|
Don't care. If I can't behave that way in my meagerly paid job without getting in trouble, neither should they. Their point is stupid anyway.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
Framboise posted:Don't care. If I can't behave that way in my meagerly paid job without getting in trouble, neither should they. Their point is stupid anyway. They aren't meagerly paid, yo. Also, for those who can remember, did poo poo l ile this happen with Clinton's on the D side?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:They aren't meagerly paid, yo. I'm meagerly paid. My point is that I have to behave better in my crappy, thankless job than they do in their big money, highly respected job and that's extremely pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
Demings really needs to get some coaching on how to pronounce these names holy cow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
so chud defence starts saturday? with tuesday the closing and votes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
Framboise posted:I'm meagerly paid. My point is that I have to behave better in my crappy, thankless job than they do in their big money, highly respected job and that's extremely pathetic. Ah. My bad, must've misread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Dershowitz calls CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin ‘bullies’ as they question him on impeachment flip-flop washingtonpost.com/Jan. 21, 2020 [Includes Dershowitz hypocrisy video entered into the Senate record.] 'Those infuriating framers of the Constitution left behind only the thinnest inkling of their real thoughts about impeachment of the president and said nothing explicit about whether removal from office requires commission of a crime. Almost all the law professors who have researched the matter have concluded that the answer is no — no crime necessary. It’s been the overwhelming consensus, impeachment scholar Philip C. Bobbitt of the Columbia Law School told The Washington Post on Monday. Among those who accepted it was Alan Dershowitz, the fabled defense lawyer, now Harvard Law School professor emeritus and part of President Trump’s impeachment defense team. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime,” he said in a television interview in 1998, during the impeachment controversy surrounding President Bill Clinton. “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of the president and abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.” Now, he has a different view. “Without a crime there can be no impeachment,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, foreshadowing the formal brief presented Monday by Trump’s legal team to the Senate. He got into one of his famous brawls on CNN on Monday night. Host Anderson Cooper and the network’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, confronted Dershowitz about his changed opinion. The resulting exchange wasn’t pretty. “So you were wrong then,” Cooper said to Dershowitz. “No, I wasn’t wrong. I have a more sophisticated basis for my argument,” he said, citing his research into the 1868 impeachment proceedings against President Andrew Johnson. “It’s very clear now that what you need is criminal-like behavior akin to bribery and treason.” All this was once a bit academic. But now it’s a central element in Trump’s defense. He is charged in two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, neither of which is a crime. The answer is a big deal. Toobin opened up on Dershowitz at the outset of the program. “What is clear is that Alan was right in 1998 and he’s wrong now,” Toobin said. “I mean, the two statements cannot be reconciled. One is right or one is wrong and the one in 1998 was right. … Look, every single law professor that has looked at this issue except you” believes that a crime is unnecessary. Smart lawyer that he is, Dershowitz tried to make Toobin the defendant, accusing him of “lying” when he claimed “every single law professor” disagreed. Triumphantly, Dershowitz identified one who agreed with him, Harvard Law School’s Nikolas Bowie. He referenced a December 2018 commentary by Bowie. “Don’t make up stories about ‘every professor,’ ” Dershowitz said. “Please withdraw that argument that no professor said it.” Toobin, smiling, modified his statement. “Okay, ‘virtually every’ professor.” Toobin noted that he was able to admit a mistake. Why couldn’t Dershowitz? Cooper rejoined the fray and soon they were all talking at once. “You were wrong,” Cooper told Dershowitz. “I wasn’t wrong,” Dershowitz replied. “I am just far more correct now than I was then. … I think your viewers are entitled to hear my argument without two bullies jumping on everything I say.” “Oh come on,” said a bemused Cooper. The viral television moment was one in a series of battles that have unfolded since Trump’s election between Dershowitz and Toobin, spiced up by the fact that Toobin was a Dershowitz student at Harvard Law School and has made no secret of his view that his former professor, once thought to be a liberal, has gone over the edge. “Alan, I don’t know what’s going on with you,” he said of his longtime friend and mentor, during an argument on CNN in March 2018, in which Dershowitz blasted the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. AD “How has this come about that, in every situation over the past year, you have been carrying water for Donald Trump?” Toobin said later in the show. “This is not who you used to be, and you are doing this over and over again in situations that are just obviously rife with conflict of interest. And it’s just, like, what’s happened to you?” “I’m not carrying his water,” Dershowitz responded in the 2018 exchange. “I’m saying the exact same thing I’ve said for 50 years. And, Jeffrey, you ought to know that, you were my student.” On the question at hand, whether removal requires criminal behavior by the president, the Trump defense team argues as follows: “By limiting impeachment to cases of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ the Framers restricted impeachment to specific offenses against ‘already known and established law.’ That was a deliberate choice designed to constrain the impeachment power. In keeping with that restriction, every prior presidential impeachment in our history has been based on alleged violations of existing law — indeed, criminal law.” Since the framers mentioned only offenses that were crimes — bribery and treason — in the first part of the impeachment clause, it follows that the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors” also referred to crimes. Bribery and treason are crimes, therefore the other elements of the clause must also refer to crimes. The scholarly consensus to the contrary is based in part on the 1787 context of that language — in English law, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates afterward and the Federalist. It’s also backed by the principle that the interpretation of laws and the Constitution should, where possible, avoid ridiculous results. Limiting impeachable offenses to crimes would have been an “absurdity,” Charles Black wrote in “Impeachment: A Handbook,” a Watergate-era book just updated by Bobbitt that’s been called a “bible” on the topic. “Suppose a president were to move to Saudi Arabia, so he could have four wives, and were to propose to conduct the office of presidency by mail and wireless from there. This would not be a crime, provided his passport were in order. “Is it possible that such gross and wanton neglect of duty could not be grounds for impeachment and removal?” Another example from Black: “Suppose a president were to announce that he would under no circumstances appoint any Roman Catholic to office and were rigorously to stick to this plan … “It would be absurd,” Black wrote, “to think that a president might not properly be removed for it.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Zoe Lofgren just did a really good job at outlining the timeline of the hold on military aid. I don't think I've seen it laid out so clearly before. In particular I wasn't aware that the hold was apparently set into motion upon news reports that the DoD had been authorized to release it. You can picture the gears turning in Trump's head, frustrated with the lack of progress, seeing this on fox, and going "bingo that's it I'm a good brain genius!" I think if anything is going to win over the undecided public, it will be laying everything out on a timeline, especially since a lot of the opposition talking points rely on an ignorance of that timeline, eg. "but the aid was released so what's the big deal?" snorch fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
The worst thing about this timeline is seeing HOW MANY PEOPLE are able to do this level of utter shameless, effortless spinning, just at the drop of the hat, to deny reality and every perfectly reasonable challenge thrown at them, and to turn it around and immediately go on the attack against the challenger. To smile for the cameras and the millions of viewers and say "I am right, I have always been right, both these contradictory statements are true, and you are bad for suggesting otherwise, now for these messages". It's just ... this many people are this good at being completely inhuman, in a way I can't even fathom being. I'm that guy on the jury who listens to the Chewbacca Defense for so long his head just pops
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Great job by Schiff wrapping up for House Managers tonight. Even if you find much of this really repetitive as I have he made a really strong appeal why Trump is bad and dangerous for the country and how much damage he could do even in a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Don't be that guy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
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? even though they cravenly kiss trump's rear end they are also getting continually getting handjobs from these maga hogs and their balls handled by lobbyists. think of all the poo poo being an elected official keeps you out of too, helps you get away from, or just delays enough long enough to keep you doing just one more sex crime. how many Republicans in and around office are known sex offenders? a lot... e: im bad at this thin blue whine fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:The worst thing about this timeline is seeing HOW MANY PEOPLE are able to do this level of utter shameless, effortless spinning, I mean, that's the whole point of a fidget spinner
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:even though they cravenly kiss trump's rear end they are also getting continually getting handjobs from these maga hogs and their balls handled by lobbyists. think of all the poo poo being an elected official keeps you out of too, helps you get away from, or just delays enough long enough to keep you doing just one more sex crime. how many Republicans in and around office are known sex offenders? a lot... That thing you just linked posted:Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s. wikipedia article on the Franklin childd prostitution ring allegations posted:The claims primarily centered on Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Omaha, Nebraska, and alleged that the ring was "a cult of devil worshipers involved in the mutilation, sacrifice and cannibalism of numerous children". Numerous conspiracy theories evolved, claiming that the alleged abuse was part of a widespread series of crimes including devil worship, cannibalism, drug trafficking, and CIA arms dealing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1220553590915375104
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 09:41
|
|
|
Lambert posted: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. Here's the real question: do you think all of the Democrats will vote for removal? oxsnard posted: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 The assasination of the American Republic by the tremendous coward Willard Mitt Romney. Framboise posted:I'm meagerly paid. My point is that I have to behave better in my crappy, thankless job than they do in their big money, highly respected job and that's extremely pathetic. Ahh yes, but have you considered that these people consider you a worthless nobody who isn't even a real person like they are? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I mean, that's the whole point of a fidget spinner To be fair, my kid got given a fidget spinner to keep her hands entertained so she could listen to what the teacher was saying. Which is what they were designed for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
SubG posted:Wow, that seems like that would be big news. Let's see how that was reported at the time: what's wrong you don't believe in CIA mind control either? jokes aside i was running out the door to see The Gentlemen and mixed up links, i'll remove it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...agenumber%3D482
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Hahaha, it’s always about TV ratings for this rear end in a top hat. Does he not realize the internet exists? Also, I got briefly excited that with the way the first sentence started out, that he was going to step down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Reading through the comments on this, one was surprisingly good. "If you want the highest ratings ever, go testify."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Ahh yes, but have you considered that these people consider you a worthless nobody who isn't even a real person like they are? Buddy, I consider myself a worthless nobody who isn't even a real person. I don't care about their lack of opinion of me. I still care about my disdain of them though.  Ringo Star Get posted:Hahaha, it’s always about TV ratings for this rear end in a top hat. Does he not realize the internet exists? I swear I called it: quote:"My impeachment trial has the best ratings. The best. Creepy Clinton didn't have as good of ratings as mine has. America came to watch me win over the do-nothing no-good Democrats and Shifty Schiff!" Holy loving poo poo. No wonder they're bored and not listening. I hope with great futility that those stupid lap dogs stop bootlicking and bring out that classic bullheaded republican defiance over that. Hahahaha. Who am I kidding. Their heads could already be on pikes and they'd still worship Trump. That said I wonder how real that is. I just googled that phrase and CBS is the only legit news source mentioning it (so far). Careful of misinformation regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Buddy, I consider myself a worthless nobody who isn't even a real person. I don't care about their lack of opinion of me. I still care about my disdain of them though. This is poor praxis fyi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
snorch posted:Zoe Lofgren just did a really good job at outlining the timeline of the hold on military aid. I don't think I've seen it laid out so clearly before. In particular I wasn't aware that the hold was apparently set into motion upon news reports that the DoD had been authorized to release it. You can picture the gears turning in Trump's head, frustrated with the lack of progress, seeing this on fox, and going "bingo that's it I'm a good brain genius!" I've been looking for a graphic or a summary list of all the documentation found thus far. The best I've found is this one from wapo via 538:  Anybody got anything better? I'd love if it had quotes or text or links from the original documents or testimony
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
new leak from Parnas https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1220740831608524800 https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1220743678299463680 eke out fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jan 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Oh my! How will he ever get out of this one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Literally Kermit posted:Oh my! How will he ever get out of this one? Before 2019 I would have never thought "brazenly do as many crimes as possible until people get burnt out about it" would be the One Weird Trick to get out of consequences but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Acute Grill posted:Before 2019 I would have never thought "brazenly do as many crimes as possible until people get burnt out about it" would be the One Weird Trick to get out of consequences but here we are. I like the credit Karl Rove and the Cheney crew for developing these tactics, you basically turn 24/hr news media into a monster that devours itself and burns everyone out of outrage pretty effectively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
A head on a pike is probably easier to shove up an rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
eke out posted:new leak from Parnas Good motivation to write/call vulnerable republican senators again to express the demand that they accept new evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Literally Kermit posted:Oh my! How will he ever get out of this one? We've got him now!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Wow super impressed with you guys who keep saying nothing matters and posting fatalistic eeyoring about how Trump is invincible. I'm like super impressed with how awesome and wise you sound, please continue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:Wow super impressed with you guys who keep saying nothing matters and posting fatalistic eeyoring about how Trump is invincible. I'm like super impressed with how awesome and wise you sound, please continue. Ok, so please enlighten us, O wise one, as to what will happen to him because of this. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Schiff: ♫ if you tolerate this, then you Repubs will be next, will be next, will be neeee-heeext ♫
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Ok, so please enlighten us, O wise one, as to what will happen to him because of this. Who knows but your post was very valuable as a contribution to the thread and it's great that you made it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Man this Jay Sekulow guy sounds angry about something. If only he were coherent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
I think Schiff has his master strategy down by the whole threatening to give chuds detention after class if they don't pay attention during his speeches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Sombrerotron posted:Schiff: ♫ if you tolerate this, then you Repubs will be next, will be next, will be neeee-heeext ♫ "If I can shoot rabbits, then I ...probably can't finish this sentence without getting probated...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
"Legalize cocaine and let them duel it out" might be my favorite C-SPAN caller take.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 22:04
|
|