What's new
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*** (8 Viewers)

Had to miss most of Nunes/Team 45 minute Q/A and then all the 5 minute back and forth.

So much better to watch this in real time. Trying to read through notes, watch summaries don't do this justice.

 
The General said:
Had to miss most of Nunes/Team 45 minute Q/A and then all the 5 minute back and forth.

So much better to watch this in real time. Trying to read through notes, watch summaries don't do this justice.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Watching temper tantrums, hyperbole, and other gibberish by Nunes, Jordan, and Ratcliffe makes it borderline torture to sit through. 

 
John Blutarsky said:
Seriously? scorching burn?
Click to expand...
Dems are like the Cleveland Browns ala 1015-2017.  Let them celebrate their first win but understand that they have 4 wins total over 48 games.  It has been tough sledding for them so they deserve the right to be excited for something.

The impeachment proceeding will likely end with voting along partisan lines and he will be impeached in the House and acquitted in the Senate.  The interesting part will be the witnesses called by the Senate.

 
[scooter] said:
Why? It's not like those guys are going to testify against Trump. He'll just fill their positions with more lackeys with "Acting" in their names, and both the Administration and the Republican Party will move on as if nothing changed.
Click to expand...
Pompeo might. He’s got political aspirations and may want to change the narrative from where Sondland is leaving it and Trump is likely to throw him under the bus too. Perry? Who really knows. He hasn’t really been accused of much, so I don’t know if testifying would help him at all or do anything to push the impeachment forward.

 
TripItUp said:
Fox News effectively destroying Schiff's understanding of what bribery is.

"Nobody is impeaching a President over denying a visit to the White House."
Click to expand...
Do you think that, if the only issue were the visit to the WH, literally nobody in the House would vote to impeach? As for the quote from Fox, I could believe they said that, but I would not believe they believe it.

 
If he was innocent and Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc could clear him by testifying about a perfect call - now would be the perfect time to have them testify.  To destroy the impeachment at its foundation and devastate the Dems.  It would be a stroke of stable genius.

So, why would he not let them testify? 

 
Jordan still arguing if you put a hit out on someone but the hitman never kills the person that no crime was committed. Disgraceful. 

 
Sondland made a Rudy bus speedbump. He admits he can't recall if the direction came from Rudy or the boss. "they were all in the loop" including Pompeo. Sondland becomes another Republican witness along with Folker and Morrison who just are making things worse for the GOP.

Pretty exciting US history taking place here.

 
Jordan laying the snark on thick with his questions trying to lead Sondland to confirm that since there was no investigation announcement and Ukraine ended getting the $$ = no QPQ.

 
Dickies said:
I’m still behind, listening to Schiff/Goldman, but one thing that has surprised me is that Sondland actually comes across as someone who took his job very seriously. I didn’t know much about him, but I expected him to just be someone who paid for a cushy ambassador job. 
Click to expand...
I watched his opening statement, and I picked up the same impression.  Further, questions have been raised about his involvement in Ukraine, which didn't fit in his EU role, but I feel he did a very good job of explaining how a strong and stable Ukraine is important of the EU.  

Interesting that he continually stressed that "everybody was in the loop."  Also interesting that he continually mentioned the demands related to the 2016 election and Burisma but never mentioned the Bidens specifically.  

He's clearly not a career foreign service officer ...he stressed a few times that he's not a note taker, and he was open about his frank language in conversations with Trump.  "Trump talk," as he called it.   :D    When talking about his July 26 phone call with Trump (and the "he loves your a##" line), it was a funny moment (even getting Goldman to smile) when Soldland said conversations with Trump often involved four letter words "...or in this case, a three letter word."   :lmao:

 
TripItUp said:
Your definition and my definition of bribery are different.
Click to expand...
Forget the word bribery. 

Which government powers are you comfortable with the president using for personal gain?  

Does your answer include the use of hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid money? 

(It doesn't really matter which powers you answered, because the constitution expressly forbids the use of the presidential powers for personal gain.)

So the issue should be the second half.  Did trump do this for personal gain. 

We already have clear evidence of the president using those powers. He withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in aid..

We have a clear definition of something that specifically benefited him politically. The investigation of a political rival.  

And there's clear evidence tying the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the thing that benefits him.  

So there's clear evidence of the president doing something expressly prohibited by the constitution.  And that's the case for impeachment. 

But the good news is he has a clear and simple line of defense.

First, he can deny that the aid was tied to the investigation.  That doesn't seem to be forthcoming.  He repeatedly said "no quid pro quo" when this first came out, even though an explicitly stated quid pro quo is not necessary for this to be wrong. But multiple witnesses have said that there was an explicit quid pro quo and that it came from the president.  At this point, he can concede that there was quid pro quo, or he can try to show that those witnesses are lying. 

He could also explain why the requests he made didn't benefit himself personally.  He's started to do this with the explanation that they were investigating corruption.  That's compelling because the president is allowed to work with other countries to investigate things and is allowed to give or withhold aid. 

But it's not clear why he wanted the president of Ukraine to announce the investigation into Biden and Burisma specifically.  He hasn't given a good reason for that specific part which didn't directly benefit him.

There's plenty of good reasons why he would want to investigate corruption in general, or want things to be announced, but why specifically the investigation into a political rival? And why did he  specifically want the president of the Ukraine to announce that portion of the investigation?  What national interest did it serve to distinguish between one possible instance of corruption and others? 

He could also deny that he was the one who tied the money to the investigation and announcement.  That seems to be the defense right now, but each witness so far has eroded that defense.  

The easiest way to answer that is just to say what actually happened.  The president has been invited to testify but so far has refused.

He could have other people provide testimony that showed why he wanted the president of the Ukraine toannounce the investigation.  Many witnesses close to the president have been subpoenaed, but the president has asked them to refuse to testify. 

The Republicans in the House have the opportunity to defend him on these items, but they haven't addressed the issue that he used hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to benefit himself.  Instead, their focus has been on the identity of the whistleblower, their concerns about Schiff, and other unrelated investigations. 

The Republicans in the Senate will likely get the opportunity to defend him on these items. So far, the majority leader has said that he doesn't expect impeachment to pass before the evidence was made public, and another ranking leader said he wouldn't watch the evidence.  Maybe they will have a good defense later 

There's a lot of evidence that the president used hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to benefit himself. 

But the president has the opportunity to clear things up.  All he has to do is explain that he didn't actually use hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to benefit himself.  

The big question is why isn't he doing that?  It should be really simple if you didn't actually use hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to benefit yourself. 

 
Biff84 said:
Pompeo might. He’s got political aspirations and may want to change the narrative from where Sondland is leaving it and Trump is likely to throw him under the bus too. Perry? Who really knows. He hasn’t really been accused of much, so I don’t know if testifying would help him at all or do anything to push the impeachment forward.
Click to expand...
I feel like Perry is sitting OK right now.  Sondland stressed that the Three Amigos were trying to help/strengthen Ukraine, but they were then given the directive of working with Rudy.  So they concluded, as Sondland stated, that it was either work with Rudy or accept the fact that their efforts would be wasted.  I.e., their hands were tied once Trump insisted they work with Rudy.

Pompeo isn't looking so good, though.  He didn't stand up to the insertion of Rudy into the picture, and he didn't defend his people (like Yovanovitch).  And ultimately, he was "in the loop" on the quid pro quo and did nothing about it.  He's ineffective and/or corrupt.  Not a good look at all.

 
Public service announcement:

1. Please don't call people names, even members of Congress. It's suspension-worthy.

2. If you quote somebody saying something suspension-worthy, your post is also suspension-worthy.

Thanks. Carry on.

 
1. Jim Jordan reminds me a bit of Mark Levin. Different accent of course, but the same shrill tone.

2. Republicans in this committee must believe its OK to smear Sondland since Nunes apologized for it beforehand.

 
CARSON:

Were you following the president's orders, Mr. Ambassador?

SONDLAND:

I was following the president's direction to speak with Mr. Giuliani.

 
I'm always wondering how much more impropriety goes on with this Administration that isn't visible. I assume it's quite a bit. It's really hard to fathom how the Republicans landed here, having to carry water for this guy. Any vanilla Republican could have given them the same tangible benefits, maybe not quite as big of a tax policy heist, but still, they couldn't get behind Kasich?

 
Don't Noonan said:
Been in meetings all morning and getting caught up.  Huge win for Trump with Sondlund testifying Trump told him directly he wanted nothing from Ukraine.  The fact that Sondlund didn't include that in his opening statement is puzzling.  It caused lots of folks to think doom and gloom for Trump.  

Nothing burger as far as impeachment goes.
Click to expand...
I asked you the other day how you would react if there was a quid pro quo. You stated that you would be tremendously disappointed. Are you tremendously disappointed? Or are you still denying that there was a quid pro quo?

 
Conaway: You've presumed a lot of things which doesn't make them fact like 2+2=4.

Sondalnd: Yes.

Goes on to start presuming things about Sondland's business and what the consequences of him telling the truth or lying would be,.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top