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*** (2 Viewers)

Let's list the facts shall we. 

1) Not one witness alleges quid quo pro in regards to military aid or bribery

2) Aid was delivered and no investigation into Burisma took place

3) Only person who spoke to Trump, aka first hand witness, testified Trump told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, no quid quo pro.

4) transcript of call does not show any wrongdoing 

Game over
1) incorrect

2) doesn't matter. Attempting a crime is still a crime.

3) Trump also said tell Z to "do the right thing". Also the aides closest to Trump have been barred from testifying.

4) incorrect

Game over. Yeah almost. On the House side anyways.

 
1) incorrect

2) doesn't matter. Attempting a crime is still a crime.

3) Trump also said tell Z to "do the right thing". Also the aides closest to Trump have been barred from testifying.

4) incorrect

Game over. Yeah almost. On the House side anyways.
It would help if you watched the hearings and didn't get your info from CNN.  All my facts are correct.

 
So it’s a game?


Let's list the facts shall we. 

1) Not one witness alleges quid quo pro in regards to military aid or bribery

2) Aid was delivered and no investigation into Burisma took place

3) Only person who spoke to Trump, aka first hand witness, testified Trump told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, no quid quo pro.

4) transcript of call does not show any wrongdoing 

Game over

 
So it’s a game?


Let's list the facts shall we. 

1) Not one witness alleges quid quo pro in regards to military aid or bribery

2) Aid was delivered and no investigation into Burisma took place

3) Only person who spoke to Trump, aka first hand witness, testified Trump told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, no quid quo pro.

4) transcript of call does not show any wrongdoing 

Game over
Maybe John B has Noonan on ignore.

 
Is it driving anyone else crazy that republicans keep trashing Obama for not giving weapons to THE PREVIOUS administration that was known to be very corrupt while at the same time acting like they are heroes for giving to the NEW administration that is known to NOT be corrupt while also charging the Hunter is up to something fishy because of rampant corruption in the Ukraine?

 
Also I use this word in the loosest terms in describing Joe Biden.  
eh?

He was then, and still is, leading national polls for the Democratic Nomination for President.  His RCP average is 12 points ahead of Warren in 2nd place - today.  In early May, Biden was 27 points ahead of Sanders in 2nd place.

 
Is it driving anyone else crazy that republicans keep trashing Obama for not giving weapons to THE PREVIOUS administration that was known to be very corrupt while at the same time acting like they are heroes for giving to the NEW administration that is known to NOT be corrupt while also charging the Hunter is up to something fishy because of rampant corruption in the Ukraine?
Eh, yeah, and I think Trump suffers from that too, which is that by and large - as Holmes indicated Sondland told him - they do not give a flip about the actual situation there. So they don't bother to understand it. - It's not an insult, I'm not dragging anyone, but it's a feature of this administration, and it's kind of the point. It's about Trump, not Ukraine.

 
Is it driving anyone else crazy that republicans keep trashing Obama for not giving weapons to THE PREVIOUS administration that was known to be very corrupt while at the same time acting like they are heroes for giving to the NEW administration that is known to NOT be corrupt while also charging the Hunter is up to something fishy because of rampant corruption in the Ukraine?
Eh, yeah, and I think Trump suffers from that too, which is that by and large - as Holmes indicated Sondland told him - they do not give a flip about the actual situation there. So they don't bother to understand it. - It's not an insult, I'm not dragging anyone, but it's a feature of this administration, and it's kind of the point. It's about Trump, not Ukraine.
Oh, as I'm learning now the Obama administration provided a ton more than just blankets as republican members have inferred a dozen times in these hearings.  Shame on me, I should know better than to believe them.

 
Oh, as I'm learning now the Obama administration provided a ton more than just blankets as republican members have inferred a dozen times in these hearings.  Shame on me, I should know better than to believe them.
I would have left Schiff to just briefly refute the points in one of his closing arguments instead of giving it air time with the witnesses as if it matters at all.

 
Is it driving anyone else crazy that republicans keep trashing Obama for not giving weapons to THE PREVIOUS administration that was known to be very corrupt while at the same time acting like they are heroes for giving to the NEW administration that is known to NOT be corrupt while also charging the Hunter is up to something fishy because of rampant corruption in the Ukraine?
Hadn't really thought of it this way.

 
I just have to say that my favorite part of today was Trump coming out and saying “I don’t really know him (Sonland), we’ve only spoken a couple of times.  He supported someone else during the election.”

1. You appointed him ambassador to the EU but barely know him?

2. He had to get a jab in about supporting someone else. It’s always about him. Cracks me up. 

 
Let's list the facts shall we. 

1) Not one witness alleges quid quo pro in regards to military aid or bribery

2) Aid was delivered and no investigation into Burisma took place

3) Only person who spoke to Trump, aka first hand witness, testified Trump told him he wanted nothing from Ukraine, no quid quo pro.

4) transcript of call does not show any wrongdoing 

Game over
Narrator:  They were caught.  The gig was up. 

 
Dr. Fiona Hill - who the Dems presumably thought would be their closer

And, David Holmes, who overheard the phone conversation with Sondland and Trump (and which Sondland now acknowledges)
At this point, does anyone anticipate additional new information from these two, or will it just be confirmation of what we already know/have heard?

 
At this point, does anyone anticipate additional new information from these two, or will it just be confirmation of what we already know/have heard?
Hard to say - until Sondland, there has not been much in the way of new information, but each witness it seems has dropped one nugget or two.

Also important to remember - not nearly as many people paid attention to the reports coming out of the closed-door depositions, so this is really to broaden the audience.

I think Holmes was added as a public witness to rebut Sondland - who essentially changed much of his story today, so the rebuttal is less necessary.

 
Democrats are accusing the president of abusing his power for personal gain.  

Republicans counter that he gave Ukraine Javelins, and Obama didn't.  

That's how abuse of power works, though, isn't it?  This isn't a debate over whether Ukraine should have Javelins.  The president is accused of offering Ukraine things and making them conditional on something that benefited him personally.  

If I offered the town money to give my business a difficult to obtain license, that might be corrupt.  But if I offered money directly to a member of the zoning committee, it's clearly a bribe.  And if Steve from the zoning commitee came to me and said if you give me free donuts for a year I'll let you open your new Krispy Kreme, it wouldn't be a good defense to say "but Steve really likes donuts". You'd say Steve's a criminal.  You wouldn't care if I told you later that I didn't feel pressured to give Steve the donuts. And you wouldn't care if I said that the town really wanted a new Krispy Kreme. The issue would obviously be Steve.  

 
Democrats are accusing the president of abusing his power for personal gain.  

Republicans counter that he gave Ukraine Javelins, and Obama didn't.  

That's how abuse of power works, though, isn't it?  This isn't a debate over whether Ukraine should have Javelins.  The president is accused of offering Ukraine things and making them conditional on something that benefited him personally.  

If I offered the town money to give my business a difficult to obtain license, that might be corrupt.  But if I offered money directly to a member of the zoning committee, it's clearly a bribe.  And if Steve from the zoning commitee came to me and said if you give me free donuts for a year I'll let you open your new Krispy Kreme, it wouldn't be a good defense to say "but Steve really likes donuts". You'd say Steve's a criminal.  You wouldn't care if I told you later that I didn't feel pressured to give Steve the donuts. And you wouldn't care if I said that the town really wanted a new Krispy Kreme. The issue would obviously be Steve.  
Is the issue bad taste in donuts?

 
Officer: I have you going 70 in a 55. I'll let you off with a warning if you give me a hundred dollars cash. 

That's legal because I really can't afford a ticket right now.  

That seems to be the argument the Republicans are making when they say that the Ukraine needed the Javelins and that Obama didn't give them Javelins. 

It's not about the Javelins.  It's about the abuse of power for personal gain.  

 
I don’t know, maybe Democrats need to start an investigation looking for announcements about investigations that never happened.  I’m sure the fishing trips are being set up as we speak for when this fails.
Not really...this one was started because of major concerns. Concerns that are consistent among the testimony of relevant witnesses.

Whether the investigation happened or not isn’t relevant...and according to testimony that part didn't even matter to Trump either.  Only an announcement...and apparently the inly reason it wasnt announced was because the scheme got exposed.

 
Not really...this one was started because of major concerns. Concerns that are consistent among the testimony of relevant witnesses.

Whether the investigation happened or not isn’t relevant...and according to testimony that part didn't even matter to Trump either.  Only an announcement...and apparently the inly reason it wasnt announced was because the scheme got exposed.
Wait? We haven't had impeachment hearings every month since Trump was elected?

 
Officer: I have you going 70 in a 55. I'll let you off with a warning if you give me a hundred dollars cash. 

That's legal because I really can't afford a ticket right now.  

That seems to be the argument the Republicans are making when they say that the Ukraine needed the Javelins and that Obama didn't give them Javelins. 

It's not about the Javelins.  It's about the abuse of power for personal gain.  
Have we talked about Trump letting them have Javelins - as long as they don't actually use them in the conflict?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top