***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (2 Viewers)

[Sinn Fein]

From a strategy standpoint - I really don't get the GOP's attack on process.  The more you attack the process, the more it looks like you concede that the underlying facts show impeachable conduct.

I think a better strategy would be to focus on whether the underlying facts are impeachable.  Admittedly, Trump has made that more difficult by changing the defense, and by keeping key witnesses from testifying.  But, when you argue process, the assumption is that the facts and law are against you.

 

[Sinn Fein]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

All of those are fascinating questions.

None of those are relevant to Trump's conduct, which is at issue here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How many times did he meet with the whistleblower?

Your own link establishes he did not meet the WBer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What did they advise the whistleblower to do?

Follow the whistleblower process.

To do otherwise would have been a grossly political, partisan and destructive act.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I tend to agree with this. I’m not seeing what is going to change with the public hearings. The story is already out there and largely corroborated. And still an insufficient number of people care about it, so there is no motivation for Republicans to flip. I don’t see why the people who don’t care now are suddenly going to care when they hear the same story from public testimony that they’ve already been told.

 I recall in early polling, only, like, 50% of Republicans believed Trump mentioned Biden on the call.  Trump is still saying "no quid pro quo" and that it was a "perfect call".  I suspect a decent percentage of the Republican public still doesn't know the truth.  

The question, to me, is will that matter? I don't think it won't for his base.  The goal post will just be moved to "it's wrong but not impeachable".  Some independents could change opinion.  That might help the Democratic candidate a little.

 

[John Blutarsky]

All of those are fascinating questions.

None of those are relevant to Trump's conduct, which is at issue here.

"He is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr,” McCarthy added, referring to the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. “Ken Starr testified.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?

The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the [whistleblower] find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint.

- Your Link. Please read it.

 

[toshiba]

  22 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:
Several things and if the roles were reversed you guys would feel the same way.

Can you try to explain what the several things are?

 

[JuniorNB]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

What about the fact that Trump has confessed to everything the whistleblower claimed?  Why does the whistleblower even matter at this point?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I tend to agree with this. I’m not seeing what is going to change with the public hearings. The story is already out there and largely corroborated. And still an insufficient number of people care about it, so there is no motivation for Republicans to flip. I don’t see why the people who don’t care now are suddenly going to care when they hear the same story from public testimony that they’ve already been told.

Its like the Ray Rice video.

Seeing someone testify is different than reading about someone testifying.

 

[John Blutarsky]

Your own link establishes he did not meet the WBer.

He may not be telling the truth. He wasn't honest about contact with the WBer before the complaint was filed.

 

[John Blutarsky]

- Your Link. Please read it.

Stay cool SID

 

[dkp993]

All of those are fascinating questions.

None of those are relevant to Trump's conduct, which is at issue here.

"He is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr,” McCarthy added, referring to the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. “Ken Starr testified.

JB. Let’s say all of what your saying is being claimed is true.  I’d love to hear your thoughts (and any other Trump supporters) on how the whistleblower is relevant any longer with the supporting testimony of the others.  TIA.  

 

[SoBeDad]

Whistleblowers.

 

[Sinn Fein]

"He is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr,” McCarthy added, referring to the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. “Ken Starr testified.

I try again.

The Whistleblower is not relevant to the issues that will be litigated.

The whistleblower said (paraphrasing): "I am aware of a set of facts told to me by others that is alarming.  These are the facts as I know them, and these are the people with actual knowledge of these facts."

The witnesses with relevant information were identified by the whistleblower, and that is who Congress has called in for depositions.  The veracity of those witnesses is important towards determining if you believe the underlying conduct or not.

If the whistleblower made the entire thing up - that would have been discovered PDQ.

 

[John Blutarsky]

JB. Let’s say all of what your saying is being claimed is true.  I’d love to hear your thoughts (and any other Trump supporters) on how the whistleblower is relevant any longer with the supporting testimony of the others.  TIA.  

He should be cross examined behind closed doors. And so far we really have a fraction of the testimony in that the first transcripts were released yesterday. Other than that we have leaks.

Those are my thoughts. Have a great day guys.

 

[Sinn Fein]

He should be cross examined behind closed doors.

In your best case scenario - i.e. in the light most favorable to Trump - what would you want such a cross-examination (of the whistleblower) to show?

 

[timschochet]

I tend to agree with this. I’m not seeing what is going to change with the public hearings. The story is already out there and largely corroborated. And still an insufficient number of people care about it, so there is no motivation for Republicans to flip. I don’t see why the people who don’t care now are suddenly going to care when they hear the same story from public testimony that they’ve already been told.

I was thinking more about this and trying to explain why I disagree: 

First, we have to  always remember that everyone reading this thread is better informed and pays far more attention to the news than the general public. When you say “the story is already out there,” the fact is the details aren’t known by the public no matter how many reports there are on CNN or in the newspaper. Most people up to this point have paid attention only to the extent of knowing that Trump is in trouble and here’s why: because he asked about Biden in a phone call with Ukraine and may have withheld funds. And that’s it. So public hearings, and more importantly, the highlights of public hearings on the network evening news night after night, will be the first time a lot of folks will hear details. 

But there’s something else too: starting with the Alger Hiss- Whittaker Chambers hearings of the 1940s, the Army McCarthy hearings of the 50s, the Watergate Hearings, the Clarence Thomas and Kavanaugh Hearings, etc. there is something very unique about televised congressional hearings in America. They are electric. Live testimony before all of the cameras is far far different from any testimony behind closed doors. In some cases, as in the Army-McCarthy hearings, it tends to strip away all pretense and reveal to the public the truth of the matter for the first time. In other cases, like Iran/Contra it only confuses the issue, but it always, always has a profound effect on shaping public opinion. It’s a spectacle, in some ways our version of throwing the Christians to the lions. 

So that’s the gist of my argument. I think that for better or worse these hearings will bring on a change of how everyone on all sides perceives this whole affair. 

 

[moleculo]

He should be cross examined behind closed doors. And so far we really have a fraction of the testimony in that the first transcripts were released yesterday. Other than that we have leaks.

Those are my thoughts. Have a great day guys.

1. do you believe the "whistleblower" function is necessary for a free state to operate openly?

2. does exposing the whistleblower help or hurt the plight of future whistleblowers, including those in future democratic administrations?

 

[apalmer]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

And if he met with him, told him he needed to file a WB complaint, and told him how to do it, so what? What does that have to do with the facts corroborated by numerous witnesses?

Try this: The police dept. gets a phone call: "Hello, police, i was just told be a friend who works at a bank that his boss is stealing money from customers' accounts. What should I do?"*

Police: "What's your name, sir?"*

Caller: "I don't want to tell you that. Can't I tell you what I heard without that?"*

Police: "Ok, tell us the name of your friend, what bank is involved, who the boss is, and anything else you know."*

Caller: "OK, here goes.....(detailed summary given)"* 

The police investigate, talk to the friend who confirms the facts, subpoena bank records, match up missing money with deposits into bank manager's personal account. When they show up to arrest the bank manager, he demands "Tell me who the anonymous caller was. I think he's someone who doesn't like me." *

Do you really believe the charges can't proceed if the police don't identify the caller?

*Disclaimer: All quotes are fictitious.

 

[Zow]

Because Trump needs an enemy. He needs a face and a name so he and Fox News and his base can destroy the person to distract from his own confession and all of the testimony. He thinks that if he can find one thing, whether it was a Hillary campaign contribution or an old Facebook like of an Obama meme or a high school yearbook picture wearing a Jimmy Carter t-shirt, he can rally his entire base into believing the whole thing is a partisan witch hunt.  

The testimony has been absolutely devastating to Trump. It proves he used thuggery to do a mob-style beat down of a foreign country for his own personal benefit. He doesn't have a leg to stand on and each day there's more evidence and testimony that shows just how corrupt he is.  He desperately needs to change the focus and destroy someone's life to save his own.

Exactly. And, frankly, I don't think it's a terrible strategy if his defense on the actual facts isn't a good one. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From a strategy standpoint - I really don't get the GOP's attack on process.  The more you attack the process, the more it looks like you concede that the underlying facts show impeachable conduct.

I think a better strategy would be to focus on whether the underlying facts are impeachable.  Admittedly, Trump has made that more difficult by changing the defense, and by keeping key witnesses from testifying.  But, when you argue process, the assumption is that the facts and law are against you.

I don't agree with this. Yelling "Process!" is like yelling "Benghazi!" or "Emails!" Nobody has to understand very much about the details of what's actually going on. As long as there is yelling, there is a rallying cry.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

He should be cross examined behind closed doors.

About what? He didn't witness anything. Trump has already stipulated as much by calling all of the whistleblower's claims "hearsay." Hearsay is generally inadmissible. Why examine someone who can provide no relevant, admissible testimony?

 

[Koya]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

Simple question:

Why are you (and others who share your sentiments are encouraged to answer as well) so focused on the whistleblower, who merely alerted authorities that something might be amiss, rather than being concerned whether or not there was actually something amiss?

If the whistleblower is biased and set a false alarm, then an investigation should demonstrate that and then go after the whistleblower, Schiff, whomever was involved. But for now, someone pulled the fire alarm - shouldn't we be focused on whether or not there is a fire. If there is, let's put it out, if not, let's look to who pulled the false alarm.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

I don't agree with this. Yelling "Process" is like yelling "Benghazi" or "Emails!" Nobody has to understand very much about the details of what's actually going on. As long as there is yelling, there is a rallying cry.

Was just going to post something similar.  There's also a large faction of voters that will believe and defend any talking point they are given. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Hey guys, just because MLB managers wear a uniform it doesn't mean they are going to take an AB. 

 

[bostonfred]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

None of those things answer the question i asked

What would it prove about what trump did or didn't do?

Are you conceding that Trump committed impeachable offenses and skipping straight to the investigation of how it started?  I would be fine investigating this Schiff and whistleblower stuff once the impeachment is over.  

If not, though, then what do Schiff's actionshave to do with what trump did or didn't do?

 

[JuniorNB]

1. do you believe the "whistleblower" function is necessary for a free state to operate openly?

2. does exposing the whistleblower help or hurt the plight of future whistleblowers, including those in future democratic administrations?

Once he knew he was backed into a corner, he left. 

 

[JuniorNB]

Exactly. And, frankly, I don't think it's a terrible strategy if his defense on the actual facts isn't a good one. 

He's done it every time he's been caught doing something. It's his only strategy. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

You know how they blur out the face of people testifying against mob bosses? We need to stop that too. It's only fair for the mob bosses. 

 

[timschochet]

- Mulvaney has been asked to testify on Friday. I doubt he will agree to it. 

 

[tri-man 47]

“How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did they advise the whistleblower to do? How much was Schiff involved in this? Did he recommend the whistleblower give the complaint to the intelligence community inspector general, even though there was no intel component, so that he could be involved?”

“How many times did Rudy meet with the Ukrainians? What did Rudy advise the Ukrainians to do? How much was the President involved in this? Did Rudy recommend that the Ukrainians give the 'dirt' to the media, even though this was an attack on a political opponent, so the President could be reelected?”

Let's keep the appropriate focus here.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hey guys, just because MLB managers wear a uniform it doesn't mean they are going to take an AB. 

Said Carlos Beltran, never....

 

[moleculo]

- Mulvaney has been asked to testify on Friday. I doubt he will agree to it. 

agreed.  And the republicans will pound the table that democrats are selectively asking people to testify.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Stay cool SID

Well, always, I appreciate it, but the information you're looking for is in the article you published. So I'm wondering why you're asking.

 

[John Blutarsky]

Well, always, I appreciate it, but the information you're looking for is in the article you published. So I'm wondering why you're asking.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/780181-official-donald-j-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22284046

 

[Sinn Fein]

uh, oh .

Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

In a substantial update to his initial account, Gordon D. Sondland recounted how he told Ukrainian officials military aid was tied to their commitment to investigations President Trump wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html

 

[D_House]

Sondland news seems significant.

 

[Sinn Fein]

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.

 

[Sinn Fein]

So, lets go back to the whistleblower...

 

[Sinn Fein]

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

Mr. Pence to the white courtesy phone, Mr. Pence, to the white courtesy phone please.

 

[yak651]

And if he met with him, told him he needed to file a WB complaint, and told him how to do it, so what? What does that have to do with the facts corroborated by numerous witnesses?

Try this: The police dept. gets a phone call: "Hello, police, i was just told be a friend who works at a bank that his boss is stealing money from customers' accounts. What should I do?"*

Police: "What's your name, sir?"*

Caller: "I don't want to tell you that. Can't I tell you what I heard without that?"*

Police: "Ok, tell us the name of your friend, what bank is involved, who the boss is, and anything else you know."*

Caller: "OK, here goes.....(detailed summary given)"* 

The police investigate, talk to the friend who confirms the facts, subpoena bank records, match up missing money with deposits into bank manager's personal account. When they show up to arrest the bank manager, he demands "Tell me who the anonymous caller was. I think he's someone who doesn't like me." *

Do you really believe the charges can't proceed if the police don't identify the caller?

*Disclaimer: All quotes are fictitious.

Better yet, the teller at the bank can't ID the robber because he didn't hold up her lane he held up the one next to her...

 

[Sinn Fein]

This is going to be a quietly important day in the impeachment inquiry.

I just saw a tweet of Sondland heading into the capitol to review his testimony - now would be the time he "corrects" anything he might have mis-remembered in the first go-round....

Its amazing how a few days to clear your mind (and hear other testimony, and see the word "perjury" next to your name) will go towards "remembering" key facts

 

[yak651]

Sondland news seems significant.

I assume he's a never Trumper, how has he voted in the past?

 

[Biff84]

In his updated testimony, Mr. Sondland recounted how he had discussed the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, on the sidelines of a Sept. 1 meeting between Vice President Mike Pence and Mr. Zelensky in Warsaw. Mr. Zelensky had discussed the suspension of aid with Mr. Pence, Mr. Sondland said.

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the document, which was released by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony from last month.

Mr. Pence to the white courtesy phone, Mr. Pence, to the white courtesy phone please.

So that destroys a couple talking points. The next question is who told him to say that. Has he mentioned Trump directing it? Are they going to paint Sondland as a rogue agent? Or is this the start of throwing Pence under the bus?

 

[JuniorNB]

WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.

The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.

The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.

emergency perjury avoidance 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Have we talked about Voker's testimony about setting up a back-door communication channel with Ukraine?

Seems like this administration likes the idea of backdoor communications to avoid normal communications.

Excerpt from Volker’s testimony!!!

So official channels wouldn’t work, they decided on a back door. Here’s the counter intelligence concern.

They knew their info would get to Trump.

Ukrainian’s “asked to be connected” to Mr. Giuliani as a direct conduit to President Trump.

testimony

 

[Biff84]

I assume he's a never Trumper, how has he voted in the past?

Actually I think he was right up until he decided to donate a million so he could be an ambassador.

 

[Henry Ford]

Actually I think he was right up until he decided to donate a million so he could be an ambassador.

Well, I guess we can consider him an "insurance policy" in future tweets by the President then.

 

[dkp993]

He should be cross examined behind closed doors. And so far we really have a fraction of the testimony in that the first transcripts were released yesterday. Other than that we have leaks.

Those are my thoughts. Have a great day guys.

Thanks for the response, though I’m not sure that answers the question I was asking.  And for clarity sake I’m not trying to pick a fight or prove a point, I’m honestly trying to understand the thought process for the counter argument. So I’ll the question more clearly. 
 

Let’s assume for arguments sake the whistleblower is completely 100% biased toward being anti-Trump. Based on what we know from the opening statements of a few of the other witnesses and everything else that has been reported which is not being disputed, of what importance is the whistleblower anymore within the context of the accusations that are being made toward the POTUS (other then being political talking points of course). TIA.