Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Donald Trump impeachment poll


Should the House take up impeachment proceedings?  

175 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Max Power said:

Why are dems so eager to have Mueller repeat there was no collusion 100 times? 

I personally don't think he'll say this once.  He'll have to clarify the distinction between words that many times...no question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Whether you think it should be, precedent makes clear it is. Obstruction was among the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton. While for Nixon there was never a vote, it was 27-11 to

Yes complain about Trump destroying our democracy and then abdicate the Congresses constitutional duty in reining him in because today Republicans won't vote for it. I lived through Watergate.  N

Can I get a list of the people who you think have not accepted the results of the investigation? It seems like most of the anti-Trump people here have accepted the results of the investigation. 

2 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

So a president obstructing an investigation into proven election tampering by a hostile foreign nation wouldn't be impeachable under that definition?  Remove the fact that Trump may or may not have participated. You don't think investigating the depth of the Russian tampering was a worthwhile investigation? And it's fine that our president obstructed the investigation?

It was a worthwhile investigation and they did not find colusion between the president and Russia in the tamering.  Charges of obstruction and/or purjury are not on the same level.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Has he said their is no collusion or is it that he doesn't have enough evidence to prove there was collusion?  I think there is a difference there, although it may be somewhat small.

If you cant prove over 2 years, it probably didnt happen. There isnt cum on a dress. 

Should our legal standard be if there isnt enough to convict... go ahead and try anyway? 

And are we really going to sit here and say what Trump did is worse than what Hillary did? I'm fine opening the flood gates on dems. Let's clear house. I doubt care. But think about it. There are reasons top dems dont want this... they arent stupid. Or they are. Your call

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

I'd bet my life savings that you weren't against Clinton's impeachment whatsoever. And were most-likely hoping he'd be removed from office. For a BJ.

I wanted him removed in my younger and dumber days, but it was never going to happen, it was a waste of time, and it had a negative impact on this country.  It was not the BJ, it was lying under oath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It was a worthwhile investigation and they did not find colusion between the president and Russia in the tamering.  Charges of obstruction and/or purjury are not on the same level.   

This makes absolutely no sense. He obstructed in an investigation where they were seeking information about Russia using cyber-methods and hacking into our election process. If you had no vested interest in Trump and were just given that fact, you'd 100% agree that is a MAJOR problem.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

If you cant prove over 2 years, it probably didnt happen. There isnt cum on a dress. 

Should our legal standard be if there isnt enough to convict... go ahead and try anyway? 

And are we really going to sit here and say what Trump did is worse than what Hillary did? I'm fine opening the flood gates on dems. Let's clear house. I doubt care. But think about it. There are reasons top dems dont want this... they arent stupid. Or they are. Your call

I'm sick of Hillary.  I say lock her up so everyone shuts up about her.  I'm not saying Trump needs to be convicted but it certainly looks like there may be something going on.  There was no word on him being completely innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence.  Usually that means there is still suspicion but nothing can be done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

If only the Founders had given us some sort of guidance as to the possible application of impeachment to actions that don't amount to treason or bribery :kicksrock:

 

The founders clearly did not intent for Congress to impeach based on any crime.  That is historically documented.  They stated Bribery and Treason as guidence to the type of crimes to consider for impeachment.  Obstruction does not rise to that level if one is being honest about it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I wanted him removed in my younger and dumber days, but it was never going to happen, it was a waste of time, and it had a negative impact on this country.  It was not the BJ, it was lying under oath.

How come Trump didn't get caught lying under oath? Oh yeah. He just lied 37 times in writing and said he couldn't remember. After refusing to be interviewed.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JuniorNB said:

How come Trump didn't get caught lying under oath? Oh yeah. He just lied 37 times in writing and said he couldn't remember. After refusing to be interviewed.   

So.....lying should not be grounds for impeachment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The founders clearly did not intent for Congress to impeach based on any crime.  That is historically documented.  They stated Bribery and Treason as guidence to the type of crimes to consider for impeachment.  Obstruction does not rise to that level if one is being honest about it.  

What if it was obstruction into investigations about bribery and treason?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

If you cant prove over 2 years, it probably didnt happen. There isnt cum on a dress. 

Should our legal standard be if there isnt enough to convict... go ahead and try anyway? 

And are we really going to sit here and say what Trump did is worse than what Hillary did? I'm fine opening the flood gates on dems. Let's clear house. I doubt care. But think about it. There are reasons top dems dont want this... they arent stupid. Or they are. Your call

What laws did Hillary break when she was President?

Seriously, Hillary?

Still?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadwayG said:

What if it was obstruction into investigations about bribery and treason?

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have all been accused of obstruction and probably have to some extent.  So no, I do not believe it should be an impeachable offense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm sick of Hillary.  I say lock her up so everyone shuts up about her.  I'm not saying Trump needs to be convicted but it certainly looks like there may be something going on.  There was no word on him being completely innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence.  Usually that means there is still suspicion but nothing can be done.

You're not wrong, but where do we go from here? 

The D base hates him so much they are hurting their 2020 chances and they cant even see it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Max Power said:

You're not wrong, but where do we go from here? 

The D base hates him so much they are hurting their 2020 chances and they cant even see it

That's the million dollar question.  I wish I knew.  I can't stand Trump and want him gone but I'd like to see it done the right way.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have all been accused of obstruction and probably have to some extent.  So no, I do not believe it should be an impeachable offense.  

So lets just have a hypothetical where Obama accepted a $2 billion bribe from Russia for sanction relief.

Obviously an impeachable offense.

But if he successfully prevents any investigation to occur, including offering pardons, firing investigators, threatening witnesses, asserting executive privilege, avoiding answering any questions about the subject, ignoring Congressional subpeonas, he should be free and clear from impeachment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BroadwayG said:

So lets just have a hypothetical where Obama accepted a $2 billion bribe from Russia for sanction relief.

Obviously an impeachable offense.

But if he successfully prevents any investigation to occur, including offering pardons, firing investigators, threatening witnesses, asserting executive privilege, avoiding answering any questions about the subject, ignoring Congressional subpeonas, he should be free and clear from impeachment?

Yep. According to all these folks in here claiming Dems are losing their minds, it would've been totally okay. But, blinders and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea that all of this coming out during hearings, which will dominate the news, will actually help Trump is completely absurd to me.

Then again, most who are pushing that theory just happen to be Republicans.

Hmmm....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BroadwayG said:

So lets just have a hypothetical where Obama accepted a $2 billion bribe from Russia for sanction relief.

Obviously an impeachable offense.

But if he successfully prevents any investigation to occur, including offering pardons, firing investigators, threatening witnesses, asserting executive privilege, avoiding answering any questions about the subject, ignoring Congressional subpeonas, he should be free and clear from impeachment?

The full investigation occurred into the Russian tampering examining all the pertinent facts.  You spun the hypothetical up so much, it is completely irrelevant to what actually occured.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's the million dollar question.  I wish I knew.  I can't stand Trump and want him gone but I'd like to see it done the right way.

The good news is that I think CNN is finally coming around. They ran an opinion piece about some Bernie comments that the news is too focused on trump and not enough on what 2020 offers. 

I mean that is the ONLY way a D vote wins me

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

For month the trump-haters have mocked trump supporters because they believed the trump supporters would not accept the results of the investigation.....:lmao:

Jon it wasnt collusion per Mueller unless you really read the report. Then your own judgement should outweigh a 2 year partisan investigation that had a goal of guilt from day 1. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tank said:

So if this was historic, then Obama's first midterm where he lost even more is more historic then.  Unless it isn't because he has a (D) by his name.

You still blabbing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Skoo said:

This idea that all of this coming out during hearings, which will dominate the news, will actually help Trump is completely absurd to me.

Then again, most who are pushing that theory just happen to be Republicans.

Hmmm....

Don't you remember when the benghazi and email investigations that lasted years and resulted in nothing propelled Hillary to POTUS?  Republicans really dropped the ball and helped her.  Amirite?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Power said:

 

And are we really going to sit here and say what Trump did is worse than what Hillary did? I'm fine opening the flood gates on dems. Let's clear house. 

I'll make a deal with you:

If you firmly support and encourage the House to start impeachment proceedings against Trump I will totally get behind the same thing happening to Hillary.

 

Edited by McJose
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The full investigation occurred into the Russian tampering examining all the pertinent facts.  You spun the hypothetical up so much, it is completely irrelevant to what actually occured.  

What occurred is your assertion that obstruction is no biggie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, matuski said:

He lays out the bait without any of the subtlety or calculation that Obama used to play this game.

The left takes it hook, line, and sinker just the same.

So nice that the POTUS is a troll

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The founders clearly did not intent for Congress to impeach based on any crime.  That is historically documented.  They stated Bribery and Treason as guidence to the type of crimes to consider for impeachment.  Obstruction does not rise to that level if one is being honest about it.  

I consider systematic obstruction of justice in an investigation into an attack on Americans and the election process by a foreign adversary, followed by bad faith refusal to recognize the legitimate exercise of oversight by the legislative branch, to be a far more substantial and impeachment-worthy crime than making or accepting a bribe (something that Donald Trump effectively does every day anyway).

It's all subjective of course, which is one reason to have the hearings so the American people can be fully informed of the extent of the transgressions, but I think any reasonable person would say the same is one is being honest about it.

FWIW I would put directing a felony violation of campaign finance laws in order to bury negative stories and then lying about it on about on the same level as bribery.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McJose said:

I'll make a deal with you:

If you firmly support and encourage the House to start impeachment proceedings against Trump I will totally get behind the something happening to Hillary.

 

Any middle of the road R will back this

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dickies said:

So nice that the POTUS is a troll

Obama masterfully trolled the right for years over the birther stuff.  It was great. 

Trump wears a hat and tweets from the toilet.  He almost seems to troll them on accident.  Same result.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:
2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

If only the Founders had given us some sort of guidance as to the possible application of impeachment to actions that don't amount to treason or bribery :kicksrock:

The founders clearly did not intent for Congress to impeach based on any crime.  That is historically documented.  They stated Bribery and Treason as guidence to the type of crimes to consider for impeachment.  Obstruction does not rise to that level if one is being honest about it.  

John Pickering was impeached in 1803 for being a drunk

Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 for having a political bias

Most of the founders were still alive at that point. None of them said "Oooooh, we really shouldn't be using the powers of impeachment on these guys because neither of them committed crimes on the level of bribery or treason!"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

We can argue about what effect he has had in those things (economy and stock market) and show that some of the same people touting it now complained about it at the end of Obama’s term. 

Thought it was more a point about the word neutral.  With all he has done, it’s had to basically just say it’s not good or bad with him.  I don’t see there being much a middle even if you like just a few things but or dislike just a few things.

You say there's no way anyone can be neutral on Trump.

Then people tell you that yes, it can happen and that they themselves are neutral on Trump.

Then you tell them they're wrong and it can't be so.

 

Classic

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, matuski said:

Obama masterfully trolled the right for years over the birther stuff.  It was great. 

Trump wears a hat and tweets from the toilet.  He almost seems to troll them on accident.  Same result.

Mocking a bunch of racists for making up a story about his birth certificate was brilliant. Instead of getting pulled into their racist nonsense, he basically laughed at them every step of the way.   I think I'm going to go watch him destroy Trump at the Correspondents Dinner.  BRB 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Any middle of the road R will back this

Awesome.

OK now all we have to do is figure out how to impeach Hillary who holds no office whatsoever.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, McJose said:

Awesome.

OK now all we have to do is figure out how to impeach Hillary who holds no office whatsoever.  

I think it's important that we investigate private citizens walking her dog in the woods in Chappaqua.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JuniorNB said:

I think it's important that we investigate private citizens walking her dog in the woods in Chappaqua.

Oh great.  Now the Trump supporters are going to start calling for Ted Kennedy's impeachment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

John Pickering was impeached in 1803 for being a drunk

Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804 for having a political bias

Most of the founders were still alive at that point. None of them said "Oooooh, we really shouldn't be using the powers of impeachment on these guys because neither of them committed crimes on the level of bribery or treason!"

Actually, lots of people raised concerns about Pickering because there were really no crimes he committed.  But he had gone insane and was continuously drunk and was so out of control that no one really wanted to defend him, eventhough people realized he should not be impeached based on the Constitution.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Mocking a bunch of racists for making up a story about his birth certificate was brilliant. Instead of getting pulled into their racist nonsense, he basically laughed at them every step of the way.   I think I'm going to go watch him destroy Trump at the Correspondents Dinner.  BRB 

That is the point.

Obama is/was brilliant, clever, and plainly playing on another level with his trolling.

What is weird is watching Trump achieve the same thing as an oaf who can't reliably make a tweet without screwing up.   

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, matuski said:

That is the point.

Obama is/was brilliant, clever, and plainly playing on another level with his trolling.

What is weird is watching Trump achieve the same thing as an oaf who can't reliably make a tweet without screwing up.   

Difference is, Obama was subtle and destroyed people with a boyish smirk while seeming totally unaffected by the nonsense.  Trump is like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum where everyone else is rounding up their children and shielding their eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have all been accused of obstruction and probably have to some extent.  So no, I do not believe it should be an impeachable offense.  

Whether you think it should be, precedent makes clear it is. Obstruction was among the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton.

While for Nixon there was never a vote, it was 27-11 to impeach for Obstruction in committee (the other two charges adopted were Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress). Clinton was impeached on two charges -  lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. 

Six Senators voted Not Guilty on Clinton lying to a GJ but Guilty on Obstruction (meaning they voted to remove him from office solely for Obstruction of Justice). If a Senator thought Obstruction was not grounds for impeachment, they likely vote the other way (Not Guilty on Obstruction, Guilty on Lying). Yet not a single Senator voted this way. 

As a side note, there aren't many Senators that are still around from the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell both voted to convict on Obstruction.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

Difference is, Obama was subtle and destroyed people with a boyish smirk while seeming totally unaffected by the nonsense.  Trump is like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum where everyone else is rounding up their children and shielding their eyes.

I think you are agreeing with me.

Obama's subtlety and Trump's 3 year old tantrums - somehow achieving the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...