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.
Mitt Romney votes to convict and remove Donald Trump (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
But they aren’t the topic of this discussion. They weren't the person in question. His actions had zero to do with being prudent with taxpayer funds.
Space Captain
Footballguy
You are correct, that was off topic. In your opinion his actions had zero to do with being prudent with taxpayer funds; if that is the case his actions must have been wasteful with taxpayer funds?
sho nuff
Footballguy
His actions had zero to do with the funds. It was all about Biden. He doesn't care at all about the funds and who they actually go to.
Space Captain
Footballguy
Well that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to that, but it is not a fact.
timschochet
Footballguy
If wiki says he is a constitutional law specialist they are incorrect.
And since you have used that term “Harvard Constitutional Law specialist” as a means to boost his argument, I make you the following challenge: find a respected specialist in constitutional law, anywhere, who agrees with Alan Dershowitz on this issue. It can be a conservative or a liberal, anyone who is respected regarding the Constitution. It can be from the present or the past. Simply link that person’s views that match Dershowitz. I dare you to find such a person.
IIf Trump supporters are enjoying their emperor’s continued attacks on Romney there is as much wrong with them as there is with this mean vindictive unstable President. Seeing what happens to those who turn on the President explains why so many chose not to vote to remove no matter how much they thought they should have. Every day he does this proves that CBS story where any GOP Senator who turns on him will find their head on a pike absolutely true. To me he looks more guilty of those high crimes every day. He is a mob boss President
Last edited by a moderator:
boots11234
Footballguy
This was one argument Tim. Trump had more than one lawyer. They didn’t all focus on this on this I believe.
a constitutional law expert had this to say:
Democrats abused their power by ramming through their allegations of wrongdoing against the president, while attempting to block Trump's defense efforts — then characterizing Trump's defense measures as further abuses of power.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
He's written about both. It's not unfair to call him a constitutional law scholar. He is a newcomer in the field of writing about the impeachment clause and his views on that are ... idiosyncratic.
timschochet
Footballguy
Right: that’s a separate argument, more directed against the second Article than the first, and while ultimately I don’t agree with it, it’s not unreasonable.
But as regards the first article of impeachment: either he did it or he didn’t, and if he did it I can see no good argument not to remove him. And there is overwhelming indirect evidence that he did it, and probably direct evidence as well but the Senate refused to examine it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This was Randy Barnett on the Mark Levin show, as posted on the Blaze. For a guy who has preached on libertarianism this was one of the most embarrassing moments imaginable as it’s just another argument for authoritarianism (and libertarians are about limiting executive authority). Congress does not depend on court permission to impeach a president.
Last edited by a moderator:
Space Captain
Footballguy
I didn't use the term "Harvard Constitutional Law specialist" nor did I state wiki did. I stated scholar of United States constitutional law, which is in the second sentence of the wiki article. When zftcg posted about his background being in criminal law and not constitutional law, I posted this: I beg your pardon if I was incorrect. I was going off the Wikipedia page I visited for the information I used. Perhaps I will have to inform them of the mistake.
I have decided not to contact wiki on this issue. If either of you feel strongly enough about getting this information corrected perhaps you could embark on that journey.
Regardless I stand by my position. The background in law of Professor Dershowitz speaks for itself, and I have confidence in his ability to apply that background to constitutional law. Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt testified during the House Impeachment inquiry hearings. I believe they were presented as Constitutional Law Scholars. Their testimony didn't move the needle for me, but I'm not a Senator. Apparently their testimony didn't persuade a majority of Senators either.
Thank you kindly for the offer, but I will decline your challenge. I believe it would be a fruitless endeavor, and I have no time to waste on those.
Space Captain
Footballguy
Probably searched for "best Harvard Constitutional Law specialist" and the wiki page for Dershowitz was the first to pop up. As the President was acquitted, ignorance is bliss, I guess.
timschochet
Footballguy
So if so understand you correctly:
1. You acknowledge that Dershowitz was not an expert on the Constitution or impeachment.
2. You acknowledge that there are no reputable experts on the Constitution, conservative or liberal, who agree with Dershowitz’s argument.
3. You will continue to rely on Dershowitz’s argument.
Got it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
How old is Mitt now? I'm a dyed in the wool blue voter but, man, he looked trim, fit and vigorous marching yesterday.
This is the point where, on other message boards, I would make several disparaging jokes about the current leader of the Republican Party.
This is the point where, on other message boards, I would make several disparaging jokes about the current leader of the Republican Party.
73. So running in 2024 isn't outside of the realm of posibility. Gotta think bein an influential Senator is a better gig though.
And he probably doesn't have anything to lose which is wonderful because he can just speak his mind.
If only some other republicans would show some sort of moral courage
Yeah. He is loaded and has a big family. Going through another national campaign seems much worse than his current gig
Joe Mammy
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I’d say he has plenty to lose. There are websites out there calling him a traitor to the country.
There are a small number of Trump supporters who are quite fanatical, like the guy who arrested last year for attempting to send bombs to various members of Congress. Because of these sorts of crazies, it is never risk free to challenge Donald Trump.
Definitely not what the Republican Party is today nor do I see them supporting him in 4 years. They may have to reboot but he will get little consideration unless Biden wins in a landslide and then still not likely. Nikki Haley will be the most likely candidate, not too close to Trump but kept out of being critical of him also.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Worth remembering Evan McMullin got 21.5% in Utah. There is an independent, Mormon streak in that state. Mitt is in a pretty good spot if he wants to have a "maverick" type couple of terms. Not to mention they love him from the Olympics. There are a multitide worse lots in life than splitting your time between DC and Park City.
Fan of Charles McCoy
Footballguy
Romney is a true patriot. The last Republican president I ever voted for.
Similar threads
