Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

I’ve changed my mind; it’s time to impeach Donald Trump

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You laugh, but I’ve never been able to prove that I’m not the only real person in the universe and that the rest of you aren’t simply fictional creations of my subconsciousness. 

Of course not.  How could you prove anything when you disappear whenever I’m not around?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

You’re going to need to explain to me how this applies to what I wrote. 

Its true that I don’t like Trump as President. But it was Warren’s logical arguments that persuaded me, not some emotional binge. 

Sure, for you Tim because I like you.

You just came down with a massive case of rationalization. It's what people do to make themselves feel better. Deep down you still know impeachment will blow up in Dems faces.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

By the way, I think the better quote is by John Maynard Keynes. When accused of changing his mind, he responded: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

Of course.  But the 3 things that Tim cited in the OP have been well-known for a long time now and discussed ad nauseum on these boards.  That's why there is so much antipathy toward this sudden change (well, at least my reason and some others' as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Sure, for you Tim because I like you.

You just came down with a massive case of rationalization. It's what people do to make themselves feel better. Deep down you still know impeachment will blow up in Dems faces.

First off I honesty don’t know that. I just wrote a long post (sorry Munga!) as to why I don’t know that, and you’re free to respond to it and tell me what I got wrong. 

Second, this is not going to make me feel better. Impeaching the President is a bad business. It divides the country, weakens our form of government, and may very well have severe long term repercussions. Plus I don’t think he’ll be removed. I can’t think of anything positive about it other than the grim satisfaction that comes from knowing that it was the right thing to do. And that makes it worth doing. But no I won’t take any pleasure from this at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Didn’t the Supreme Court determine otherwise in 1973? 

Executive Previledge still exists, but it was diminished.  I am sure this will be revisited very soon.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Opie said:

Those darn republicans!

Tell me...exactly when was the last time that a prediction by the MSM and the Left that spelled D-O-O-M for candidate, then President Trump, have come to pass?

Jeez....a weatherman guarantees rain, everyday for two years and it never rains....not once. 
Do you still tune to that weatherman and rely on his forecast...no matter how badly you want to see it rain?

Is it just the fantasy of it actually raining that keeps you tuning in and believing that tomorrow is the day?

Yes...those darn republicans that continually look the other way and issue statements of being disappointed and then go along with it anyway.  And it starts with Mr. Obstruction Mitch McConnell who has how many bills that he won't bring to the floor?

Tell me...why is the only thing some of you all can do is complain about the MSM to people who aren't out quoting the MSM?

Part of why consequences haven't come to pass is that congress isn't doing their job.  There is no fantasy...thats it...we have seen enough that they should be doing more, but they refuse.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Long Ball Larry said:

Of course.  But the 3 things that Tim cited in the OP have been well-known for a long time now and discussed ad nauseum on these boards.  That's why there is so much antipathy toward this sudden change (well, at least my reason and some others' as well).

And you have every right to be critical. The only explanation I can offer you, weak as it is, is that I didn’t hear it explained with as much clarity before Warren. But that’s all on me not anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

First off I honesty don’t know that. I just wrote a long post (sorry Munga!) as to why I don’t know that, and you’re free to respond to it and tell me what I got wrong. 

Second, this is not going to make me feel better. Impeaching the President is a bad business. It divides the country, weakens our form of government, and may very well have severe long term repercussions. Plus I don’t think he’ll be removed. I can’t think of anything positive about it other than the grim satisfaction that comes from knowing that it was the right thing to do. And that makes it worth doing. But no I won’t take any pleasure from this at all. 

I respect the heck out of your willingness to change your mind. It shows intelligence and humility. But as a mere outside observer, it's clear as day that your thirst for what you believe is justice won over what your mind knows is the right move. You just admitted its futile and for satisfaction. That's emotion not calculation. It's not worth the risk.

Edited by Mr Anonymous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the uniqueness of this thread the topic of impeaching Trump? If so, did we really need another thread to discuss that?

Or is the uniqueness of this thread the fact that Tim changed his mind?

I'm going with the later... and would ask Tim to make sure his psychiatrist is aware of this behavior so an accurate diagnosis can be given. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Is the uniqueness of this thread the topic of impeaching Trump? If so, did we really need another thread to discuss that?

Or is the uniqueness of this thread the fact that Tim changed his mind?

I'm going with the later... and would ask Tim to make sure his psychiatrist is aware of this behavior so an accurate diagnosis can be given. 

I don’t have a psychiatrist. You can do it if you’d like. 

There is no uniqueness to this thread. I started it because I didn’t want to distract from the other important discussions taking place in the Russian thread, or other threads about Trump. But if you want to accuse me of trying to bring attention to myself, I won’t argue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

First off I honesty don’t know that. I just wrote a long post (sorry Munga!) as to why I don’t know that, and you’re free to respond to it and tell me what I got wrong. 

Second, this is not going to make me feel better. Impeaching the President is a bad business. It divides the country, weakens our form of government, and may very well have severe long term repercussions. Plus I don’t think he’ll be removed. I can’t think of anything positive about it other than the grim satisfaction that comes from knowing that it was the right thing to do. And that makes it worth doing. But no I won’t take any pleasure from this at all. 

This seems overrated to me. What was the long term impact of impeachment with Clinton on the level of division in this country? Our country is divided now (good guys/bad guys😉) and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future (barring some imminent external threat).  I would personally put “dividing the country” way way down the list of reasons for action or inaction on pretty much anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Opie said:

he will be deemed OFFICIALLY "not guilty"  of whatever "crime"

Just a few points, because this is important:

  • This is kind of true. Considering the DOJ policy that only Congress can indict, if the House does indict then the Senate 'acquitting' will arguably be it. It might even prevent Trump's prosecution if he loses the election and it may prevent his impeachment if the Dems win the Senate. However, if the House does not indict, Trump will claim the same thing regardless.
  • It's possible Trump fears a Senate trial as much as a House impeachment. All of it involves publicly dragging out and airing evidence.
  • When the House impeaches and maybe before Trump may just get the GOP in the Senate or most of it to simply say they will vote against impeachment, short circuiting the impeachment. This is potentially very beneficial to Trump but otoh we really don't know what the public reaction will be. But again, Trump will claim he has the power and the right and that he has been vindicated if the House does not impeach.
  • McConnell has been ceding Congressional power to the imperial presidency at a rate never seen before, why wouldn't he just not comply with his Constitutional mandate and just not hold a trial?
  • Talking about the futility of it - isn't that true of everything the House might do right now? Why show up for work at all on the Hill? Obviously the House does show up for work.
  • Congress shows up for work because that's Congress' job, it must protect its constitutional ground and Congressmen must meet the duties of their oaths. And if you cede ground to Trump - just like any autocrat - he will take it, as will future presidents who gradually respect your republic less and less. And like all strongmen they get power because people respect strength and take it as 'winning'. So IMO there's a lot at stake here.

I think this is the best piece I've seen on this.

Quote

Lincoln’s warning of the “approach of danger,” in context, was less about the political fracturing that would lead to the Civil War and more about the creeping acceptance of what should have been unacceptable. He decried “the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice.” It was this, in his mind, that pointed toward the death of the nation. The antidote he offered was “the support of the Constitution and laws.” In the absence of that, the cynical country would become vulnerable to the approach of a dictator: “Distinction will be his paramount object … and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.”

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Executive Previledge still exists, but it was diminished.  I am sure this will be revisited very soon.   

Good lord Jon, I hope you're not arguing for a rollback of Watergate? The most amazing thing is watching conservatives argue for the maximizing of the strengthening of the unitary presidency under Trump. It's really been remarkable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@timschochet I think part of the consideration now among the Democrats is whether to impeach now or do a criminal investigation/prosecution once Trump is out of office. I think the right thing for the country is to invoke the impeachment process now, but from a "justice" perspective I can see the appeal of waiting to go the criminal prosecution route later. I don't know that doing both is an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that as long as the process that is being followed in holding hearing in the various House committees don't interfere with the Judiciary Committee ability to initiate an impeachment inquiry when the "duck are in a row" that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is for or against impeachment.  As for "duck in a row" I think that mostly means winning the court cases that allows the House to actually have witnesses testifying at hearings - whether they are formally impeachment hearings or not.

I guess that does bring up a question.  Would the courts be more willing to assert that the executive branch is to release individuals to testify for a formal impeachment inquiry in front of the Judiciary Committee then they would for some other inquiry in front of some other committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

@timschochet I think part of the consideration now among the Democrats is whether to impeach now or do a criminal investigation/prosecution once Trump is out of office. I think the right thing for the country is to invoke the impeachment process now, but from a "justice" perspective I can see the appeal of waiting to go the criminal prosecution route later. I don't know that doing both is an option.

I think that a big part of the equation is that there so much swirling around Trump that is potentially impeachable and that practically they only get one shot at this.  Do they take their swing and hope for the best?  Or do they just keep piling up the evidence?  Neither is a good or even the correct answer so at some point they need to draw a line in the sand and go for it.  Right now for some this is the time, others aren't there yet, and others will never get there.  I think the right time will be when the House can hold hearings where those they subpoena for testimony will show up.   When they can actually gather the evidence.  I'm hopeful that is weeks away, but I'm not sure it is ever. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The crime I was referring to is the collusion, the Russian interference was established before the investigation.

The interference was the main point of the investigation. Mueller’s report is literally titled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” All of the indictments against the Russians came directly out of the Mueller investigation — after a number of Trump’s obstructive acts.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Good lord Jon, I hope you're not arguing for a rollback of Watergate? The most amazing thing is watching conservatives argue for the maximizing of the strengthening of the unitary presidency under Trump. It's really been remarkable.

Executive Previledge has been extensively used by every president through our history.  It is an essential part in the performance of president duties to be able to obtain advise without the fear of public disclosure.  Now where to draw the line so that proper balance of power and public interests are met has not been clearly defined.  I expect some clearification to come out of this fiasco.  I am not sure where I would advocate drawing the line, but there needs to be some line drawn on the parade of officials being subpoenas.  Nobody in their right mind would subject themselves to the scrutiny that white house officials are not subject too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

Executive Previledge has been extensively used by every president through our history.  It is an essential part in the performance of president duties to be able to obtain advise without the fear of public disclosure.  Now where to draw the line so that proper balance of power and public interests are met has not been clearly defined.  I expect some clearification to come out of this fiasco.  I am not sure where I would advocate drawing the line, but there needs to be some line drawn on the parade of officials being subpoenas.  Nobody in their right mind would subject themselves to the scrutiny that white house officials are not subject too. 

Well the problem here is that Trump is going the other way claiming EP where it has never existed before, in fact he is claiming that the entire executive branch - including former members, non WH executive staff, and even campaign and transition members, and even when engaged in criminal activity - is immune. It's totally unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The interference was the main point of the investigation. Mueller’s report is literally titled “Report on the Investigation into the Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” All of the indictments against the Russians came directly out of the Mueller investigation — after a number of Trump’s obstructive acts.

I disagree....

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, serving as Acting Attorney General due to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, authorized Mueller to investigate and prosecute "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"

That is about links and coordination of the Russian interference with the Trump administration...ie., collusion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well the problem here is that Trump is going the other way claiming EP where it has never existed before, in fact he is claiming that the entire executive branch - including former members, non WH executive staff, and even campaign and transition members, and even when engaged in criminal activity - is immune. It's totally unconstitutional. 

Yes, Trump will not win in most of those.   But with White House counsel he has a chance at succeeding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Executive Previledge still exists, but it was diminished.  I am sure this will be revisited very soon.   

The discussion about whether executive privilege applies is really not on topic to the issue of whether Trump committed crimes. Executive privilege, if it hasn’t been waived, may prevent McGahn from testifying to Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether Trump committed crimes, only with whether Congress will get to ask McGahn about it. For purposes of evaluating Trump’s obstruction, we don’t need McGahn to testify to Congress because he’s already testified to Mueller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I disagree....

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, serving as Acting Attorney General due to the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, authorized Mueller to investigate and prosecute "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"

That is about links and coordination of the Russian interference with the Trump administration...ie., collusion.  

His mandate included the fragment you’ve quoted. It wasn’t limited to that.

If you read the report, Volume I describes the investigation Mueller’s team did into Russian interference (not just coordination with Trump’s campaign). The investigation and its findings are quite extensive in that regard. Trump tried to obstruct that investigation in several ways — by trying to end it outright, for example, and then by trying to limit it only to future elections instead of the 2016 election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pecorino said:

Warren was right about the handcuffs, though. In a month, you’ll agree.

This time Trump will be in handcuffs!! The other 40 times we said he was done though, those didn't count.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The interference was the main point of the investigation. Mueller’s report is literally titled “Report on the Investigation into the Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” All of the indictments against the Russians came directly out of the Mueller investigation — after a number of Trump’s obstructive acts.

You forgot to put in my opinion before that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The handcuffs thing is silly if meant literally.

Yeah, they’d use zip ties.  His hands are too small for handcuffs.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The discussion about whether executive privilege applies is really not on topic to the issue of whether Trump committed crimes. Executive privilege, if it hasn’t been waived, may prevent McGahn from testifying to Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether Trump committed crimes, only with whether Congress will get to ask McGahn about it. For purposes of evaluating Trump’s obstruction, we don’t need McGahn to testify to Congress because he’s already testified to Mueller.

I am far from an expert on privilege.  That stated up front I was under the impression that once a privilege is voluntarily waived, not set aside by a court after being asserted, but voluntarily waived, that it is much more difficult to then assert it, the courts sort of figuring that once the cat is out of the bag there is little sense in the effort of pretending it doesn't know its way around. 

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed my mind recently too.  Right Twix are much better then Left Twix.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

But if you want to accuse me of trying to bring attention to myself, I won’t argue. 

At least you’re honest about it. :lmao:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I am far from an expert on privilege.  That stated up front I was under the impression that once a privilege is voluntarily waived, not set aside by a court after being asserted, but voluntarily waived, that it is much more difficult to then assert it, the courts sort of figuring that once the cat is out of the bag there is little sense in the effort of pretending it doesn't know its way around. 

Yeah, I think it's likely been waived, but I'm not an expert on that either. In any case, it doesn't matter for purposes of the current discussion about whether Trump obstructed justice. The analysis based on currently known facts is the same whether or not the privilege ever applied or has been waived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yeah, I think it's likely been waived, but I'm not an expert on that either. In any case, it doesn't matter for purposes of the current discussion about whether Trump obstructed justice. The analysis based on currently known facts is the same whether or not the privilege ever applied or has been waived.

I agree.  It was just an aside which caught my attention and I hoped someone with some experience might address that issue, just to let me know if I was way off of the mark in my thinking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The handcuffs thing is silly if meant literally.

A pile of lawyers have said he’d be indicted if he wasn’t the President. There is a decent chance he won’t be President in 18 months. Doesn’t seem silly to me at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dkp993 said:

I changed my mind recently too.  Right Twix are much better then Left Twix.  

Agreed but steer clear of alt right Twix. Their opinion on white vs dark chocolate is a little extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pecorino said:

A pile of lawyers have said he’d be indicted if he wasn’t the President. There is a decent chance he won’t be President in 18 months. Doesn’t seem silly to me at all.

He likely won't be indicted, just like Nixon wasn't; but even if he is, he likely won't be handcuffed.

See if you can find a picture of Paul Manafort in handcuffs. (I don't think he was ever handcuffed, but don't know for sure and am willing to be proven wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

He likely won't be indicted, just like Nixon wasn't, but even if he is, he likely won't be handcuffed.

See if you can find a picture of Paul Manafort in handcuffs. (I don't think he was ever handcuffed, but don't know for sure and I'm willing to be proven wrong.)

This courtroom artist indicates that Manafort had been handcuffed just before entering a courtroom in October 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

the only way i'll support anything but an electoral response to the current President, is if a classic Cheswick removal can be guaranteed

I initially misread this as an "electrical" response and my little heart went all pitty pat. Picturing cattle prods and all that, yadda yadda.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

This courtroom artist indicates that Manafort had been handcuffed just before entering a courtroom in October 2017.

Maybe. I don't want to be overly picky, but it seems that the courtroom artist never saw any handcuffs and is perhaps making an assumption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Sure, for you Tim because I like you.

You just came down with a massive case of rationalization. It's what people do to make themselves feel better. Deep down you still know impeachment will blow up in Dems faces.

This line of thinking is why pedofiles get away with it. “It would be too harmful to the community.” “It would be your word against him, you won’t win.” 

Im not saying you’re wrong, and I’m beginning to see that “justice” is quite different for people with money and power, just ask Jeff Epstein. All the more reason to take a stand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Don't be dragged to his (Trump's terms).  Stand for what is right for the sake of right.  Yes he will try to turn justice and morality on its head.  He will do so regardless.  Don't live in fear of him, defy him and those who support him.  Showing strength of character supports others in doing the same.  It is how tides are turned.

 

8 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Standing for what's right is more important.  Having a moral compass is more important.  Trump will be gone one day, one way or another. Those who choose apparent political expedience over what is right and just will carry that for the rest of their lives, it will now be part of the calculation of who they are, their judgments, their motives will always be suspect, and rightfully so in my estimation.

I'm on board with impeachment, as I believe the value of doing the right thing outweighs the potential negative consequences of the inevitable political backlash.  However, I do think we should acknowledge that folks like DW, Maurile, tim, myself, etc. who are in favor of impeachment are also largely immune from direct personal effects of a 2nd Trump term.  Don't get me wrong, I think we ALL suffer in the macro from Trump's ineptitude and ignorance - our 401k's suffer, our judicial institutions are weaker, our global influence lessens, etc.  But none of us supporting impeachment are at the margins where Trump's policies would directly affect our day-to-day lives.  My children/family aren't at risk of deportation or separation.   My wife isn't likely to need access to an abortion.  

So while I agree with you in principle DW, I'm a bit less cynical of those liberals who oppose impeachment for what they deem practical political realities.  If impeachment increases the odds of 4 more years of real harm to their families and constituents, it may be a more difficult decision for some politicians.  

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funniest part about this thread is all the people criticising Tim for changing his mind.  As if being stubbornly dogmatic is some kind of virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zoonation said:

The funniest part about this thread is all the people criticising Tim for changing his mind.  As if being stubbornly dogmatic is some kind of virtue.

I think the funniest part is that he admitted he started it to draw attention to himself. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

I think the funniest part is that he admitted he started it to draw attention to himself. :lmao:

I’d didn’t admit that. I wrote that if you want to accuse me of it, I’m not going to argue against it. It’s not true, but not worth my time to try and prove that it’s not true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Either way, discussions between the two are protected either by lawyer-client or by executive previledge. 

they are?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.