Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

Interesting piece

Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/

“Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

Making these diplomats lead witnesses in the impeachment show is a ruse. They never spoke with Trump about the aid and admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for impeachment.”

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


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

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where’s USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday’s DEFACE THE NATION....

 

....that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt. She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!

 

:popcorn:

 

There is literally a bill waiting in the senate to lower drug prices right now.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Interesting piece

Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/

“Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

Making these diplomats lead witnesses in the impeachment show is a ruse. They never spoke with Trump about the aid and admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for impeachment.”

Who said they were the lead witnesses? Because they went first? How often is the leadoff hitter the best player on the team? They have firsthand witnesses coming up this week, and would have more if Trump didn't treat congressional subpoenas like party invites. At some point, they'll likely issue court orders to appear, which carry jail time if ignored, and that'll loosen a few tongues.

Share this post


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

I am not exactly sure what event you are talking about when you say 'we knowingly bombed our own citizens', but I am sure there was something.  Diplomacy and war are complex matters.  Trying to bring Democracy to Iraq instead of the brutal dictator was a noble cause but failed miserably.  The good which came out is that we clearly discovered most of the Middle East is not ready for Democracy and they seem quite content to keep their theocracies.  The US has had its failures and hindsight is always easy to point fingers.  Our intentions are usually good.  The US has made the world a better place and I am not ashamed of what we have tried.  

Sorry....this was plain to see prior to us going into Iraq...it's been crystal clear since the 70s :shrug:

And I am referring to ordered drone strikes where we knew it would certainly mean the death of US citizens.  And I categorically reject the notion that apologizing for missteps is analogous with "pointing fingers".  It's the opposite....it's accepting that actions have consequences and apologizing when we screw it up.  There has been very little I've seen in our foreign policy that has caught me be surprise.  The future results were pretty clear and I reject the notion that our government couldn't have possibly seen these things coming.  They knew what they were doing and knew what the results were going to be and did it anyway.  We can banter back and forth about what is "good" or "bad" in our intentions as that's a moving target cloaked in subjectivity.  Hopefully we can all agree that the actions are indeed, virtually every single time, self serving.

Share this post


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

Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

- Just to understand this, you think that the Assistant Deputy Secretary of State over Ukraine and the acting Ambassador of Ukraine appointed by Trump have no knowledge of events and are making up a phone call?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


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

Who said they were the lead witnesses? Because they went first? How often is the leadoff hitter the best player on the team? They have firsthand witnesses coming up this week, and would have more if Trump didn't treat congressional subpoenas like party invites. At some point, they'll likely issue court orders to appear, which carry jail time if ignored, and that'll loosen a few tongues.

You're gonna get sucked into another "republicans vs 'republicans' " semantics game if you keep going down this path GB.

Share this post


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

- Just to understand this, you think that the Assistant Deputy Secretary of State over Ukraine and the acting Ambassador of Ukraine appointed by Trump have no knowledge of events and are making up a phone call?

That was from the article I posted. Time will tell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You're gonna get sucked into another "republicans vs 'republicans' " semantics game if you keep going down this path GB.

Best to avoid that, then.

Share this post


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

That was from the article I posted. Time will tell. 

That piece really strains credulity then, seems completely implausible what is being posited there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Interesting piece

Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/

“Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

Making these diplomats lead witnesses in the impeachment show is a ruse. They never spoke with Trump about the aid and admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for impeachment.”

I think they were effective witnesses - who have put pressure on Trump and the Republicans to come up with a plausible explanation for how the White House has conducted diplomacy with Ukraine.

 

Those two, and Yovanovitch, have shown the importance of the relationship between the US and Ukraine.  They have spoken about the long-standing official policies toward Ukraine.  They have pointed out that there were back-channel communications going on that created conflicts with official US policy.  They have painted Trump into a corner, where he has to say Rudy was carrying out Trump's own foreign policy - but Rudy has already stated that he was working on behalf of his client - Donald Trump - defending him. (i.e. he was not working on behalf of the country).

 

What the Dems are attempting to do is create a very strong circumstantial case against Trump - and at the same time point out that the key witnesses like Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, Trump have all refused to testify under oath to any exculpatory explanation to the Dem version of events - making the logical conclusion - there is no exculpatory explanation.

 

Don't lose sight of the forest here, while you examine the trees.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Pretty sure we went into Iraq because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and helped plan 9/11.

That "trying to bring Democracy" was just a line to use after it was obvious neither of those things were true.

Yep, more revisionist nonsense.

Share this post


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

Interesting piece

Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/

“Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

Making these diplomats lead witnesses in the impeachment show is a ruse. They never spoke with Trump about the aid and admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for impeachment.”

:goodposting:  This will go on dead ears in here but it is spot on.  None of the witnesses the Dems have brought up have helped their cause one bit.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:goodposting:  This will go on dead ears in here but it is spot on.  None of the witnesses the Dems have brought up have helped their cause one bit.  

In your opinion,  just like that article was an opinion piece. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

None of the witnesses the Dems have brought up have helped their cause one bit.  

McCaughey's basis for this is that the Assistant Deputy Secretary of State over Ukraine and the acting Ambassador of Ukraine appointed by Trump made up facts from a phone call. 

Do you agree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Interesting piece

Schiff’s lead witnesses have no real evidence — and neither does he

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/schiffs-lead-witnesses-have-no-real-evidence-and-neither-does-he/

“Don’t believe it. Kent and Taylor have no evidence against Trump — only a false rumor spread during a farcical game of telephone on Sept. 7. Taylor heard the claim third-hand, and then called Kent, who got it fourth-hand.

Making these diplomats lead witnesses in the impeachment show is a ruse. They never spoke with Trump about the aid and admit they had no direct knowledge of why it was delayed. They weren’t even on the controversial July 25 phone call that has become the pretext for impeachment.”

Thanks for posting this. I think it’s a good piece. This definitely  goes against the accepted narrative here in this forum so I wouldn’t expect this to be met cordially 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

McCaughey's basis for this is that the Assistant Deputy Secretary of State over Ukraine and the acting Ambassador of Ukraine appointed by Trump made up facts from a phone call. 

Do you agree with that?

That isn't his basis at all.  The fact is none of these folks have first hand knowledge and bring nothing to help Schiff's case.

Share this post


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

I have seen folks here calling Sondlund a liar

Well he already had to “revise his testimony.” Seems his testimony this week would be very important regarding his phone call. I’m curious if he will recall it.

Share this post


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

That isn't his basis at all.  The fact is none of these folks have first hand knowledge and bring nothing to help Schiff's case.

Well maybe you did not read the article then. McCaughey claims the phone call was a farce and that even though the President was on the call it involved a false rumor. That's the sole factual claim she makes to buttress her point and it's senseless.

Btw even Bluto doesn't stand by the piece.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this Pelosi ploy of asking the president to testify. He'll bluster and promise but won't do it and he'll look weak and afraid, especially if Pelosi and the Dems keep asking every week.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Who said they were the lead witnesses? Because they went first? How often is the leadoff hitter the best player on the team? They have firsthand witnesses coming up this week, and would have more if Trump didn't treat congressional subpoenas like party invites. At some point, they'll likely issue court orders to appear, which carry jail time if ignored, and that'll loosen a few tongues.

Its the NY Post...almost no meed to comment in a source like that giving an opinion.  Thats the GOP again trying to spin away from the substance of what is being said about Trump in their friendly media outlets...most of which are more biased than the media Trump complains about so often.

Share this post


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

In your opinion,  just like that article was an opinion piece. 

An opinion piece in the NY POST, mind you. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Trump has all these talking heads debating if he'll testify :lol:

Come on people.

Hell just convince him that Obama would testify better than him and he will push people out of the way to do it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That isn't his basis at all.  The fact is none of these folks have first hand knowledge and bring nothing to help Schiff's case.

Part of the challenge here is defining the scope.

Republicans want to define a narrow scope around the phone call.

But, I think the Dems are taking a much larger view at Trump's conduct - and these witnesses were able to help define that, identify the people with more direct knowledge, and to identify the impact of the shadow policy on Ukraine and also on the US's national security.

 

And, as I said above - witnesses like these allow you to see the forest from the trees.  Big picture type witnesses.  They also put pressure on the White House to produce witnesses that can refute their testimony.  Right now, the dems are taking the witnesses they can get because the White House is prohibiting witnesses from testifying.  If you really want first-hand knowledge, you should be clamoring for Bolton, and Mulvaney, and Pompeo, and for Trump to take the witness stand and tell Congress what they know - under oath.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Hell just convince him that Obama would testify better than him and he will push people out of the way to do it.

Yup.

Hillary sat up there and took 8 hours of Benghazi questions. 

I will donate a hundred to Trump’s failing Doral resort to make this happen. Someone start up a gofundme.

Share this post


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

Part of the challenge here is defining the scope.

Republicans want to define a narrow scope around the phone call.

But, I think the Dems are taking a much larger view at Trump's conduct - and these witnesses were able to help define that, identify the people with more direct knowledge, and to identify the impact of the shadow policy on Ukraine and also on the US's national security.

 

And, as I said above - witnesses like these allow you to see the forest from the trees.  Big picture type witnesses.  They also put pressure on the White House to produce witnesses that can refute their testimony.  Right now, the dems are taking the witnesses they can get because the White House is prohibiting witnesses from testifying.  If you really want first-hand knowledge, you should be clamoring for Bolton, and Mulvaney, and Pompeo, and for Trump to take the witness stand and tell Congress what they know - under oath.

"All the pieces matter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble, not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.)

Share this post


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

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble, not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.)

It's kinda unavoidable if you follow the law. The president not allowing so many in his inner circle to testify before Congress makes him look very bad in the court of public opinion. Like he's got something to hide, perhaps. If he felt good about his case, he'd face the music and shoot his accusers down (figuratively).

Share this post


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

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble, not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.)

Because you're innocent?

Hillary sat there for 8 hours and I don't believe they've locked her up just yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble, not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.)

Especially when you did it.

Share this post


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

Pretty sure we went into Iraq because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and helped plan 9/11.

That "trying to bring Democracy" was just a line to use after it was obvious neither of those things were true.

The part about removing Saddam was not added after the fact. It was an argument people like me made from the beginning. Seeing how things turned out, that doesn't look like a good reason in hindsight, but it's not like it was an excuse which was added later.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

An early look at the effect of the impeachment probe on Trump's popularity from Nate Silver's 538. The inquiry was announced on Sep 24. His when approval/disapproval ratings were 53.2%/42.8% on Sep 26, a local max. The latest numbers from Nov 15 are 54.3%/41.2%. It's early, but it doesn't seem that this is helping Trump. When Trump's attacks on Vindman and others this week, and the effect of his attacks on MY are factored in, I expect the numbers to go further south for Trump. 

Pretty sure your numbers are backwards

approval/disapproval ratings were 42.8/53.2%% on Sep 26, a local max. The latest numbers from Nov 15 are 41.2%./53.4% (corrected)

Share this post


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

The part about removing Saddam was not added after the fact. It was an argument people like me made from the beginning. Seeing how things turned out, that doesn't look like a good reason in hindsight, but it's not like it was an excuse which was added later.

Pretty sure that it was, but if you can point me to a link where the GWB administration was pushing this angle before the invasion, I'll certainly check it out.

Share this post


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

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble, not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.)

Because the constitution gives the legislative oversight power?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

It's kinda unavoidable if you follow the law. The president not allowing so many in his inner circle to testify before Congress makes him look very bad in the court of public opinion. Like he's got something to hide, perhaps. If he felt good about his case, he'd face the music and shoot his accusers down (figuratively).

Sure it does, but it's better than having a perjury charge that actually gets you in trouble.  At least right now with no plain lie under oath (besides Volker so far I guess) it's a harder plain and simple case to make to the general public.

Share this post


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

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  Because they are innocent.

 

No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble,

Especially If you are guilty.

not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.) Mr. Clinton was guilty.

Share this post


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

Because the constitution gives the legislative oversight power?  

Sure, they should haul in everyone they want to.  But Trump's circle can also plead the 5th and say nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schiff finally released transcript of Morrison interview and ot destroys impeachment narrative

Wow.  Morrison testified he believes nothing improper happened on call.  Transcript released from white house is complete and legit, no mention of burisma on call.  Transcript mistakenly placed on secure server.  He purposely kept Vindman out of the loop because he had concerns about his judgement.  Vindman never reported light queries from Ukraine in regards to hold up on aid.

Bottom line, Vindman, the supposed second whistleblower is unreliable and reported directly to Morrison.

Nothing burger.

Share this post


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

Sure, they should haul in everyone they want to.  But Trump's circle can also plead the 5th and say nothing.  

Only if they have a reasonable belief that the testimony they would give could be used against them in a criminal prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dozer said:
16 minutes ago, KPD said:

Why would anyone under investigation agree to be questioned for hours?  Because they are innocent.

 

No matter what you say, something could be used against you, and in a lot of cases what you say ends up being what gets you in trouble,

Especially If you are guilty.

not the actual conduct (see.. Clinton, Mr. Clinton not Mrs.) Mr. Clinton was guilty.

Little lies that aren't meant to be lies can get you in trouble too.

Clinton didn't get in trouble for having fun, he got in trouble for speaking about it (and lying in doing so).  If he didn't answer any questions he wouldn't have been impeached (at least for perjury).

Share this post


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

Schiff finally released transcript of Morrison interview and ot destroys impeachment narrative

Wow.  Morrison testified he believes nothing improper happened on call.  Transcript released from white house is complete and legit, no mention of burisma on call.  Transcript mistakenly placed on secure server.  He purposely kept Vindman out of the loop because he had concerns about his judgement.  Vindman never reported light queries from Ukraine in regards to hold up on aid.

Bottom line, Vindman, the supposed second whistleblower is unreliable and reported directly to Morrison.

Nothing burger.

Morrison testified that Sondland told him directly that Trump was directing him to condition US aid on Ukraine announcing an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.  

That's going to make Sondland either testify to that or explain how Morrison is wrong so that he doesn't get charged with perjury or, as I believe it's called now "Roger Stone-ing"

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Only if they have a reasonable belief that the testimony they would give could be used against them in a criminal prosecution.

It's way easier to prove a lie to a jury than the underlying conduct isn't it?  Why give any ammo at all?

Share this post


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

Voelker says Vindman responsible for delay of Zelensky visit

Whistleblower's buddy Vondman is responsible for the delay of Zelensky's white house visit.  It wasn't delayed due to lack of investigation.

"No content" and "no accomplishments" is about right. Seems totally consistent. Vindman I'm sure did not want a visit just to announce the two investigations. It reads like Sondland - per the transcript - was trying to "fix" that.

Volker is one of the GOP's named witnesses and he is testifying this week.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I like this Pelosi ploy of asking the president to testify. He'll bluster and promise but won't do it and he'll look weak and afraid, especially if Pelosi and the Dems keep asking every week.

Pelosi should tell him not to bother, unless it includes his tax returns

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.