timschochet
Footballguy
I wish I was as smart as Jeff Bezos.
Churchill was another guy who was called “wishy-washy” his entire career. he wrote, “consistency is the hallmark of small minds” I think. Something like that.
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.
I’ve changed my mind; it’s time to impeach Donald Trump (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Churchill was another guy who was called “wishy-washy” his entire career. he wrote, “consistency is the hallmark of small minds” I think. Something like that.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s not usual but I’ve known others who have done it. A lot of book lovers read literally dozens of books at a time. Stephen King reads 150-200 books a year. I can’t read nearly that fast, but Kindle has changed the way I read.
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?”
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Was there something is the Mueller report to warrant changing a conclusion? If anything on the most important issue of collusion, it was largely exonerating as no real proof was found. Obstruction is a murky crime. There needs to be a firm line between protecting your rights and things which are clearly obstruction such as destroying evidence or lying about material matters.
I am at odds with how obstruction is applied. There are cases like Martha Steward and Scooter Libby where it was more about CYA of the prosecutors than administering justice. Nixon was a case where the results were justifiable where evidence was destroyed. Then there were cases like Clinton where he was clearly lying but it was questionable if it was material to any of the investigations. So in the end, the Senate got it right, but the House impeaching was overboard. It is too easy to scream obstruction because defendants will always do things to protect their rights.
Giving vague non-answers should not be grounds for obstruction. Given the lack of evidence of an actual crime, a questionable case of obstruction, which will clearly fail in the Senate, is just wrong. Beat Trump in the election, not by overreaching (or perhaps even abusing) the oversight power vested the House by the Constitution for partisan purposes.
I am at odds with how obstruction is applied. There are cases like Martha Steward and Scooter Libby where it was more about CYA of the prosecutors than administering justice. Nixon was a case where the results were justifiable where evidence was destroyed. Then there were cases like Clinton where he was clearly lying but it was questionable if it was material to any of the investigations. So in the end, the Senate got it right, but the House impeaching was overboard. It is too easy to scream obstruction because defendants will always do things to protect their rights.
Giving vague non-answers should not be grounds for obstruction. Given the lack of evidence of an actual crime, a questionable case of obstruction, which will clearly fail in the Senate, is just wrong. Beat Trump in the election, not by overreaching (or perhaps even abusing) the oversight power vested the House by the Constitution for partisan purposes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Nothing is more important than assuring that Donald Trump is a one-term president. Go after him after the election
Last edited by a moderator:
Giving vague non-answers is not one of the eleven instances of possible obstruction that Mueller analyzed, and there was extremely strong evidence of actual crimes. (The widespread and systematic interference by Russia violated U.S. criminal law. The investigation into those crimes is the same investigation that Trump obstructed — by trying to fire Mueller, by trying to curtail or have the A.G. control his investigation, by asking McGahn to manufacture false evidence, by pressuring several witnesses to testify a certain way...)
Godsbrother
Footballguy
The fact that Trump attempted to get others to block, stop or mislead the investigation is obstruction. But I still don't think the Democrats should go forward with impeachment because it will likely blow up in their face.The crime I was referring to is the collusion, the Russian interference was established before the investigation. Trump having discussions with his lawyer is not obstruction, it is protected. The other actions are more political than obstruction. It depends on the pressure which was applied as to whether that might be obstruction. Not all familiar with that.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
I agree, but man, a lot of stuff goes on here that deserves a comment like this, and I don't totally exclude myself from that lament, unfortunately.
But it's nice to see this sort of comment from somebody who is respected enough (and by that I mean official board status, genuine even-keeled temperament, and intellectual respect) to do normative encouraging.
timschochet
Footballguy
I know you’re partisan but I also believe you to be honest. I think that once you’ve heard public testimony you may change your mind. That’s part of the reason I want to move forward.
timschochet
Footballguy
Lol. I didn’t complain about it, but I don’t think “do us all a favor and shut up” is something I’d call “normative encouraging” or “nice to see”. Interesting that you would write this.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, tim, you're reading what I wrote wrong. I meant Maurile's comment was well-placed, and that he was in a respected enough position to do so.
I was siding with Maurile and you, really. If that was unclear, I apologize.
rockaction
Footballguy
I'm sorry to digress from the thread; just saw that and figured it was a welcome thing.
eta* I'm not sure how I feel about impeachment myself, but I lean toward censure.
eta* I'm not sure how I feel about impeachment myself, but I lean toward censure.
Last edited by a moderator:
boots11234
Footballguy
Lol
timschochet
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I agree.
The proper etiquette is to call someone a troll, then request that all other posters use the ignore function or stop quoting.
It's the passive aggressive way of saying "shut up".
SHIZNITTTT
Footballguy
Government prosecutors on Thursday released the audio recording of a voicemail from President Donald Trump's then-personal lawyer asking Michael Flynn's attorney for "some kind of heads up" about the former national security adviser's cooperation with investigators.
"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again," the Nov. 22, 2017 voicemail recording starts out, as Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, requests Flynn's attorney, Rob Kelner, for a "heads up" about the nature of Flynn's cooperation, a move that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has described as a "potential" effort to hinder the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
"If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country," Dowd tells Kelner in the voicemail. "So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information."
"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again," the Nov. 22, 2017 voicemail recording starts out, as Trump's lawyer, John Dowd, requests Flynn's attorney, Rob Kelner, for a "heads up" about the nature of Flynn's cooperation, a move that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has described as a "potential" effort to hinder the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
"If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country," Dowd tells Kelner in the voicemail. "So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information."
supermike80
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
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.
Mile High
Footballguy
President seems to not like public testimony. Before Mueller spoke in public it was "completely exonerated ".
Now it's
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
“Mueller’s report was pure, political garbage!”
@SeanHannity
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-HZz5Qv8E
When you stood up to be counted with the enemy of everything thegrail constitution stands for who gives a damn what you think...
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.
When you stood up to be counted with the enemy of everything the
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skoo
Footballguy
First of all, respect to @timschochet. Most people aren't nearly as willing to admit they were wrong. Humility is a great quality to have IMO.
As far as impeachment goes, I keep hearing about how if they impeach it will help Trump in 2020.
I disagree with that anyway, but what about the flip side? What if they don't impeach and he still wins? Now he's even more emboldened and people like me will be screaming from the rooftops that they should've impeached when they had the chance.
No, he's not gonna get removed from office. But a whole lot of his dirty laundry is going to go public. It will be a spectacle. It will change minds.
As far as impeachment goes, I keep hearing about how if they impeach it will help Trump in 2020.
I disagree with that anyway, but what about the flip side? What if they don't impeach and he still wins? Now he's even more emboldened and people like me will be screaming from the rooftops that they should've impeached when they had the chance.
No, he's not gonna get removed from office. But a whole lot of his dirty laundry is going to go public. It will be a spectacle. It will change minds.
pantherclub
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Look, if Nancy manages to delay this and ends up not doing it at all, and then Trump loses anyhow, it’s not like I’m going to be dismayed by that outcome. But I’ll still believe that she made a mistake.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Id guess Nancy does just fine in the house. That isn't the worry. The corrupt Senate is the issue.
The Commish
Footballguy
I find it cute that "liberals" think that not impeaching means that trump will not whine about the investigation and won't scream witch hunt throughout the election year.
It's going to be a pillar of his campaign along with immigration fear mongering. That's all he has. Not even his supporters expect him to talk about actual policy. They know that's a losing proposition. If the derm candidate keeps it about issues and demands policy solutions from him it's over.
It's going to be a pillar of his campaign along with immigration fear mongering. That's all he has. Not even his supporters expect him to talk about actual policy. They know that's a losing proposition. If the derm candidate keeps it about issues and demands policy solutions from him it's over.
KCitons
Footballguy
I look at this as two different issues. Impeachment and 2020 election. Neither should have an impact on the other.
The impeachment process would have started for any other President.
I'm a rules guy. If the rules were broken, I don't care if you're the best President, or the worst. Action must be taken. Since this is a fake football board, the analogy I would use is a star player that beats his wife or child. On the field ability doesn't matter. The rules matter. We have processes in place to investigate and find the truth. If that means impeachment, fine. If it means that impeachment is not reached, I'm fine with that also. But, the process must be followed.
The impeachment process would have started for any other President.
I'm a rules guy. If the rules were broken, I don't care if you're the best President, or the worst. Action must be taken. Since this is a fake football board, the analogy I would use is a star player that beats his wife or child. On the field ability doesn't matter. The rules matter. We have processes in place to investigate and find the truth. If that means impeachment, fine. If it means that impeachment is not reached, I'm fine with that also. But, the process must be followed.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s interesting- the political consequences are not the reason I changed my mind on this- as I mentioned, it was the moral clarity of Senator Warren’s speech- but that being said, for some time now I have been reconsidering my political assumptions as well:
Like many people here, I assumed that impeachment would help Trump get re-elected. But then I began to ask myself, why is that, and I couldn’t come up with compelling answers. There are three explanations I hear most often, especially on conservative radio: first, that currently 56% of the population is opposed to impeachment hearings. Well of course that number will change. But even if it doesn’t, why should we assume that because people don’t like impeachment, they will then vote for Trump? Out of sympathy? People never vote out of sympathy, so that’s no answer.
The second argument is that when Clinton was impeached in 1998 his approval numbers went up. That’s true but it ignores the fact that prior to impeachment Clinton was already hovering at around 60%. Trump is burdened with a very consistent 53% disapproval rating and it’s hard to see how that number changes short of some kind of national calamity like war or a terrorist attack, and then only temporarily as we rally behind our leader.
The final argument is that this will so energize Trump supporters that they will come out in force in 2020 and secure his win. Well maybe. It would seem to me that public impeachment hearings that describe Trump’s obstruction might have the opposite effect. But even if it doesn’t, aren’t the Trump fans already going to be energized? And if this also energizes those who don’t like Trump, how can this be to his advantage?
Again nobody can predict what the political outcome will be. But I don’t think it’s safe to assume it will be good for Trump.
timschochet
Footballguy
I wish this were more of an exact analogy, because if it were, then we could suspend Trump as President while the investigation played out- how sweet would that be?
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s really ironic isn’t it? I like her as a person, but I probably disagree with her politics more than any other Democratic candidate outside of Bernie and not including Tulsi Gabbard who has no shot. I’m not supporting her for President, though if she gets the nod I’ll gladly vote for her given the opponent. But what she said on this issue made sense to me in a way other people haven’t. It hit home.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
OKAY EVERYONE. TIM CHANGED HIS MIND. NOW WE CAN GET MOVING.
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
KCitons
Footballguy
Not really. Who would decide when to suspend? I would see the suspension being abused by both sides. We have a process in place. We don't need new process.
timschochet
Footballguy
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Predictable and not all at surprising.
Emotion defeats mind.
It might be the "just" move but it's not the correct move.
Dems gonna Dem.
Always zig when they should zag.
We're doomed.
Emotion defeats mind.
It might be the "just" move but it's not the correct move.
Dems gonna Dem.
Always zig when they should zag.
We're doomed.
timschochet
Footballguy
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.
Either way, discussions between the two are protected either by lawyer-client or by executive previledge.
timschochet
Footballguy
Similar threads
