|
sexpig by night posted:that is, literally, my point. Don't do this dumb poo poo until you're ready to move on to the public poo poo anyway and can go right from 'fine we had your dumb little vote' to 'so here's when the first public hearing will be', going from this right back to the ~ClOsED dOoR mEeTiNgS~ that just make the idiots keep whining does nothing. Aren't the Democrats starting public hearings in November? Right now seems like the best time to announce the vote, especially with the court ruling
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Why are you getting so mad about other people using their privilege to try to help you? probably because most of the time for that it's not actually about helping and it's about doing penance and asking for absolution from the groups they hurt
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:public opinion is fine, it's been doing nothing but trend to the impeachment's side. right...but "fine" isn't "as good as possible." the more you push public opinion the harder a vote it becomes for senate republicans (and a handful of house republicans) and the greater the (slim, but non-zero) chance that senate republicans crack and remove trump becomes (or even just a very sizable amount but not quite enough, which would itself be very damaging to republicans). democrats get one good shot at this, there's no reason to settle for fine
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Haven't coordinated with Fox news yet. https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/1188933007576616960?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Haven't coordinated with Fox news yet. Senate GOP just blinked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Senate GOP just blinked. I bet Lindsey is pisssssed
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Senate GOP just blinked. Thanks Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Senate GOP just blinked. Nah, I think they'll still vote on this trash and it'll still pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
A goon made a good point the other day: all these closed-door hearings make it harder for the witnesses to get their lies straight. While I do like a good public hearing, that's a big advantage for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Senate GOP just blinked. nah they'll just shift from 'OH SO EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS VOTE WAS FAKE AND DIDN'T COUNT SO YOU CAN'T USE THEM' or some other stupid dogbrain idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A goon made a good point the other day: all these closed-door hearings make it harder for the witnesses to get their lies straight. While I do like a good public hearing, that's a big advantage for the Democrats. Yeah that's the flip side on that part, but I assume Pelosi is consulting with judiciary et al on what to make public and whether they'll still SCIF up certain depositions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A goon made a good point the other day: all these closed-door hearings make it harder for the witnesses to get their lies straight. While I do like a good public hearing, that's a big advantage for the Democrats. Not a whole lot harder; plus, since all the closed-door stuff can be made public, House committee members can check closed-door depositions against whatever witnesses say in public. We'll see who wants to take a bullet for Donald Trump. sexpig by night posted:nah they'll just shift from 'OH SO EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS VOTE WAS FAKE AND DIDN'T COUNT SO YOU CAN'T USE THEM' or some other stupid dogbrain idea No one's expecting them not to move the goalposts; we're not naive. But with public opinion already in favor of impeachment, the maneuvers and court rulings will only bake in that 50%+ that impeachment keeps getting in polls. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Not a whole lot harder; plus, since all the closed-door stuff can be made public, House committee members can check closed-door depositions against whatever witnesses say in public. We'll see who wants to take a bullet for Donald Trump. I feel like they're teeing up to hit Gordon Sondland into the sun, if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:probably because most of the time for that it's not actually about helping and it's about doing penance and asking for absolution from the groups they hurt lol OK sure - I'm going to wait for the person I actually asked to answer the question I actually asked but "you're not helping for the right reasons" is gold (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:lol OK sure - I'm going to wait for the person I actually asked to answer the question I actually asked but "you're not helping for the right reasons" is gold it's...it's about how they don't ACTUALLY help, they just want to be seen and feel better...that's not helping minority communities...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Would this House vote passing mean they can't hold any more closed-door depositions? Or does it make those depositions more "legitimate" going forward?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:nah they'll just shift from 'OH SO EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS VOTE WAS FAKE AND DIDN'T COUNT SO YOU CAN'T USE THEM' or some other stupid dogbrain idea issue was there was precisely 50 senate votes for the nonsense graham resolution before (and 4-6 of those needed heavy arm twisting) so they may not even be able to pass their dumb messaging resolution
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:nah they'll just shift from 'OH SO EVERYTHING BEFORE THIS VOTE WAS FAKE AND DIDN'T COUNT SO YOU CAN'T USE THEM' or some other stupid dogbrain idea They can make whatever argument they want. Until the polls start showing support for this inquiry decreasing it doesn't matter what they scream into the chud-o-sphere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:Would this House vote passing mean they can't hold any more closed-door depositions? Or does it make those depositions more "legitimate" going forward? it means literally nothing, at most it means if they follow the old rules framework for some reason then the republicans can ask for their own subpoenas to muddy the waters but of course they won't follow the old rules, the rules are new now and the minority party eats poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:Would this House vote passing mean they can't hold any more closed-door depositions? Or does it make those depositions more "legitimate" going forward? no. it's just going to say "here's how we'll make this stuff public when committees feel they are done with the closed-door depositions"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:Would this House vote passing mean they can't hold any more closed-door depositions? Or does it make those depositions more "legitimate" going forward? No, the closed door depositions will continue. It basically is a vote b the majority to bring the existing depositions into the public, and holding public hearings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it means literally nothing, at most it means if they follow the old rules framework for some reason then the republicans can ask for their own subpoenas to muddy the waters but of course they won't follow the old rules, the rules are new now and the minority party eats poo poo. iirc under the old rules republicans could ask all they wanted, but they still needed a majority of the committee to approve (or at least not vote to disapprove, i forget the exact details) the new rules just mean they're not even allowed to ask
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:iirc under the old rules republicans could ask all they wanted, but they still needed a majority of the committee to approve (or at least not vote to disapprove, i forget the exact details) Yea pretty much, in '15 the republicans changed things so that you can't even ask the ranking members for a subpoena because they're spiteful freaks, it always required approval from the committee first
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A goon made a good point the other day: all these closed-door hearings make it harder for the witnesses to get their lies straight. While I do like a good public hearing, that's a big advantage for the Democrats. That goon was Adam Schiff in a press conference explaining the process of the inquiry. I think posters ITT are arguing because there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. No one is arguing that public hearings are bad, or that it is not a good time for them. The argument against this is based on the idea that the purpose of this vote is to legitimize the inquiry, which is unnecessary because of the court ruling which already did that. The House DOES NOT need to vote to start an impeachment inquiry. However, the point being missed here is that the purpose of this vote is to actually lay out the rules moving forward. They will explain how depositions will be held and by whom. They will explain how evidence will be handled, and how and when all of these things will be made available to the public (or not as necessary). In this case, the purpose of the vote is to actually codify these things into the house rules. There is no point in referring to how things were handled with Nixon or Clinton, because there should be no more confusion as to what can and will happen. THIS STEP IS ALSO UNNECESSARY, but it pre-emptively shuts down any process arguments moving forward, as even if the vote is on party lines, it is still a legitimate House vote and becomes a legal document moving forward. As far as forcing republicans to vote on it, I can't think of a compelling reason why any R would vote for this, regardless of how they feel. It is going to pass no matter what they do, and voting against their party will just be inviting a shitstorm, with the only possible advantage being a rep in a purple district with a strong competitor who thinks this *might* help them more than being disowned by the party would hurt them. I'm not sure who that person is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
iirc in some? most? all?? committees the chairman can also unilaterally issue subpoenas unless the majority says he can't, but that obvs doesn't help the GOP unless they blackmail Schiff with photos of his bisexual polyamory or something
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
All I can think about is this when I see that tweet. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Haven't coordinated with Fox news yet. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA See, you can hand it to Nancy on this one thing. No way she holds a vote unless she is 100% sure about the result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:A goon made a good point the other day: all these closed-door hearings make it harder for the witnesses to get their lies straight. While I do like a good public hearing, that's a big advantage for the Democrats. Does it though? There are republicans in these hearings and they're no doubt leaking everything they can to the concerned parties. The main thing is that besides Sonderland all these people have been State department employees with an axe to grind. I mean do you not think Devin Nunes of all people isn't texting everyone he can the second he leaves the SCIF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:How brave of you to take that stance when it's not your neck on the line. They get to start their redemption once they prove that they give a poo poo and start doing better. It doesn't start with us trying drag them out of the river kicking and screaming. I'm sick and tired of getting spat in my face for trying. I didn't say you should try! I specifically said it didn't sound like you should!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:See, you can hand it to Nancy on this one thing. No way she holds a vote unless she is 100% sure about the result. Nancy is by no means left-leaning and she doesn't take big risks but I think posters underestimate how well she plays the political game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Dubar posted:I think posters ITT are arguing because there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. No one is arguing that public hearings are bad, or that it is not a good time for them. The argument against this is based on the idea that the purpose of this vote is to legitimize the inquiry, which is unnecessary because of the court ruling which already did that. The House DOES NOT need to vote to start an impeachment inquiry. i think some of the stuff about how HPSCI is allowed to share potentially-classified information with Judiciary might actually be necessary but i agree with the rest of this post (you know, like what devin nunes illegally did when he had his aides leak classified information from HPSCI)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1188934885551099907 https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1188935479598686208 https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1188935669638451207 I-I-I'm not owned, YOU'RE OWNED
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
ryde posted:Nancy is by no means left-leaning and she doesn't take big risks but I think posters underestimate how well she plays the political game. Right. She doesn't go out on limbs, better or worse. She just doesn't. Willo567 posted:I-I-I'm not owned, YOU'RE OWNED Wow, LITERALLY that's what this is. Pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbcrane69/status/1188935541389053952?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
making a dog a cop is one of the worst things you can do to a dog and I assume the same is true for troop dogs
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Haven't coordinated with Fox news yet. They're 100% just waiting to see how to phrase/spin their condemnation, depending on the wording of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Pathetic. That describes Graham's entire life perfectly
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
ryde posted:Nancy is by no means left-leaning and she doesn't take big risks but I think posters underestimate how well she plays the political game. her biggest problem prior to Ukraineghazi imo is that 2016 broke her brain like it did half the forums, but instead of becoming a communist and/or a nihilist she became paralyzed with terror that she might make a mistake and cause a Trump reelection
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:51 |
|
|
Also my local infrastructure week is going well https://twitter.com/PennLive/status/1188798813177290752?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 23:12
|
|