SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Of course you can, but a whistleblower process is inherently transparent - because it’s public it’s why we know this happened.
What course would you have preferred Vindman or the WBer have taken?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
What course would you have preferred Vindman or the WBer have taken?
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Hope we hear Swallwell's whistleblower
What’s on the server is a different transcript, I believe. What’s been released is the White House memo of the call.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
Didn't Vindman say the memo wasn't correct in two places? It sure would be interesting to see/hear/read what's on the server...
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
TheMagus
Footballguy
So the argument that one of the the likely sources of the whistleblower blower information is now sitting on national television talking about everything he heard, what actions he took, and what actions others took but this is somehow a lack of transparency? I'm confused.
They were missing from the call summary. The same call summary that was placed on the code-protected server and also ultimately released to the public.
TheMagus
Footballguy
I don't think there was more than one record created. What was released was the official record of the call. There is no word for word transcript.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Understood. But if she is sticking up for what she believes is correct and defending the unjustified attacks on the POTUS and risking her job believing in her effort to do what it right it seems silly to make a joke about it.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That's not entirely accurate. Where Congress sets policy, the President does not generally get to override Congress except in emergency situations.
msommer
Footballguy
Do we have to discuss what a record is? The memo purports to be a record of the call. What's on the server may be another
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Compare Will Hurd if you’re listening/watching, he’s asking actual questions, not ramrodding talking points as statements for rebroadcast.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
This is quite the insightful statement on multiple levels. First, because this isn't a trial, so your use of the word "defense" is inaccurate in that sense (but Freudianly on the mark in terms of Trump and his supporters being on the defensive). Second, because it undercuts the popular talking point that Republicans have trotted out in which they claim that various witnesses are only testifying because they want attention. And third, because it reinforces the belief that the Republican strategy has less to do with facts, and more to do with being a star on TV.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Maybe. Depends on the reasonableness of the belief. QAnon followers generally believe they are sticking up for what's right and many jokes about that movement have been quite funny and reasonable. However, if what she's doing is pandering about something she doesn't even believe in order to try to win an election, derision in general (not so much on this forum in its extreme forms, of course) seems reasonable.
KCitons
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Exactly and why the republican's treatment of theses lifelong, exemplary, servants of the US Intelligence and military so despicable. These people aren't charged or even suspected of a crime or impropriaty of any sort.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The White House National security advisor just three rungs from the President just testified that the President is engaging in a Russian propaganda narrative damaging to US interests.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
For the second time. You know, the guy that lead the attack on our elections. No big deal though. Nothing has been done about it or will be done about it
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
No, comparing Qanon and defending the POTUS against bogus impeachment claims does not seem reasonable.
This is the kind of "looking to jump on anything and turn it to something it's not" we could do without.
I'm guessing it's not the correct legal term, but "defense" is pretty clear what he meant when one side is accusing or considering accusing another. He said she was a helpful witness to that side. If you disagree with his statement and don't think she's been a good witness, say why. Not everything has to be twisted into a point for your side.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Ratcliffe - Impeachment should be decisive and obvious wrongdoing, two people having different views on demand on call is not obvious.
Again - Mueller's we can't prove Trump didn't demand investigation type thinking is clouding people's judgement. Innocent until proven guilty.
Again - Mueller's we can't prove Trump didn't demand investigation type thinking is clouding people's judgement. Innocent until proven guilty.
KCitons
Footballguy
Does he mention anything about withholding subpoenaed witness testimony that would allow them, and us, from obtaining a clear understanding?
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Again I had to turn this off. Too many are using the hearings to editorialize than ask real questions to see if there are grounds for impeachment. Despicable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Just turned it off too. Lie, after lie, after misquote after mischaracterization out of Jordan's mouth. Just another sad day for America.
timschochet
Footballguy
Jordan is doing the President no good at all.
KCitons
Footballguy
It's all speculation.
But, the questions she asked, she read word for word from the paper. If it was her own thoughts, she would be able to ad lib a good portion of the question from memory. If it wasn't hers, she would read it in order to make sure she didn't miss anything.
Also, each question had it's own page.
msommer
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
That’s his intent sure. But Graham was able to make that argument because Blasey Ford has no witnesses that could corroborate her story. In this case we’re hearing one witness after another tell the same thing, which makes Jordan’s speech nonsensical.
sho nuff
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Id wonder how...the Rs have yet to question the actual facts. Bring up Biden, Russia, and so in. They question the process not the facts and have been insulting of credible people. That isnt killing it in any possible way.
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow. Spontaneous applause for Vindman. Makes Jordan look even worse. I think public is not loving the Republican response here.
I never would have disputed that is the case, but your responses have certainly solidified this. Remember, I'm not watching this as a D or R... I voted third party for a reason in 2016. My opinions have not been formed via some root bias. They've been formed by watching the events of the past three years unfold.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Okay, fair enough.
Stefanik is not a witness, btw. She is a Congressperson.
(And I don't think that DN ever said she was a witness, but I admit that I haven't scrutinized all of his posts.)
Do you really see her as a witness for the defense?
We are literally in an impeachment hearing.
Without trying to pick it apart, I see her as him saying she's someone who's helped their side.
If you disagree, tell him why you think she has not helped their side.
Not use it as a launch pad to turn it into Freudian analysis or somehow turn it into a statement about the overall Republican master strategy.
Similar threads
