What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (3 Viewers)

jm192 said:
Not that's it's ok--but that there's no wrong doing.  

You want to claim quid pro quo---but if they didn't even know the aide was frozen--then Ukraine isn't being offered something in turn for it.  

You want to claim the aide was conditioned on the investigation--but how can it be conditioned if Ukraine doesn't know what the conditions are?
Click to expand...
We have testimony otherwise that they did know..thats the point.

 
jm192 said:
Not that's it's ok--but that there's no wrong doing.  

You want to claim quid pro quo---but if they didn't even know the aide was frozen--then Ukraine isn't being offered something in turn for it.  

You want to claim the aide was conditioned on the investigation--but how can it be conditioned if Ukraine doesn't know what the conditions are?
Click to expand...
You really want the answers to all this or do you want to keep repeating a false narrative. Any number of witnesses and documents could clear all this up, even for you. 

 
This is why, in the court of public opinion, Donald Trump and the Republicans are going to lose this impeachment trial, not just a little, but overwhelmingly, more than enough to affect the election significantly: 

Because you can’t argue “there’s no evidence” and then refuse to look at evidence. You can’t argue “there’s no first hand witnesses” and then refuse to listen to first hand witnesses. Either you examine the facts or you don’t, full stop. 

 
moleculo said:
jm192 said:
Yes.  The defense read the transcipt.  There was a mention of "Thanks for the Javelin missles" which they already had.  And then Trump went into please do us a favor.  But the House has left that part out over and over because it doesn't fit the hoax narrative they need you to believe. 
Click to expand...
It wasn't "Thanks for the Javelin missles," it was "we'd like more please."
Click to expand...
And another bad faith argument gets whack-a-moled with facts.

 
timschochet said:
Also I think at least one witness offered testimony that the Ukraine embassy contacted the State  Department in an email about the aid being withheld in early July before the phone call- we would know this for sure if we could see those emails- but the State Department refuses to release them and it looks like the Senate won’t ask for them. 
Click to expand...
I think the point of the whole phone call was Ukraine wanted the aid and wanted an Oval Office meeting to commemorate it. Meanwhile the back channel is threatening loss of *all aid if no announcement (plus other side hustles). Hence the need for the call.

Still to date Russia/Lavrov got an Oval Office meeting and Zelensky has never gotten a visit to the WH. It really sucks because Trump was playing Zelensky the whole time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Trump clearly didn’t get the magic words he wanted from Zelensky because he re-held the aid just minutes after the call ended. Trump’s reason for the call was entirely different from Zelensky’s.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think the point of the whole phone call was Ukraine wanted the aid and wanted an Oval Office meeting to commemorate it. Meanwhile the back channel is threatening loss of *all aid if no announcement (plus other side hustles). Hence the need for the call.

Still to date Russia/Lavrov got an Oval Office meeting and Zelensky has never gotten a visit to the WH. It really sucks because Trump was playing Zelensky the whole time.
Click to expand...
The most striking part of that video released was Trump asking about Ukraine's military capability vs Russia

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, we get it.  Your corrupt guys are OK, it's the other corrupt guys that are the problem.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see a convincing piece of evidence that either Biden was corrupt enough to withhold already released aid to an ally in exchange for a supposed corruption investigation in order to get said unlawfully held aid released.

 
Slapdash said:
The most striking part of that video released was Trump asking about Ukraine's military capability vs Russia
Click to expand...
IIRC (eta some time later) there's also some Russian or Ukrainian language in the background.

But for folks who don't know, the convo around 40:00 goes a discussion of natural resources within Ukraine, then a discussion about Ukraine's chances of war with Russia without the US, then a discussion of the US ambassador and how Trump needs to get rid of her, "get rid of her, take her out."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
This is why, in the court of public opinion, Donald Trump and the Republicans are going to lose this impeachment trial, not just a little, but overwhelmingly, more than enough to affect the election significantly: 

Because you can’t argue “there’s no evidence” and then refuse to look at evidence. You can’t argue “there’s no first hand witnesses” and then refuse to listen to first hand witnesses. Either you examine the facts or you don’t, full stop. 
Click to expand...
You're assuming a level of objectivity and critical thinking ability that does not seem to be evident in far too great a portion of the electorate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
You're assuming a level of objectivity and critical thinking ability that does not seem to be evident in far too great a portion of the electorate.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s evident. 70% of the public wants witnesses. And look what happened in 2018. 

Some of you guys are so negative. Trump’s victory in 2016 was an anomaly. The public isn’t going to put with this crap for another 4 years. Have a little more faith. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course it’s evident. 70% of the public wants witnesses. And look what happened in 2018. 

Some of you guys are so negative. Trump’s victory in 2016 was an anomaly. The public isn’t going to put with this crap for another 4 years. Have a little more faith. 
Click to expand...
I am fully confident that Trump will lose the popular vote, I am not confident that the Republicans in government, who are already unwilling to do their jobs for political purposes, won't just take it a step further and nudge the scales on some swing states with close vote totals. 

 
BladeRunner said:
You see, actually he does. I guess we'll never know until we investigate, huh?  We should start a fishing trip I bet we'll find something!
Click to expand...
Congratulations. You have clearly shown exactly why Trump wanted an investigation announced by Ukraine. Trump merely saying there should be an investigation, with absolutely no basis, is now enough to cause you to view Biden as having "dark clouds" over him.

 
huthut said:
I am fully confident that Trump will lose the popular vote, I am not confident that the Republicans in government, who are already unwilling to do their jobs for political purposes, won't just take it a step further and nudge the scales on some swing states with close vote totals. 
Click to expand...
He will lose the electoral college as well. 

Of course I always have to insert a caveat here. If the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders all bets are off, I’m not confident he can beat Trump. 

 
huthut said:
I am fully confident that Trump will lose the popular vote, I am not confident that the Republicans in government, who are already unwilling to do their jobs for political purposes, won't just take it a step further and nudge the scales on some swing states with close vote totals. 
Click to expand...
At this point, they almost have to.

otoh, Roberts seems to be a pretty fair and square guy. I think he may be repulsed by what he is witnessing and become a leading voice of sanity in curtaining some of the voter suppression monkey business.

 
timschochet said:
He will lose the electoral college as well. 

Of course I always have to insert a caveat here. If the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders all bets are off, I’m not confident he can beat Trump. 
Click to expand...
Who exactly are you confident can beat Trump?  Hope you don't think Warren is one of them.  If memory serves you thought Harris could beat Trump.  My guess is that Biden is your guy and is the best of the bad candidates.  Good luck with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
Yes.  The defense read the transcipt.  There was a mention of "Thanks for the Javelin missles" which they already had.  And then Trump went into please do us a favor.  But the House has left that part out over and over because it doesn't fit the hoax narrative they need you to believe. 
Click to expand...
No, it was "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States", which throws an entirely different light on the "do us a favor" line. I guess the defense left out that part because it didn't fit the hoax narrative they need you to believe.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
Who exactly are you confident can beat Trump?  Hope you don't think Warren is one of them.  If memory serves you thought Harris could beat Trump.  My guess is that Biden is your guy and is the best of the bad candidates.  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Thank you. If Biden is the candidate not too much luck will be necessary but even so I appreciate the good thoughts. 

 
cosjobs said:
At this point, they almost have to.

otoh, Roberts seems to be a pretty fair and square guy. I think he may be repulsed by what he is witnessing and become a leading voice of sanity in curtaining some of the voter suppression monkey business.
Click to expand...
Didn't he just sign off on a supreme court opinion that allows for gutting protection against voter suppression? 

 
timschochet said:
Of course it’s evident. 70% of the public wants witnesses. And look what happened in 2018. 

Some of you guys are so negative. Trump’s victory in 2016 was an anomaly. The public isn’t going to put with this crap for another 4 years. Have a little more faith. 
Click to expand...
Whether people want witnesses or not is irrelevant to whether they'll vote for Trump again. Who knows how many of those 70% want Biden and Schiff to be called?

Trump isn't an anomaly, he's just the next step in a trend that began a while ago. The Republican party has come to be comprised of those in on the grift, those who think they're in on the grift, those who want to be in on the grift, and those that are getting grifted. That last segment is getting used to keep the rest in power. And to do so, their credulity, lack of critical thinking and lack of objectivity are being exploited. Not only is that segment of the public going to put up with this crap, they're demanding it wholeheartedly. Millions of them. Why on earth would I have faith that the thing that's already happened isn't going to happen again?

 
timschochet said:
He will lose the electoral college as well. 

Of course I always have to insert a caveat here. If the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders all bets are off, I’m not confident he can beat Trump. 
Click to expand...
I feel like Sanders has the greatest chance at beating Trump, due to increased voter turn out of 18-29 year olds and other demographics that are strongly Democratic leaning, but generally don't show up for elections much. I think Biden would have the opposite effect.

 
jm192 said:
It is an awful shame that becoming a democratic candidate for President makes you immune.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Unlike you, I only want people investigated when there is a good reason to do so and not just because someone is crabby and says so. It has been pointed out a thousand times yet you keep on keeping on.

Here in the United States we don't open up criminal investigations into political opponents simply because they ate political opponents. 

 
the moops said:
Sigh.

Unlike you, I only want people investigated when there is a good reason to do so and not just because someone is crabby and says so. It has been pointed out a thousand times yet you keep on keeping on.

Here in the United States we don't open up criminal investigations into political opponents simply because they ate political opponents. 
Click to expand...
If there was evidence someone ate a political opponent, I'd definitely want that investigated.

 
huthut said:
timschochet said:
He will lose the electoral college as well. 

Of course I always have to insert a caveat here. If the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders all bets are off, I’m not confident he can beat Trump. 
Click to expand...
I feel like Sanders has the greatest chance at beating Trump, due to increased voter turn out of 18-29 year olds and other demographics that are strongly Democratic leaning, but generally don't show up for elections much. I think Biden would have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...
Not to go all the way back to McGovern, but liberal youngsters don't have a reputation for being reliable voters, even when they're allegedly excited about "their" candidate.

 
timschochet said:
Of course I always have to insert a caveat here. If the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders all bets are off, I’m not confident he can beat Trump. 
Click to expand...
The only way to beat Trump is to nominate a progressive. In the 20 years since Bush/Gore the only democrat who's won was Obama and that's because he ran a progressive campaign. (He turned out to be a centrist but that's for another thread.) Kerry was centrist/ran to the middle in the general and lost to an extremely unpopular incumbent. Hillary was a centrist and blew the easiest election lay-up ever. Nominating a centrist like Biden would be repeating the mistakes of 2004 and 2016. He will not excite the masses to the polls like a progressive will. When turn-out is high, the democrats usually win. How many more blown lay-ups by the dems will it take before you can see this?

 
apalmer said:
BladeRunner said:
You see, actually he does. I guess we'll never know until we investigate, huh?  We should start a fishing trip I bet we'll find something!
Click to expand...
Congratulations. You have clearly shown exactly why Trump wanted an investigation announced by Ukraine. Trump merely saying there should be an investigation, with absolutely no basis, is now enough to cause you to view Biden as having "dark clouds" over him.
Click to expand...
Yep.  Trump's baseless claim at the heart of this is still getting repeated here.

 
I listened to that Lev Parnas tape last night. The scariest thing about it is how a fringey character like Parnas can just blurt out 10 seconds of hearsay and Trump, without consulting with anyone or checking any facts, impulsively orders a diplomat and patriot like Yovanovitch to be fired. She said that? She doesn't like me? Get here out of there! Pathetic. Imagine how many other times this guy has been so easily influenced by God knows who to make a rash decision.

 
Nipsey said:
I listened to that Lev Parnas tape last night. The scariest thing about it is how a fringey character like Parnas can just blurt out 10 seconds of hearsay and Trump, without consulting with anyone or checking any facts, impulsively orders a diplomat and patriot like Yovanovitch to be fired. She said that? She doesn't like me? Get here out of there! Pathetic. Imagine how many other times this guy has been so easily influenced by God knows who to make a rash decision.
Click to expand...
It’s true, he’s easily manipulable.

 
Nipsey said:
I listened to that Lev Parnas tape last night. The scariest thing about it is how a fringey character like Parnas can just blurt out 10 seconds of hearsay and Trump, without consulting with anyone or checking any facts, impulsively orders a diplomat and patriot like Yovanovitch to be fired. She said that? She doesn't like me? Get here out of there! Pathetic. Imagine how many other times this guy has been so easily influenced by God knows who to make a rash decision.
Click to expand...
What's really crazy is he doesn't even know the guy. 

 
Henry Ford said:
It gets pretty religious here, but I’m not sure I’d call the place Jesusguys. 
Click to expand...
Jesusguys.com with their weekly podcast “the homily.” For a more in depth look at fantasy religion topics listen to “on the pew.” Also has a great app for the daily guidepost player. Can Peter crack the top 5? Weekly confession: why I drafted Hinduism no 1 overall.
 

“DOMINATE YOUR AFTERLIFE!”

 
huthut said:
I feel like Sanders has the greatest chance at beating Trump, due to increased voter turn out of 18-29 year olds and other demographics that are strongly Democratic leaning, but generally don't show up for elections much. I think Biden would have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...
You think those types are going to carry Some combo of  Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina?

 
jm192 said:
Did Biden influence US policy to protect himself and his son?  

A lawyer with ZERO experience in the area that just happens to be the son of the VP of the United States?  Weird how coincidens don't exists for Republicans but they sure can for the Bidens.
Click to expand...
I am not saying it wasn’t strange nor would I have an issue with an investigation through proper channels. That would definitely not include or necessitate President Zelensky making an announcement on CNN but rather President Trump asking proper US authorities (FBI and DOJ?) to investigate without making any announcement they are doing so. It also would be ok for the FBI to ask and receive assistance from Ukraine authorities to aid in the investigation 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m looking forward to the evidence the Trump defense team will put forward next week to fill us all in on everything Trump and his team have done to pursue the very credible theory of Biden Ukraine corruption after the whistleblower came forward. 

i bet there has been a flurry of activity in these last few months to get to the bottom of it and protect the country against this very real corruption threat.  

 
In listening to the defense yesterday, a couple thoughts bubbled up: 1) They were not as bombastic as I expected and they at least appeared to want to stick to facts. 2) I think that they did present facts (especially when they played the witness testimonies knocking the notion of a quid pro quo) although many of them were either immaterial to the case or they were distortions. But because they went down that path and talked about how little direct contact those folks had with DJT, the need for documents and more witnesses became more apparent. This article summarizes what I was thinking: https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-having-field-day-trumps-211241333.html  3) They kept harping on the fact that the House managers spent over 21 hours to make their case and that they weren't going to spend that much time on defense. That sounded petty to me, childish really, and underscored how little substance is in the defense, 4) I thought it was silly that they attacked the managers for only playing clips of witnessed that supported the prosecution side of the case and not the clips that would benefit the defense. No duh. What lawyer says, oh wait, let me temper that testimony by showing you this other stuff that is either neutral or in opposition to the case I'm trying to make? Seemed like a ridiculous point but they made it several times. 5) Jay Sekulow has a dreamy  voice--powerful yet warm. I enjoyed the tone of what he said even if the content was specious. 6) Maybe making Trump out to be the victim works with his base or some independents but I would think that's actually not an effective strategy. He so baldly attacks people that painting him as the victim appeared desperate and just untrue. 7) I was a bit surprised that they claimed the President did absolutely nothing wrong. I assumed they would cop to a few missteps and then say those were not impeachable. But instead they're going for complete innocence which stretches credulity, to be kind. I suppose that when the Senate allows Trump to walk, he can take the language from his lawyers and claim "see, they said I did absolutely nothing wrong and they acquitted me so that proves it." Makes sense even though I think one would need to contort one's mind into a pretzel to believe that he did nothing wrong.

 
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
18K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
18K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
9K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top