Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

Substantively those are all major touchpoints. This seems like a classic laying of the foundation followed by direct evidence, which has yet to come. Holmes certainly sounds like that as would be Sondland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

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.

The most remarkable thing apparently is that the GOP didn't ask about Hunter Biden at the confirmation hearing. Isn't that the outcome of this? The prep team thought it might be an aspersion that would be cast but even the Jordans and Nuneses didn't care? That's reality. This was going on in 2014-2016... and the GOP was in agreement on Biden's initiatives, everyone was. The GOP, The Dems, the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, our allies, everyone. The GOP did *not raise this themselves back in the day even when they were wailing and crying about every single little thing Obama did.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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.

I am not sure what you are talking about being established.  What I do know is that how it stands now Holmes testimony means nothing as it is he said she said unless Sondlund validates.

Share this post


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

Substantively those are all major touchpoints. This seems like a classic laying of the foundation followed by direct evidence, which has yet to come. Holmes certainly sounds like that as would be Sondland.

Major touchpoints would be Kent and Taylor staying silent when asked what was the impeachable offense and the former ambassador saying she witnessed no crimes by Trump.

Share this post


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

I am not sure what you are talking about being established.  What I do know is that how it stands now Holmes testimony means nothing as it is he said she said unless Sondlund validates.

Kent established motive, Taylor established a 1:1 phone call, Yovanovitch established method, next would come the actual acts. Smarter minds than me to speak to this stuff but you have not seen "the case." 

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

Major touchpoints would be Kent and Taylor staying silent when asked what was the impeachable offense and the former ambassador saying she witnessed no crimes by Trump.

I don't believe they would have answered that question when worded that way. This is why it was asked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Major touchpoints would be Kent and Taylor staying silent when asked what was the impeachable offense and the former ambassador saying she witnessed no crimes by Trump.

Fact witnesses shouldn't make statements of guilt unless it's extreme stuff like murders. This requires a legal determination, it's not up to people involved to decide what constitutes a crime. 

If you had these people saying 'Trump is a criminal! Arrest him!' they'd be viewed as partisans.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Kent established motive, Taylor established a 1:1 phone call, Yovanovitch established method, next would come the actual acts. Smarter minds than me to speak to this stuff but you have not seen "the case." 

No, you said we established Trump can be private eye and do investigations.  Not sure why who keep co-mingling these.

Share this post


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

Fact witnesses shouldn't make statements of guilt unless it's extreme stuff like murders. This requires a legal determination, it's not up to people involved to decide what constitutes a crime. 

If you had these people saying 'Trump is a criminal! Arrest him!' they'd be viewed as partisans.

The problem is you can't get facts from people saying "My brother told me his girlfriend saw him stealing the bike"

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The most remarkable thing apparently is that the GOP didn't ask about Hunter Biden at the confirmation hearing. Isn't that the outcome of this? The prep team thought it might be an aspersion that would be cast but even the Jorans and Nuneses didn't care? That's reality. This was going on in 2014-2016... and the GOP was in agreement on Biden's initiatives, everyone was. The GOP, The Dems, the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, our allies, everyone. The GOP did *not raise this themselves back in the day even when they were wailing and crying about every single little thing Obama did.

:goodposting:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor repeatedly said during his testimony that he was not there to declare guilt or innocence just provide what he knew to be facts of what transpired. 

The republicans asked "where is the impeachable offense" because they knew it would be a simple sound bite. It means nothing.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I am not sure what you are talking about being established.  What I do know is that how it stands now Holmes testimony means nothing as it is he said she said unless Sondlund validates.

Most courtroom trials involve some level of “he said, she said.”  If the victim says “he stabbed me” and the defendant says “I didn’t stab her” there can still be a conviction.  Especially if there’s a memo released by the defendant discussing how badly he wants to stab her and how he’d appreciate some help with the stabbing. 
 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

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. 

Disagree. The information that MT and HF have provided seem like a great way to sway public opinion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamny said:

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

Just wanted to point out that I appreciate your takes. You seem a bit on the fence but are showing a willingness to listen and take in the whole picture instead of just seeking out twitter soundbites. :thumbup:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This one is really ridiculous. She sent back a salutary response - ‘I look forward to speaking with you’ - but handed off formal response to State. This is the silliest stuff in world history compared to people like Stone and Cohen who were convicted for covering up for the president.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Obama administration new Hunter Biden deal was bad news and tried to do damage control

Shows why Dems are so desperate to try and keep folks from investigating the possible corruption and label it as going after a "political rival".

This is a third post of the same story. The WH anticipation of GOP talking points is not a ‘major issue’ and it looks even worse as a claim as indeed the GOP didn’t even bother with it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I don't believe they would have answered that question when worded that way. This is why it was asked.

Its also not relevant...their opinion in what is impeachable means zero.

Also what the ambassador said yesterday was about her knowledge of a crime...only relevant of she actually saw a crime.  She was never called as a witness to a crime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"The alleged perjury will likely be a main talking point for Republicans during Yovanovitch’s public hearing on Capitol Hill next Friday."

 

Thats funny.  The article is a week old, yet I don't recall the GOP going after her for perjury - at all - in the hearing on Friday.  I suspect you have been duped by bad information.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

One America News Network. Come on :lol:

 

And redstate and Washington times.  2 of three far right and the Times dinged for facts due to poor sourcing according to 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/?amp

All three have issues with facts.  OANN for reporting conspiracies lack or sourcing and bad fact checking.  Similar for red state.

Share this post


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

No, you said we established Trump can be private eye and do investigations.  Not sure why who keep co-mingling these.

This is simple, do you or do you not think Trump would be in the right to pursue the Hunter & server investigations from the White House?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

This is simple, do you or do you not think Trump would be in the right to pursue the Hunter & server investigations from the White House?

President has authority to ask another country to look into corruption yes.  That is different than telling a country to investigate or not get military aid.  That has not been close to have been proven by Dems and transcript of phone call proves it never happened.

Share this post


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

President has authority to ask another country to look into corruption yes. 

This is all I’m talking about. It’s established that Trump supporters believe this.

And as I understand it that is the claim about the Sondland call. Holmes has said that Sondland told Trump Zelensky would do anything he asked and that Trump wanted to know the ‘investigations’ were underway. In light of what you believe it makes total sense that call took place.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

That has not been close to have been proven by Dems and transcript of phone call proves it never happened.

How can the transcript prove it never happened? Even if you don’t think it happened on the call, it could have happened another time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

President has authority to ask another country to look into corruption yes.  That is different than telling a country to investigate or not get military aid.  That has not been close to have been proven by Dems and transcript of phone call proves it never happened.

How's that now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How's that now?

Trump did not threaten to withhold military aid if no investigation into Biden.  That is obvious when reading the phone call transcript.

Share this post


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

How can the transcript prove it never happened? Even if you don’t think it happened on the call, it could have happened another time.

Because the defense has been all about trying to make it only about that one call from the beginning.  Its why Trump and seemingly those that defend him keep just talking about the “transcript”.  And why ive repeatedly said this complaint and impeachment is about more events than just the phone call (and why the democrats building of the case with these witnesses  showing timeline and motive has been good).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:
36 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

This is almost the exact same piece Widbill just posted. It’s clear she meant as a matter of policy. Apparently the GOP never raised it either.

The article says "Yovanovitch was forced to admit that the previous administration had indeed brought up the Biden/Burisma issue to her."

But when you play the actual video, it turns out that the reference to Biden/Burisma was just one of numerous "practice questions" on a study guide. :lol:

Plus, at no point does the article provide evidence showing Yovanovitch being "forced to admit" anything about Biden. (In the clip, she does reply "That's correct" at one point -- but it's in response to an unrelated question about Trump providing military aid to Ukraine.)

Really, really poor attempt at "gotcha journalism" here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Just wanted to point out that I appreciate your takes. You seem a bit on the fence but are showing a willingness to listen and take in the whole picture instead of just seeking out twitter soundbites. :thumbup:

 

Thanks for that. 

I make no secret that, even though I don't expect to vote for him in 2020, I will still try and support Trump as much as possible while he is still President. Ever since the WB report came out, I've been confident that he used leverage to get information on Biden and an impeachment inquiry was needed to get to the bottom of this. It couldn't be ignored. I'd like to think there is some other explanation here, but Occam's Razor seems to prevail every time. I'm still torn on the appropriate punishment but I'll save that for another time. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest winner of the impeachment hearings:  Tedra Cobb . (Will be running against Stefanik, who is being eviscerated on twitter for her "performance")

Quote

 

Tedra Cobb for Congress @TedraCobb·

I cannot believe this! You have helped us raise over $500,000 to take back #NY21 and defeat @EliseStefanik

Will you chip in whatever you can today to help us reach $1 million this weekend? -Tedra

 

 

Most of the support is coming from the left, but Stefanik is also being criticized by Never-Trumpers - like George Conway, who donated $2800 to Cobb.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision to trot out Stefanik was interesting in its own right. She was like a burner or hockey defenseman sent out to consume time and beat up the star but not caring if he gets penalized:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

George Conway@gtconway3d

But the fact that she shamelessly and brazenly lied in a ridiculously trashy gaslighting stunt is indisputably real.

 

Elise Stefanik@EliseStefanik · 2h

And for you @gtconway3d - the one thing I’ve NEVER been called in my life is TRASH.

You need serious help. My opponent Taxin’ Tedra can have your sick mysogynist support.

 

George Conway @gtconway3d· 2h

Well, now you have. You tell lies to defend a psychologically unstable man who calls people “scum” for telling the truth about him. Good luck with your campaign.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

The decision to trot out Stefanik was interesting in its own right. She was like a burner or hockey defenseman sent out to consume time and beat up the star but not caring if he gets penalized:

That district is not nearly safe enough to go full Nunes like she did

Share this post


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

The decision to trot out Stefanik was interesting in its own right. She was like a burner or hockey defenseman sent out to consume time and beat up the star but not caring if he gets penalized:

I sw a number of comments from conservative commentators who thought that was a mistake on her part - given that some of the GOP reps could absorb that kind of hit.  I think the consensus was that she has gone all in for Trump, and eschewed a more moderate reputation. 

Share this post


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

:lol:

 

George Conway@gtconway3d

But the fact that she shamelessly and brazenly lied in a ridiculously trashy gaslighting stunt is indisputably real.

 

Elise Stefanik@EliseStefanik · 2h

And for you @gtconway3d - the one thing I’ve NEVER been called in my life is TRASH.

You need serious help. My opponent Taxin’ Tedra can have your sick mysogynist support.

 

George Conway @gtconway3d· 2h

Well, now you have. You tell lies to defend a psychologically unstable man who calls people “scum” for telling the truth about him. Good luck with your campaign.

Conway continues to embarrass himself, nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for starters you can go to the stunt she and Nunes pulled at the start of Marie Yova's testimony.

She knew what the rules said and tried to interrupt when she didn't have the right to speak.  Then made a huge scene about "abuse of power" when the rules were observed despite her histrionics.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

How did Stefanik lie?

She is claiming Schiff wouldn't let her question the witness at one point because she is a Republican.  However, the rules state that Nunes could not yield to other congressmen at that time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, for example, is a lie:

Quote

@EliseStefanik

Once again, Adam Schiff flat out REFUSES to let duly elected Members of Congress ask questions to the witness, simply because we are Republicans. His behavior is unacceptable and he continues to abuse his Chairmanship.

 

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 11

Share this post


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

Nick Kristof on whether people who watch Fox News are seeing different hearings than everyone else:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/fox-news-donald-trump.html

Its part of what Trump has been a small part right about (but wont admit it goes both ways)...the mainstream places like CNN and Fox spin things so much its hard to trust them.  The problem is so many watch Fox and believe them or OANN because they are promoted by POTUS...and they just flat out lie at times.  Its not just spin but just false reporting.  And too often people are consodering the opinion shoes like Hannoty, Judge Jeannie, Igraham, Maddow...to be news and fact based rather than what they are

Share this post


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

Nick Kristof on whether people who watch Fox News are seeing different hearings than everyone else:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/fox-news-donald-trump.html

Quote

A 2012 study by Fairleigh Dickinson University reported that watching Fox News had “a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.”

The study found that those who regularly watched Fox News actually knew less about both domestic and international issues than those who watched no news at all. N.P.R. listeners were particularly well-informed, the study found, but even people who got their news from a comedy program like “The Daily Show” — or who had no news source whatsoever — knew more about current events than Fox viewers.

The quoted is wonderfully euphemistic.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

exactly, she didn't

Schiff didn't interrupt her, she interrupted the hearing. She had no business opening her mouth until her five minutes. Btw, which she spent reading headlines about Adam Schiff and couldn't even be bothered to utilize all of her time.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.