Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Ever been to Fresno? Who can blame him? 

:lmao: Hard pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordan is saying that Volker and Morrison resigned from the government because of the Democrats? 

Share this post


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

That should have pissed every American off. 

He has had the WB’s lawyer slap him around for lying (via Twitter) and now Vindman as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every elected official that keeps saying "Russia hoax" should be investigated. They are saying thousands of people in our IC are lying to the American people. I want to know why they are taking this stance. 

  • Like 8
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

That call summary we stashed in the seperate highly classified server? Yeah that was just an accident. LOL. 

That's rubbish. It's not like someone can just accidentally click the wrong file folder. 

Vindland's testimony on this specific point was incredibly interesting to me.  He refused to throw anyone under the bus for this.  What he said, basically (someone correct me if I'm wrong), is that he took his concerns to the two IC lawyers and they talked about the concerns for a while.  They also talked about the call transcript, and one of the lawyers was basically like "hey, to be on the safe side (i.e., to make sure this isn't leaked), let's throw this thing in our secure server."  He did the same thing about leaving off the name "Burisma" from the call transcript.  He just attributed it to an common accidental human error.  He wasn't willing to say that this was done for any nefarious purposes. 

It makes him more believable on all the other (bad) stuff that he did say:  He's just sticking to the facts. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this "Manafort" guy was linked to the corrupt Ukrainian officials?  Hhmm, where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, the guy in jail that was Trump's campaign manager. 

Share this post


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

Every elected official that keeps saying "Russia hoax" should be investigated. They are saying thousands of people in our IC are lying to the American people. I want to know why they are taking this stance. 

Because they can. The same reason why Graham and others can contradict themselves constantly based on their previous statements. Previously party leadership would have smacked them down for it but the climate we’re in now not only accepts it but encourages it. They are trying to create their own reality because it works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

That should have pissed every American off. 

Should we be pissed off at Morrison's concerns about Vindman's judgement?

Share this post


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

You would know. 

Well played.  What's your limit on schnitzengruben?

Edited by ClownCausedChaos2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 1:30 PM, timschochet said:

Yes in this case we need to arm the neo Nazis. 

Just wanted to say thanks for your incredible honesty here.  I guess giving guns/training to neonazis is certainly a strategy, even if it does push further and further strains of extremism.  Can't wait til we're arming ISIS to combat the Chinese/Russian threat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule of Fight Club. Don't talk about Fight Club

Share this post


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

Should we be pissed off at Morrison's concerns about Vindman's judgement?

How do you explain the discrepancy between Vindman's written review from Hill and Morrison's concerns?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple surprises today, one I think somewhat for Trump, one somewhat bad: 

The somewhat good surprise was when Vindman confirmed that the call record was accurate. All of the conspiracy talk about ellipses can be tossed out, all of the silly arguments about how the transcript wasn’t a transcript, etc. We can forget all that. (personally I always thought it was irrelevant anyway since I believe, and still do, that the transcript we have is damaging enough as it is.) 

The somewhat bad news is that Volker, the Republican’s witness, completely exonerated Joe Biden and made Trump look absurd and conspiratorial, and the continuing request for Hunter Biden as a witness look foolish.  

Share this post


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

I think what he was trying to say and dancing all around the issue was that Ukraine making a general statement about corruption and cracking down on it in their own interests was not a bad thing and in his mind (sounds like he was trying to justify it to himself) that any investigation into Burisma or corruption was not connected to the Bidens. 

I mean that is a real stretch because he knew what was going on, but at the same time he was very likely trying to do what was best for US-Ukraine diplomacy and they couldn't avoid the Giuliani issue so they tried to steer it instead.

It's also apparent that as much as Trump & Pals wanted to avoid the State, NSC & IC staff, they needed Volker to make the deal happen. He knew who to call and how to arrange things. They needed his expertise. - It's possible that Volker did not understand what was happening or the full depth of it because he comes from a diplomatic world where abnormalities like that do not occur. He knows it now apparently but even so he does not seem to be able to grasp his involvement in it, he tries to shoehorn things into standard diplomatic language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 Can’t wait until we're arming ISIS to combat the Chinese/Russian threat.  

We basically did that in 1980 with the Taliban, right? It was necessary then. 

Share this post


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

How do you explain the discrepancy between Vindman's written review from Hill and Morrison's concerns?

I don't know but he just testified under oath that multiple people shared concerns with him about Vindman's judgement. I don't know what to make of a written review. I'm sure we'll learn more when Hill testifies.

Edited by jamny
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

So this "Manafort" guy was linked to the corrupt Ukrainian officials?  Hhmm, where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, the guy in jail that was Trump's campaign manager. 

Terrific guy, but I hardly knew him.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

How do you explain the discrepancy between Vindman's written review from Hill and Morrison's concerns?

There's nothing in Vindman's entire career to suggest he has bad judgment.  In fact quite the opposite. 

Morrison just testified that he heard Trump request Ukraine to investigate the Bidens though.  That's enough right there to throw Trump from office.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Terrific guy, but I hardly knew him.

Worked for free for some reason. 

Share this post


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

I don't know but he just testified under oath that multiple people shared concerns with him about Vindman's judgement. I don't know what to make of a written review. I'm sure we'll learn more when Hill testifies.

Hopefully we will find out from Hill.

Just a thought. Do you think it's possible, due to changes in how this administration was going to interact with Ukraine, that people such as Vindman and Yovanovitch, were going to cause problems for any alternate channel or request for investigating a U.S. citizen?

The question I would like answered, what happened in the first half of 2019, that would change how Vindman and Yovanovitch are seen as anything but Patriots, serving their country first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamny said:


I don't know but he just testified under oath that multiple people shared concerns with him about Vindman's judgement. I don't know what to make of a written review. I'm sure we'll learn more when Hill testifies.


Were the "multiple people" Trump and Sondland?
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 


Were the "multiple people" Trump and Sondland?

It worked with Yovanovitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 1:43 PM, timschochet said:

I’d like to address this one point because Devin Nunes said the same thing in his closing remarks. I considered it wishful thinking and still do. 

I find the testimony absolutely riveting so far and I expect it will be more so next year week, especially Sondland and Vindman. On the other hand I’m quite obviously a political junkie so my opinion on this is not to be trusted. So let’s put it out there: putting aside your views on the issues, have the two days of hearings so far been interesting to watch? Dull? What do you think? 

Okay, just clicked on a live cspan feed of this Volker guy testifying, and I can confirm, this is an absolute snoozefest of a boutique issue.  Volker was a McCain Institute guy, it's wild how their hawkish views on Ukraine are presented as the 'responsible' 'adult in the room' stance.  This is boring, it's pointless, it will go nowhere.  I'm a political junky too, it's not that this is some inside baseball, it's just a privilege/status issue that people aren't going to care about.  

Share this post


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

 


Were the "multiple people" Trump and Sondland?

The names were mentioned during Vindland's testimony and no it wasn't Trump and not sure if one was Sondland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volker testifying that Putin and Erdogan are very corrupt yet Trump frequently gives them an audience.  Trump is supposedly concerned about corruption though lolz. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

So this "Manafort" guy was linked to the corrupt Ukrainian officials?  Hhmm, where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, the guy in jail that was Trump's campaign manager. 

Allegedly campaign manager. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat dumb comments by Swalwell at the end of his questioning which set up Hurd to ask the witness whether he did think it was wrong. 

Share this post


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

There's nothing in Vindman's entire career to suggest he has bad judgment.  In fact quite the opposite. 

Morrison just testified that he heard Trump request Ukraine to investigate the Bidens though.  That's enough right there to throw Trump from office.  

Oh, I see now. The concern about Vindman's "judgment" is that he would do the right thing and not cover up Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.   @jamny

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Every elected official that keeps saying "Russia hoax" should be investigated. They are saying thousands of people in our IC are lying to the American people. I want to know why they are taking this stance. 

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Volker testifying that Putin and Erdogan are very corrupt yet Trump frequently gives them an audience.  Trump is supposedly concerned about corruption though lolz. 

Corruption = not allowing me to do what I want.

Therefore, the rebrand what "Corruption" is, is the goal. If Trump is successful in rebranding "Corruption" as truth, and truth as "Corruption", he is then able to do what he wants without question because who will believe corruption when corruption is in fact, truth?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

How is this relevant to Trump trying to bribe the Ukraine?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

A couple surprises today, one I think somewhat for Trump, one somewhat bad: 

The somewhat good surprise was when Vindman confirmed that the call record was accurate. All of the conspiracy talk about ellipses can be tossed out, all of the silly arguments about how the transcript wasn’t a transcript, etc. We can forget all that. (personally I always thought it was irrelevant anyway since I believe, and still do, that the transcript we have is damaging enough as it is.) 

The somewhat bad news is that Volker, the Republican’s witness, completely exonerated Joe Biden and made Trump look absurd and conspiratorial, and the continuing request for Hunter Biden as a witness look foolish.  

Voelker simply said he holds Joe Biden to a high regard.  He had no idea of the Biden/Burisma relationship details.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

What is in these, supposed, reports that you know about yet others are not privy to knowing about? What position in government do you hold that allows you to know things the public won't know until there is a report? What is there to learn? Is this the November surprise we were promised last year?

Share this post


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

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

Can you predict what the reports will say?

Share this post


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

How is this relevant to Trump trying to bribe the Ukraine?

All witnesses so far have denied that Trump tried to bribe Ukraine.  Sorry.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

All witnesses so far have denied that Trump tried to bribe Ukraine.  Sorry.

Not even a little bit truthful.

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Can you predict what the reports will say?

Reply hazy, try again 

Share this post


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

Oh, I see now. The concern about Vindman's "judgment" is that he would do the right thing and not cover up Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.   @jamny

Where do you get that from?

 

I think one of the concerns might be how he perceived the "demand" from Trump.

Share this post


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

There's nothing in Vindman's entire career to suggest he has bad judgment.  In fact quite the opposite. 

Morrison just testified that he heard Trump request Ukraine to investigate the Bidens though.  That's enough right there to throw Trump from office.  

I was very busy today. Is that an actual thing Morrison testified to?

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


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

Ever been to Fresno? Who can blame him? 

Hey! I grew up in Fresno!

Yeah, you're right :bag:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Can you predict what the reports will say?

The better question is "If the report doesn't say what he is predicting it will say, will he believe it?"

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

What, no Huber? He went bye-bye?

Share this post


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

When the IG and Durham reports come out you will learn a lot.  The problem with our media is they have not reported about the FISA abuse.

By the way thank you for bringing this up to me the other day. I did some reading - it’s not clear that anyone knows what’s in the report yet. It’s also true that they keep saying it’s coming out soon but the timeline keeps getting pushed. 
 

Do you have any concrete info about what they may be finding?  I hope if the FISA warrant was really improperly attained that any guilty parties may be revealed. We can’t have mistrust in our law enforcement systems. 

Share this post


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

The names were mentioned during Vindland's testimony and no it wasn't Trump and not sure if one was Sondland.

One of the people that Morrison said questioned his judgment that was named was Dr. Fiona Hill. That's when Vinland proceeded to read his last performance review she gave him where she said he had "impeccable judgment." So who knows? I mean Morrison took the position as Vindland's superior AFTER Vinland had already gone to the WH lawyers once (July 10) so there could have already been a bit of a smear campaign going on with accusing him of leaks and whatnot and Morrison wouldn't have had any point of reference. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Every elected official that keeps saying "Russia hoax" should be investigated. They are saying thousands of people in our IC are lying to the American people. I want to know why they are taking this stance. 

Because they can. 

Rule number one for defendants

Deny, deny deny.  You can always admit later. 

So they deny that this is true until or unless they have no better choice and then in that unlikely event they can say that they were convinced by the facts and blah blah.

But until then, just saying hoax means they can wait a year for the chance to make laws that won't get vetoed, drive policies through executive orders, and maybe replace RBG. It's not particularly sporting but it's the obvious strategy if your constituents won't punish you for it. 

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.