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)

To the extent that it applies to impeachments, that would implicate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause. 
Eh this reminds me a little bit of Dersh’s comp of the President’s due process to a typical criminal defendant, it’s not the same. This isn’t going to happen anyway and it’s obviously unique. Btw it’s almost certain Trump will start criming again as soon as this vote comes down, that’s what happened last time.

 
And that's an automatic disqualification for a Democratic candidate so I think we can safely can the "both sides" debate for this and a thousand other examples.
To show you the difference in the tow parties, the side that supports a man with 19 sexual assault cases against him post memes of Joe Biden putting his hands on a woman's shoulders, on a stage in front of everyone, and says he's a creepy guy.  

 
Well, considering she's pretty disliked by a large chunk of her local party members, it's not very weird to me. I've never liked her, but she's better than a Republican so I've voted for her.
She also has zero charisma, and spent decent chunks of recent debates bragging about how amazing she is.  I find her unlikeable.  But I’d absolutely vote for her over Chester Cheetah.

 
Eh this reminds me a little bit of Dersh’s comp of the President’s due process to a typical criminal defendant, it’s not the same. This isn’t going to happen anyway and it’s obviously unique. Btw it’s almost certain Trump will start criming again as soon as this vote comes down, that’s what happened last time.
It would be used as a justification for the Senate to acquit. Just as Philbin argued that the Senate couldn’t consider whether the conduct was bribery because it wasn’t charged as such in the articles. 
 

 
Dershowitz just said if democrats would have impeached Trump for bribery the results of this would have been very, very, different. 

Neat country. 
He is a whore trying to rehab his image.  he wants to pretend that his arguments were nuanced and that people appreciated those nuances.  that he both knows justice, truth, and legal representation.  He wants to place the blame at the feet of the House prosecutors rather than admit what he knew all along, he was arguing to a fixed jury and his arguments were horrible, constitutionally disgraceful.
I am surprised by your choice of words here. Given your posting history and colorful use of the English language, I would have expected you to describe Dershowitz as a trollop, harlot, strumpet, or painted lady of the evening.

(Not that I disagree with you, btw.)

 
the theme that everything one side does is bad is really no different than your theme of if one side is bad, the other side must be equally bad.
No.  I think what’s being pointed out is small and that both sides are.  I posted that I believe both sides were doing it on the first day of questions. I didn’t raise a fuss because I thought it wasn’t a big deal.

 
But has never been this bad...where we have a senator admitting the man did these awful things...but so what...his chief of staff saying the same things.

And many supporters basically the same...doesn't matter that he did it...so what.  The stock market is good...so what does it matter what POTUS does or says about anything else.
You are correct. It's never been "this bad." At least in a long time anyway (I'm not a historian but I gotta believe the Civil War was pretty bad).

But that is pretty much the definition of an arms race...one action begets a more extreme action from the other side...and because the last thing done was more extreme then of course the only response to save face is more extreme still. And on and on.

Classic.

 
No.  I think what’s being pointed out is small and that both sides are.  I posted that I believe both sides were doing it on the first day of questions. I didn’t raise a fuss because I thought it wasn’t a big deal.
you've been tooting that theme long before this morning

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
cult leader needs followers.  can't have one without the other.

 
The worst part of this whole affair is not Trump, nor his actions. The country can recover from him.

The worst part is that partisanship has become institutionalized. And that began long before Trump.
I don't think enough can be said of this quote. The word "institutionalized" jumps out at me. We've made Team Red and Team Blue such a part of the process that their existence is like a bureaucratic one. Even once it's outlived its usefulness, it maintains itself by taking on more and more authority. I'd expect this began around '72 and hasn't stopped. The realignment of the Republicans to the South and Southern Democrats happened then, and we're now seeing Republicans taking to the Rust Belt and other depressed areas while peddling white identity politics.

Democrats, of course, went from the civil rights party to the identity politics one, but I don't follow them as much as the Rs. I would say that "in with the feminists, out with the Catholics," is a pretty good catch phrase for part of their own realignment. 

 
It would be used as a justification for the Senate to acquit. Just as Philbin argued that the Senate couldn’t consider whether the conduct was bribery because it wasn’t charged as such in the articles. 
That does seem like a mistake in hindsight. Charging him with bribery would have eliminated the argument that we don’t need witnesses because the charges, even if proven true, cannot possibly warrant removal.

Maybe. Or maybe the Republicans would have argued “You mean attempted bribery, which the Constitution doesn’t mention.”

Who knows? I would never have thought it plausible that they’d argue that high crimes and misdemeanors required a crime, so I’m apparently not good at modeling Republican arguments.

 
I am surprised by your choice of words here. Given your posting history and colorful use of the English language, I would have expected you to describe Dershowitz as a trollop, harlot, strumpet, or painted lady of the evening.

(Not that I disagree with you, btw.)
I like and have used each, and regularly.  Sometimes I go wanton or soiled dove as well.  Also a big fan of slattern.  Occasionally I go with fille de joie or harridan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what else should be discussed, if what Trump did was an impeachable offense, should Biden be impeached for the same reason.  Biden, just like Trump, abused his authority by threatened to withhold government funding.  Both acts represent a threat to misappropriate funds.  Both acts had a conflict of interest involved.  Now if you are a mind reader, you could declare Biden's acts were for what he believed was in the best interests of the country and what Trump did was for personal gain.  Both guys acted in an illegal and unethical way and the evidence is overwhelming.   But the distinction, which is not proven, is the true motivation.  The real difference is Biden has much better plausible deniability than Trump.  But is that enough to remove one from office and not the other?  Not in my book. 
i actually think this would be an interesting exercise.  A good portion of this kind of thing has been going on in SiD's conspiracy theory thread.  My initial thought here, and it was triggered by the bold, is that from my perspective, the real difference (if I had to pick just one) is that Biden had absolutely no authority to withhold the funds.  It would have had to come from the President.  He could have been the messenger of course.  The other major difference would be that Biden was "the heaviest hitter" of a large group pushing for these changes globally and not simply representing himself or the US alone.

 
Democrats like to tout their education , but aren’t smart enough to sit back and enjoy the best economic environment they will ever realize. Thank God the Trump train is strong enough to continue rolling over the top of them. This should be the end of Nervous Nancy and Shifty Schiff. They are already in full meltdown mode.

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
I agree and have shared my opinion that trump has taken the GOP and created an entirely different party from it.  The traditional Republican Party is gone, IMO.  But, McConnell's actions in the Senate going back to 2014 (?) will also have a lasting impact and possibly change the way Senate conducts business going forward.  Regardless of which party is in control.  McConnell has had a yuge impact on all this too. 

 
That does seem like a mistake in hindsight. Charging him with bribery would have eliminated the argument that we don’t need witnesses because the charges, even if proven true, cannot possibly warrant removal.

Maybe. Or maybe the Republicans would have argued “You mean attempted bribery, which the Constitution doesn’t mention.”

Who knows? I would never have thought it plausible that they’d argue that high crimes and misdemeanors required a crime, so I’m apparently not good at modeling Republican arguments.
I think the Lamar Alexander rationale would have still prevailed. The defense would have been that for the”high bar of impeachment” an unsuccessful attempt shouldn’t result in removal and should instead be left to the voters. 
 

Like the strategy on fighting over subpoenas, we can quibble over the choices, but the result would have been the same. If they had spent until March fighting for documents in court, Republicans would have just complained that we’re further into an election year.  

 
Isnt Senate members coordinating among themselves different than Senate members coordinating with the branch they are trying to check?

 
Democrats like to tout their education , but aren’t smart enough to sit back and enjoy the best economic environment they will ever realize. Thank God the Trump train is strong enough to continue rolling over the top of them. This should be the end of Nervous Nancy and Shifty Schiff. They are already in full meltdown mode.
Like Republicans enjoyed Obama's longest ecomnomic expasnion in modern times. Compare their records. Basically comparable and Obama didn't have an extra half trillion dollars of deficit a year. 

Also the economy SUCKS for at least half the nation. We got people rationing insulin. Tens of thousands of dollars of school debt. Living check to check at best. 

If you think the economy is the stock market you're mistaken. 

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
I disagree with this pretty strongly. Donald Trump is the symptom, not the disease. 

 
i actually think this would be an interesting exercise.  A good portion of this kind of thing has been going on in SiD's conspiracy theory thread.  My initial thought here, and it was triggered by the bold, is that from my perspective, the real difference (if I had to pick just one) is that Biden had absolutely no authority to withhold the funds.  It would have had to come from the President.  He could have been the messenger of course.  The other major difference would be that Biden was "the heaviest hitter" of a large group pushing for these changes globally and not simply representing himself or the US alone.
Obama delegated what authority he had to Biden.  The executive branch does not have the authority to re-appropriate funds approved by Congress.  So neither Trump or Biden really had the authority, and Biden by delegation from Obama was in the exact same position as Trump.    

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
I strongly disagree. The founders knew there were corrupt people. And unethical people. When they started the country and wrote the Constitution, they planned for a Donald Trump. They didn't plan on an entire Senate to cover up and allow that corruption. 

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
McConnell was pulling the Garland gambit when Trump's name was still a punchline in Republican circles.  The rot in the Republican ship was deep long before they gave Trump the wheel.  And they did GIVE him the wheel.  There was no mutiny.  Trump and McConnell love that neither one ever opposes the other. 

 
I had the pleasure of looking at her platform yesterday. It's nowhere near modern Republican-lite. More like Eishenhower heavy. 
I believe he wants to take a left turn at left and go farther left

*this is not a criticism, just my opinion after reading here since the beginning of the PSF 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you serious?

Just to be clear, are you arguing Biden should have been impeached at the time, or are you actually arguing that we can impeach someone who is not in office?
If he gets elected.   And yes, if this precedent is set, the difference is not all that cut and dry between the two. 
If this goes as predicted and Trump is acquitted and not removed from office and you believe the events are similar enough for comparison and you also believe that what's going on now today is absurd, wouldn't reason and logic push you to say the pursuit of Biden's impeachment would also be absurd?  

 
Republicans are not the problem. Donald Trump is the problem. He’s co-opted the Republican party, that’s the issue. Donald Trump does not equal Republicans IMO, and the sooner he’s out of the picture the sooner we can get back to normal, and hopefully get going in the right direction. This is not meant to offend anyone, the dysfunction, the lowering of the standards of the office, the contempt for democratic checks and balances, those are the core problems with the current administration.
I do not count Elizabeth Warren as getting back to normal.  No way no how

 
Obama delegated what authority he had to Biden.  The executive branch does not have the authority to re-appropriate funds approved by Congress.  So neither Trump or Biden really had the authority, and Biden by delegation from Obama was in the exact same position as Trump.    
Obama did not have authority either. The Republicans and Dems create the Ukraine funding bill for certain checks from DOD and State. What Biden was saying was that if Ukraine did not do something about corruption the administration - which is a much bigger thing than Obama - wouldn’t certify them. If Biden is guilty of anything it’s about bluster at that conference where he talked about his supposed tough stance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if independents decide that a desire to repudiate Republicans does not logically demand an embrace of Democrats.  What if they instead vote third party?
Then I’ll be wrong. Won’t be the first time, won’t be the last. 

But I don’t think I am. Impeachment is not the only reason that independents will vote Democrat. The other huge reason is healthcare. And this reflects perhaps the most startling sea change in politics, which a lot of people have yet to recognize: from 2009 to 2016, independents were by large majorities opposed to Obamacare. As a result Republicans won nearly every election during that time- even when Obama was re-elected, he still lost  house and senate seats. 

Then, after 5 years of implementation, starting in 2017, independents began to like Obamacare. Now polls show they strongly like it. Republicans haven’t gotten this message; they’re still trying to kill it. Trump’s kind of understands, that’s why he’s promising to protect pre-existing conditions while at the same time trying to get rid of Obamacare- an illogical fallacy that he can’t defend or explain. 

So this is the main reason I am opposed to a Bernie Sanders nomination: because it would eliminate the one issue that almost guarantees the independent vote (and thus the election): protection of ACA. 

 
Obama delegated what authority he had to Biden.  The executive branch does not have the authority to re-appropriate funds approved by Congress.  So neither Trump or Biden really had the authority, and Biden by delegation from Obama was in the exact same position as Trump.    
Not sure about this.  #1, we aren't talking about reappropriating.  We are talking about withholding.  #2.  In your scenario, Obama's decision was still to delegate.  That comes from him with his full support and a decision made by him.  Perhaps we are talking past each other, I don't know but in a Biden scenario it would have absolutely found it's way to an Obama impeachment.  :oldunsure:  

I do believe this is a mischaracterization though.  If I remember correctly, Biden didn't say they would withhold previously agreed upon funds.  He said the President would not agree to provide any future funding....again, as part of a larger global group and as part of alignment with long standing foreign policy.

ETA:  And I am not referring to the video when I am talking about what "he said".  That video is an old dude blowing hot air bragging about the 25,000 lb shark he caught.  I am talking about the actual policy position presented to Ukraine

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not count Elizabeth Warren as getting back to normal.  No way no how
In terms of economic policy you’re correct. President Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, is actually more “normal” than Sanders or Warren would be. He has effectively governed as a typical Reaganesque conservative on this one issue: cut taxes, increase spending while hypocritically pretending to cut spending, jack up the military, cut regulations regardless of whether they make sense or not, increase the deficit and debt while complaining about the deficit and debt. All of this we’ve come to expect from the Republican Party over the last 30 years. 

But in almost every other way: international commitments, divisiveness, corruption, civility, treatment of immigrants, environmental awareness, I could go on and on, Warren and/or Sanders or virtually any alternative would be far more normal than Donald Trump. And personally I find all of this to be more important. Hopefully the nation will too. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top