|
Charlz Guybon posted:Old lawyer saying "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." That was from West Wing.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:That was from West Wing. well for once that piece of poo poo show has a good line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:That was from West Wing. Carl Sandburg wrote it in like 1936
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
"To be or not to be, that is the question" - Rick and Morty, 2015
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
It loving sucks this doesn’t work like a regular court case. I mean, I get a lot of reasons why that’s just not logistically possible, but every time Trump’s defense team just blatantly lies, it would be great to have a sustained objection where the judge tells them to knock it the gently caress off. Also, there’s the whole witness thing. If someone goes on trial for murder, the defense can’t just get a waiver on the prosecution calling someone who witnessed that poo poo first-hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
lol Sekulow got extremely mad because he didn't understand Val Demings saying "FOIA lawsuits" https://twitter.com/Tierney_Megan/status/1219771293362462725
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/Civiqs/status/1219721085844721665?s=19 If that was reflected in the vote this year, that would be a 355/56 EV win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
Ive been sick as a drat dog all day. How's it going for us?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:That was from West Wing. It was quoted in the West Wing. It's a lot older than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ive been sick as a drat dog all day. How's it going for us? Do you really want to know or would you prefer getting back to being soused on ZzzQuil? I’m gonna answer that for you: ZzzQuil is the better option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
Trump's legal team not being familiar with FOIA suits would actually explain so, so much
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ive been sick as a drat dog all day. How's it going for us? They are on hour 7 of arguing about whether they should start the trial or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ive been sick as a drat dog all day. How's it going for us? McConnell proposed a dog poo poo set of rules at midnight last night on the eve of the trial starting. It appears to have been designed to be “Offer them a poo poo deal so that when you get push back you can “compromise” down to something that is still awful, but you can spin it as a “compromise.” The compromise was changing the scheduling from two 12 hour days to three 8 hour days. In return for this compromise, Republicans all agreed to not call witnesses or hear evidence until after deliberations are finished. That’s probably a clear cut win for Mitch. We may still get witnesses, but now he has cover for a couple of days so that if he does have to bury this thing, it will be on day 3 now instead of day 1. So far White House not doing a good job defending Trump though. Pat Cipollone spoke for the first time (I believe) and turns out he is also a conspiracy nut. That’s all I gathered from watching here and there. The real meat and potatoes will come when we get a real vote. Right now they’re just punting on making a decision on witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
WTF... how was emoluments and general corruption not an impeachable offense? https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1219791815265673223
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:WTF... how was emoluments and general corruption not an impeachable offense? Oh, it is. You’ve just gotta live in a country where polling is over ~60% against those things and have a super majority in one legislative body that would be down with finding the defendant guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:WTF... how was emoluments and general corruption not an impeachable offense? I don't know if you didn't catch it, before, but Trump's already ruled that the emoluments clause is phony, so no one can ever mention it again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1219791129522122752 The usual crowd of idiots is trying to convince Democrats that Republicans totally wont gently caress them over on this, but for now, leadership isn't interested
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:WTF... how was emoluments and general corruption not an impeachable offense? It is, and should have been, especially when the CSPAN Republican call-in crowd is complaining that trump is losing money by being president. But this is were we are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
Appreciated Schiff's earlier call out to (Republican) Senators that one of their Senate ranks may become President soon, and that said Senator may act in [undefined] ways as President that they might not like so much, and then may need to revoke Executive Privilege. Later on, maybe. Then got creeped out at the fact that this is where we're at. Otteration fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
The democrats are making real good arguments for these witnesses, too bad the GOP are going to punt the actual vote until the end of the trial I guess until everyone is too bored to follow. Sure would be nice if those 4 (non-existent) Republicans would vote punting it down but that would be how a functional government works
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/rachaelmbade/status/1219791129522122752 Do we care if Biden gets destroyed? If you're in it for Bernie, Warren, Pete, or anyone one but Joe, why isn't this a plus?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Do we care if Biden gets destroyed? I don’t think anyone on this forum is a Biden stan, but an argument could be made that 1) This shouldn’t matter, in the case of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, and allowing Hunter’s testimony during the trial would just make this even more of a constitutional shitshow than it already is, and 2). If Joe Biden somehow (god, please, lord, do not allow this to happen) were to get the nomination, it’d be 2016 all over again with the bullshit “BUT HER EMAILS” rallies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:53
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Do we care if Biden gets destroyed? If Joe/Hunter Biden did hinky things they should be prosecuted. As should Bernie, Warren, Pete, or anyone one else, including the orange fecal smear. As of this moment, everyone previous to trump in the above sentence is irrelevant. Otteration fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
generic one posted:Do you really want to know or would you prefer getting back to being soused on ZzzQuil? I’m gonna answer that for you: ZzzQuil is the better option. I wish it was that kind of sick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Otteration posted:If Joe/Hunter Biden did hinky things they should be prosecuted. As should Bernie, Warren, Pete, or anyone one else, including the orange fecal smear. Right, something I neglected to say in my last post: They should absolutely be prosecuted, but whatever Hunter did should have zero bearing on the impeachment hearings. There is zero reason that they need to hear about totally unrelated crimes in a trial about these specific crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
 GreyjoyBastard will be helping out as an IK in this thread over the coming weeks
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:I wish it was that kind of sick. User name/post combo is making for some mental images I’m gonna have nightmares about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:Collins is absolutely cooked no matter what she does, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Did he just drop Biggie Small's in his awesome response to Sucklow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Unless Bolton’s testimony is likely to get Republican senators to actually convict Trump (and it isn’t), then I don’t see why it’s beneficial to trade Biden for Bolton. Who really needs more proof that Trump abused his power at this point? And I’m skeptical that, as the WaPo article suggested some congresspeople think, Biden’s testimony would backfire on Republicans. Even if he performed perfectly, it’d be neutral to the bigger picture. I’m not a “NOTHING MATTERS” sort of poster (plz disregard gang tag), but...this just doesn’t seem like it would matter (or it would have a negative impact).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:16
|
|
|
Phlag posted:Unless Bolton’s testimony is likely to get Republican senators to actually convict Trump (and it isn’t), then I don’t see why it’s beneficial to trade Biden for Bolton. Who really needs more proof that Trump abused his power at this point? Could be setting up a knife for don jr in the future. Not that he’s a threat to anyone, nor will he ever be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Why is she leading 15 points in the senate polls Source? Last poll was June of 2019, and it was by hilariously Republican-slanted Gravis. Collins is the least popular Senator in Washington. She's a dead woman walking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
generic one posted:I don’t think anyone on this forum is a Biden stan, but an argument could be made that 1) This shouldn’t matter, in the case of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, and allowing Hunter’s testimony during the trial would just make this even more of a constitutional shitshow than it already is, and 2). If Joe Biden somehow (god, please, lord, do not allow this to happen) were to get the nomination, it’d be 2016 all over again with the bullshit “BUT HER EMAILS” rallies. They're already going to do that whether Hunter Biden testifies or not. Not only have all the horses left that barn, they've all gotten paying commentator gigs for all major news and propaganda services. You can't try to preempt disingenuous and dishonest right wing talking points because they are disingenuous and dishonest. So that's not a good reason to block Hunter Biden from testifying. Now, arguing that democrats won't get anything useful in return is fine, and I think being dubious that getting Bolton up there and asking him what he meant when he wrote all those incriminating memos will do anything is a reasonable position. My personal feeling is that it's good to keep pushing that President Trump is the most corrupt president in history and Bolton going on the stand and triggering some more cognitive dissonance in republicans helps that. Bolton by himself won't budge things, but as part of a steady, continuous drip it can have an effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
The founding fathers had no idea that we would get to a point where 100% of a political party would turn a blind eye to blatant illegal and corrupt poo poo. Sadly there really isn't any fixing this exploit once one party gets a hold of two branches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
McConnell getting pissy about Schumer forcing votes on every amendment individually. He tried to ask to stack them and Schumer told him to suck it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
generic one posted:Right, something I neglected to say in my last post: They should absolutely be prosecuted, but whatever Hunter did should have zero bearing on the impeachment hearings. There is zero reason that they need to hear about totally unrelated crimes in a trial about these specific crimes. Well, sure. But if the only way to get the witnesses we want is to sacrifice Hunter, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, sure. But if the only way to get the witnesses we want is to sacrifice Hunter, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. pretty much. i dont give a gently caress about some failson. at worst he gets screamed at by chuds for a day and looks like a victim. who cares. personally i hope someone tries to get trump to testify because that would be funny at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, sure. But if the only way to get the witnesses we want is to sacrifice Hunter, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Still no as that would require giving into Republican bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Appreciated Schiff's earlier call out to (Republican) Senators that one of their Senate ranks may become President soon, and that said Senator may act in [undefined] ways as President that they might not like so much, and then may need to revoke Executive Privilege. Later on, maybe. Was he threatening that a Democrat would become President soon or that a Republican Senator they all hate would? I'm having a short brained sort of day and I'm not sure I follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Random Stranger posted:They're already going to do that whether Hunter Biden testifies or not. Not only have all the horses left that barn, they've all gotten paying commentator gigs for all major news and propaganda services. You can't try to preempt disingenuous and dishonest right wing talking points because they are disingenuous and dishonest. So that's not a good reason to block Hunter Biden from testifying. Sure, they’re going to do that, but I contend it would be less of an issue if Hunter Biden wasn’t called before this shitshow. You remember what happened during the Benghazi hearings, right? The administration did everything by the book, for the most part, but by allowing Republican shitheads to get their Fox News host talking points on video, in front of a large audience, and by allowing selective editing of those videos, they further damaged the image of Hillary Clinton as a trustworthy alternative to Donald John Trump. On top of that, why? Why even give them that win, since we know it’s gonna contribute to a disinformation campaign? Don’t give them the footage. Don’t give them the editing opportunities. They should just tell them to gently caress off and hold the sham trial they’re already gonna hold, regardless of who testified on either side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:52
|
|