Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mitt Romney votes to convict and remove Donald Trump


timschochet

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm a little more pessimistic than this.  I think if Trump gets creamed, the lesson Republicans will draw is that they need to find a less obviously crazy version of Trump.  The same white nationalism, but less covfefe.  

I have the same fear. Someone like Sens. Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton. I do think that to an extent Trump is sui generis, and you can't easily separate the white nationalism from the Trumpian craziness, but I still worry about the damage that could be done by someone with a bit more basic competence.

ETA: I remember back in the '90s, people would occasionally say there was so much they liked about Clinton, but they wished he could keep it in his pants. My feeling at the time was that it was an (ahem) package deal, the political skill along with the lack of personal discipline. Something similar is true of Trump.

Edited by zftcg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don’t know what “we are here” means. It is demonstrably untrue that the witnesses against Trump — Fiona Hill, Lt. Col. Vindman, Marie Yovanovich, Gordon Sonland et al. — were partisan. John Bolton was not willing to testify against Trump for partisan reasons. Mitt Romney did not vote to remove Trump for partisan reasons.

What Trump did was illegal. It was gravely concerning to numerous other Republicans.

If you mean that the only reason Trump wasn’t removed is because of partisan tribalism in Mitch McConnell’s Senate, maybe you can make a decent case for it. But if you mean that Trump was brought to trial only because of partisanship in the House, that seems objectively indefensible based on the facts.

Hanging onto "what he did was illegal", or "he lied" is the best you can do at this point I suppose.  Sure it was illegal, and he lied, he cheated.  However, trying to argue that the driving factor for the push to impeach or that the dem's interest in the Mueller report was anything but partisan and political seems insincere to me.  

That is why is was handled so poorly.. partisanship over objectivity, party over all.  Level heads did not prevail.

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, matuski said:

Hanging onto "what he did was illegal", or "he lied" is the best you can do at this point I suppose.  Sure it was illegal, and he lied, he cheated.  However, trying to argue that the driving factor for the push to impeach or that the dem's interest in the Mueller report was anything but partisan and political seems insincere to me.  

That is why is was handled so poorly.. partisanship over objectivity, party over all.  Level heads did not prevail.

I'm trying to think of a decent analogy to discuss this.

"Sure what he does was illegal.  But I think it is overboard to try and remove him."  I can respect this response, I guess.  It is akin to the Democratic response to the Clinton impeachment. 

"Sure what he did was illegal. But the only reason to try and impeach was for partisan reasons" doesn't garner the same amount of respect, at least from me.  

It's like the difference between, "I only kissed that other woman; she didn't have to kick me out and file for divorce without at least trying to work it out," and "I only kissed that woman; the only reason she kicked me out is because she's a ##### and her friends always hated me and it's really her fault."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I'm trying to think of a decent analogy to discuss this.

"Sure what he does was illegal.  But I think it is overboard to try and remove him."  I can respect this response, I guess.  It is akin to the Democratic response to the Clinton impeachment. 

"Sure what he did was illegal. But the only reason to try and impeach was for partisan reasons" doesn't garner the same amount of respect, at least from me.  

It's like the difference between, "I only kissed that other woman; she didn't have to kick me out and file for divorce without at least trying to work it out," and "I only kissed that woman; the only reason she kicked me out is because she's a ##### and her friends always hated me and it's really her fault."

Setting the bar at "illegal" (or lying, or cheating) is extremely vague and a very low bar for politicians... more like "I only looked at that other woman". 

Which then of course makes "she didn't kick me out and file for divorce" the reasonable reaction/response.

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, matuski said:

Setting the bar at "illegal" (or lying, or cheating) is extremely vague and a very low bar for politicians... more like "I only looked at that other woman". 

Which then of course makes "she didn't kick me out and file for divorce" the reasonable reaction/response.

Yes sure they all do it right?  Yet no evidence of such things from them all.  Very strange.

Also no...doing illegal things isn't a very low bar.  We should hold out leaders to standards and one of those involves legality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes sure they all do it right?  Yet no evidence of such things from them all.  Very strange.

Also no...doing illegal things isn't a very low bar.  We should hold out leaders to standards and one of those involves legality.

All do what?  Lie, cheat?  No evidence of politicians lying and cheating?  lol.

Trump's illegal is worse than Hillary's illegal!   Maybe it was (it was imo), but you only care because of your position on the political spectrum. 

It isn't that you are unaware of past "illegal" behaviors of democrat politicians - you just deny it, brush it off, or argue it isn't the same as the other..  

Edited by matuski
wtf complete sentences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, matuski said:

All do what?  Lie, cheat?  No evidence of politicians lying and cheating?  lol.

Trump's illegal is worse than Hillary's illegal!   Maybe it was (it was imo), but you only care because of your position on the political spectrum. 

It isn't that you are unaware of past "illegal" behaviors of democrat politicians, you just deny it, or argue one is worse or better than the other..  Kinda like the right is doing now.

Hillary isn’t President.  I didn't support her or vote for her.  Why deflect with her?  She has been investigated over and over...if they find something...great, lock her up.

Let me know what dems I deny that are in office or I have supported...please try.  Rather than making baseless assertions about me to deflect.  
 

This...they all do it isn't a logical defense for Trump or criticism of the Democrats holding him responsible.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

I think Tim's accusation the "Trump Wing" is 100% of the Republican party completely discounts the many Republicans and Conservatives I know that voted for the Republican candidate but don't like Trump very much. 

I don’t know if you watched or heard President Trump’s disgraceful performance yesterday, in which he insisted he did nothing wrong, trashed the religious beliefs of his opponents,  and declared the that the Democrats who opposed him were “evil scum”; all the while as the Republican leadership in the House and Senate cheered him on and gave him standing ovations. 

So my answer to you is this: I am not discounting those conservatives out there who don’t like Trump very much: they have discounted themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matuski said:

Trump's illegal is worse than Hillary's illegal!   Maybe it was (it was imo), but you only care because of your position on the political spectrum. 

This is what’s self-evidently false. It shocked and disturbed many lifelong Republicans — even some Trump appointees.

What is John Bolton’s position on the political spectrum? What is Mitt Romney’s? What is mine?

The idea that illegally jeopardizing our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election could never bother a neutral person — only a partisan Democrat — is complete nonsense.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, matuski said:

Setting the bar at "illegal" (or lying, or cheating) is extremely vague and a very low bar for politicians... more like "I only looked at that other woman". 

Which then of course makes "she didn't kick me out and file for divorce" the reasonable reaction/response.

This is a strange take. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
2 hours ago, matuski said:

Trump's illegal is worse than Hillary's illegal!   Maybe it was (it was imo), but you only care because of your position on the political spectrum. 

This is what’s self-evidently false. It shocked and disturbed many lifelong Republicans — even some Trump appointees.

What is John Bolton’s position on the political spectrum? What is Mitt Romney’s? What is mine?

The idea that illegally jeopardizing our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election could never bother a neutral person — only a partisan Democrat — is complete nonsense.

Statements like matuski's also conveniently ignore Michael Atkinson's role in this. But they have to because his actions debunk the idea that it was all concocted by the whistleblower and Adam Schiff and propagated by dems who can't accept the election results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Romney's speech explaining why he was going to vote to convict was a little odd. Yes, he had several examples of why he came to that conclusion. He wanted to hear from Bolton to clear Trump. But he should have wanted to hear from Bolton for the first hand knowledge that Trump was guilty (Assuming Trump is innocent and the House needs to proved guilt). But to me, the biggest inconsistency was for people as religious as Romney is, I would not think he would have any reservations about his decision. He stated his faith guided him to this decision. People with strong faith are very confident about their decisions that are based on faith or their religious beliefs. The fact that Romney got so emotional it was like he personally felt he was letting down the GOP. I wonder if there was not some other outside influence for his decision (conspiracy on someone paying him off or blackmailing him?).  :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

 He wanted to hear from Bolton to clear Trump. But he should have wanted to hear from Bolton for the first hand knowledge that Trump was guilty (Assuming Trump is innocent and the House needs to proved guilt). 

The way I interpreted this part is he thought that the House Managers proved their case but hoped (kind of a pipe dream hope) Bolton could explain how he was wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
Quote

 

This is what’s self-evidently false. It shocked and disturbed many lifelong Republicans — even some Trump appointees.

What is John Bolton’s position on the political spectrum? What is Mitt Romney’s? What is mine?

The idea that illegally jeopardizing our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election could never bother a neutral person — only a partisan Democrat — is complete nonsense.

What was illegally done that jeopardized our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2020 at 1:22 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don't think pissing off the deepest red of the Party is a good way to prepare for that.

This is an interesting point. Post Trump, I see a real problem for the GOP. A huge number of current Republican voters want nothing to do with a candidate who stands for the principles of the party. They want an Internet troll instead. In 2024 when folks like Bush, Romney and Cruz are up there in front of them, many will lose interest. Some will stay home. And a LOT of former Republicans (like me) will have already left the party. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Space Captain said:

What was illegally done that jeopardized our national security interests in order to gain an illegal advantage in a national election?

1 Withholding aid to Ukraine (illegal according to the GAO)

2.  Aid for Ukraine is part of out national security interest (guessing that was the angle there) thus withholding aod would be against that interest.

3. To investigate his political rival (the lead candidate at the tome to face him) is what it was about as far as gaining an election advantage.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

1 Withholding aid to Ukraine (illegal according to the GAO)

2.  Aid for Ukraine is part of out national security interest (guessing that was the angle there) thus withholding aod would be against that interest.

3. To investigate his political rival (the lead candidate at the tome to face him) is what it was about as far as gaining an election advantage.

BUT he thought it would help get him re-elected, so it was good for the US, so none of it is illegal enough to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

1 Withholding aid to Ukraine (illegal according to the GAO)

2.  Aid for Ukraine is part of out national security interest (guessing that was the angle there) thus withholding aod would be against that interest.

3. To investigate his political rival (the lead candidate at the tome to face him) is what it was about as far as gaining an election advantage.

As I understand it, the aid was released before the end of the fiscal year and therefore in accordance with the law. Asking any country that accepts aid to investigate corruption, whatever type of corruption that may be, seems reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Space Captain said:

As I understand it, the aid was released before the end of the fiscal year and therefore in accordance with the law. Asking any country that accepts aid to investigate corruption, whatever type of corruption that may be, seems reasonable.

He dodnt ask about corruption though...he specifically asked about his rival with zero probable cause or evidence of corruption .and the GAO disagrees with you on legaliity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

In 2024, whoever the Dems nominate, will walk in.

I recognize that this has been the pattern since 1992: 8 years of Democrat followed by 8 years of Republican followed by 8 years of Democrat, etc. But it doesn't have to be this way. It’s still a relatively small sample. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I recognize that this has been the pattern since 1992: 8 years of Democrat followed by 8 years of Republican followed by 8 years of Democrat, etc. But it doesn't have to be this way. It’s still a relatively small sample. 

With a few minor exceptions the pattern goes back to the 50s. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be that way. But it probably will. Especially if the economy falters.

In fact, I think the divide we're seeing now with Dems (Establishment/moderate vs progressive/liberal) will be the type of divide we'll see in 2024 between the Trump style and more traditional Rs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Space Captain said:

As I understand it, the aid was released before the end of the fiscal year and therefore in accordance with the law.

They failed to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay, which is not in accordance with the law.

 

Quote

Asking any country that accepts aid to investigate corruption, whatever type of corruption that may be, seems reasonable.

Seems reasonable, until you realize they have never been concerned about corruption.

In '17 and '18 no-strings-attached aid was given to Ukraine, which was arguably more corrupt (under the previous president) than it is now.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, timschochet said:

I recognize that this has been the pattern since 1992: 8 years of Democrat followed by 8 years of Republican followed by 8 years of Democrat, etc. But it doesn't have to be this way. It’s still a relatively small sample. 

I dunno, America seems to have been in an elastic electoral wobble since that time. Look at the last 3 turnovers. Perot made 92 & 96 murky, Bush Jr by a couple thousand votes in Florida in 00, Trump by roughly 88K votes in 3 Midwest states in 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

In fact, I think the divide we're seeing now with Dems (Establishment/moderate vs progressive/liberal) will be the type of divide we'll see in 2024 between the Trump style and more traditional Rs.

I'm skeptical that the Republican party would ever fracture, simply because there's nowhere else for someone to go if they are Pro Life and anti-tax.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, [scooter] said:
21 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

In fact, I think the divide we're seeing now with Dems (Establishment/moderate vs progressive/liberal) will be the type of divide we'll see in 2024 between the Trump style and more traditional Rs.

I'm skeptical that the Republican party would ever fracture, simply because there's nowhere else for someone to go if they are Pro Life and anti-tax.

One could only hope this GOP fracture happens. Then the 2 extremes from each party can go on screaming at each other while the moderates from each side can start working together.  Unfortunately I see zero indication of this happening.  Had there been something like a handful of GOP Senators that had voted for witnesses (5 to 8 or so), even if they ultimately vote not to remove, I’d feel a glimmer of hope.  But if there one thing the GOP does well that’s tow the party line.  No fracture is coming.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 7:47 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

I'm a little more pessimistic than this.  I think if Trump gets creamed, the lesson Republicans will draw is that they need to find a less obviously crazy version of Trump.  The same white nationalism, but less covfefe.  

“2024 - Back to Bush” 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cheese and Crackers said:

They failed to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay, which is not in accordance with the law.

 

Seems reasonable, until you realize they have never been concerned about corruption.

In '17 and '18 no-strings-attached aid was given to Ukraine, which was arguably more corrupt (under the previous president) than it is now.

Seems reasonable because it is reasonable.

I expect folks elected to office to be prudent with taxpayer dollars. If a country is known to have problems with corruption, elected officials are derelict (imo) if not leveraging aid to compel said country to investigate and reduce corrupt activities.

Why did Congress appropriate aid in '17 & '18 with no strings attached to a country that was arguably more corrupt than it is now? Congress must never have been concerned about corruption, I guess.

It may have taken a few years, but the Trump administration got around to it. Better late than never.

As far as failing to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay in the aid, Alan Dershowitz has presented arguments why it is not illegal and they seem to be centered around the constitutional powers granted to the President regarding foreign policy.

You may not agree with them, but with all due respect, I'm going to have to go with the classic liberal Harvard Law School scholar of United States constitutional law on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Space Captain said:

Seems reasonable because it is reasonable.

I expect folks elected to office to be prudent with taxpayer dollars. If a country is known to have problems with corruption, elected officials are derelict (imo) if not leveraging aid to compel said country to investigate and reduce corrupt activities.

Why did Congress appropriate aid in '17 & '18 with no strings attached to a country that was arguably more corrupt than it is now? Congress must never have been concerned about corruption, I guess.

It may have taken a few years, but the Trump administration got around to it. Better late than never.

As far as failing to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay in the aid, Alan Dershowitz has presented arguments why it is not illegal and they seem to be centered around the constitutional powers granted to the President regarding foreign policy.

You may not agree with them, but with all due respect, I'm going to have to go with the classic liberal Harvard Law School scholar of United States constitutional law on this one.

You mean the one who argued this atrocious argument....

 "And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Space Captain said:

Seems reasonable because it is reasonable.

I expect folks elected to office to be prudent with taxpayer dollars. If a country is known to have problems with corruption, elected officials are derelict (imo) if not leveraging aid to compel said country to investigate and reduce corrupt activities.

Why did Congress appropriate aid in '17 & '18 with no strings attached to a country that was arguably more corrupt than it is now? Congress must never have been concerned about corruption, I guess.

It may have taken a few years, but the Trump administration got around to it. Better late than never.

As far as failing to give Congress a detailed written explanation for the delay in the aid, Alan Dershowitz has presented arguments why it is not illegal and they seem to be centered around the constitutional powers granted to the President regarding foreign policy.

You may not agree with them, but with all due respect, I'm going to have to go with the classic liberal Harvard Law School scholar of United States constitutional law on this one.

Your position is that the guy who has recently paid 10s of millions in fines for running corrupt foundations and online universities, and who has never withheld aid from any country, even Ukraine, except for once in 2019 when it entailed his political rival, was suddenly concerned about corruption? 

Come on now.  

Edited by tommyGunZ
  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Space Captain said:

 

You may not agree with them, but with all due respect, I'm going to have to go with the classic liberal Harvard Law School scholar of United States constitutional law on this one.

Dershowitz’s background is in criminal defense, not constitutional law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Your position is that the guy who has recently paid 10s of millions in fines for running corrupt foundations and online universities, and who has never withheld aid from any country, even Ukraine, except for once in 2019 when it entailed his political rival, was suddenly concerned about corruption? 

Come on now.  

And the guy who has run up the deficit...and spent millions at his own resorts is being prudent with taxpayer money by getting another country to investigate his rival in exchange for withheld funds.

Link to comment
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...