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.
Trump Approval Increasing, Support for Impeachment falling (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jon_mx
- Start date
bostonfred
Footballguy
Actually, it would have been pretty simple for trump to prove his innocence.Don't Noonan said:
The House requested documents, emails, contemporaneous notes, and witnesses. The white house had months to review all of them.
They didn't just refuse to provide documents that could have proven him guilty, they couldn't find one single email where an advisor said hey you have to be careful not to condition aid on something that could be an ethics violation, and him saying ok make it so
They couldn't find a single email showing him saying "no quid pro quo" and "i want nothing" until immediately after the whistleblower news came out.
Yet somehow, the news comes out and his guys say hey we can't condition anything on the Biden investigation. Oh no, there's no quid pro quo. And then they check with the president and his attorneys and he says that's right, no quid pro quo!
If even one email - from a guy who fires off dozens of tweets per hour and sends buttery mails from his iPhone on the reg - even sounded like he sincerely wanted to avoid a conflict of interest, they would have presented it, called a witness to submit it in testimony, something.
He literally accepted impeachment instead of providing those documents. McConnell is taking direction from the white house attorneys to not allow witnesses in the Senate trial.
This isn't a civil or criminal trial. This is a Congressional hearing. He wasn't allowed to take the fifth. Congress and the people are allowed to infer from his complete inability to provide a document that made him look good that he looks bad all the time.
Bill Taylor wasn't allowed to see his own notes. The white house lawyers were. They exerted executive privilege to block him from reading his own notes. If Taylor's testimony was anything but completely accurate they could have just changed their mind.
There's absolutely no intelligent reason to believe that he didn't do at least what he was accused of, and probably worse. They had all the power to choose which documents to put in evidence and they couldn't find a shed of evidence to defend him.
I can respect someone not following this closely enough to know that. I can respect someone who says it's enough to impeach, but not remove, although i strongly disagree because allowing him to continue to invite foreign interference in the American election process directly means that the American people aren't choosing their own leaders and that is anathema to democracy. I can almost even respect the politicians who are stuck supporting him and acting outraged because their political lives depend on ir.
What i can't respect is anyone who knows enough about this to know they're lying continuing to act like they're taking the moral high ground. The only thing worse than the people whose careers require them to support this is people who know better but still believe and spread their lies.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Interesting choice of experts. It is the same Jonathan Turley who is of the opinion that "you could impeach every living president" by the standards of Trump Impeachment.
He is probably partially wrong in both cases. For instance I doubt if Carter did anything impeachment worthy, but I do believe every other one from Clinton to Bush to Obama could have been impeached by the ridiculous reasoning in the obstruction article.
There is a lot wrong with this reasoning. Trump legally asserted his right. Just because it is of the opinion of Democrats that Trump must produce documents or his aides must testify, he doesn't. It is still an unsettled issue of law which the Democrats decided not to take the time to have it legally decided by the courts when a president can invoke executive privilege (not really a 5th issue). It certainly is not a criminal trial, it is a political one. And in my view, the Democrats badly misplayed it.
Then refute the evidence. Prove to everyone here, with links and verified evidence, that he didn't abuse his power and obstruct Congress. The memo is fairly damning to Trump, but if it truly was a "perfect call," as he claims, surely there must be piles of evidence backing that up. He's had months to shut the democrats up, but he's thrown tantrum after tantrum, deflecting and blaming.I don't respect anyone who feels Trump should have been impeached.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
The memo is not damning at all to Trump. Feel free to make your case that it is. The Dems case is based on assumptions and hearsay, not compelling at all. Now if Bolton or Rudy were to testify something damaging to Trump in the Senate trial you may have a point. Until that happens, nothing burger.
All of that to say Trump has nothing. It's too bad that the Senate lacks the spine to actually do something itself, because once again it falls to the voters to correct their mistakes.
I believe the burden is on the Democrats to prove Trump is guilty. Nancy Pelosi has already admitted the evidence she collected is insufficient for conviction so hence she wants to delay. I have explained a dozen times why the obstruction charge is ridiculous, but crickets from the Trump-haters.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Did he have the right to assert executive privilege? Maybe. That argument lost badly in court but was appealed.
But whether he was legally required to testify or not isn't the question. If he had a single email showing that he was aware of the conflict of interest and didn't want to condition aid on the information, he would have provided it, because it would not only have prevented him from getting impeached but would have badly embarrassed the Democrats.
You can play the "technically we don't know what those documents said" game, but the answer is clearly "nothing good for trump".
timschochet
Footballguy
This morning’s Yahoo News poll: 53% of Americans believe that Trump abused his power. Only 40% think he did not. 48% think he should be removed for it; 50% do not.
While these numbers don’t support Trump’s removal, if they hold up they will doom his re-election chances IMO.
While these numbers don’t support Trump’s removal, if they hold up they will doom his re-election chances IMO.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Yes, Dems will likely lose the House and guaranteed another 4 years of Trump with this debacle. Well done!
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Yahoo is extremely left leaning. However, it comes down to key battleground states and Trump looks good there. Add in the economy kicking butt and his chances look very good.
If you take the 5th or claim executive privilege, you take the 5th. You do not selectively pick and choose what to answer or provide. Invoking your rights is not an admission of guilt. Trump will probably lose in court, but Nancy was a fool not to wait.
parrot
Footballguy
It is the same Johnathan Turley, and he makes a great case that the Senate TRIAL is the proper venue for the full hearing of witnesses and adjudication of facts (this was when Clinton was the impeached of course). That he may feel the Obstruction charge is thin does nothing to change that point. I agree with him that it is thin without a court weighing in on it. I also agree with him that the qpq/bribery/extortion scheme that underlies everything is plenty impeachment-worthy.
A bold statement, considering Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million against a candidate everyone agreed was the worst possible. Not to mention he's been getting beaten fairly often in elections lately.
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with you that it comes down to key battleground states. So let’s look at the latest numbers we have:
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Wisconsin -14
Ohio -7
Michigan -15
Pennsylvania -8
Of course these numbers are from 30 days ago, and Trump supporters can take comfort that in 2 out of 4 of these states Trump has taken slight leads in theoretical head to head matchups against his leading Democratic opponents. But head to head matchup polls prior to one candidate winning the nomination are notoriously unreliable, for a lot of very good reasons, the main one being that voters aren’t ready to truly visualize an either-or choice until it happens.
So I would argue that the approval numbers are what we should be looking at, and you’re wrong; his chances don’t look very good at all. He’s underwater in every one of those swing states and by double digits in two of them. And these numbers have been very steady for 3 years, completely unaffected by the good economic news. Now could they have changed in the last 30 days? Could it be, as many Trump supporters speculate, that the impeachment is such a sham and so pissing people off that it will cause those numbers to reverse and Trump will have positive ratings in the battleground states? I suppose anything is possible. But I’d be mighty surprised.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
An inquiry into Carter was opened by Republicans because they believed he was improperly profiting off of his family peanut farm.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
bostonfred
Footballguy
Nope.
The president does not have a fifth amendment right to refuse to answer questions in an impeachment inquiry. There is no analogy between "taking the fifth" and what he did.
What he did was to assert executive privilege over document requests. And that's legal and necessary. The president absolutely needs to be able to protect documents that he believes are sensitive. Many presidents have done this in the past.
As such, choosing which documents to provide would be far more "normal" than a blanket refusal to produce documents or witnesses. He was impeached for obstruction of Congress in large part because he didn't identify documents that needed to be protected. He asserted privilege over all documents and all witnesses while his lawyers argued that Congress doesn't have the authority to make the requests.
One thing worth noting - if the courts rule that Trump is allowed to exert blanket executive privilege, then the obstruction of Congress article is dead on arrival. If they don't, then it's absolutely necessary to force the issue. This precedent would have enormous implications on the system of checks and balances if future Congresses were not allowed to investigate the Presidency in any meaningful way.
So while I agree with the argument that the issue is still in court, that article absolutely had to be included to ensure its consideration for future Congresses.
And it may also be part of the Democrat strategy this time around. Maybe Pelosi plans to sit on these articles of impeachment until the appeals are exhausted and then either force the issue that witnesses and documents must be provided during the Senate trial or force removal because a legal subpoena had been made and refused and the courts found that he did not have the right to assert privilege. If trump wants to go through the courts, fine. He's been impeached for obstruction of Congress and unless the courts uphold his refusal, he is clearly guilty of it.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
No, Jon is correct. Nancy rushed this through and could have waited to get court rulings on witnesses that could have possibly helped the Dems case. Now she is passing on a flaming bag of Schiff to Schumer.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
When? The USSC just scheduled release of opinions on various Trump tax and related issues for release in June.
Last edited by a moderator:
mrip541
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Trump explains why he believes Ukraine, not Russia, interfered with the 2016 election:
“Because Putin told me.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/19/politics/trump-ukraine-putin-white-house-officials/index.html
“Because Putin told me.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/19/politics/trump-ukraine-putin-white-house-officials/index.html
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
What do his tax returns have anything to do with the articles of impeachment or the hearings that have taken place?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
They don’t - except arguably about his aggrandized ideas of privilege - but the point is the courts are taking *forever.
Last edited by a moderator:
beef
Footballguy
Pennsylvania Avenue has been renamed Putin Way.Trump explains why he believes Ukraine, not Russia, interfered with the 2016 election:
“Because Putin told me.”
Okie Dokie Pokie.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/19/politics/trump-ukraine-putin-white-house-officials/index.html
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Well, it would have been smarter to wait IMO. Getting documents and Bolton/Mulvaney to testify was only chance.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That they will be denied in court is not chance at all. The district court in the McGahn case put out a withering opinion. The whole claim of absolute privilege is specious. The problem is that the McGahn appeal won’t even be heard til January. Then if the circuit court agrees the USSC has signaled they will hear it, and that decision could come out as a minimum til fall. Dems may be looking at 2021 for a final ruling if they went after Mulvaney. There’s no point.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Trump will still be in office then. Are you admitting this impeachment was only a political move? I respect you for admitting that.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You’re arguing my point. I’m saying yeah he could be and it’s not worth waiting. - What you’re saying is similar to what Strzok was saying. If like you think he might maybe yes will win then relying on the courts, going the long haul, would be an insurance policy in case he does win. Others say act now, be aggressive and use your powder while it’s dry.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
51%, 45%, 48%- its not moving all that much. Basically it’s half of the nation, give or take. Not enough to get Republican Senators to do the right thing, but probably enough to beat him next November.
timschochet
Footballguy
Umm no it really isn’t. What a terrible analogy. Was Obama ever formerly charged with a high crime? Were there witnesses to testify? Man thats awful. Worst comparison I’ve read in this forum and that’s saying something.
matuski
Footballguy
I didn't say the accusation was the same.
The argument, verbatim, was just such.
eta - if I bothered, I would imagine I could find EXACTLY this line from the birther contingent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
It is important to note the poll isn't 51-49. It is 51 to 42. The notion that polling numbers on impeachment support the president is crazy.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I like the birther analogy because Obama did provide proof of his "innocence", and that was enough to satisfy the vast majority of the country.
Trump failed to provide any documentation to prove his innocence, instead relying on the vaguely parsed words of hired defenders.
Trump failed to provide any documentation to prove his innocence, instead relying on the vaguely parsed words of hired defenders.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
Obama held onto said proof for years, baiting/trolling the right.
I like the analogy too.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
And I could find it from the flat earth contingent or the Holocaust denial contingent or the moon landing never happened contingent.
I didn't say the accusation was the same.
The argument, verbatim, was just such.
eta - if I bothered, I would imagine I could find EXACTLY this line from the birther contingent.
But I wouldn’t use those analogies either because they would make me look ridiculous.
matuski
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
The point is that entire premise of the thread is wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
Joe Summer
Footballguy
If that were true then they would have impeached immediately after the Mueller Report was released.
timschochet
Footballguy
No.
You know one reason I think we have such a divide in this country right now? It’s because we constantly misjudge the other side’s motives, and we think they’re dishonest. I think most people are honest. So let me say:
1. When Trump supporters tell you that they think Trump is innocent of wrongdoing, it’s because they think he’s innocent of wrongdoing. When they tell you that they think this is the media out to get Trump, and that they’ve been out to get Trump all along, it’s because they believe the media has been out to get Trump all along. I think Trump supporters are completely wrong about all of this but there is no ulterior motive. They mean what they say.
2. When Trump critics, including me, tell you we think Trump deserves to be impeached and removed over the Ukraine matter, it’s because we believe Trump deserves to be impeached and removed over the Ukraine matter. It’s not because we hate him, it’s not because we were looking for any excuse to get rid of him, it’s because we believe he committed a high crime.
No matter how much we might disagree with each other, we need to learn to trust each other again. And take each other’s word as genuine.
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192
Footballguy
I don't know or claim to know your motives.
I believe the House knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Senate won't pass it--and the hope is they'll run him through the mud enough to hurt him in November.
Similar threads
