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.

OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST) (1 Viewer)

So the answer Godsbrother, if the goal is to "Be Better",  is to formally use the process in place to change the law instead of subverting the principle of law and gutting our Constitution because it's useful for a tribalist hit job. If that's true for Joe Biden, it has to also be true for Donald Trump.  You'll say that's not fair. And you know what? You are probably right. It's not fair. But the application of law is often not fair. As stated, the law is not justice. But before you decide to slam fist some more Destroy The Cheeto At All Costs here, consider that it's the same principles of law that I'm discussing that prevented Mike Pence from just showing up and saying, "No, no, that doesn't count, these votes don't count, we are going to do this in the exact way I just made up right now"  You can't have the principle of law just when it suits the benefit of your personal political tribe.  But that's what you really want, you desperately want standard that's useful to you without accepting that standard is a double edged sword, which is why you appear to consistently unload low value logical fallacy bombing on everyone with impeachment.

Ask how one can change the law. And how you can be a part of it. That's productive. Screaming for justice without regard for the actual law is just trying to ice skate uphill. Your rage against Trump doesn't empower you, it just lets everyone around you know you are actually powerless. Find the person you can never criticize, that's real power.


I don't have a personal tribe.   I think both parties are so extreme now that I don't identify with either.  That said, when a POTUS attempts to fraudulently overturn the results of an election, claims that he was the victim of fraud without providing any proof, and then enrages people to the point where we have American citizens attacking the US Capitol, I have a problem with that.   

It has nothing to do with party and it should upset all Americans.  The fact that this guy is admired by anyone blows my mind. 

 
Doing a poor job leading isn't an impeachable offense :shrug:


Biden is just not really capable of anything. Don`t think he ever was.  Right now he is way too old, way too feeble to lead.

I don`t want another farce impeachment at all.  We voted him in so we have live with the consequences. Just hope things don`t get worse.

 
Doing a poor job leading isn't an impeachable offense :shrug:
Exactly.   Just because Biden is failing as POTUS and seems be mentally incompetent does not mean he should be impeached.   He is a gift to the Republican Party and will ensure lots of wins for the GOP in the next elections.   Most Americans are disgusted with the current shape of our once great country.   

 
Exactly.   Just because Biden is failing as POTUS and seems be mentally incompetent does not mean he should be impeached.   He is a gift to the Republican Party and will ensure lots of wins for the GOP in the next elections.   Most Americans are disgusted with the current shape of our once great country.   
No, I don't think most Americans share this sentiment.    I would guess (hope?) most would say that it's still a great country.   I thought the radical left were the group that didn't love our country anymore.  :loco:  

 
No, I don't think most Americans share this sentiment.    I would guess (hope?) most would say that it's still a great country.   I thought the radical left were the group that didn't love our country anymore.  :loco:  


Not sure I see the connection between loving your country and not being happy with its current state.

 
Not sure I see the connection between loving your country and not being happy with its current state.
Gotcha.  People are "disgusted" with the current state of the country and think of it as a "once great" country, but still love their country [using doc's words and what he claimed most Americans feel]?   Seems like a contradiction of ideas to me, but I will admit that the thinking they don't love the country they are in much was my opinion add on.  

These are echoes of many other posts and discussions where people on the right side of the aisle get frustrated with people on the left for talking negatively about the USA too much.  (and usually tell them to leave then) 

 
Exactly.   Just because Biden is failing as POTUS and seems be mentally incompetent does not mean he should be impeached.   He is a gift to the Republican Party and will ensure lots of wins for the GOP in the next elections.   Most Americans are disgusted with the current shape of our once great country.   
I think he's doing better than Trump did :shrug:

Don't know where you get "most" from. Pretty sure his approval numbers, while dismal and the lowest they've been for Joe, are still better than Trump's were.

 
The worst on record.
Not true. Harry Truman was at 22% when he left office: 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/272765/lowest-gallup-presidential-job-approval-rating.aspx

22%!!! And most historians now regard him as one of our greatest Presidents. Truman gave us the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin Airlift, did more than any other human being on Earth to defeat Communism. He’s responsible for saving millions of lives from slavery and he ushered in decades of freedom and prosperity. And his reward was 22%. 
 

The public is a cruel beast. 

 
Not true. Harry Truman was at 22% when he left office: 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/272765/lowest-gallup-presidential-job-approval-rating.aspx

22%!!! And most historians now regard him as one of our greatest Presidents. Truman gave us the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin Airlift, did more than any other human being on Earth to defeat Communism. He’s responsible for saving millions of lives from slavery and he ushered in decades of freedom and prosperity. And his reward was 22%. 
 

The public is a cruel beast. 
late in his 2nd term <> 500 days into first (only) term

RIF

 
Silly.  Impeachment is supposed to be used to remove a president that committed high crime or treason. 

In the case of Trump the second impeachment was certainly met this criteria IMO.  


VIDEO: Jim Jordan grills Dems’ ‘star witness’ Taylor in impeachment hearing Nov 13, 2019

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan questions top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine William Taylor why there were three meetings with Ukrainian President Zelensky but the link with foreign aid did not come.

Jim Jordan: (05:58)
And President Zelensky never made an announcement. This is what I can’t believe. And you’re their star witness. You’re their first witness, but you’re the guy, based on this, based on… I mean, I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this. Ambassador Taylor recalls, and Mr. Morrison told. Now again, this is, I hereby swear and affirm from Gordon Sondland. “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st 20 … this all happens by the way, this all happens by the way, in Warsaw when Vice President Pence meets with President Zelensky and guess what? They didn’t talk about any linkage either.


....

Jim Jordan: (00:27)
And that’s the point. What you heard did not happen. It didn’t happen. You had three meetings with the guy. He could have told you. He didn’t announce he was going to do an investigation before the aid happen. It’s not just, could it have been wrong? The fact is it was wrong because it didn’t happen. The whole point was you had a clear understanding that aid will not get released unless there’s a commitment. Not maybe, not I think the aid might happen, and it’s my hunch is going to get released. You used clear language, clear understanding and commitment and those two things didn’t happen. So you had to be wrong.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJcv2pQ1PsU

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/impeachment-hearings-first-day-transcript-bill-taylor-george-kent-testimony-transcript

*****

A lot of people, usually the radical leftists, give Jim Jordan lots of crap for his association with Trump.

But he absolutely grills William Taylor and crushes him.

How much money was spent to pursue this sham? Money that could have been spent doing something like improving a school or building a library. There's a lot to not like about Donald Trump, but what happened was a coordinated political hit job to smear and drag down all Republicans.

"This is what I can't believe. And you're their star witness. You're their first witness"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Silly.  Impeachment is supposed to be used to remove a president that committed high crime or treason. 

In the case of Trump the second impeachment was certainly met this criteria IMO.  


VIDEO: (Jim)Jordan picks apart (Democrats) impeachment case (against Donald Trump) in searing remarks Dec 9, 2019

Rep. Jim Jordan pushes back against House Democrats' impeachment evidence, including Gordon Sondland's supposedly 'explosive' testimony.

Jim Jordan: (04:38)
And then what you have in front of you is an addendum that Mr. Sondland made to his testimony that we got a couple of weeks ago. It says “Declaration of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, I Gordon Sondland do hereby swear and affirm as follows.” I want you to look at point number two ,bullet point number two, second sentence. “Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on September 1st, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.”


...

Jim Jordan: (05:21)
We’ve got six people having four conversations in one sentence and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding. Even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky, for him to tell you, “You know what, we’re going to do these investigations to get the aid.” Didn’t tell you three different times. Never makes an announcement, never tweets about it. Never does a CNN interview. Ambassador, you weren’t on the call, were you? You didn’t listen in on President Trump’s call and President Zelensky’s call.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O40quspfnUc

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/impeachment-hearings-first-day-transcript-bill-taylor-george-kent-testimony-transcript

******

Jim Jordan finally just lays it out - the entire case against Trump was built upon hearsay.

And that, for years, this place is chock full of lawyers. And many just pretended that the Democrats actually had a case. This was a political hit job, no more, no less. And a cheap dirty one to boot.

This goes beyond Trump. This time is was someone who was despised and reviled. What happens next time when the rule of law gets put on a shelf and it's not Donald Trump?

When you get past the "Defense Of Donald Trump" what is conveniently thrown out by many of the radical leftist here is the deeper and more ugly question on whether the defense of an actual American citizen was subverted and manipulated.

 
Silly.  Impeachment is supposed to be used to remove a president that committed high crime or treason. 

In the case of Trump the second impeachment was certainly met this criteria IMO.  


VIDEO: Rep. Jim Jordan blasts Mueller for dodging questions Jul 24, 2019

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan presses former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Jordan says maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKSKKLAStK0

************

Mueller: “I can’t get into it”

Jordan: “Yes you can! You wrote about it!”

Mueller: "I'm not certain I agree with your characterizations".

Jordan: "Well I'm reading from your report."

Why are we kidding about what happened here. Trump might be a grifter and a narcissist and an exhausting jerk. But he was also an outsider. And the political establishment couldn't handle that he won in 2016. So they just kept hunting him down and accusing him and kept fabricating anything they could make up on the spot. Tens of millions of our tax dollars set on fire because Team Blue were just plain sore losers and backed an even bigger loser in Hillary Clinton.

That's not freedom. That's not democracy. Hating Trump isn't enough to justify burning down the principles of our Republic.

Why am I the only lawyer here in the entire PSF who actually gives a damn about defending actual legal integrity, whether it's regarding Trump or any other American citizen?

 
Both of them were completely appropriate.  I have no hope or expectations that the GOP will be "the adults in the room" as one of our posters put it, but I do have hope that their collective hatred of Kamala Harris will stave off the grandstanding impeachment attempts. I will admit that I would sort of like to see what would happen if Republicans made the attempt to impeach on ridiculous grounds, much the same way that it would be cool to witness a giant train wreck.


Direct Headline: Here's What We Know About How Much the Mueller Report Cost

"Between May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed Special Counsel — through Sept. 30, 2018, his office spent $12,287,852. This includes $7.3 million on salaries and benefits, $1.3 million on travel and transportation, and $2.2 million on rent and utilities. In the most recent of the three expense reports filed, the Special Counsel’s office also says it spent $15,618 on printing and copying needs.

Not included in these figures are “component expenses” incurred by the Department of Justice at large. These additional costs totaled $12,928,000, though the DOJ says it was not legally required to report them, and that they are approximate to what the DOJ would have spent elsewhere if the Special Counsel’s Office didn’t exist.

Mueller’s office has not yet filed an expense report for the last six months of his investigation, but including the DOJ’s contributions, the total reported cost so far is $25.2 million.

The fourth and final expense report has not yet been released, though it is likely that it will come out soon. The first three reports totaled approximately $6.8 million, $10 million and $8.5 million, respectively. So the last one, if comparable to the others, would make the final dollar amount of Mueller’s probe between $32 million and $35 million.

Mueller’s team included 19 lawyers supported by 40 FBI agents, along with intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff, according to Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the report from March.

The probe, which lasted from May 2017 to March 2019"

By Abby Vesoulis July 24, 2019 12:45 PM ET

https://time.com/5557693/mueller-report-cost/

******

32 to 35 million on a sham. Paid for with our tax dollars

Could have built some libraries with that. Built some parks so families could go there and enjoy nature. Fund some after school sports programs. Hire some more teachers. Give law enforcement better training. Update infrastructure somewhere.

Money wasted on a failed partisan witchhunt that could have been spent delivering wins and a better life for every day working class American citizens.

What is the staggering cost of your "version" of appropriate?

 
Both of them were completely appropriate.  I have no hope or expectations that the GOP will be "the adults in the room" as one of our posters put it, but I do have hope that their collective hatred of Kamala Harris will stave off the grandstanding impeachment attempts. I will admit that I would sort of like to see what would happen if Republicans made the attempt to impeach on ridiculous grounds, much the same way that it would be cool to witness a giant train wreck.


VIDEO: Gaetz explodes at impeachment witnesses: You don't get to interrupt me •Dec 4, 2019

Rep. Matt Gaetz went off on Democrats' impeachment witnesses, repeatedly prodding the constitutional scholars on whether they donated to Democratic campaigns such as Barack Obama's....“So let’s see if we can get into the fact,” said Gaetz. “To all of the witnesses: If you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand.”

After none of the witnesses — a collection of law professors, only one of which was called by Republicans — raised their hand, Gaetz said, “And let the record reflect: no personal knowledge of a single fact....And you know what, that continues on the tradition that we saw from [Intelligence Committee Chairman] Adam Schiff. Where Ambassador [William] Taylor could not identify an impeachable offense. Mr. [George] Kent never met with the president. Fiona Hill never heard the president reference anything regarding military aid [to Ukraine], Mr. [David] Hale was unaware of any nefarious activity with aid, Colonel [Alexander] Vindman even rejected the new Democrat talking point that ‘bribery’ was invoked here. Ambassador [Kurt] Volker denied that there was a ‘quid pro quo.’ Mr. [Tim] Morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call.”

“The only direct evidence came from Gordon Sondland, who spoke to the President of the United States, and the president said, ‘I want nothing, no quid pro quo.'”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLU11AXWvXE

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republicans-raise-your-hand-question-at-impeachment-hearing-goes-viral

******

What's appropriate about spending tens of millions of tax dollars and spending year after year on a witch hunt with no practical legal basis?

Lots of people despise Matt Gaetz. Doesn't mean he's completely incapable of making a point because of that. Good points. Undeniable points.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You can't talk about "adults in the room" when Team Blue just literally made up whatever they wanted and had nearly the entire activist complicit MSM provide hard cover for them to justify one of the biggest legal nothingburgers ever cooked in the national daily media cycle.

 
Both of them were completely appropriate.  I have no hope or expectations that the GOP will be "the adults in the room" as one of our posters put it, but I do have hope that their collective hatred of Kamala Harris will stave off the grandstanding impeachment attempts. I will admit that I would sort of like to see what would happen if Republicans made the attempt to impeach on ridiculous grounds, much the same way that it would be cool to witness a giant train wreck.


VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Gaetz calls out Hunter Biden’s drug use | Trump's first impeachment •Dec 12, 2019

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called out Hunter Biden’s history of drug use during a markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, saying it’s unlikely the Ukrainian oil company Burisma would have put Biden on its board without his connection to his father, former vice president Joe Biden. Gaetz offered an amendment to the articles of impeachment that would indicate Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian oil company Burisma and Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHyfCo1APO8

VIDEO: Rep. Matt Gaetz Says Republicans Won't Drop Hunter Biden Investigation •Jan 13, 2021

The debate is heated almost from the start as the House sets up a vote to impeach President Donald Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYiNyQ-qfs

******

What interesting is the radical leftists here want to lump all Conservatives and all Republicans as a monolith. A single entity that's smeared as racist, bigoted, xenophobic, white supremacist hillbilly trash that's authoritarian and hates freedom and justice.

But all along, while Republicans were called liars, and the activist complicit left leaning MSM did their part to try paint all Republicans as liars and frauds and trying to spin up fabrications, the truth was always out there.  It's just no one would actually listen -There was something very very very wrong with Hunter Biden and Burisma, and that was the real story behind the Trump/Ukraine impeachment trials.

Here's an "Adult In The Room" quote from myself just for you - Just because you are offended doesn't mean you are right.

“The American people are free to do exactly what they are told.”
― Ward Churchill

 
Both of them were completely appropriate.  I have no hope or expectations that the GOP will be "the adults in the room" as one of our posters put it, but I do have hope that their collective hatred of Kamala Harris will stave off the grandstanding impeachment attempts. I will admit that I would sort of like to see what would happen if Republicans made the attempt to impeach on ridiculous grounds, much the same way that it would be cool to witness a giant train wreck.


Direct Headline: Does the First Amendment Protect Trump on Incitement to Riot?

There is no doubt that Trump’s speech was inappropriate, imprudent, rash, offensive, and even repugnant. But, it is more difficult to determine whether Trump’s comments constitute incitement to imminent lawless action, a type of speech not protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court explained in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action....”

....A few years later, the Court clarified in Hess v. Indiana (1973) that for speech to constitute unprotected incitement it must advocate for illegal action immediately to take place. The Court ruled that Gregory Hess’ statement at an anti-war protest “we’ll take the ####### street later” was not incitement but rather “nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.”

The Brandenburg Test “provides much First Amendment protection for controversial speech — particularly political speech that challenges existing government and law.”...Brandenburg and subsequent decisions have emphasized several requirements, all of which must be present for speech to lose First Amendment protection. The speaker must intend to and actually use words that rally people to take illegal action. The danger must be imminent—not in the indefinite future. And the words must be uttered in a situation in which violence is likely to happen....

....notes it will be difficult to establish incitement under the Brandenburg-Hess framework.  “Focusing only on Trump’s rally speech, proving the intent element —the requirement that the words Trump used were directed to cause imminent violence—would be the toughest hurdle.”  Calvert notes that Trump “never explicitly called for violence during his rally, never used a command like ‘go down there and attack them....there’s a difference between heated political rhetoric and actually directing one’s followers to commit violence,’”

By David L. Hudson, Jr. January 8, 2021

https://firstamendmentwatch.org/does-the-first-amendment-protect-trump-on-incitement-to-riot/

Clarence BRANDENBURG, Appellant, v. State of OHIO.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

Gregory HESS v. State of INDIANA.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/414/105

Nwanguma v. Trump, No. 17-6290 (6th Cir. 2018)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/17-6290/17-6290-2018-09-11.html

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/886/

*****

OK, as you say, you can be the "adult in the room" now.

I've provided you with the background material to show that, in your own words, that the 2nd impeachment was "appropriate"

Go on, everyone is waiting.

 
Show me a (high) crime, and I'm down with impeachment.   Otherwise, blatant partisan hackery to the highest order and not something I can support.   

(in before whining about how democrats did it too)


The Federalist Papers : No. 65 The Powers of the Senate
Friday, March 7, 1788. HAMILTON


https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

******

Alexander Hamilton brings up three key points in impeachment

1) The overarching issue should always be what serves the best interests of the American people i.e. the "public trust"

2) All American political systems need a functional "jury" as a bridge between the "judges" and the "accused"

3) Impeachment should not come down to which political party is currently carrying the biggest stick in the yard given the time and place

Curious and hilarious at the same time, your defense of Joe Biden from impeachment would also require you to defend Donald Trump from both his impeachments. The same standards from Alexander Hamilton can't just apply to fit one and not the other.

I'm not going to say the Democrats did it too.

I'm going to say the Democrats should have not done it at all.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That being said, the gross assumption is that Biden has done nothing to warrant impeachment and the only pathway possible is as a partisan weapon. Why is it so offensive to examine Biden's record as POTUS in depth?

It's entirely possible that the GOP will push for impeachment ( i.e. violating Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right)  AND Biden actually violated his duty as Commander In Chief in Afghanistan and should be impeached.

When you push forward "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right", it means you have to look at the two issues separate from each other on their own merits. But you instantly want to conflate them as packaged partisan hackery.

You can't have it both ways. Alexander Hamilton says you can't have it both ways. But you do, you want it both ways.

To blindly defend Biden without introspection on the actual merits of his conduct is the same as spitting in Hamilton's face. But you do you.

 
timschochet said:
Not true. Harry Truman was at 22% when he left office: 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/272765/lowest-gallup-presidential-job-approval-rating.aspx

22%!!! And most historians now regard him as one of our greatest Presidents. Truman gave us the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, the Berlin Airlift, did more than any other human being on Earth to defeat Communism. He’s responsible for saving millions of lives from slavery and he ushered in decades of freedom and prosperity. And his reward was 22%. 
 

The public is a cruel beast. 
What would you say biden has done  compared to Truman?   The aphgan bug out?

His inviting putin to invade Ukraine on a limited basis?

Certainly not his handling of the vaccine distribution.   His handling of the baby formula debacle showed he had nothing to do with that.   That was trumps plan working.

His bidenflation?

Changing strategic ambiguity  to absolute defense.

You know the public sometimes want to move on from the party that led the last war.     Truman lasted a lot longer than Churchill did.

You aren't smarter than the public.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top