|
The 7th Guest posted:remember all the posts about Roberts being concerned about his legacy lol That was like 3 people total and they all said it was a big if.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
Toobly posted:Or am I completely missing something with what their roles are in all of this? No that's pretty much it, their defense is and has always been, "what about their crimes??" See also "but her emails" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Also what Robert's thinks his legacy should be and what we think he thinks are two different things. He is absolutely willing to he a partisan hack to kill the sacred cows he wants to go after. He also cares enough about his legacy that he'll play good cop on some other issues where you'd think he'd be partisan. He's basically a  conservative until he gets to kill something on his checklist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
The 7th Guest posted:remember all the posts about Roberts being concerned about his legacy lol Don't think Roberts has had an opportunity to demonstrate concern or lack of concern yet. Unrelated: Schiff is up next, around 2:15 (3:15 ET).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Is there a list of senators who have been leaving the hearings outside of the scheduled breaks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
The reason why the Republicans want to call Hunter Biden as a witness is because they want to discredit the impeachment as a partisan farce. Giving into them just so we can hear Bolton confirm that Venderman et al. didn't make up the Ukrainian scandal isn't a good deal. The best reasonably likely outcome right now is that a majority of the Senate vote in favor of removal, including 3 to 8 Republican Senators. In my opinion, having Biden testify hurts that possibility more than having Bolton not testify, and I don't think it's even close. Edit: that said, I think adding Mulvaney and Trump into the mix, and maybe I'd be convinced
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The best reasonably likely outcome right now is that a majority of the Senate vote in favor of removal, including 3 to 8 Republican Senators. In my opinion, having Biden testify hurts that possibility more than having Bolton not testify, and I don't think it's even close. I'm sorry to tell you, but that's the extremely unlikely fantasy parallel universe outcome. If nothing outrageous happens, no Republican will vote for removal from office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
House reps on cspan sound like Facebook comments personified. They're just listing conspiracy theory buzz words. None of it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
ummel posted:House reps on cspan sound like Facebook comments personified. They're just listing conspiracy theory buzz words. None of it makes sense. Yeah, I started to doubt all reality while they were gibbering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Republicans get that they have the numbers to call whoever the gently caress they want, right? So why are they incentiveized to "trade" anything? Or just give Trump whatever witness he demands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Toobly posted:For example, here's my train of thought... I can't rob a bank and my defense be "Well the bank manager also did crimes." If that guy was a witness in my court case and it came out he did in fact do crimes, I'm still the one that robbed the bank. Him doing something bad doesn't give me the green light to rob the bank. It's not going to lessen my sentence or anything. If you were a Republican, you could absolutely say, "I heard that one of those DIRTY DEMOCRATS was going to rob the bank this afternoon so I just had to get there first!" and have 45% of the country nod along going "Yeah, that sounds right, he should get to keep the money."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Toobly posted:For example, here's my train of thought... I can't rob a bank and my defense be "Well the bank manager also did crimes." If that guy was a witness in my court case and it came out he did in fact do crimes, I'm still the one that robbed the bank. Him doing something bad doesn't give me the green light to rob the bank. It's not going to lessen my sentence or anything. I think the thing is that the angle the Republicans are going for is that anything Trump may or may not have done is justified because Hunter (and therefore Joe) Biden is dirty. They want to be able to say "he made mistakes but his intentions were good". In your metaphor, it would be like beating the poo poo out of a guy at the bank and then claiming you were actually stopping a robbery. Whether or not the guy was robbing the bank is going to affect other people's thoughts on whether beating him up was right or wrong. With that in mind, the point to having Hunter Biden testify is that they can now have a picture of him being questioned with the caption "Hunter Biden testifies on his role in the Ukraine cover-up." It really doesn't matter what he says, even if he were somehow able to dunk all over them. Just having him participate might be enough to create that cover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The reason why the Republicans want to call Hunter Biden as a witness is because they want to discredit the impeachment as a partisan farce. Giving into them just so we can hear Bolton confirm that Venderman et al. didn't make up the Ukrainian scandal isn't a good deal. Not to go all "Show your map" because we know how that little tradition worked out for us... but who are those 3-8 in your mind, specifically? Knowing what we know about past behavior and recent statements of the so-called GOP moderates, and the absolute shitrain that any defector would be bringing down upon themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1220174954358067204 not new but probably true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Based on my experience as a functional human being I suspect many Senate Republicans are continuing to not hear the facts of this case for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Based on my experience as a functional human being I suspect many Senate Republicans are continuing to not hear the facts of this case for the first time. well yeah that too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Republicans get that they have the numbers to call whoever the gently caress they want, right? So why are they incentiveized to "trade" anything? Or just give Trump whatever witness he demands. A 'trade' indicates that they worked with Democrats on something and the 'bipartisanship' gives bringing Biden out more legitimacy. If they do it on their own is obviously a loving farce. The trick is to get Democrats to play along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:A 'trade' indicates that they worked with Democrats on something and the 'bipartisanship' gives bringing Biden out more legitimacy. Which is why the proper response to anything other then trading Trump for Biden is to tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Republicans like Graham made it very clear that they weren't interested in any facts and weren't interested in a fair trial, and then went under oath saying they would give a fair trial. ... Is it considered lying under oath if the oath itself was a lie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Republicans get that they have the numbers to call whoever the gently caress they want, right? So why are they incentiveized to "trade" anything? Or just give Trump whatever witness he demands. It seems like they're just floating names as a ward against any witnesses being called at all, since the reality is the longer they drag it out the worse they look publicly and the harder they're making their own general elections. I think for most Republicans the ideal outcome is just voting against conviction next week and blowing past anything new. It's also possible they don't actually have the votes to just call up Hunter and no one else. Every Republican has to figure for themselves the best way to play this to survive up to and past November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Republicans like Graham made it very clear that they weren't interested in any facts and weren't interested in a fair trial, and then went under oath saying they would give a fair trial. Lying is more a state of being, ya dig? Like, did any of the senators enter the senate chambers with a baggie of Lye?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
delfin posted:Not to go all "Show your map" because we know how that little tradition worked out for us... but who are those 3-8 in your mind, specifically? Knowing what we know about past behavior and recent statements of the so-called GOP moderates, and the absolute shitrain that any defector would be bringing down upon themselves. Christ, how many qualifiers do I need to put on something to satisfy the nothing matters crowd. Edit: my guess of the 5 additional senators who told Rand to gently caress off: Romney, Ernst, Murkowski, maybe Grassley, maybe Rubio, maybe Portman. Tibalt fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
like this is a big ol fuckin case of "your honor I never lied under oath because my oath itself is invalid because my oath itself was a lie so TECHNICALLY I never lied under oath bc I had my fingers crossed" and the trumpkins furiously circlejerk to the brilliance and chutzpah. what a genius, an absolute legend he owned the libs maga maga maga
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:If you were a Republican, you could absolutely say, "I heard that one of those DIRTY DEMOCRATS was going to rob the bank this afternoon so I just had to get there first!" and have 45% of the country nod along going "Yeah, that sounds right, he should get to keep the money." FrenzyTheKillbot posted:I think the thing is that the angle the Republicans are going for is that anything Trump may or may not have done is justified because Hunter (and therefore Joe) Biden is dirty. They want to be able to say "he made mistakes but his intentions were good". In your metaphor, it would be like beating the poo poo out of a guy at the bank and then claiming you were actually stopping a robbery. Whether or not the guy was robbing the bank is going to affect other people's thoughts on whether beating him up was right or wrong. Okay that helped give me a new perspective on it that I wasn't considering. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:3 senators (Collins, Gardner, and Tillis) are up for election in 2020 in states where Trump is underwater, and we know McConnell doesn't have their votes reliably . According to Rand Paul, 45 Senators privately agreed to dismiss the articles. That leaves another 5 Republican Senators who wouldn't commit to it even privately. so just to be clear you think grassley, rubio, ernst, and portman are not 100% in team 'daddy did nothing wrong and we hate you for even doing a trial at all'? Can I buy drugs from you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Framboise posted:like this is a big ol fuckin case of "your honor I never lied under oath because my oath itself is invalid because my oath itself was a lie so TECHNICALLY I never lied under oath bc I had my fingers crossed" Sure, and enforcement of that is up to the Senate as a whole. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty confident at this point that they will vote against witnesses along party lines next week. They all live or die by Trump, with the exception of Romney who is a tremendous coward
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:so just to be clear you think grassley, rubio, ernst, and portman are not 100% in team 'daddy did nothing wrong and we hate you for even doing a trial at all'? yeah. i doubt its those three. its probably romney, Murkowski and others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:so just to be clear you think grassley, rubio, ernst, and portman are not 100% in team 'daddy did nothing wrong and we hate you for even doing a trial at all'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
I mean, is there anyone more qualified to judge Trump's guilt than Trump himself? Really makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Joni Ernst is also up for re-election in 2020 and is struggling, Grassley, Rubio and Portman have made public comments about Trump's behavior being inappropriate, and I literally added the qualifier "best case scenario" in the original post. maybe ernst but rubio wont do poo poo. he is much like graham.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:3 senators (Collins, Gardner, and Tillis) are up for election in 2020 in states where Trump is underwater, and we know McConnell doesn't have their votes reliably . According to Rand Paul, 45 Senators privately agreed to dismiss the articles. That leaves another 5 Republican Senators who wouldn't commit to it even privately. 45 out of 53 allegedly agreed to not just vote for acquittal, but to completely dismiss the charges as insubstantial and unworthy of consideration in an act of overwhelming batshittery. (This is if the voices in Paul's head are being relayed accurately.) There is a huge, huge difference between "I am not ready to go THAT far for appearance's sake, but when the time comes I will definitely vote 'Acquit' as I am expected to" and "I am actually paying attention to this trial and am prepared to vote 'Remove' if the evidence lands that way." Particularly since none of these 3-8 profiles in courage seemed interested in voting for it to resemble, well, an actual trial. There will be no hall passes granted on this, even if they won't affect the final result. Even one Republican defecting to 'Remove' would be a gigantic black eye for Trump and an effective resignation by the voting Senator, and they all know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
delfin posted:45 out of 53 allegedly agreed to not just vote for acquittal, but to completely dismiss the charges as insubstantial and unworthy of consideration in an act of overwhelming batshittery. (This is if the voices in Paul's head are being relayed accurately.) This is all just a bad case of 'Better to Rule in Hell than Burn in Heaven'. I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
 HOW TRUMP HATERS ARE RUINING AMERICA BUSY MAMAS ARE THE BEST AT MULTITASKING TRY IT SWEETY. or like, actually pay attention and do your loving job, you mongrel
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:19
|
|
|
Framboise posted:
too bad she will never get voted out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
mongrel is a really weird thing to use as a derogatory term
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
these people are all so loving old, how do they have the energy for this? like...why do they care?? why don't they just retire someplace nice and relax? it makes no sense to me. all I know is if they aren't loving as tired as I am than no one is pushing back nearly hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:these people are all so loving old, how do they have the energy for this? like...why do they care?? why don't they just retire someplace nice and relax? Because they love all that dirty, grifted money that they get heaped onto themselves for being terrible people with no principles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:29
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:these people are all so loving old, how do they have the energy for this? like...why do they care?? why don't they just retire someplace nice and relax? If you're a piece of poo poo you only get stronger with age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
delfin posted:There will be no hall passes granted on this, even if they won't affect the final result. Even one Republican defecting to 'Remove' would be a gigantic black eye for Trump and an effective resignation by the voting Senator, and they all know that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:34
|
|