Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Jackstraw said:

Sondland will have so many memory problems they’ll evaluate him for neurological disorders. 

There can only be one person with the best memory. Sondland is not that person. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 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.

Seems odd that folks would say that her testimony was pointless and means nothing and then spend time trying to dig up dirt on her.  If she didn't implicate the President in anything then not sure why they would care about her other than to be vindictive.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Seems odd that folks would say that her testimony was pointless and means nothing and then spend time trying to dig up dirt on her.  If she didn't implicate the President in anything then not sure why they would care about her other than to be vindictive.

Same motif as day 1. Defame, Discredit, Deflect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day-um, I just caught the second half of the Chris Wallace interview of Scalise. He eviscerated him and the Repub case in the impeachment hearing. Brutal. Chris could take the Dems 45 minute opener with that.

Share this post


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

Schiff should have never been put in this position and it was a very poor one.  His actions so far were predictable as he has a horrible history of lying and embarrassing the Democratic party with pure partisan shenanigans.

And this differs from Jordan and Nunes how?

Share this post


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

Day-um, I just caught the second half of the Chris Wallace interview of Scalise. He eviscerated him and the Repub case in the impeachment hearing. Brutal. Chris could take the Dems 45 minute opener with that.

Well he's just a Fox News never Trumper, he's not creditable

 

Share this post


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

Day-um, I just caught the second half of the Chris Wallace interview of Scalise. He eviscerated him and the Repub case in the impeachment hearing. Brutal. Chris could take the Dems 45 minute opener with that.

I saw some of this and the line by Scalise in response was bizarre - the fall back was that these were Schiff's witnesses.... which is the point. Schiff was calling people who were making the case. Scalise said that there were others in the Trump administration who would counter that but they are not being called. Like who?

Share this post


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

Day-um, I just caught the second half of the Chris Wallace interview of Scalise. He eviscerated him and the Repub case in the impeachment hearing. Brutal. Chris could take the Dems 45 minute opener with that.

Some people experience a tragedy and then come out of it having reflected upon their place in the universe, and return to public life as an inspiration, going out into the world and moving people to find greatness within themselves, all the while doing everything they can to turn their brush with mortality into a life’s mission to make the world better for generations that follow.

 Other people are Steve Scalise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I saw some of this and the line by Scalise in response was bizarre - the fall back was that these were Schiff's witnesses.... which is the point. Schiff was calling people who were making the case. Scalise said that there were others in the Trump administration who would counter that but they are not being called. Like who?

Hunter Biden. Duh.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

I saw some of this and the line by Scalise in response was bizarre - the fall back was that these were Schiff's witnesses.... which is the point. Schiff was calling people who were making the case. Scalise said that there were others in the Trump administration who would counter that but they are not being called. Like who?

This is a layup for the GOP then.....request those who can "counter" the testimony to testify.  One of two things happens:

1.  The Dems say no and can be painted has partisan shills (legitimately....finally)
2.  They do testify and clear this whole thing up...problem solved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yak651 said:

And this differs from Jordan and Nunes how?

He's a Democrat and most people don't watch enough Congressional hearings to understand how they're run.

Share this post


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

This is a layup for the GOP then.....request those who can "counter" the testimony to testify.  One of two things happens:

1.  The Dems say no and can be painted has partisan shills (legitimately....finally)
2.  They do testify and clear this whole thing up...problem solved.

They're talking about the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, etc.  i.e. no one with knowledge of the case vs Trump.

Share this post


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

They're talking about the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, etc.  i.e. no one with knowledge of the case vs Trump.

From what Saints posted he was mentioned others in the Trump administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think all the people who are ignoring subpoenas would be the ones who could counter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Collins is saying on Fox that a point of order must be heard. Schiff could rule against it but it still must be heard. Anyone know the details on this?

 

 

eta: I questioned at the time what the difference was between a point of inquiry and point of order. Maybe this is the difference.

Edited by jamny

Share this post


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

One of the underrated aspects of this whole scandal is that Trump insisted on having Zelensky go on CNN to announce the "investigation". Not Fox, not OANN, not some local news outlet, but Supposedly-Fake-News-Low-Ratings-CNN.

Because deep down, Trump knows that the public trusts what CNN reports.

Share this post


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

Doug Collins is saying on Fox that a point of order must be heard. Schiff could rule against it but it still must be heard. Anyone know the details on this?

If they are actual points of order I think that would be true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Doug Collins is saying on Fox that a point of order must be heard. Schiff could rule against it but it still must be heard. Anyone know the details on this?

eta: I questioned at the time what the difference was between a point of inquiry and point of order. Maybe this is the difference.

Pfft I'll take a shot - I'm guessing a point of order is a motion for an actual change in procedure. A point of inquiry would be just that, 'just askin'. I think Stefanik's claim was that they should be permitted to ask questions out of the prescheduled order (and then turn that into a messy scuffle where Schiff was made to look like he was 'hidin' stuff'). I think the problem is Stefanik was asking for something she knew she would not get anyway.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

One of the underrated aspects of this whole scandal is that Trump insisted on having Zelensky go on CNN to announce the "investigation". Not Fox, not OANN, not some local news outlet, but Supposedly-Fake-News-Low-Ratings-CNN.

Because deep down, Trump knows that the public trusts what CNN reports.

There's nothing to gain on Fox. Their audience is already in his pocket.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You would think all the people who are ignoring subpoenas would be the ones who could counter. 

I know, right? If someone brings out a bogus claim, and I knew that it was wrong, I'd be one of the first in line to refute it, and have a lot of evidence to back up my refutation of that claim. Now maybe it's just me, and maybe the Republicans are sitting on a pile of evidence for some unknown reason, but that makes no logical sense to me, and that combined with their actions thus far of basically insulting everyone who does come forward, continuously asking for the ID of the whistleblower despite their irrelevance and the fact that federal law says that they don't get to find out who it is anyway, and pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning during the testimonies, that leads me to believe that they have nothing of substance.

Share this post


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

I know, right? If someone brings out a bogus claim, and I knew that it was wrong, I'd be one of the first in line to refute it, and have a lot of evidence to back up my refutation of that claim. Now maybe it's just me, and maybe the Republicans are sitting on a pile of evidence for some unknown reason, but that makes no logical sense to me, and that combined with their actions thus far of basically insulting everyone who does come forward, continuously asking for the ID of the whistleblower despite their irrelevance and the fact that federal law says that they don't get to find out who it is anyway, and pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning during the testimonies, that leads me to believe that they have nothing of substance.

Maybe they're just waiting to see all the evidence and then will decide whether or not to offer somebody.

Share this post


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

They're talking about the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, etc.  i.e. no one with knowledge of the case vs Trump.

Oh....I was going by the comment SiD posted of those "in the Trump administration"

But I have to say, even these people aren't likely people to disprove what those who have already testified are saying :confused: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

One of the underrated aspects of this whole scandal is that Trump insisted on having Zelensky go on CNN to announce the "investigation". Not Fox, not OANN, not some local news outlet, but Supposedly-Fake-News-Low-Ratings-CNN.

Because deep down, Trump knows that the public trusts what CNN reports.

I think if we assume he was doing this to hurt Biden it would make sense to push him to do it on CNN.

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Maybe they're just waiting to see all the evidence and then will decide whether or not to offer somebody.

That still doesn't make sense. Get out ahead of the story, show that whatever the dems bring up is false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who are the witnesses in the Trump administration that the Democrats won't let testify that Scalise keep referring to?

Edited by Mile High
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh....I was going by the comment SiD posted of those "in the Trump administration"

But I have to say, even these people aren't likely people to disprove what those who have already testified are saying :confused: 

Right I think that was Wallace's point. Wallace raised the witnesses' damning testimony so far, Scalise says 'those are Schiff's witnesses', and then Wallace says 'hey those are Trump's own people' And Scalsie says 'oh yeah there are Trump administration people not being allowed to testify', and then the question is... who? Mmmmulvaney? Bolton? Kupperman? I guess Volker and Hale might fall into this category, but I think the next step would have been Scalise having to say that folks like Mulvaney should testify, which I'm sure he would have gotten stuck on.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently in a Texas community recently the police department received an anonymous tip that an individual that fit the description of a fugitive murder suspect was staying at the local Motel 6. Three days later the suspect checked out and escaped into Mexico. An angry mayor called in the police chief ( a staunch Republican) and asked why he didn’t attempt to arrest the murder suspect? The police chief said 1/2 of his police force was busy trying to find out who called in the anonymous tip and how they knew it might be the suspect and the other 1/2 of his police force was busy working on a 3 year old convenience store robbery. 

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


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

Right I think that was Wallace's point. Wallace raised the witnesses' damning testimony so far, Scalise says 'those are Schiff's witnesses', and then Wallace says 'hey those are Trump's own people' And Scalsie says 'oh yeah there are Trump administration people not being allowed to testify', and then the question is... who? Mmmmulvaney? Bolton? Kupperman? I guess Volker and Hale might fall into this category, but I think the next step would have been Scalise having to say that folks like Mulvaney should testify, which I'm sure he would have gotten stuck on.

Didn't the Republicans have to turn in a list Schiff on who they wanted to call? The way Scalise was talking a list was turned in and Schiff said no. Who was on that list Scalise talking about? Anyone know?

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


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

Doug Collins is saying on Fox that a point of order must be heard. Schiff could rule against it but it still must be heard. Anyone know the details on this?

 

 

 

No idea. But lets assume it’s true. 

If Schiff deliberately ignores the rules will that help sway your opinion against the impeachment of Donald Trump? 

Share this post


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

So who are the witnesses in the Trump administration that the Democrats won't let testify that Scalise keep referring to?

Here is the witness list that the House republicans asked for:

1. Devon Archer - Former Burisma board member

2. Hunter Biden - we know who that is

3. Alexandra Chalupa! - former DNC staffer they keep talking about

4. David Hale - State Dept

5. Tim Morrison - State Dept (I believe he will be testifying publicly and already gave a deposition)

6. Alexander Vindman - State Dept (will be testifying)

7. Nellie Ohr - former contractor for Fusion GPS :wall:

8. Kurt Volker - State Dept (I believe he is also testifying and gave a deposition)

9. The Whistleblower

10. The Whistleblower's Sources

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after watching the replay on the Schiff/ Stefanik kerfuffles, it seems to me that Schiff might have handled it poorly. I could be wrong, so anyone please correct me.

In the opening, Schiff allowed Stefanik a point of order, after she changed it from a point of inquiry. Now, it wasn't really a point of order but he allowed her to make it and ordered her to suspend when it was obvious that it wasn't a point of order. Then Jordan tries to raise a point of order, which Schiff refused. Now, it's obvious what was going on and what Schiff was doing was probably the right thing but it seems that by rule, he should have allowed Jordan to raise his point of order and then suspend it as he did with Stefanik.

Later on after a recess, I believe, Nunes recognizes Stefanik to allow her to question Yovanovich. Schiff shuts that down, mentioning  H. Res 660, claiming only Nunes or minority counsel were allowed to speak at that time. But looking at H. Res 660, it says:

Quote

The 3 chair may confer recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 13 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.

It seems to me that Stefanik, being a member of the Permanent Select Committee, was within her rights to question Yovanovich at that time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No idea. But lets assume it’s true. 

If Schiff deliberately ignores the rules will that help sway your opinion against the impeachment of Donald Trump? 

Just pointing out that the Republicans might have a legit gripe on the way things are being handled.

Share this post


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

So after watching the replay on the Schiff/ Stefanik kerfuffles, it seems to me that Schiff might have handled it poorly. I could be wrong, so anyone please correct me.

In the opening, Schiff allowed Stefanik a point of order, after she changed it from a point of inquiry. Now, it wasn't really a point of order but he allowed her to make it and ordered her to suspend when it was obvious that it wasn't a point of order. Then Jordan tries to raise a point of order, which Schiff refused. Now, it's obvious what was going on and what Schiff was doing was probably the right thing but it seems that by rule, he should have allowed Jordan to raise his point of order and then suspend it as he did with Stefanik.

Later on after a recess, I believe, Nunes recognizes Stefanik to allow her to question Yovanovich. Schiff shuts that down, mentioning  H. Res 660, claiming only Nunes or minority counsel were allowed to speak at that time. But looking at H. Res 660, it says:

It seems to me that Stefanik, being a member of the Permanent Select Committee, was within her rights to question Yovanovich at that time.

Employee meaning the HPSCI staff. That doesn't mean the Congressmen/women.

Share this post


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

Right. But this is the part you bolded: Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning.

Not members. It means the committee staff who are employees - the lawyers like Goldman and Castor.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

Just pointing out that the Republicans might have a legit gripe on the way things are being handled.

This might help. it sounds like Stefanik tried to make a point of inquiry look like a point of order. If you don’t have the right to interject at that point then there can be no point of order. The point of inquiry was whether she could make a point of order at that stage and the answer was ‘no’.

Share this post


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

Right. But this is the part you bolded: Only the chair and ranking minority member, or a Permanent Select Committee employee if yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such periods of questioning.

Not members. It means the committee staff who are employees - the lawyers like Goldman and Castor.

Ok...thanks!

 

 

How about the first part? Should Schiff allow points of order, even knowing that they probably aren't points of order, and then suspend after a few seconds once it's made clear.

Share this post


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

This might help. it sounds like Stefanik tried to make a point of inquiry look like a point of order. If you don’t have the right to interject at that point then there can be no point of order. The point of inquiry was whether she could make a point of order at that stage and the answer was ‘no’.

And then he just didn't recognize Jordan as he knew what was coming...and I don't think he is under and obligation to give him the floor there, correct?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Though it seems to me maybe Nunes could have made the point of order but didn’t. Instead the point of the points was to stage a show.

I agree but rules is rules. Easier to let them speak and then suspend than to allow them to claim improper procedures, no?

Share this post


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

I agree but rules is rules. Easier to let them speak and then suspend than to allow them to claim improper procedures, no?

Maybe...and he did with Stefanik...with Jordan he never gave him the floor or recognized him.  Is it required that he recognize him and give him the floor?

Share this post


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

Maybe...and he did with Stefanik...with Jordan he never gave him the floor or recognized him.  Is it required that he recognize him and give him the floor?

I would think so. Then once it's clear that it isn't an actual point of order, shut it down.

 

Only looking for clarity since I'm sure we will see a lot more of this going forward.

 

Share this post


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

Ok...thanks!

 

 

How about the first part? Should Schiff allow points of order, even knowing that they probably aren't points of order, and then suspend after a few seconds once it's made clear.

At a minimum, Spefanik and Jordan were acting in bad faith.  Even if Schiff may have been wrong to nip it a few seconds early (I don’t know) it seems a minor transgression in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 9:46 AM, jamny said:

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

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

bump

Share this post


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

bump

I looked for this the other day.

I saw it referenced in a news article or two that he walked back his claim about a "do not prosecute" list in a Ukrainian media interview. There probably isn't anything in English directly from him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here is the witness list that the House republicans asked for:

1. Devon Archer - Former Burisma board member

2. Hunter Biden - we know who that is

3. Alexandra Chalupa! - former DNC staffer they keep talking about

4. David Hale - State Dept

5. Tim Morrison - State Dept (I believe he will be testifying publicly and already gave a deposition)

6. Alexander Vindman - State Dept (will be testifying)

7. Nellie Ohr - former contractor for Fusion GPS :wall:

8. Kurt Volker - State Dept (I believe he is also testifying and gave a deposition)

9. The Whistleblower

10. The Whistleblower's Sources

 

So who on that list are in the Trump Administration and not being allowed to testify? The Whistleblower and their sources?

Edited by Mile High

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.