Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Wait- so now there is a second witness to the cell phone call between Trump and Sondland?

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/14/us/politics/ap-us-trump-impeachment-kyiv-call.html

So much for hearsay.

So..... what does everyone think the chances are that Sondland did this call with Trump on speakerphone in the middle of a restaurant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

So..... what does everyone think the chances are that Sondland did this call with Trump on speakerphone in the middle of a restaurant?

Why do you think this took place in the middle of a restaurant as opposed to in a separate room, reserved for the US Ambassador to the EU to dine in peace and quiet?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

na....we're here because people have been talking about Trump's behavior on a phone call with Ukraine and how they thought it was beyond what the law allows and an individual decided to report it.  The report was reviewed and deemed credible as well as urgent and then sent on up the chain.  That whistle blower process reviews dozens of claims a week (I'm guessing) from various different sources.  THAT is why we're here.

Well there's that, and now the person that deemed it creditable is most likely going to be fired.  Maybe we need whistle blower claim reviewer protection along with WB protection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Mookie said:

What gets me is how #######g stupid these guys are.  Calling the POTUS from a restaurant in Kiev on your cell phone, not to mention amplifying the call so that others in this public restaurant can listen in?  I guess they don't care that Russia's listening because Russia is our friend but talk about your security breaches from the guys who LOVE to talk about the critical need for secure communications....  Heck, maybe the hearsay crowd can get a transcript of the call from the Russians and do us all a solid.

Don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Speaker Pelosi: "If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means do you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known ... So far, we haven't seen that, but we welcome it."

We all laugh at the little dig at Trump - but I hope we, collectively, do not gloss over the main point here.

 

If Trump has evidence that he acted properly in withholding financial and military aid - including witnesses and documents - he should produce them.  The absence of such evidence being offered by Trump, should concern his supporters who are relying on procedural defenses rather than a robust factual defense.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, msommer said:

Why do you think this took place in the middle of a restaurant as opposed to in a separate room, reserved for the US Ambassador to the EU to dine in peace and quiet?

I guess I have a picture in my head of a bustling restaurant in Kiev with these guys at a table and Sondland picking up his personal cell phone and very loudly saying "Hold on a second Mr. President. Let me put you on speakerphone." And then proceeding to discuss sensitive US foreign policy.

They could have been in a private room, but I think at this point it seems likely to me that they were on speaker for two people at the table to both overhear the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

I guess I have a picture in my head of a bustling restaurant in Kiev with these guys at a table and Sondland picking up his personal cell phone and very loudly saying "Hold on a second Mr. President. Let me put you on speakerphone." And then proceeding to discuss sensitive US foreign policy.

They could have been in a private room, but I think at this point it seems likely to me that they were on speaker for two people at the table to both overhear the conversation.

The how will resolve itself. The content may not. But, I don't think we need to spend all the energy on the how while ignoring the real issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JbizzleMan said:

Nikki Haley on CNN says because the aid eventually came it is not an impeachable offense.

Lost a good deal of respect for someone I thought had some independence left.  She is a smart woman and should (imo does) know better.

Count her among the many I can't ever see myself voting for nor supporting as I can trust neither her judgement, character, nor loyalties (as in they don't seem to lean toward truth and national interests).

Edited by Koya
  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

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.

Hosted by Waler White and Cersei Lannister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Commish said:

yes...covered earlier in the thread...why do you guys think the GOP is banging the "hearsay" drum so loud?  This is distraction 101 stuff.

Wait, so it's hearsay?  I thought the whistleblower needed to be exposed?  No, wait....the whistleblower is fake.  Or are these proceedings too boring to watch?

Seriously....if people don't see the level of desperation and the moving target of talking points of the GOP, well, that's just.....what's the word for it?  Oh yeah...Sad.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

But unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks into his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs.

“If he is subpoenaed, he will appear,” Sandy’s lawyer, Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder said Thursday evening.

Sandy is expected to testify during a closed-door deposition, which is not open to the public. Typically, witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have been served with subpoenas immediately before their depositions are scheduled to begin, an approach Democrats say is designed to give them cover against an administration that has ordered officials not to comply with the inquiry.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

But unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks into his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs.

“If he is subpoenaed, he will appear,” Sandy’s lawyer, Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder said Thursday evening.

Sandy is expected to testify during a closed-door deposition, which is not open to the public. Typically, witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have been served with subpoenas immediately before their depositions are scheduled to begin, an approach Democrats say is designed to give them cover against an administration that has ordered officials not to comply with the inquiry.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/

What's the nickname Trump will pick for him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per two sources familiar, including one Ukrainian official on the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, the Ukrainians had no idea what Trump was talking about when he mentioned Crowdstrike, and had to Google it afterwards.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conspiracy-theory-so-far-out-there-even-trumps-biggest-defenders-are-walking-away-from-it

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

 


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.

The somewhat ironic thing is most of the folks at FBGs on both sides will be ok with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

A longtime career employee at the White House Office of Management and Budget is expected to break ranks and testify Saturday in the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, potentially filling in important details on the hold-up of military aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy would be the first OMB employee to testify in the inquiry, after OMB acting director Russell T. Vought and two other political appointees at the agency defied congressional subpoenas to appear. The White House has called the impeachment inquiry unconstitutional and ordered administration officials not to participate.

But unlike these other OMB officials, Sandy is a career employee, not one appointed by the president. He has worked at the agency off and on for over a decade, under presidents of both parties, climbing the ranks into his current role as deputy associate director for national security programs.

“If he is subpoenaed, he will appear,” Sandy’s lawyer, Barbara “Biz” Van Gelder said Thursday evening.

Sandy is expected to testify during a closed-door deposition, which is not open to the public. Typically, witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have been served with subpoenas immediately before their depositions are scheduled to begin, an approach Democrats say is designed to give them cover against an administration that has ordered officials not to comply with the inquiry.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/11/14/career-white-house-budget-official-expected-break-ranks-testify-impeachment-inquiry/

There's a pattern developing.

Edited by KCitons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1:  Those guys can't be bank robbers -- they didn't steal any money.

#2:  They had masks and uzis and gave the teller a note that said "give us all your money".

#1:  Yeah, but they didn't actually steal any money.

#2:  That's because the police burst in and stopped the theft.

#1:  Not a dime was stolen.

It's easy and entertaining to poke fun at Jim Jordan's stupid arguments, but the one above takes the cake.*

*Please note:  this is not Jim Jordan's verbatim stupid argument.  The crime has been changed to show just how stupid Jim Jordan's argument really is.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

#1:  Those guys can't be bank robbers -- they didn't steal any money.

#2:  They had masks and uzis and gave the teller a note that said "give us all your money".

#1:  Yeah, but they didn't actually steal any money.

#2:  That's because the police burst in and stopped the theft.

#1:  Not a dime was stolen.

It's easy and entertaining to poke fun at Jim Jordan's stupid arguments, but the one above takes the cake.*

*Please note:  this is not Jim Jordan's verbatim stupid argument.  The crime has been changed to show just how stupid Jim Jordan's argument really is.

You forgot to put #1's statements in ALL CAPS!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

#1:  Those guys can't be bank robbers -- they didn't steal any money.

#2:  They had masks and uzis and gave the teller a note that said "give us all your money".

#1:  Yeah, but they didn't actually steal any money.

#2:  That's because the police burst in and stopped the theft.

#1:  Not a dime was stolen.

It's easy and entertaining to poke fun at Jim Jordan's stupid arguments, but the one above takes the cake.*

*Please note:  this is not Jim Jordan's verbatim stupid argument.  The crime has been changed to show just how stupid Jim Jordan's argument really is.

The trick is say it really fast and loudly and end with questions that you know can’t or won’t  be answered.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The General said:

The trick is say it really fast and loudly and end with questions that you know can’t or won’t  be answered.

Are you telling this Congress you expect us to believe your testimony here today when you can’t even tell us what the square root of pi is?!?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, KCitons said:
38 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:


#1:  Those guys can't be bank robbers -- they didn't steal any money.

#2:  They had masks and uzis and gave the teller a note that said "give us all your money".

#1:  Yeah, but they didn't actually steal any money.

#2:  That's because the police burst in and stopped the theft.

#1:  Not a dime was stolen.

It's easy and entertaining to poke fun at Jim Jordan's stupid arguments, but the one above takes the cake.*

*Please note:  this is not Jim Jordan's verbatim stupid argument.  The crime has been changed to show just how stupid Jim Jordan's argument really is.

You forgot to put #1's statements in ALL CAPS

Also "what if they didn't have masks and uzis?". 

Edited by Sheriff Bart
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’d be OK with Biden losing the election, not because you disagree with him or think he’d be a poor candidate, but because of false rumors spread by Trump and conservatives? 

Sorry, I don’t think I was clear.  I meant that both sides don’t want him to be the nominee - generally speaking.  The Republicans because he’s the one they think would give Trump the most trouble.  The Democrats because he’s either not progressive enough or too old or whatever.

Trump and his supporters will spread false rumors about the Democratic candidate no matter who it is so that’s a wash, IMO.

ETA - I reread my other post a third time and realized I really botched my post.  I never meant that folks are okay with Biden being falsely attacked.  I meant most here don’t want him as the nominee.  Sorry Tim for my poor wording.

Edited by AAABatteries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

#1:  Those guys can't be bank robbers -- they didn't steal any money.

#2:  They had masks and uzis and gave the teller a note that said "give us all your money".

#1:  Yeah, but they didn't actually steal any money.

#2:  That's because the police burst in and stopped the theft.

#1:  Not a dime was stolen.

It's easy and entertaining to poke fun at Jim Jordan's stupid arguments, but the one above takes the cake.*

*Please note:  this is not Jim Jordan's verbatim stupid argument.  The crime has been changed to show just how stupid Jim Jordan's argument really is.

Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

No.

Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?

Uh uh.

And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?

I guess that's okay.

Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime?

Hell, no!

  • Like 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClownCausedChaos2 said:
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

yes...covered earlier in the thread...why do you guys think the GOP is banging the "hearsay" drum so loud?  This is distraction 101 stuff.

Wait, so it's hearsay?  I thought the whistleblower needed to be exposed?  No, wait....the whistleblower is fake.  Or are these proceedings too boring to watch?

Seriously....if people don't see the level of desperation and the moving target of talking points of the GOP, well, that's just.....what's the word for it?  Oh yeah...Sad.

I ran out of room in my single subject notebook trying to keep up with the talking point and I can't afford the 5 subject, so I'm going to have to rely on you guys to help me out!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Per two sources familiar, including one Ukrainian official on the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, the Ukrainians had no idea what Trump was talking about when he mentioned Crowdstrike, and had to Google it afterwards.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conspiracy-theory-so-far-out-there-even-trumps-biggest-defenders-are-walking-away-from-it

This will be their next talking point....bank on it :moneybag:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Per two sources familiar, including one Ukrainian official on the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, the Ukrainians had no idea what Trump was talking about when he mentioned Crowdstrike, and had to Google it afterwards.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-conspiracy-theory-so-far-out-there-even-trumps-biggest-defenders-are-walking-away-from-it

Real Alice in Wonderland stuff. Carroll & Swift would just nod.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I would vote for Belichek or Jerry Jones before Trump. 

I’d vote for Jerry Jones over Trump even if Jason Garrett was his VP, Dennis Rodman his Secretary of State, Adam Gase his chief strategist and Jeff Fisher his chief of staff.  

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

And they could propose having the entirety of the Houston Astros management to their cabinet during their campaign. 

If the Astros management worked for Trump, instead of sending messages by banging on cans they could just use dog whistles instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has filed a motion to dismiss Kupperman’s declaratory judgement action. Essentially claiming presidents absolute immunity is just that - absolute. And nobody, including the courts can interfere. 
 

it has some interesting procedural stuff in there - but I am too tired to really dig in to see how much merit it holds. 
 

if I had to guess - we will not be hearing from Kupperman (or Bolton) in the impeachment inquiry because the Dems will move forward without waiting on the courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Trump has filed a motion to dismiss Kupperman’s declaratory judgement action. Essentially claiming presidents absolute immunity is just that - absolute. And nobody, including the courts can interfere. 
 

it has some interesting procedural stuff in there - but I am too tired to really dig in to see how much merit it holds. 
 

if I had to guess - we will not be hearing from Kupperman (or Bolton) in the impeachment inquiry because the Dems will move forward without waiting on the courts. 

This sounds like some Dungeons and Dragons fabricated nerd ####.

Jim Jordan makes a lot more sense when you imagine him parroting, "Lightning bolt, lightning bolt."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Trump has filed a motion to dismiss Kupperman’s declaratory judgement action. Essentially claiming presidents absolute immunity is just that - absolute. And nobody, including the courts can interfere. 
 

it has some interesting procedural stuff in there - but I am too tired to really dig in to see how much merit it holds. 
 

if I had to guess - we will not be hearing from Kupperman (or Bolton) in the impeachment inquiry because the Dems will move forward without waiting on the courts. 

So once again Trump is above the law.  Yesterday multiple supporters of Trump in Congreff stated "nobody is above the law".   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

I ran out of room in my single subject notebook trying to keep up with the talking point and I can't afford the 5 subject, so I'm going to have to rely on you guys to help me out!!

I stumbled across a stack of 5-subject binders in the office supply closet.  I grabbed five, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in an interesting twist, the House filed its own Motion to Dismiss - asserting that the case is Moot in light of the House withdrawing the subpoena to Kupperman. 
 

that suggests to me that the WH was looking to delay the process in the courts, while the House was looking to move forward without the courts. 
 

it’s a risky strategy for both sides, but I think this is an indication the House is not trying to win the impeachment process - merely show that they did something. 

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...