What's new
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.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (6 Viewers)

Bozeman Bruiser said:
After an embarrassing Iowa Caucus that called into question the integrity of their party, and also revealed Biden to not be an actual contender for president (which negates the entire premise of the impeachment hoax), and after a SOTU in which the Democrats showed their ### booing American prosperity and American heroes (many of them women and minorities), and going into the final vote to acquit Trump from their latest deranged attempt to overthrow the president.....

Mitt ####### Romney is their hero.

🤣
Click to expand...


Huh? The timing on that doesn't make sense.

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
After an embarrassing Iowa Caucus that called into question the integrity of their party, and also revealed Biden to not be an actual contender for president (which negates the entire premise of the impeachment hoax), and after a SOTU in which the Democrats showed their ### booing American prosperity and American heroes (many of them women and minorities), and going into the final vote to acquit Trump from their latest deranged attempt to overthrow the president.....

Mitt ####### Romney is their hero.

🤣
Click to expand...
You mean the Mitt ###### Romney who was loved so much by what used to be the Republican party that he was the last pre-Trump presidential nominee?  

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Calling Romney a Republican is a stretch.

If it makes you think this sham is somehow more legit then good for you.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not "legit"; they had an ex-cabinet member wanting to testify and refused to hear it.  But at least one Republican wasn't afraid to uphold his Constitutional duty while the rest were engaged in obstruction.   That's good.  

 
Is this one of those wild mid-season finales?  Iowa caucus goes full wonky, SOTU and the handshake snub vs ripped up speech copy, Susan Collins announces Trump pulled a Costanza and now knows better, Trump continues to yell “READ THE PERFECT TRANSCRIPT!!”, Romney announces vote to convict and remove the president, and a gay man (most likely) carries the first Democrat primary in Iowa!

 
Bozeman Bruiser said:
Romney:

Asking foreign government for dirt on political opponent is high crime.

Withholding aid from foreign country is high crime.

Welp, guess its time to lock up Obama, Clinton, and Biden.

🤣

Poor Romney thinks that appeasing the Democrats will score him points in the future. They hated him on 2012, they will hate him in 2025. What a cuck.
Click to expand...
Don't

 
GoBirds said:
Hey sounds good, I’ll leave it to you all to complain about another conspiracy that got away from you and didn’t pan out. Let me know when you notice the trend.  :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were "clearly unproven" suggest that you lackthe objectivity to provide any sort of meaningful input on this issue. I mean, you can't even admit that maybe Trump's actions were at the very least unwise given the potential optics? 

For comparison's sake, I probably hold a minority opinion that the jury in the OJ trial issued the correct verdict. In other words, I firmly believe that there was reasonable doubt to his guilt. That said, do I think it was a conspiracy? That the defense clearly disproved the allegations? That the initial charges were baseless/lacked probable cause? That it was somehow an injustice for him to go through the time, energy and expense of defending himself? Absolutely not to all those questions. I'd have to be intentionally obtuse to refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't at least some evidence to suggest he may have committed the murder. 

It's worrisome that you, and others that share your extreme opinion, appear entirely unable to view issues via multiple lenses (and certainly not through an objective lens). By any objective measurement Trump's call wasn't perfect. By an objective measurement this wasn't a damned conspiracy. I think it is debatable from a legal perspective whether this was a high crime and whether it warranted removal. But by taking your extreme stance and using such absolute hyperbole you lose all credibility. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Quentin said:
Protected from retaliation, not from having their name uttered.

if you accuse somebody of a crime, you have to be prepared to testify under oath and the defense has the right to cross examine you.  The accused have a fundamental right to face their accuser.
Click to expand...
The WB didn't accuse anybody of a crime. The house accused Trump of a high crime and misdemeanor. The WB is a witness who made an initial outcry. You're conflating the two. 

And the bold isn't an absolute right. I'd suggest reading Crawford v. Washington. 

 
I know there was some question on this but:

BREAKING #AZSEN NEWS: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema says she will vote to convict President Trump on impeachment charges

 
Phil Elliott said:
He said this is the first impeachment in history not to hear from witnesses. That is not correct. They may not have brought in new witnesses but there were many witnesses that were heard from.
Click to expand...
On video tape. Not questioned or cross examined. Not close to the same thing at all.

 
hagmania said:
I think Trump ought to be convicted, but McConnell's speech here is important in many ways.
Click to expand...
I'm not watching, but what is he talking about? This is a post just now from Tom Nichols - who nobody would accuse of being liberal - 

"This speech by McConnell is not only a stream of lies, but he *knows* it they are lies. Nauseating."

 
timschochet said:
On video tape. Not questioned or cross examined. Not close to the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
“Didn’t hear from witnesses”. The Senators wanted to make there individual case as this is going into the history books. They are selecting every word they say very deliberately.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
Words like the bold and your claim that the allegations were clearly "unproven" suggest that you like the objectivity to provide any sort of meaningful input on this issue. I mean, you can't even admit that maybe Trump's actions were at the very least unwise given the potential optics? 

For comparison's sake, I probably hold a minority opinion that the jury in the OJ trial issued the correct verdict. In other words, I firmly believe that there was reasonable doubt to his guilt. That said, do I think it was a conspiracy? That the defense clearly disproved the allegations? That the initial charges were baseless/lacked probable cause? That it was somehow an injustice for him to go through the time, energy and expense of defending himself? Absolutely not to all those questions. I'd have to be intentionally obtuse to refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't at least some evidence to suggest he may have committed the murder. 

It's worrisome that you, and others that share your extreme opinion, appear entirely unable to view issues via multiple lenses (and certainly not through an objective lens). By any objective measurement Trump's call wasn't perfect. By an objective measurement this wasn't a damned conspiracy. I think it is debatable from a legal perspective whether this was a high crime and whether it warranted removal. But by taking your extreme stance and using such absolute hyperbole you lose all credibility. 
Click to expand...
The bolded is so  :potkettle:  it's amazing, and I don't question that you all truly believe it too. The fact that you all don't realize that is why it's not even worth the time. Not my job to show you your extreme bias, time with family/friends is a much better use. Enjoy. 

 
To actually force removal in any impeachment trial, would the 67 votes be needed on all articles or just one?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
...or maybe the President can stop meddling in our elections and violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'd have been for it, if we knew the GOP was going to play this fairly. Literally everybody ahead of time knew that nobody was going to put this through on the right. It was a massive waste of money, and an interruption to candidates campaigning.

 
ShamrockPride said:
I'd have been for it, if we knew the GOP was going to play this fairly. Literally everybody ahead of time knew that nobody was going to put this through on the right. It was a massive waste of money, and an interruption to candidates campaigning.
Click to expand...
Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election

 
Sam Quentin said:
Most importantly there was no crime.  The President has a legal right to request an investigation, the President has probable cause to believe that crimes had been committed by the previous administration and the President had a duty to make sure that the facts were discovered and that our international relationship with Ukraine was not harmed by the previous administration. When the VP brags about a crime, he can’t look the other way. The actions were a proper and obligatory use of his office.  
 

the actions of Schiff and his hiding of the Atkinson testimony is a clear abuse of power and an attempt to influence the election
Click to expand...
There was no probable cause though.  The former VP did not brag of any crime.  Do you have anything that supports this assertion?

Abuse of power?  Yeah, you are going to have to back that up with something as well.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.
Click to expand...
I agree that it’s silly to expect senators, who are political, to fairly judge a process. 

 
ShamrockPride said:
USA, now 0-3 all time for impeachments, maybe time to alter or get rid of this clearly useless measure.
Click to expand...
Well months ago almost every pundit on the left and right felt this was not impeachment worthy or lead to Trumps removal from office and they were proved right.  Hell Pelosi was not 100% on board with this and she was right.  A censure was the shark move and move on with country business.   Now again all this wasted time and money for naught.  Have to see how this plays out but I stated months ago the only way the dems lose in November is if they blow it themselves.   I hope not but it might be happening.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.
Click to expand...
Dems lose the election:  Let's Change the electoral college.  

Dems lose Impeachment:  Let's change who presides over Impeachment

You can't change the rules just because you lose.

 
sho nuff said:
There was no probable cause though.  The former VP did not brag of any crime.  Do you have anything that supports this assertion?

Abuse of power?  Yeah, you are going to have to back that up with something as well.
Click to expand...
He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Problem is a political body is asked to conduct a judicial process fairly, and without anonymity. This is what you get. If the process were conducted as framers intended, then Trump would have been convicted. We can’t assume we’ll have more integritous leaders, so maybe the trial should be heard by the Supreme Court? Of course, that also would have resulted in conviction here.
Click to expand...
Convicted of what?  He did nothing wrong. He was performing his diplomatic and chief executive duties.

 
Sam Quentin said:
He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.
Click to expand...
No...he did not say this.  In addition, the investigator wasn't actually investigating.  Which is the reason the US (with bipartisan support of congress and through Biden) took that position along with our European allies.  Again...all this has been explained and shown many times over.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top