|
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. Prosecute Hunter? Sure, absolutely. Prosecute Hunter during this impeachment trial? Absolutely not.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
generic one posted:Prosecute Hunter? Sure, absolutely. Prosecute Hunter during this impeachment trial? Absolutely not. He isn't going to be prosecuted. He'll just have to go in front of America and talk about what a failson he is and his no show job/jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 03:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He isn't going to be prosecuted. He'll just have to go in front of America and talk about what a failson he is and his no show job/jobs. So your advocating that this time we should give ground to the Republicans as surely it will work out for the Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted: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. In some ways there's no precedent (because it's not a court of law), but in other ways there's only precedent (because they have no other documentation to leverage). (It's because their political/moral/ethical position is "we are right"/"what's right is what we say".)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Exactly. I know they want unlimited power, but I don't see how all of them are missing the established precedents they'll have to deal with when there's a Democrat house and senate and President. "We will hold the Senate trial for Pence following the Trump-impeachment rules, no witnesses, convict, done". They know Democrats are wimps and will actually take it seriously
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1219818607342800896
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:They know Democrats are wimps and will actually take it seriously ps Or just all show up drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He isn't going to be prosecuted. He'll just have to go in front of America and talk about what a failson he is and his no show job/jobs. Cool, let’s have him do that in a hearing that has nothing to do with the impeachable crimes of Donald John Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:So your advocating that this time we should give ground to the Republicans as surely it will work out for the Democrats? I don't see letting a jackass corrupt failson testify as giving ground. They are going to make him a huge issue in the campaign if by some tragedy Biden wins the primary anyway whether he testifies or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1219830238240178177
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:So your advocating that this time we should give ground to the Republicans as surely it will work out for the Democrats? it's not 'giving ground' because the other side is we get to hear an actual first hand witness who almost certainly is going to try to save his own rep and sell a book. Who gives a gently caress about biden? He's gonna be an issue no matter what, it's not like fox is ever gonna go 'well hunter didn't testify so we can't really say he was a corrupt crackhead failson after all'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
the democrats would give them hunter and then the republicans would pull the football away like they do every time over and over again, so that it ends up being only hunter
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
The 7th Guest posted:the democrats would give them hunter and then the republicans would pull the football away like they do every time over and over again, so that it ends up being only hunter At least that would be funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
The 7th Guest posted:the democrats would give them hunter and then the republicans would pull the football away like they do every time over and over again, so that it ends up being only hunter if chuck is that cartoonishly wrong here, like actually maybe mentally handicapped levels of 'unable to be trusted to consent to deals', then we've got way bigger issues than PROTECT HUNTER
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
I’d assume the prosecution goes first with their witnesses but who knows what Calvinball rules they end up passing. Also I think I mentioned it in the other thread but there’s nothing to stop the 53 Republicans from just subpoenaing Hunter by majority vote so it’s not like Democrats can really trade anything in a meaningful sense here. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
uh it's not about chuck consenting to a deal, it's about the very idea of a "deal" being honored by republicans when they never do that. they could show a live broadcast of everyone signing a contract and then after the democrats honor their side of the deal, the republicans light the contract on fire and laugh while schumer goes "HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED" like, they will change the rules on the fly whenever they want because no one will stop them
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
The 7th Guest posted:uh it's not about chuck consenting to a deal, it's about the very idea of a "deal" being honored by republicans when they never do that. they could show a live broadcast of everyone signing a contract and then after the democrats honor their side of the deal, the republicans light the contract on fire and laugh while schumer goes "HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED" that's literally not how this works, prosecution witnesses go first in a trial dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:that's literally not how this works, prosecution witnesses go first in a trial dude What's more, we specifically know that the prosecution will go first in this trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What's more, we specifically know that the prosecution will go first in this trial. but guys what if mitch rigs a booby trap under bolton's seat to explode, killing him instantly and preventing him from testifying? Then we'll HAVE to let fox news call hunter a corrupt crackhead and there's no recovering from that. Better just have no witnesses like mitch wants in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
then throw hunter out there, i dont really give a gently caress about him. but there will be shenanigans
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
The 7th Guest posted:then throw hunter out there, i dont really give a gently caress about him. but there will be shenanigans yea no poo poo, it's not like there's a no shenanigans option here
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
Do we know why the Republicans aren't just voting to call Hunter Biden and no one else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:21
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:that's literally not how this works, prosecution witnesses go first in a trial dude The GOP can try this by whatever rules they want. Everyone needs to know this
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Do we know why the Republicans aren't just voting to call Hunter Biden and no one else? probably the Romney types know that literally only calling a completely meaningless witness will make it hard to pretend they're not ghouls back home and are threatening to block.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Do we know why the Republicans aren't just voting to call Hunter Biden and no one else? I think we can assume that some of the GOP wouldn't be on board with that
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted: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. Yep. That Warren or Sanders will become President soon, and that "we" (the House and Senate) may have to do this all over again soon. It was also a side-eye check to say the Senate (regardless of the party membership) "should" be able to prosecute (next time), but have currently chosen to abstain its responsibility in the current case, and precedent may be set. Politics will rule next time, as they do now, but it's an argument to the institution of the Senate anyways, as useless as that argument appears to be. Appreciate that Schiff looked at the camera a couple of times. Personally hope Schiff, et al., become angrier as days go on. As it stands, not much to lose either way at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Do we know why the Republicans aren't just voting to call Hunter Biden and no one else? Because they mostly prefer no witnesses to an even more obvious sham.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted: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. Most recent thing I find is an October poll from Public Policy Polling (admittedly Democratic-slanted), which has her losing to a generic Democrat 41-44 https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PPP_Release_ME_101519.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted: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. I think she's definitely gone with general election anti Trump turnout. Same for Gardner. I will take great pleasure in her losing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't see letting a jackass corrupt failson testify as giving ground. They are going to make him a huge issue in the campaign if by some tragedy Biden wins the primary anyway whether he testifies or not. It's a hard thing to make an issue out of when I'd bet dollars to dimes that fully 90% of senators have fuckup relatives sitting on the boards of various companies and foundations. I'd be surprised if anyone on either side really wants that to get dug into and to become a political liability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Yep. That Warren or Sanders will become President soon, and that "we" (the House and Senate) may have to do this all over again soon. It was also a side-eye check to say the Senate (regardless of the party membership) "should" be able to prosecute (next time), but have currently chosen to abstain its responsibility in the current case, and precedent may be set. Politics will rule next time, as they do now, but it's an argument to the institution of the Senate anyways, as useless as that argument appears to be. Ok, that makes sense. I suppose I just skipped ahead mentally to "the Republicans would consider this an empty threat because they can lean on their E.C. advantage, voter suppression, a compliant Supreme Court and the DNC to ratfuck their own people for Biden, so the Presidency is reasonably still in their grasp; why would they care?". I've been stressing too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
So are they done yet? I couldn’t listen anymore at like 8 .
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:So are they done yet? I couldn’t listen anymore at like 8 . No it's still going. Two hours of argument per subpoena, then it gets tabled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:if chuck is that cartoonishly wrong here, like actually maybe mentally handicapped levels of 'unable to be trusted to consent to deals', then we've got way bigger issues than PROTECT HUNTER No-one gives a poo poo about protecting Hunter. The whole thing agaisnt him is bullshit anyway and he really has nothing to answer for except being the son of a famous US pol. This is the GOP doing Benghazi all over again in the run up to another election, so that the Bidens (and by association, all Democrats) are seen as equally tarnished as Trump. They are using it to set up a 'both sides are bad' narrative to uninformed voters and to get the media to split time between actual corruption on the GOP side and allegations of corruption on the Dem side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
I just tuned in at the end of a proposal to send the Sergeant-at-arms to find and bring Bolton to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
Are Senators still in the chamber or is it Schiff and Nadler talking to no one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:52
|
|
|
Still there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 06:57
|
|
|
still going, and Schiff is still great. they're all gonna be 53-47 votes to ignore every amendment tho, oh well hopefully they can at least clog things up and stretch it out and at least get some good sound bites in; Schiff has had at least a few
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
Are they about to spend two hours arguing an amendment changing a thing two hours?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Schiff is a robot and they're just methodically punishing the GOP for their bullshit. This is great
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 07:38
|
|