Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

590 Excellent

About BigJim®

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Eden Prairie

Recent Profile Visitors

14,233 profile views
  1. How so, public opinion matters. I’ll take the side that is not arguing the Chewbacca was a Wookiee defense.
  2. Doesn’t seem like a strong defense to me. 1. Aid was condition based on the call portions that were made public. 2. What is the guy going to say when future aid is at risk? 3. I have seen reports to the contrary, which make a lot more sense. What is the evidence? 4. The September release of funds is damning, as there does not seem to be explanation. It’s a ‘the hostage was released before I got a ransom - so not a kidnapping’ defense. If there was a valid reason for holding, what changed? The obvious answer is nothing changed, other than awareness that the gig was up due to the whistleblower letter.
  3. Thanks for the reply. Is what you are describing in #2 substantively different from the arguments already briefed... i.e. over-reliance on DOJ memos to shield the president and everyone in his orbit? Are the arguments substantively different from what resulted in a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling against Nixon that yes, the President needs to comply with impeachment subpoenas? Point blank, I think everyone involved has already briefed and argued the positions, unequivocal precedent by the Supreme Court exists, and all we're really talking about here is Judiciary-imposed process delays to get to a 'me too' decision. There needs to be a better process. On #3, some patients are more important than other patients. In your example, I would not prioritize an individual's temporary freedom over preserving the government for our entire country. Any event, it should not matter that the emergency room is full - any more than a full emergency room would have mattered when they rolled Ronald Reagan into George Washington University Hospital. Again, no jab intended but this is all part of the "we do so many important things, we just can't possibly squeeze in a constitutional crisis" Legal self aggrandizing that bugs me. Whether they recognize it or not, the Judicial branch too is under attack when co-equal constitutional framework is being challenged. I think there is a better than 0% chance the executive branch thumbs its nose at the Judicial branch even if we get to judicial resolution. This is a pretty important patient.
  4. I've been giving this reply a lot of thought. Don't take this as a personal jab, hey we go way back (go Johnnies, go Hamline Mitchell). There is a certain smugness about the Legal/Judicial profession when 1 month is considered quick under any and all circumstances. It's frustrating to me that the snail pace of our Judiciary has been successfully weaponized as a stall tactic over the past 6 months, and will apparently continue to be weaponized until the Legal debate is moot. To what end, so that a couple Judges have all the time needed to craft snarky "we find this argument repugnant" rulings, which are then of course upheld on appeal, only to be placed into a state of purgatory pending Supreme Court action? Delayed justice is deprived justice in our current circumstance. When facts necessitate it (Constitutional crisis would seem to fit the bill), extraordinary measures have to be possible. Here's an analogy: We have a patient who has been shot on 5th Avenue. Let's call that patient our co-equal branch constitutional framework. That patient is going to continue being shot, over and over, until medical attention is delivered. That patient doesn't need a receptionist at the Mayo clinic saying, in a self-congratulatory voice, that "We don't usually do this, but we can get you an appointment with a specialist in 30 days." That patient needs an emergency room and immediate medical attention. A constitutional crisis needs the judicial equivalent.
  5. The best line IMHO was asking if it was a "Beta with benefits" type relationship.
  6. Great game for the Vikes considering the circumstances and recent failures in prime time. It was great to see a clean game with minimal mistakes/penalties. Cousins played mistake-free again and took what he was given... that TD attempt to Diggs was a tough pass to handle, but hit Diggs in the hands in a small window. They still need to figure out DB schemes, although they were close on a couple INT opportunities which would have made secondary look a lot better than the results we got. I think Hughes takes that one to the house when he's 100%. Cooper deserves a ton of credit for the 3 critical tightrope sideline plays.
  7. That may be, but in this circumstance 'darn quick' is not good enough to ensure our constitutional balance of powers function. There should be no political cost/question of waiting for the Legal result everyone knows is coming. We have subpoenas being ignored during impeachment proceedings, over conduct the ICIG deemed an urgent matter. This is a 'set every other issue to the side and make a ruling' topic.
  8. I was a little perplexed that the hearing was scheduled out to December 6. I mean, I’d love to know what is standing in the way of a hearing last week, or this week. Suspect it is the same ‘President is above the law’ argument that has already been briefed and argued through an appeal. Hard to imagine more pressing legal controversies.
  9. In terms of timing, did I hear right that the hearing would not be until December 6? Any reason to think a ruling would come weeks later, and then appeals all the way to the Supreme Court like the taxes suit?
  10. I'm honestly wanting to learn more in case it changes my skeptical opinion. I'm sure you know more about the legalities than me, if you would advise your own clients to do what Bolton is doing. What I understood is there is no legitimate legal basis for the White House to impede Congressional investigation and defy subpoenas during impeachment proceedings (in fact, it is evidence of obstruction). I understand many are pointing to the Cipollone letter as footing for defiance, which was generally perceived by attorneys as nonsensical legal analysis from a constitutional perspective. Was the 9-0 Nixon SC ruling a different question? Others have defied orders from the executive branch. Is there a distinction with Bolton that I need to better understand?
  11. I don't understand the duplicity of Bolton's actions/words, so I'm skeptical. If he has crucial testimony, why is he hiding behind a crackpot court process his own attorney instigated? He signed a book deal, so clearly he's not that confused about his status/obligations as a former employee. I smell double agent. The Dems might get more public sentiment mileage out of what he's implying he knows than waiting for him to deliver testimony he, himself, delayed under dubious reasoning.
  12. I get the fundamentals, but my question is the practical one of how you transition without making yourself not only voiceless, but actually aiding what you are most opposed to?
  13. Just take the current state of politics as example, where we know 40% will vote Trump even if he shoots someone on 5th. The only outcome from me getting behind a 3rd option is ensuring re-election of the greater of two evils. There is no upside, since I can’t realistically think my vote will even matter until 1/3 of the country makes that leap.
  14. I'm curious on the topic being on a political island at this point in the middle. I'm just curious how you see that playing out. Like-minded folks forming a grass roots party who loses elections for the next 100 years until they reach mass as a credible 3rd party - one that is not merely undermining the success of the lesser of 2 evils (i.e. the main D/R party closest to it's platform)?