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*** (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
I would like to add the Hamburglar to this list. Although no direct connection to Ukraine it seems like he's always up to something.
jm192
Footballguy
So we shouldn’t go through the courts so Schiff can prevent the American people from voting for Trump?
jm192
Footballguy
And the ONLY way you can claim Abuse of power is if you claim the Biden thing is just to smear Biden. If there’s legitimacy to it, it looks very flimsy.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Rick Wilson, an apostate Republican and Never Trumper, has turned on his old party. And, of course, has put together attack ads 10x as effective as anything a Dem would come up with. It's disappointing.
Martha McSally is pummeled in this one for her ties to Trump.
Martha McSally is pummeled in this one for her ties to Trump.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
We shouldn't go through the courts because Trump wants to obstruct the entire process using the courts.
There isn't legitimacy to it, and he withheld aid that was already released by Congress. That's abusing power.
joffer
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
That'd be my counter. You want Biden? We'll take Trump. Hunter will cost you all three Trump kids.
jm192
Footballguy
He’s withheld other aid. So have other presidents. It’s not automatically abuse power. Motives matter.
You repeating there isn’t legitmacy doesn’t make it fact. And if there isn’t any, no harm in putting Hunter on the stand.
jm192
Footballguy
I'm going to need to see a link where other presidents have withheld congressionally approved aid to investigate a political opponent.
Putting Hunter on the stand is completely irrelevant to this proceeding. He was working for a company in the Ukraine, not the government.
Dickies
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
No. I was responding to you saying “he held the aid. It’s abuse of power.”
If the ONLY problem is irrelevance—why not put him on the stand? You’re suddenly worried about how much time we’re wasting with this?
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
Of course they don't want to call him. The questioning would make it immediately clear that there is no reason for him to be there. They aren't even able to articulate a real allegation of wrongdoing, only vague nonsense. However they have learned the power of vague nonsense.
jm192
Footballguy
They’ve made their allegation multiple times over. You just don’t want to hear it.
A President cannot withhold congressionally approved aid unless extreme circumstances merit such. I'm actually not sure they're allowed to do it at all.
Why do you want Hunter Biden so badly? He isn't going to help Trump's case at all, so why bother?
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If the Bidens were doing really sketchy stuff but Trump didn’t know what they were up to, do you still think they’re relevant?
jm192
Footballguy
I know. The GOP is going to go down with the Trump ship. They won't remove him, and they'll likely pay for it in November.
jm192
Footballguy
Right. Which is the ENTIRE point of this political show.
If they can spend months playing politics, so can the Republicans.
zoonation
Footballguy
Do you honestly believe that Trump withheld the money because he was concerned with Ukrainian corruption generally? That American national security interests were somehow compromised because Hunter was sitting on the Burisma board?
you think that is what Trump was doing?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
I doubt it. Even if Mitch succeeds tonight in quashing witnesses, I doubt the price they pay is even measurable.
Mitch knows this. And he is happy to roll those dice.
joffer
Footballguy
you’re essentially making the case that a President should never be impeached, since it’s political.
The point is to try and keep any president from becoming a dictator, in this case Trump. The GOP has decided to put party over country, and it's up to the American people to do what they lack the fortitude to do.
jm192
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
egregious is subjective. many think this is. bipartisan is virtually impossible right now. so yes, you’re essentially making that argument.
zoonation
Footballguy
The problem with this is it ignores what Trump actually did. Which was withhold aid to benefit himself.
i don’t think anyone can reasonably dispute this at this point. Every senator knows he did it.
people have to just come out now and say they don’t care. Own it.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
No impeachment is ever going to have bipartisan support. That will never happen once a Supreme Court seat was stolen. It just won't, ever again. Just like no Justice will ever be approved again if the President and Senate are held by opposing parties. It's called precedent. The Banana Republicans are setting tons of awful precedents.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
This obviously needs bipartisan support since there aren't 67 Democrat Senators. The charges against him are egregious though.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Hunter is the Hillary of this political cycle. The specter of a "shady dealings" Hunter escaping justice is worth more to Republican politicians than attempting to bring him to justice.
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
There used to be a poster here named Hamburglar way back. For a period of time me and a couple of other idiots would reply to all of his posts with “robble robble” .
IIRC he eventually got mad about it:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I'm going to try one more time to use an analogy here to try to describe the legal aspect here.
1. Barring an extreme necessity type situation, it is unlawful to steal. As such, a modern day Robin Hood would still be legally-speaking, a thief even if he stole money from the bank to hand out to the poor. If Robin Hood went to trial it's very likely that a court could and would actually preclude some presentation of evidence as to what Robin Hood did with the money after the theft.
2. It is very likely a high crime/misdemeanor for a president to withhold (or threaten to withhold) congressionally authorized aid from a country on the condition that the country engage in action which appears to smear a political opponent. This is legally accurate even if Hunter Biden were Jack the Ripper. As such, and similar to the good intentions of Robin Hood above, even if Trump were well-intentioned of getting some bad guy in Hunter Biden it doesn't lawfully defend his actions. And, therefore, from a legal perspective, Hunter Biden remains to be irrelevant.
Well they started 14 months before and since the Senate too needs to act on it they can only attempt to impeach about 2 out of every 4 years
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
I'm still here, though I'm more of a libertarian now. Still a few conservative views on things, but I'm keeping an open mind.
Zow
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
No...because it involved Biden and Trump improperly used his office to withhold congressional approved aid to claim something was needed to look jnto his opponents son (while not actually using the word corruption in the call).
Similar threads
