|
Party Plane Jones posted:generally no, but if you buy a new avatar you can just append the gang tag within [img] brackets at the end of the text box what if you have a really long title that abuts the character limit
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/AverageFather/status/1197537515370139648?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
lol nicole wallace: "I worked in the West Wing and Hill is the kind of person everyone would have respected and most people would fear"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
I'm the cspan 3 caller advocating for Trump's records. Just to you know, prove he didn't do anything wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:what if you have a really long title that abuts the character limit if you're running against the character limit you'd probably need to buy a $5 gift cert then PM one of the forum mods; as we don't have a character limit when doing mod title changes
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Let's imagine impeachment is passed and it goes to the Senate. Who decides what witnesses are called? I'd think Dems want to see people like Bolton in order to bolster the case, but that seems highly unlikely if Republicans are running the trial
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Let's imagine impeachment is passed and it goes to the Senate. Who decides what witnesses are called? I'd think Dems want to see people like Bolton in order to bolster the case, but that seems highly unlikely if Republicans are running the trial Diamond and Silk
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
This is honestly my house right now as well. https://twitter.com/jess_mc/status/1197550079982354432?s=21 Edit: Correction. The recess was my “oh thank god, time to get some housework done” warning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Let's imagine impeachment is passed and it goes to the Senate. Who decides what witnesses are called? I'd think Dems want to see people like Bolton in order to bolster the case, but that seems highly unlikely if Republicans are running the trial House is prosecution, Trump's personal lawyers will be defense. Like a real trial, both can call witnesses. Rulings related to relevance/etc will come from Roberts
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
eke out posted:House is prosecution, Trump's personal lawyers will be defense. Like a real trial, both can call witnesses. Rulings related to relevance/etc will come from Roberts Thanks, this is outstanding. So why shouldn't articles of impeachment be drafted today?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Thanks, this is outstanding. So why shouldn't articles of impeachment be drafted today? They're gathering as much evidence as they can. They need this to be as damaging as possible so there's no ambiguity in the public's eye. The more Nunes flounders, the better the evidence looks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
why the gently caress were multiple news people yammering about 'well what if the house decides to just censure the president instead'? Has anyone floated that as anything but R wishful thinking?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
btw Roberts is a ghoul but he's probably more likely than any republican to be able to look more than a few months down the road. I'm guessing he's smart enough to know Trump's legacy will be unkind so he probably wouldn't be much help to GOP obstruction in the trial. In fact he could be the driving force to compel witnesses who have ignored subpoenas in the past
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Thanks, this is outstanding. So why shouldn't articles of impeachment be drafted today? because they want to get all the evidence in the public record to lay out the strongest possible public case for impeachment
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Thanks, this is outstanding. So why shouldn't articles of impeachment be drafted today? There is an important court ruling on Monday as to whether Dan McGahn, the head White House lawyer, has to comply with his subpoena. They want his testimony and John Bolton’s too (Bolton may be waiting on a court decision too)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
ewiley posted:That is some awesome avatar material right there Not to mention a what is Holmes holding in his hand Photoshop competition
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:because they want to get all the evidence in the public record to lay out the strongest possible public case for impeachment Yeah I get that but it seems to me that we're already past that point. Dragging up more witnesses who are not stonewalling would be more likely to cause public fatigue in the matter. I'm no political strategist by any stretch of course, I'm just thinking out loud. And as someone who is intently focused and interested in it, I'm starting to get worn out
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:because they want to get all the evidence in the public record to lay out the strongest possible public case for impeachment Also, Republicans and their witnesses keep helping with that, and we shouldn't spurn such an appeal to the spirit of bipartisanship in these polarized times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:There is an important court ruling on Monday as to whether Dan McGahn, the head White House lawyer, has to comply with his subpoena. They want his testimony and John Bolton’s too (Bolton may be waiting on a court decision too) Thanks, this is a helpful observation
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:btw Roberts is a ghoul but he's probably more likely than any republican to be able to look more than a few months down the road. I'm guessing he's smart enough to know Trump's legacy will be unkind so he probably wouldn't be much help to GOP obstruction in the trial. In fact he could be the driving force to compel witnesses who have ignored subpoenas in the past I am not too worried about Roberts presiding. I think his opinions are abhorrent, but when it comes to procedure I think he will be neutral. Regardless of who the President is, Roberts cares more about standard conservative ideals, and he can do his business via jurisprudence. I mean, Obama was in office when the Citizens United case was decided.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:is there any way to get that nothing matters gang tag still? Buddy they don’t even let me gently caress the gang tags
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:blood or more than $5 to a charity thanks very much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
I think it's still a possibility that despite what he says, McConnell just holds a dismissal vote and kills the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Thanks, this is outstanding. So why shouldn't articles of impeachment be drafted today? Because they aren't idiots, the point of this process is to drag as much of President Crimes behavior into the public consciousness so that they can paint the Republicans the craven lickspittle traitors to the country that they are so that when the Senate predictably votes to acquit the guiltiest person in history they can maximize the political damage caused to them outside the 30% of the public who have bought 100% into the Faux News extended Qverse. Skex fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah I get that but it seems to me that we're already past that point. Dragging up more witnesses who are not stonewalling would be more likely to cause public fatigue in the matter. I'm no political strategist by any stretch of course, I'm just thinking out loud. And as someone who is intently focused and interested in it, I'm starting to get worn out People like you are a tiny minority. Most people only pay attention casually, if at all. To get thorough to them you need saturation coverage for a long time. Plus you getting burned out means nothing because you probably already hate Trump as much as the law allows. You're not the audience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah I get that but it seems to me that we're already past that point. Dragging up more witnesses who are not stonewalling would be more likely to cause public fatigue in the matter. I'm no political strategist by any stretch of course, I'm just thinking out loud. And as someone who is intently focused and interested in it, I'm starting to get worn out It's a long, arduous process, but as long as all of these hearings continue to be productive with new information, they'll have them. They know the Senate won't convict, but they want to make this as politically damaging as possible for Senate Republicans when they vote to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
SchrodingersCat posted:I am not too worried about Roberts presiding. I think his opinions are abhorrent, but when it comes to procedure I think he will be neutral. Regardless of who the President is, Roberts cares more about standard conservative ideals, and he can do his business via jurisprudence. I mean, Obama was in office when the Citizens United case was decided. I actually think Roberts presiding is excellent all things considered. Hard for the GOP to push a narrative on bias, and like you said Roberts knows the current structure benefits the Supreme Court, he'd like to avoid a public conversation that they wield entirely too much power
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah I get that but it seems to me that we're already past that point. Dragging up more witnesses who are not stonewalling would be more likely to cause public fatigue in the matter. I'm no political strategist by any stretch of course, I'm just thinking out loud. And as someone who is intently focused and interested in it, I'm starting to get worn out we're literally one day after the key witness. the plan is to go as quickly as possible, it's just a question of how many more days/week that is. my view is that at a minimum they should go until after the ruling on Monday to determine if Bolton will show up and testify, and then they're basically done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think it's still a possibility that despite what he says, McConnell just holds a dismissal vote and kills the whole thing. Things would go absolutely nuclear if he did that because that's an unquestionable abdication of duty, whereas acquiting him is merely implied.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yeah I get that but it seems to me that we're already past that point. Dragging up more witnesses who are not stonewalling would be more likely to cause public fatigue in the matter. I'm no political strategist by any stretch of course, I'm just thinking out loud. And as someone who is intently focused and interested in it, I'm starting to get worn out oxsnard posted:Thanks, this is a helpful observation The R strategy is to drag this out by ignoring subpoenas and forcing prolonged court battles. The D strategy is to condense this as much as possible to avoid another Russia Collusion investigation, which in part failed because the obstruction dragged it out for 2+ years. What you feel is exactly what everyone feels and what we hope to avoid. This will be decided by public opinion after all. As for McGahn and Bolton, if you were hoping for a silver bullet, it will come from one of them. There is reason to hold out for their testimony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think it's still a possibility that despite what he says, McConnell just holds a dismissal vote and kills the whole thing. everything McConnell has said suggests that at least four GOP senators have told him they won't back such a vote (likely because either they think he's guilty as sin like Romney, or because politically they need to be seen to have taken the charges seriously before voting to acquit, like Collins/Gardener).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I actually think Roberts presiding is excellent all things considered. Hard for the GOP to push a narrative on bias, and like you said Roberts knows the current structure benefits the Supreme Court, he'd like to avoid a public conversation that they wield entirely too much power this is correct, roberts hates trump and is walking a knife edge to avoid someone being elected that will pack the Court and remove his majority for the next generation. he has every incentive to be actually impartial, because being impartial is a no-lose strategy for him and his institutional interests regardless of whether Trump wins or loses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
No for real I missed this morning, please tell me no actual democratic leader is talking about some bizarre cave where they decide to push for censure instead
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Is this a recent quote from Starr? Seems to go completely counter to what he said earlier on Fox today? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1197534774182785027
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:There is an important court ruling on Monday as to whether Dan McGahn, the head White House lawyer, has to comply with his subpoena. They want his testimony and John Bolton’s too (Bolton may be waiting on a court decision too) Do you happen to know if this ruling can be appealed? They have been stalling on everything and I figure they'd want to take this to the supreme court if possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
I'm on a Southwest flight right now and I'd say 30% of passengers are watching the news/hearings on their laptops and phones. There are more people watching this than I saw watching a world series game on a flight into Houston.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:As for McGahn and Bolton, if you were hoping for a silver bullet, it will come from one of them. There is reason to hold out for their testimony. I'm not a nothing matters person, but this doesn't strike me as likely. No matter what comes out of this, Republicans will say there's no evidence and there shouldn't even be a trial (even if a few GOP Senators don't vote that way). Unless there are entirely new crimes uncovered by their testimony, McGahn and Bolton will be treated just like the people who've already testified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Do you happen to know if this ruling can be appealed? They have been stalling on everything and I figure they'd want to take this to the supreme court if possible. yes sexpig by night posted:No for real I missed this morning, please tell me no actual democratic leader is talking about some bizarre cave where they decide to push for censure instead no whatever this is it's certainly not happening, i have no idea what you're talking about
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Do you happen to know if this ruling can be appealed? They have been stalling on everything and I figure they'd want to take this to the supreme court if possible. it can be appealed. what matters is if Bolton is willing to testify solely based on the district court decision because ultimately Democrats cannot coerce anyone into testifying in the timeframe they need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:everything McConnell has said suggests that at least four GOP senators have told him they won't back such a vote (likely because either they think he's guilty as sin like Romney, or because politically they need to be seen to have taken the charges seriously before voting to acquit, like Collins/Gardener). Cornyn has said this explicitly: GOP senator: Republicans don't have votes to dismiss impeachment articles quote:Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to Senate Republican leadership, says there are not enough votes in the Senate to immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment passed by the House against President Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 18:00
|
|
