Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
Ummm...no i habe no idea what you are even talking about.. i mean content. If Tim sees an arguement he agrees with with by someone with lots of letters after their name, it is impossible to show Tim any flaws in the arguement no matter how clear they are.
If Trump actually incited a riot you would have a point. Using everyday political rhetoric like 'fight' is not inciting, especially when he made it clear he was talking about excercizing their right to peaceful protests. The Democrats act as if Trump stated "go storm the capitol building and disrupt the proceedings". I have seen numerous BLM billboards which are far more inciteful such as "No Justice, No Peace!". How the heck is that not inciting riots? It is a dangerous assault on speech making his statements illegal.
Last edited by a moderator:
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Just once. Please, just once, try and reply to a topic about Trump and January 6th and not bring up BLM.
To separate the two is to completely ignore the gross hypocrisy and the long term implications of such short-sighted tactic driven more by hate than logic.
The Commish
Footballguy
Only if you insist on looking at it through the eyes of the mainstream media which you deem the most worthless of worthless (I happen to agree with that assessment by the way...and why I don't consume it in any meaningful way) and the eyes of politicians. Free yourself from that stranglehold and you can instantly see how the incidents can be evaluated on their own merits. It's not difficult
Guido Merkins
Footballguy
dozer
Footballguy
Over half of Americans (58%) say that Trump should have been convicted.
The seven Republicans, who make up 14% of the GOP conference in the Senate, mirrors the 14% of Republicans nationwide who believe Trump should have been convicted and barred from holding future office.
The seven Republicans, who make up 14% of the GOP conference in the Senate, mirrors the 14% of Republicans nationwide who believe Trump should have been convicted and barred from holding future office.
I'm not going to go digging up laws and doing analysis for something over 4 years old. But here are a couple of links you can look at that may help:
https://www.theregister.com/2016/05/26/inspector_general_clinton_broke_law_private_email_server/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-clinton-was-extremely_b_10818458
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Well, both lost the popular vote, so there's that. But I don't recall anybody suggesting Trump won illegitimately. I do recall some questionable shenanigans in FL in 2000, but it was dropped in appropriate time. Not sure I've heard a single person harp on it for "20 years." That sounds like more imaginary world.
Some folks are inconceivably bad at whataboutism.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
People seem to forget that the GOP was heading toward issues prior to Trump with regards to their base. Dying/aging and the religious right is growing smaller and smaller every day. Maybe the GOP reinvents itself but there's been discussion about the Death Throes of the GOP for a while. I don't think there's any evidence to the contrary and honestly Trump may just escalate things for them. Honestly, I'm hoping both parties split but that's just me.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
He certainly made some good points but he was wrong about her question.tonydead said:
She was trying so hard and got destroyed. That was awesome
I watched this several times and she did not say "to be fair", she said "to be clear". She was trying to get clarification of how the house managers doctored evidence and he jumped all over her.
It was not slanted at all and she did not say anything like "it's okay to cheat a little bit" like he implied.
As I said he brought up valid points but he either didn't hear her question clearly or he didn't care.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry...I should have been clearer. I know the rules she broke. I was curious as to the laws she broke that rose to "prison time"...I'm assuming you mean federal prison in that phrase. That was an emphatic statement that you seem pretty sure about. Just trying to understand your level of confidence. And FWIW, while I like Comey A LOT, I thought is ruling basically saying, "she didn't intend to do anything nefarious" was completely laughable. What she did would certainly get her fired in the private sector and depending on what would use data obtained in that fashion COULD get her thrown in jail in the private sector, but it's not a guarantee by any stretch.John123 said:
Doctoring evidence is a big deal. Yes?
She started the interview with two questions for him, McConnell's rhetoric and something she misunderstood about his closing arguments, both slanted towards But Trump!. She didn't bring up the doctoring of evidence, she could have, but she didn't. When he brought up the single biggest blunder the house managers made her first reaction is to point that it's just a checkmark and a date.
For any given misfeasance by the President, I think Congress should choose its remedy: impeach or censure, don't do both. So I would definitely not censure Trump for inciting an insurrection. The impeachment votes are already on record. That's enough.timschochet said:
But there are plenty of bad things Trump did that he hasn't been impeached for.
- Refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
- Accepting emoluments from foreign officials
- Refusing to enforce the Hatch Act..
- Spending funds inconsistently with how Congress appropriated them.
- Using the "acting" designation for his appointments to skirt Senatorial confirmations.
- Dangling pardons to tamper with witnesses or to obstruct investigations.
- Constantly lying to everybody about everything all the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this isn't a topic worth getting in to the weeds about years later. I'm pretty sure what she did with clearly classified information should get her jail time. If you read the articles I posted she was asked whether her server had been approved and lied about it. There were also allegations that she used to access classified data outside the SCIF, used a non approved Blackberry for classified data, and more. Can I say with certainty she would have gone to jail? Of course not. We have a legal system. But she certainly should have been prosecuted. There's zero chance of accountability if you don't actually pull the trigger.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Wasn't their politicians that came after Hillary that did the exact same thing? You would thing that after what Hillary went through, everyone would know better by now.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
This narrative didn't begin in March. It began in 2015. The details of each narrative was set before each race. The other ones weren't executed because he won. Although he did setup that hilariously inept voter fraud commission after he won the '16 general but lost the popular vote. What we saw the last 3 months is what we would have seen had he lost at any other point between then and now. This was just at a greater level because it had 5 years to marinate.Snorkelson said:
This isn't and never has been complicated...unless of course one has a narrative they're trying to spin otherwise anyway.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Wasn’t the date on the tweet actually correct when they showed it at the trial? I think it was just wrong in the picture of Jamie Raskin at the computer.
The Commish
Footballguy
It's completely irresponsible to do what she did which is what many others have also done. That was the eye-opening thing to me in that whole discovery...just how prevalent these actions are among our government officials. You have a muddled version of the things as they happened and of the various processes that are in place. That's not an insult, just an observation. For instance, SCIFs are rooms where classified material is to be reviewed. SOME of them have internet connections. Some of them don't and the requirement of their use is based on security clearance. MOST at her level are not required to be in a SCIF to view classified material. They have direct access to those networks in their offices. We know that she pissed and moaned about having to carry two blackberry devices, but that's what she had to do.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Again, you’re the one focusing on the word fight, where as I have brought up a steady yearlong drumbeat of election stealing, even saying “the only way I’ll lose is if they steal it.” A two month long drumbeat of “they stole it” after the election, and then the family plus surrogates speak at a “stop the steal” protest the day of certification, all without any true evidence. And despite seeing all this fraud supposedly coming way back in March, the Trump administration did nothing to do anything about it, which begs the question: was any of it real? Did he ever really believe it or was it all simply so he could contest the election and shape the narrative the whole time?jon_mx said:
You say “democrats act like he said go storm the Capitol” when all he said was “fight” a few times, and that’s just a disingenuous argument to ignore the previous two months of rhetoric on your part.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Yes, much like malls were dying before covid the GOP was already sinking on its own. Trump just sent more and more people to the lifeboats.AAABatteries said:
GordonGekko
Footballguy
VIDEO: Dismissive Reporter CALLED OUT On Fake Evidence | Louder With Crowder •Feb 15, 2021
Crowder, Crew, and special guest Brian Callen, go over the incident where Trump's lawyer (van der Veen) smacks down the fake news... and also the fake/doctored evidence the .... Dems tried to pass off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2vn4SzSBy4
Direct Headline: Impeachment Democrats admit ‘blue check’ Twitter mistake but deny manipulation charge
February 12, 2021 03:29 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/impeachment-dems-admit-blue-check-twiitter-mistake-but-deny-manipulation-charge
******
The DNC strategy runs from incompetent to bizarre. They choose Jamie Raskin ( much of this comes from the current personal loss narrative) but whom opposed the elector certification in 2016 for Trump. Then they chose Eric Swalwell, who dumped as many loads, as well as an untold amount of classified data, as possible into a Chinese spy.
How do you make a "mistake" by lifting a Twitter blue verification tag from one source and then photoshop it onto another message string?
How do you brazenly get away with changing dates, photoshopping social media messages and truncating videos that anyone with a laptop could actually fact check for themselves?
I have heard the same crap from Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and a number of Democrats. Our rhetoric is good, yours is evil. That is what it boils down to.
squistion
Footballguy
And who can forget the mobs engaged in insurrection that stormed and occupied federal buildings after hearing Gore and Hillary use the same rhetoric...oh, wait...
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
So you agree they should have the same charges that Trump does? Or are you saying Trump is a more effective leader and no one listens to Gore and Hillary?
The was only reason they did not was because there was a real security team present ready to deal with a large angry crowd. The lack of adequate security was the #1 cause of what went down on January 6th. There was no excuse since they had plenty of warnings.
squistion
Footballguy
So if not for "a real security team" a mob would have stormed and occupied the Capitol in an attempted coup based on Hillary's words?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Somebody convince me that the “doctored evidence” argument is actually being made in good faith.
The General
Footballguy
Can we agree that Trump and his people like Rudy just blatantly lying is just bad rhetoric.
That argument was made by the defence with evidence. The house managers didnt deny it. Seems like the case is made.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Does presenting evidence with information that’s factual incorrect acceptable? Let me know.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
They both conceded. Gore had been fighting in court, and there were some objections to certification with Clinton, but they both conceded and weren’t publicly saying the election was stolen every day, or call Secretary of State to pressure them to throw out ballots (we’ll see if the courts think this is an issue.) Gore and Clinton didn’t set up a rally the day of certification two months later. Did they contest the results? Yes, through legal remedies, and when those were exhausted (or even before) they gave a public statement of concession. The way it was handled was demonstrably different, and again, I’ll say it is disingenuous for you to ignore the fact that Trump didn’t concede and kept up his “they stole it” lie. Even after his supporters stormed the capitol he told him they were special and he loved them, still hasn’t made a concession or admitted there is no evidence of fraud. You said yourself, “I don’t think it was stolen.” So how do you give Trump a pass for saying it was for months after the election, which led to this mob believing and (whether his final speech incited or not) bum rushing the Capitol to stop the theft that never happened. How do you absolve him of responsibility when these people were there because of his lies.
So the distinction is Trump said it more often. I don't give Trump a pass, as i would never vote for him. But i do value free speech and equal treatmemt and i despise the cancel cultural attempts of the left to punish and criminalize political speech of opponents.. As i said above, BLM's widely publicized slogan 'No Justice No Peace' is far more inciteful.
FairWarning
Footballguy
NJNP by itself could be more inciteful than Stop the Steal. Where it unravels for Trump is it was stolen, AND they will come for your guns, AND you'll lose your energy jobs, AND the borders will be open, AND on and on - only Mike Pence can stop it. What are you going to do? He planted those seeds of doubt and wanted them to act on it.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I’ve kind of stopped paying attention to all this - I wanted Trump gone and he is. I personally think he’s guilty but had no delusions he wouldn’t be acquitted. But I do find it funny that several folks in here who consistently claimed they didn’t support Trump and didn’t vote for him are defending him. I’m kind of happy - I hope the GOP continues to placate him - will just quicken their demise on the national level.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
No, the distinction is that Trump peddled lies. Even when the Republican SOS of Georgia said the election was fair, he called to claim it wasn’t, and that he should do something about it. There was never any proof that “thousands of dead people voted” or “machinery was removed” or that fraudulent ballots were counted. The GOP resisted efforts to change some rules, for instance in Michigan we can’t open the mail ballots until Election Day to begin counting (no prep allowed), then wanted counting stopped before those ballots were counted.
Florida was a close election, I don’t think Gore was wrong in asking for a recount. He conceded. Hillary conceded that night (I believe, didn’t look back and not 100%). They didn’t claim fraud, organize protests, claim the only way they could lose was through cheating, etc.
If you won’t recognize this as being a significant difference I think we’re done here. I really do appreciate you saying that it wasn’t a stolen election though.
The left peddles lies. Not a distinction at all. I guess we are done here. I HATE censorship, hypocrisy, belittlement, lack of empathy. I hate it in Trump and I hate it from the left no matter whst little nuances there might be proclaiming their flaws are different. They all stink.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
How do you feel about GOP senators that voted guilty in Trump's second impeachment trial facing censures by their state's Republican parties? How about Cindy McCain's censure?
Seems like cancel culture is alive and well on the right as well.
Insein
Footballguy
Politics is cancel culture. The opposition is always trying to end your political career. This was usually isolated to that forum though.
Last 5-6 years or so that incessant backstabbing culture has creeped it's way into regular life. Where Joe from accounting can now be fired if his boss finds out he has different politics than him. Or Mary at the local salon could have made a tweet 10 years ago that is now deemed insensitive today. Her boss was not aware of it but twitter, FB et al were all to happy to email her boss to let them know about it.
We're entering a dangerous age once again where political wrong think can now have consequences in your personal life. Some will say "free market your boss can fire you for whatever they want" but how can a person defend themselves from a mob out for blood for not thinking correctly? Companies can be boycotted. Individuals get cancelled and it ruins lives.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I can appreciate that too. It’s true and it’s important to look at everything, no matter where it’s coming from, with a critical eye.
I think labeling tweets and kicking people off of that platform who spread similar lies was appropriate. I can also admit that those companies need to figure out an appropriate and consistent way to apply these policies. I also recognize that these platforms may not get it right on the first try; it’s still relatively new and new issues will result in new solutions. I don’t agree with just letting people say/spread lies and disinformation willy nilly.
timschochet
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This is exactly how misunformation ends up running rampant in right wing circles and why it's so hard to combat it.
Having had the benefit of watching parts of the trial, I'm actually familiar with the story so I know why it is a stupid allegation. But disingenuous prople like Trump's lawyer and Hannity, etc. say "The Democrats doctored evidence!" and then disingenuous people and low-information right wing people all over repeat "doctored evidence!" and then people that already mistrust and hate the Democrats say "see!" They don't realize or care how stupid the story is so they just keep saying "doctored evidence!" over and over and that continues to foment distrust and hatred towards the other side of the aisle. This allegation is especially pernicious because it says that Democrats are willing to cheat to get Trump, which Trump folks readily believe because they already think it's true, even though in this instance it's a ridiculous allegation.
Today I'm going to take a paragraph or two to explain the "doctored evidence" story so that uninformed people can understand why it's nonsense. But I'm not going to take the time to do that evey time someone says "doctored evidence" because I'm lazy and I have other stuff to do and it's annoying for people to read the same crap over and over again. So what will happen going forward is that right wing folks will continue to say "doctored evidence!'" and most of the time nobody will actually bother to explain what they're talking about, so then it will just be assumed to be true by many people that get their news from facebook and message boards and other disreputable sources. Just like "impeachment hoax" and other ridiculous things people say on the right. It takes two seconds to write "impeachment hoax!" while it takes a much greater investment of time to actually sit down and explain what Trump was impeached for and why and what the evidence was and how what he did was atypical for a President, etc. So people on this board will routinely write stuff like "impeachment hoax" and have it not be challenged at all. And then lots of people believe nonsense to be true because they hear these uncontested claims over and over..
Anyway, here is the "doctored evidence" story:
During the trial the House managers showed probably hundreds of slides featuring various quotes from twitter or from media sources. On one slide of those hundreds they showed a tweet from one of Trump's supporters. The content of the tweet was accurate. However, the display had a little blue check mark on it indicating that Trump's supporter was a verified user, when in fact she is not a verified user. Another slide showed tweets that were accurate and were even dated accurately BUT a picture of that display had previously run in the media where this slide had been visible on a computer and in THAT picture the date said "2020" instead of the accurate "2021." The House managers apparently noticed that mistake and fixed it before trial, nonetheless Trump's defense lawyers included it in their allegations of "doctored evidence!".
I've been a lawyer for 20 years (kill me now), What I described in the previous paragraph are known as "mistakes." They happen ALL THE TIME. I've made mistakes. I've witnessed opposing counsel make mistakes. People cite the wrong case by accident, they misattribute a quote, they claim something is from a majority opinion instead of a dissent. Inadvertently having a little blue check mark next to a tweet because some guy designing your graphics screwed up is an insignificant mistake, not "doctored evidence."
"Doctored evidence" is a loaded term. The situation it calls to mind is one where a lawyer deliberately changes a number on the printout of his client's bank account or when a cop puts the victim's blood on a suspect's shirt. The implication is that you are cheating. When you introduce doctored evidence, you're introducing false evidence for the purpose of tricking the judge/jury into making a more favorable decision for your client. The examples I've given in this paragraph are SERIOUS. They lead to dismissed cases and sanctioned attorneys. That's what we generally are referring to when people talk about "doctored evidence."
But adding a check mark to some random person's tweet doesn't resemble that at all. It doesn't seem to give the House Managers any advantage, the check likely would have gone completely unnoticed by any of the Senators if it hadn't been pointed out by the defense. This is not the way that anyone would cheat if that was the intent. If it happened in a normal courtroom I suspect it would be met with a shrug. The judge might strike the exhibit or make the the lawyer refile a corrected one. But everyone is aware that people in litigation can make mistakes and this isn't a particularly egregious one. But it's worth noting that this isn't even a regular court. The normal rules of evidence didn't apply. Both sides were using hearsay evidence and all kinds of stuff that would never be allowed in a regular courtroom. There was no processof authenticating exhibits like they do in a regular trial. To raise the issue of the superfluous checkmark in this context is just absurd.
Of course Trump's lawyers knew saying "they showed an otherwise-accurate Twitter quote but added a blue check mark to it!" doesn't sound like a very compelling defense. So they just say "doctored evidence" without context. And then they say stuff like "doctoring evidence is serious!! This is a big deal!!!" And they say "if this evidence is doctored, how can you trust anything else the House managers say?" Which is of course all ridiculous. The House managers made a tiny insignificant mistake in presenting a single piece of evidence, at the absolute MOST it should be construed as "the House Managers were a little bit sloppy." But even that seems like a stretch.
This whole thing is a narrative pushed by people acting in bad faith and spread by others who are either acting in bad faith or have no idea what they're talking about. It will become orthodoxy among Trump supporters soon if it hasn't taken hold already. Fighting misinformation is so hard.
Similar threads
