which shows your bias.  You have no idea which one is lying.  I am confident Sondland will stick to his story and unless they can obtain phone records or audio of conversation this is a nothing burger conspiracy theory.  Even if they get a phone record it is a he said she said argument which is not enough to impeach.  

You need a smoking gun and there simply is none.

Well I asked you about this earlier and it dropped off. We established that even Trump and his supporters think Trump was right to play private eye and do these investigations. Ok that's exactly what Holmes said he heard, so where's the problem? This sounds exactly like the sort of convo would happen in that situation.

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.