|
mango sentinel posted:I'm gonna say that having a milquetoast speech about reducing drug costs seems less bad when the president responds by saying you're wasting time with BULLSHIT. Nancy 4d chessmaster confirmed!
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:the house judicial committee has to vote on if grounds exist and set the actual allegations to investigate That’s different than what Republicans, and people who believe them, are calling for which is for 218 Dems to vote on the record to start an “official” inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
fivetwentynine.com 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:The 2016 election result will be inscribed on his grave. That's the spot everyone should pee on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Update: Amber Guyger mom has taken the stand to plead for Amber to not get life
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
If this is the case, that a vote doesn't matter... then that makes her response even worse. Why didn't she just say the inquiry was already opened and it was unneeded? Why the weird dancing around they might or mightn't, but the Republicans were nervous about them doing so, so maybe maybe not? I'm not buying into the Republicans framing. For the point of this argument I'm just responding to Pelosi's framing. If she thinks it would be bad for Republicans, why not do it? If it's a weak point the Republicans can attack them on, why not do it? It has the support of then party, it sounds like it would be trivial to win
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:That’s different than what Republicans, and people who believe them, are calling for which is for 218 Dems to vote on the record to start an “official” inquiry. ok? gently caress them? Pelosi is still speaker and is clearly dragging her feet on even letting this get started in the proper part of the house and that's what I'm bothered by?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Guze posted:Nancy 4d chessmaster confirmed! It's not 4D chess to walk out and do things that demonstrate that your opponent's narrative isn't true, it's pretty basic. I'm not sure it's worth doing in the long run, but it's not crazy mindgames.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:huh? bin laden won. Every so often I ponder if there has ever been a more spectacular or more successful single criminal act in human history. JFK probably is in the ballpark on both counts, Princip didn't achieve his goals by killing Ferdinand, the Holocaust hastened the fall of the 3rd Reich (and was a massive conglomerate of individual criminal acts anyway)...any historians want to take a stab at this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
News https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1179418901127614464
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Update: Amber Guyger mom has taken the stand to plead for Amber to not get life Too bad. You still get to visit her in prison, Jean's parents do not
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
538 has an impeachment poll tracker now. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1179426420449333249  
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:ok? gently caress them? Pelosi is still speaker and is clearly dragging her feet on even letting this get started in the proper part of the house and that's what I'm bothered by? Specifically, what vote does Nancy need to schedule to please you? Please be clear and explicit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:the house judicial committee has to vote on if grounds exist and set the actual allegations to investigate this is not correct at all, they don't have to do anything constitutionally, nor do their rules require they do anything of the sort
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If this is the case, that a vote doesn't matter... then that makes her response even worse. Why didn't she just say the inquiry was already opened and it was unneeded? hey, uh You're fundamentally not understanding something on a really basic level, and you should stop talking like you know what you're talking about. The inquiry is opened, there is no vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
I think I actually agree with Geraldo Rivera on something... which means he probably said it by mistake. Still feels dirty. (well, more Fox News as a whole, rather than just Hannity, but close enough)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Please give a press conference today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Every so often I ponder if there has ever been a more spectacular or more successful single criminal act in human history. JFK probably is in the ballpark on both counts, Princip didn't achieve his goals by killing Ferdinand, the Holocaust hastened the fall of the 3rd Reich (and was a massive conglomerate of individual criminal acts anyway)...any historians want to take a stab at this? jfk was one guy but kennedy was getting involved in vietnam so it probably didn't change history all that much. in terms of number of people involved vs outcome 9/11 has gotta be the most successful crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HanksKendyl/status/1179427118888951810
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1179145213559951362?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
The requirement out of the House is to hold a vote on the articles of impeachment. This is the actual list of charges/etc. When it passes this is what goes to the Senate. This is the only vote required out of the House. The House has no requirement to vote on opening an inquiry tasked with drafting these articles. Pelosi/Schiff/etc stating an official impeachment inquiry is enough to satisfy the presumed legal requirement that will happen when a subpoena goes to court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:hey, uh You're not following what I'm saying. If that is the case (and it is), then why the gently caress did she answer a question about voting to open the impeachment inquiry the way she did? The only way her answer makes sense is if she believes the inquiry is not officially open.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:Specifically, what vote does Nancy need to schedule to please you? Please be clear and explicit. The house judicial committee, before the full 218 floor vote is required, has to vote with a simple majority to determine if there are grounds for impeachment and to lay out the actual charges, this allows the house to debate and bring testimony and poo poo for the full vote whenever the gently caress they want, there's no magic timer that starts or anything, they can lay out Trump's exact crimes and have official weight to these hearings without taking the final vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Please give a press conference today. he's meeting some prime minister, so there will be
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:Specifically, what vote does Nancy need to schedule to please you? Please be clear and explicit. a vote to start the inquiry would be pretty cool, there's clearly enough support for it in the house and i think that when push comes to shove they'll get more votes than they're counting on efb (and nobody was even asking me  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You're not following what I'm saying. No friend, Nancy does not believe that the impeachment isn't open, no matter what crazy narrative you've built in your head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:hey, uh like the only reason i could imagine a vote being necessary is if a federal judge buys the argument that "Even though the Constitution doesn't require it, their rules don't require it, more than 218 democrats support the inquiry, the Speaker of the House announced the inquiry, and every subpoena references the inquiry, it's not a real inquiry" in which case yeah uh go ahead and have the vote, but personally i see no reason to concede the argument that sexpig and a handful of republicans are making that they must do it and don't have the authority without doing it
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If this is the case, that a vote doesn't matter... then that makes her response even worse. Why didn't she just say the inquiry was already opened and it was unneeded? GlyphGryph posted:You're not following what I'm saying. You are quite literally lost in your weird train of logic. She was asked if there were plans to hold a vote to open the impeachment inquiry. She said no, that it was not necessary to hold a vote to open the inquiry, and by the way some republicans would be very nervous for them to hold the vote. It was a dig. gently caress dude, dig up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
scuz posted:a vote to start the inquiry would be pretty cool, there's clearly enough support for it in the house and i think that when push comes to shove they'll get more votes than they're counting on You're literally spouting Republican talking points!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:The house judicial committee, before the full 218 floor vote is required, has to vote with a simple majority to determine if there are grounds for impeachment and to lay out the actual charges, this allows the house to debate and bring testimony and poo poo for the full vote whenever the gently caress they want, there's no magic timer that starts or anything, they can lay out Trump's exact crimes and have official weight to these hearings without taking the final vote. Wrong. The only vote that is required is the vote on the Articles of Impeachment, which, once any one of the articles passes, starts the Senate trial portion of the hearing. The GOP are trying to say it's "required" because a vote like this happened for Clinton and Nixon. It did not happen for Johnson, because it's not required anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
i assume thats later today?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
skylined! posted:She was asked if there were plans to hold a vote to open the impeachment inquiry. She said no, that it was not necessary to hold a vote to open the inquiry, and by the way some republicans would be very nervous for them to hold the vote. It was a dig. Maybe the problem is just that I misheard what she said because this is not what I heard her say. If this is all just me mishearing a statement she made, then I hosed up. But what I hear was her leaving the option open, and saying the Republicans were nervous about her doing it. I did not hear her say it wasn't necessary. theflyingorc posted:This isn't a thing Did she say it was unnecessary? If not, why not? If so, apologies for this whole stupid derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Trump is going to tweet out the n-word.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Trump is going to tweet out the n-word. That's how he's gonna win back the Gamers after banning vapes
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Maybe the problem is just that I misheard what she said because this is not what I heard her say. By saying, last week "we are officially opening an inquiry", she was saying that it wasn't necessary! No part of your narrative makes even a passing resemblance to sense!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Trump is going to tweet out the n-word. https://twitter.com/prettybinladen/status/1178051570841223169
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Grandpa needs a nap his dementia is acting up and he’s yelling curse words in public again
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:By saying, last week "we are officially opening an inquiry", she was saying that it wasn't necessary! Okay, now I'm just confused. Is the problem that neither of you actually watched the presser? Because this conversation is fundamentally about the press event. About the things she said and did during that. Not about what she said last week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1179412860969082885
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This isn't a thing The only solution here is to take a vote about whether we should take a vote to open the inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 17:18
|
|
