Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, KPD said:

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

Democrats would like this to happen very much.

The lesson from Willy Clinton's impeachment wasn't "refuse to testify." The lesson was "don't lie."

Share this post


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

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

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  My point is that you only have a fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself.  You can't just go into a hearing and plead the fifth if there's nothing you might think you could be prosecuted for in your testimony.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  My point is that you only have a fifth amendment right not to incriminate yourself.  You can't just go into a hearing and plead the fifth if there's nothing you might think you could be prosecuted for in your testimony.

Any lie you potentially tell could get you in trouble for perjury.  Look at Volker, maybe he remembered the meeting wrong or incompletely, now he could be looking at a perjury charge.  He's required to put himself in this legal jeopardy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to plead the 5th directly.  "I don't recall", "I'm not sure", etc.  work the same.

Share this post


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

Any lie you potentially tell could get you in trouble for perjury.  Look at Volker, maybe he remembered the meeting wrong or incompletely, now he could be looking at a perjury charge.  He's required to put himself in this legal jeopardy?

"I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer because otherwise I would lie" is not valid.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

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.

Unsure if it was GWB or the media, but it was def a promoted  reason

Share this post


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

Germany recently apologized to Poland for WW2. Japan has issues literally dozens of apologies over the years, most recently for their use of "comfort women" during the war. None of these were forced in any way.

It took decades and a lot of pressure from outside sources. 

Sometime shortly in the future I will start a thread about American exceptionalism, how it should be defined, and whether it’s valid, including this and several other topics. Too busy at the moment and I don’t want to take away from impeachment talk. 

Share this post


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

Does anyone here actually think all of these witnesses are lying?

Trump has been saying for years everyone is lying to you but him. So I would say affirmative, some people believe that all of the witnesses are lying. 

Share this post


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

"I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer because otherwise I would lie" is not valid.

hmm...

If someone lies under oath to congress, it is a crime.  The untruthful testimony (of a material fact) is the evidence of said crime.  "Pleading the 5th" is typically done to avoid self-incrimination - and lying to congress would be self-incrimination.

I could see a reasonable argument that this is a valid use of the 5th Amendment protections against being a witness against oneself.

Share this post


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

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)

Thanks. I corrected the OP to disapproval/approval.

Share this post


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

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"

Its a gateway pundit link...best to write that one off for the most part.

We have seen that and NYPost opinion pieces today.    Its telling that the GOP talking points can't even get any legit news source to run them.

Share this post


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

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

I want to clarify. Are you saying that if a witness to government corruption cannot lie with impunity, they should take the fifth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never a quid pro quo, never pressure put on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


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

Does anyone here actually think all of these witnesses are lying?

The best defense for donald is that these guys that I hand picked to set my policy in Ukraine were all going rouge and setting conditions that I didn’t approve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Any lie you potentially tell could get you in trouble for perjury.  Look at Volker, maybe he remembered the meeting wrong or incompletely, now he could be looking at a perjury charge.  He's required to put himself in this legal jeopardy?

You're not allowed to plead the fifth because otherwise you'd lie, no.  And misremembering isn't perjury.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never. Quid pro quo, never pressure out on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

All of the above.  And some you have not heard yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never. Quid pro quo, never pressure out on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never. Quid pro quo, never pressure out on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Yes

 

Simply put...it seems to be whatever argument they can get people to believe.

Share this post


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

hmm...

If someone lies under oath to congress, it is a crime.  The untruthful testimony (of a material fact) is the evidence of said crime.  "Pleading the 5th" is typically done to avoid self-incrimination - and lying to congress would be self-incrimination.

I could see a reasonable argument that this is a valid use of the 5th Amendment protections against being a witness against oneself.

It's not a close call, GB. "If I tell the truth, my testimony could be used to incriminate me" would be valid. "If I tell a lie, I could be charged with perjury" is not a valid reason to invoke the Fifth.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

hmm...

If someone lies under oath to congress, it is a crime.  The untruthful testimony (of a material fact) is the evidence of said crime.  "Pleading the 5th" is typically done to avoid self-incrimination - and lying to congress would be self-incrimination.

I could see a reasonable argument that this is a valid use of the 5th Amendment protections against being a witness against oneself.

No, that is not a valid use of the Fifth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting strategy:

In a letter to Sen. Johnson, Reps. Jordan and Nunes "reluctantly write to request any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine between April and September 2019."

 

We don't have a lot of history with actual impeachment trials - but I wonder about whether we want witnesses to also be the jurors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 3:32 PM, 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 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.

The GOP not raising the issue of Hunter’s corruption during the 2015 Yovanovitch confirmation is an amazing stroke of luck for them in retrospect. They clearly didn’t know the scope and cover up the Obama regime was doing with Hunter behind the scenes and issuing Yovanovitch the talking points for the hearing.

Now the GOP gets to demand the talking points that the Obama regime issued Yovanovitch for her confirmation about Hunter. That would only be fair in transparent, right?  

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never. Quid pro quo, never pressure out on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Could be both. 

Share this post


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

You don't have to plead the 5th directly.  "I don't recall", "I'm not sure", etc.  work the same.

If you do recall or are sure, those are perjury, not invoking the 5th.

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never a quid pro quo, never pressure put on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

You get to pick!

Share this post


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

Interesting strategy:

In a letter to Sen. Johnson, Reps. Jordan and Nunes "reluctantly write to request any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine between April and September 2019."

 

We don't have a lot of history with actual impeachment trials - but I wonder about whether we want witnesses to also be the jurors.

The GOP does.  Because then they can say those jurors should recuse themselves from voting.

Share this post


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

The best defense for donald is that these guys that I hand picked to set my policy in Ukraine were all going rouge and setting conditions that I didn’t approve.

Going rouge.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i have a question for the attorneys here: 

Suppose Sondland says the following: 

“There was never a quid pro quo. I did at one point imply to Ukraine there was but it was mistaken, at my own direction, nobody instructed me to do so. I did have that call with President Trump as described but Mr. Holmes missed most of the call and misunderstood the rest. And I NEVER said President Trump only cares about the Bidens and doesn’t care about Ukraine. That’s complete fabrication.” 

If he says this, how strong would be a perjury case against him? Or could he maintain this story without real fear of penalty. 

Share this post


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

It's not a close call, GB. "If I tell the truth, my testimony could be used to incriminate me" would be valid. "If I tell a lie, I could be charged with perjury" is not a valid reason to invoke the Fifth.

I think you need to think more creatively.

"Your Honor, answering this question may tend to incriminate me, so I choose to plead the 5th Amendment"

Share this post


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

The GOP does.  Because then they can say those jurors should recuse themselves from voting.

Right - but if I recall, you have trouble distinguishing between House members and Senators...

In this case, Johnson is the witness, and a (R) Senator.  I really doubt they would want one of their own on the sidelines...

Share this post


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

And i have a question for the attorneys here: 

Suppose Sondland says the following: 

“There was never a quid pro quo. I did at one point imply to Ukraine there was but it was mistaken, at my own direction, nobody instructed me to do so. I did have that call with President Trump as described but Mr. Holmes missed most of the call and misunderstood the rest. And I NEVER said President Trump only cares about the Bidens and doesn’t care about Ukraine. That’s complete fabrication.” 

If he says this, how strong would be a perjury case against him? Or could he maintain this story without real fear of penalty. 

That's why several witnesses have testified as to what he told them about being directed to do so.  I'd say there's a pretty strong perjury case if he does this.  He'd be in Roger Stone territory.

Share this post


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

I think you need to think more creatively.

"Your Honor, answering this question may tend to incriminate me, so I choose to plead the 5th Amendment"

You're focusing on the words people often use to invoke the fifth and not the actual fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 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.

That's the reason you do these depositions in private.  Let's see which one blinks first under oath in public testimony.

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never a quid pro quo, never pressure put on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Yes

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I’m really confused here. 

Is the Republican argument “you got it all wrong; there was never a quid pro quo, never pressure put on Ukraine, President Trump didn’t do anything at all wrong.” or is it “he sought a quid pro quo, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s not an impeachable offense, it’s just Trump being Trump and that’s OK”.?? 

Because I heard both arguments made over the weekend. Which is it? 

Sometimes it takes a while for the Talking Point firmware to be updated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

I don't think that's the argument, but if you want to go there, I don't care to research it. The point was people were fine with the invasion just to remove Saddam from power, regardless of the official reasons, and it wasn't some after the fact consideration. People like that (me) were really ignorant of the Sunni Shia issues hindering the creation of a stable system in the vacuum, but that was the hope in the moment, not later. If this board had history going back to those days, I'd just link you to posts I made in the moment. 

This doesn't seem like a topical subject here, so I'm going to let it go on my end.

Edited by jplvr

Share this post


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

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).

Oh, yeah. If you are guilty you'd probably be better off if you don't testify.

Bad for the guilty party to testify. Good for we, the people, if they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting down another narrative - 

 

US Officials Knew of Ukraine's Trump Anxiety

Despite his denials, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was feeling pressure from the Trump administration to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden before his July phone call with President Donald Trump that has led to impeachment hearings.

In early May, staff at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, including then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, were briefed on a meeting Zelenskiy held in which he sought advice on how to navigate the difficult position he was in, according to two people with knowledge of the briefings.

He was concerned that Trump and associates were pressing him to take action that could affect the 2020 U.S. presidential race, the people said. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic and political sensitivity of the issue.

The briefings show that U.S. officials knew early that Zelenskiy was feeling pressure to investigate Biden, even though the Ukrainian leader later denied it in a joint news conference with Trump in September. The officials said in their notes circulated internally at the State Department that Zelenskiy tried to mask the real purpose of the May 7 meeting __ which was to talk about political problems with the White House __ by saying it was about energy, the two people said.

Congressional Republicans have pointed to that public Zelenskiy statement to argue that he felt no pressure to open an investigation, and therefore the Democrats’ allegations that led to the impeachment hearings are misplaced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to “Its just Trump being Trump”- I also heard this explanation being offered in response to his tweet attacking Yovanovitch- by Rick Santorum on CNN on Friday, and by Chris Christie on ABC on Sunday.  Both men were quick to add “Personally I don’t like it, I find it distasteful, but this is what the President is like and his supporters approve of the way he fights back, etc.” 

Is there anyone besides me who finds this sort of argument especially disgusting? Here are two guys who are seeking to maintain their media credibility, and they are basically saying “yeah we know he’s awful but hey he’s a counterpuncher so it’s OK.” I am so sick of the excuses that have been offered for this guy for going on 4 1/2 years now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Interesting strategy:

In a letter to Sen. Johnson, Reps. Jordan and Nunes "reluctantly write to request any firsthand information you have about President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine between April and September 2019."

 

We don't have a lot of history with actual impeachment trials - but I wonder about whether we want witnesses to also be the jurors.

Well if we do, we'd certainly want them coordinating before the hearings

Share this post


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

Right - but if I recall, you have trouble distinguishing between House members and Senators...

In this case, Johnson is the witness, and a (R) Senator.  I really doubt they would want one of their own on the sidelines...

That’s probably why they’re reluctant. 

Share this post


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

Asked how closely they've been following the House's impeachment hearings, 37 percent said they've been following them somewhat closely, while 21 percent said they've been following very closely. Forty-two percent said they aren't following them that closely or closely at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The GOP not raising the issue of Hunter’s corruption during the 2015 Yovanovitch confirmation is an amazing stroke of luck for them in retrospect. *****They clearly didn’t know the scope and cover up the Obama regime was doing with Hunter behind the scenes and issuing Yovanovitch the talking points for the hearing.

Now the GOP gets to demand the talking points that the Obama regime issued Yovanovitch for her confirmation about Hunter. That would only be fair in transparent, right?  

How can you claim the GOP both knew and that the Obama White House was covering up? Plus it was common knowledge. Burisma had it on their website. The GOP didn't ask because the GOP didn't care.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Asked how closely they've been following the House's impeachment hearings, 37 percent said they've been following them somewhat closely, while 21 percent said they've been following very closely. Forty-two percent said they aren't following them that closely or closely at all.

But that’s not a majority. We were told, even as late as yesterday, that nobody is paying attention to this. You would think that “nobody” would be higher than 42%. 

Share this post


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

Asked how closely they've been following the House's impeachment hearings, 37 percent said they've been following them somewhat closely, while 21 percent said they've been following very closely. Forty-two percent said they aren't following them that closely or closely at all.

When I made my prediction that the Publix hearings would change everything, I was thinking that at best 30-40% of the public would be watching this somewhat closely, and 60%’not at all. 30-40% would be way more than enough to change public opinion. But 58% following this somewhat closely far exceeds my wildest expectations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shimon Prokupecz@ShimonPro·42s

 

House of Representatives is now investigating whether Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller in written answers he provided in the Russia investigation, the House's general counsel told the DC circuit Court of Appeals Monday.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.