Jackstraw
Footballguy
Well they could but I don't think they will. I don't think they will if they had video and a recorded phone call of him rolling in the 400 million and laughing in Zelensky's face.
I've been peevish. Sorry man.
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*** (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
I've been peevish. Sorry man.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
It's not good for the country to publicly launch investigations into private citizens who haven't been accused of violating any laws or procedures.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Indeed, we shouldn't be losing track of this point. It's not business as usual. It's the President of the United States unfairly using the power of his office to discredit, maybe fraudulently, a political rival. That should never be acceptable in this country.
Widbil83
Footballguy
This guy will probably come out next week when President Trump is pardoning Gobbles the Turkey at the White House and say it’s more damning than Watergate. You can’t just continually say this over and over again. Do you guys not see how Watergate Dean, Schiff and others have become complete parodies of themselves?
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
Yes, Let us focus our energies on the person who pulled the fire alarm... all the while we see growing billows of smoke coming from the very building in which the alarm was triggered.
Dickies
Footballguy
It's almost like they prefer the house to burn down before turning their attention to the fire.
If I were the Dems - at some point, when the testifying is over, I would create a 2-hour prime-time special, where the best litigator they have makes the closing argument to the people.
The Dems need to have the floor to make their case - tell the story, point to the evidence, point to the lack of witnesses from Trump - everything an attorney would do in a closing argument before a jury.
Its simply too difficult to tell the story piecemeal, or to simply sit in your chair and make a statement. There needs to be visuals - that highlight specific testimony that fits the narrative - and it needs to be a coherent story - from start to finish. I'd have clips of Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo - in addition to clips from the live testimony.
The case is there to be made - but you have to tell the story. You can't expect the public to see things they way you see them - unless you give the public that narrative.
The Dems need to have the floor to make their case - tell the story, point to the evidence, point to the lack of witnesses from Trump - everything an attorney would do in a closing argument before a jury.
Its simply too difficult to tell the story piecemeal, or to simply sit in your chair and make a statement. There needs to be visuals - that highlight specific testimony that fits the narrative - and it needs to be a coherent story - from start to finish. I'd have clips of Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo - in addition to clips from the live testimony.
The case is there to be made - but you have to tell the story. You can't expect the public to see things they way you see them - unless you give the public that narrative.
Widbil83
Footballguy
It’s the reason we’re here. Again, why the flip flop from Schiff? Most of us know the answer, and another poster in this thread even linked the story last month.
Here is he original story-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3811971002
Here is Schiff flip flopping and the likely reason why posted here last month-
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18/adam-schiff-flip-flopped-on-whistleblower-testimony-after-reports-of-coordination/
Team Trump has no answer for this combo:
This is essentially acknowledging that the work Giuliani was doing was "solely" for the benefit of his client. That removes some of the arguments that have been raised in the last few pages about whether it could be a benefit to the US and Trump. When Trump directed Ukraine to meet with Giuliani - he was saying meet with my personal lawyer, for my personal benefit.
The GOP tried to make the "irregular" channels seem normal - but these were not "irregular" government channels. Rudy was acting "solely" as a defense attorney.
This is essentially acknowledging that the work Giuliani was doing was "solely" for the benefit of his client. That removes some of the arguments that have been raised in the last few pages about whether it could be a benefit to the US and Trump. When Trump directed Ukraine to meet with Giuliani - he was saying meet with my personal lawyer, for my personal benefit.
The GOP tried to make the "irregular" channels seem normal - but these were not "irregular" government channels. Rudy was acting "solely" as a defense attorney.
cosjobs
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Agreed with everything until you got to the bolded part. There you fall into the same trap all of us here nearly without exception, myself included, has fallen into at times: we think the public has been paying attention as much as we have.
Let's look at some statistics:
1. 138 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election:
https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/post-election-2016/voter-turnout
2. Fox News averages 2.3 million viewers a night. MSNBC 1.5 million. CNN 744,000:
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-beats-cnn-msnbc-combined-in-ratings-tops-all-of-cable
You add that up, that's 4.5 million people that watch the cable shows on a regular basis. (I'm going to assume, with good reason, that includes most of us.) That means that 97% of the people who will vote for President in 2020 aren't paying attention to any of this on the regular basis that we are. They're not watching Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN. If they get any news at all, they're getting headlines.
3. Now 5.3 million watch the nightly network news:
https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/network-news/
We can assume that at least some of these 5.3 million are the same folks who are watching the cable news. But for the purposes of this discussion, lets not. That makes 9.8 million, let's round it up to 10 million people we can consider "reasonably informed". Still less than 10% of the voters.
4. Now, at the moment, we do not know how many people are watching these impeachment hearings. But since they are being shown on every network, as well as social media, we can assume that it will be high. We can also make a reasonable comparison: 20 million people watched the Christine Blasey Ford testimony:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-tv-factbox/factbox-trump-impeachment-hearings-likely-to-draw-high-ratings-in-new-era-of-political-tv-idUSKBN1XI1EJ
I would assume, reasonably, that MORE people will watch these hearings. True, it doesn't involve sex or rape, but it does involve President Trump, who gets extremely high ratings. But lets stick with the 20 million figure. That means 10 million people who haven't been paying attention are doing so now. And they're not watching the Fox or MSNBC or CNN shows to tell them what to think. As for the rest of the 140 million voters? Their impressions will largely be based on word of mouth.
Do you guys see why I have been saying these hearings will change everything? They probably already have.
Because that would be improper, and Barr might say no because he doesn't have $400 million riding on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
And these impeachment hearings are part of the reason for that. Every day this is in the news is another opportunity for Republicans to get free publicity that puts Biden in a negative light.
timschochet
Footballguy
I know you believe this. I believe the reason we're here is because President Trump committed a high crime.
There was a school shooting this morning in Santa Clarita. The reason we know about that shooting, initially, is because somebody probably called 911. I really don't need to know anything about the person who called 911, including his or her identity. I'm focused on the victims, and the shooter.
timschochet
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Perhaps this is why there is such support for these tactics in GOP circles? Let's be honest, it's been one party that has gone to great lengths to disenfranchise voters and fix the system in a many to get and retain power at the expense of both the public will, and democracy as a whole. If you need to lie, Cheat, and steal to get your judges and boost that 401k, that's just the cost of doing business.
More important than the testimony of the two witnesses who overheard the Sondland-Trump call is that it will put pressure on Sondland. He clearly doesn’t want to betray Trump but he also doesn’t want to go to prison for perjury. He leaves out details until he knows he can’t. This might be one of those times and might be the direct connection to Trump that’s missing.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
2. The same 4.5 million people don't watch those shows every night, those are averages. The total number who watched any of those shows at at some point in a week is likely far higher than 4.5 million. Also, what about ratings for conservative talk radio, for example? Why are you ignoring those people?
3. Same here. Also, lots of the most informed people don't watch TV news at all -- they read newspapers or online. Your numbers grossly underestimate the number of Americans paying some level of attention.
4. The hearing with Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford was dramatic. I don't expect the ratings for these hearings to reach those numbers but I guess we'll find out soon enough. In my view the people watching the impeachment hearings are, by and large, the people who have already been paying attention.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Holy crap, 5 million people are still watching network nightly news? I thought all those people had died years ago.
How are the Big 3 doing with their delivery? Do they have their stuff together?
How are the Big 3 doing with their delivery? Do they have their stuff together?
Zow
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
First off I think we will find that the people who listen to talk radio (mostly conservative) are the same folks who watch Fox News. But let’s say they’re not- even if I tripled the number it would still be a small minority of the voters.
As far as newspaper readers, sadly that number is small and goes down every year. Of all the “informed” people about the news, these are likely to be the most informed.
Your last point in the most important. We will have to wait to see the numbers. But even if I accepted your argument that there won’t be a lot of “new” viewers, that still means that the vast majority of voters aren’t getting their news from any of the sources we get them from. So how do they form an impression of impeachment? My guess is by word of mouth, headlines, glimpses of the news now and then. And I think that’s terribly bad for Trump in this instance.
cosjobs
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Godsbrother
Footballguy
We watch the ABC Nightly News most evenings (my wife loves David Muir). I think they try to provide a balanced report but most of their political correspondents definitely lean left.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It's only bad for Trump if these little glimpses are bad for Trump. Given the bubbles we all tend to live in both online and off line, it's by no means clear to me that's what they'll see.
Last edited by a moderator:
cosjobs
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Now imagine it's:
Bill says "John says it rained yesterday. So then I asked nine other people - Sally, Janie, Wilma, Fredo, Jamilia, Danielle, Chuck, Carmina, and the guy who runs the National Weather Service. They all agreed that it rained yesterday."
Which is better evidence that it rained yesterday, John the Liar's testimony, or Bill's?
Does it matter what the testimony is for? For instance, if the case is about whether Bill brought an umbrella in order to assault his boss or because he was reasonably afraid it might rain again, does that make a difference compared to if the case is about whether John lied about it raining? What if John's testimony is that there was no rain, there has never been rain, and there's no reason he should be required to answer any more of these questions about rain? And then Bill's testimony is that John said it rained yesterday? What if the case is against the raindrops, no one can get the rain on record, and now John, the rain's on again and off again lover who can't bear to see the rain in prison says he never said it rained? And then you bring in Bill and Bill says "ohhhhh, no. John said that yesterday." Is Bill's testimony about what John said as good as or better than John's? I would venture to say it may well be.
cosjobs
Footballguy
More importantly, no one should ever call a witness if they do not know what they are going to say. Closed door allows that.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
cosjobs
Footballguy
munga30
Checkin' my email
KCitons
Footballguy
This is the only way my wife obtains her information. Well, except what I share with her. I stream other news sources, but she hates technology.
To be fair, her favorite shows are soap operas.
MAC_32
Footballguy
NBC certainly leans left and they're only allowed to speak about what their corporate overloads approve, but all things considered I think they're doing alright. I certainly don't watch it for a deep dive, but I think it's important to be aware of what the masses are being exposed to.
Related note, I miss Shep Smith.
KCitons
Footballguy
Over/under on how long it will take someone to ask if she has an axe to grind, and that's why she's testifying?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Pelosi: "If the president has something that is exculpatory…"
*Pauses mid-sentence to look directly at the camera*
"Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence…"
*looks back at reporters*
"Then he should make that known."
via Mother Jones
*Pauses mid-sentence to look directly at the camera*
"Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence…"
*looks back at reporters*
"Then he should make that known."
via Mother Jones
cosjobs
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I think a good guideline is Good Morning America. Top rated morning show, they spend about 5 minutes or less on the news headlines, while the rest of the show is dedicated to entertainment news and guests. Here was the news headline this morning as best as I can remember: "Witnesses present damning picture"
There's your glimpse.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
"Damn right I'm ticked off. But I just swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the threat of perjury - which is more than the President of the United States is willing to do."*
*not a real quote, just my fantasy of how I wish someone would answer this type of question.
Bill's, but that's cheating. I'm also more likely to believe Cindy if she says "Mary says hi" than I am to believe Mary if she says "I flew to the moon and back yesterday and then constructed a medium-size mountain in the desert." But that's not apples to apples in any meaningful way.
When someone says that hearsay can be better than direct testimony, for that claim to be interesting at all, they have to be talking about testimony on the same subject, and how adding a layer of hearsay can make it more credible than the original claim was without the added layer. So "B says A says X" is more reliable than "A says X."
The only example I can think of where that might be true is some kind of artificial liar's paradox where A lies half the time, and B lies if and only if A lies.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Morton Muffley
Footballguy
I'll take Devin Numbskull <2 minutes into his opening statement. Let me know where I can pick up my prize.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
But we aren't in a hypothetical world. We're in a world where the person Taylor's talking about has already had to amend his testimony because he realized someone else told Congress things he "forgot." When Taylor says Sondland told him Trump or Giuliani did or said X, it's better evidence than Sondland saying "no, we didn't."
Similar threads
