|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I've seen jaded alcoholic public defenders offer a better defense. The lack of refutation begs the introduction of witnesses. The opening by Pat was damning in a "we have to destroy the president in order to save him" banannas kind of way. I think their plan is to end it as quickly as possible still. It seems that the idea is that getting it over quickly is the least amount of damage they will take. Personally I think it is going to backfire more than dragging it out. I wouldn't take a threat from McConnell seriously at all. I will be amazed if he survives the next election. Honestly the person to watch right now is Matt Geatz since he was so cozy with Trump and now seems to be on the outside. I think he is going to show a path for other Republicans to survive outside of Trump which will be the chink in his armor.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
also, the 2 days of alternating questions will be basically rebuttal for demsquote:“We will be posing questions that will very pointedly give House managers an opportunity to rebut some of the distortions and misstatements that we've seen here, and we are framing those questions so that there will be, in effect, an opportunity to dispute some of those facts,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters Saturday after the Trump defense team wrapped up their opening presentation. and Schumer on TV just said that they're going to ask a question in such a way that lets the impeachment managers play the tape of Trump demanding Yovanovich be fired to Parnas/etc lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
eke out posted:trump's legal geniuses making the case that we just don't know what happened How is this a "good sign"? I'm perplexed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Djarum posted:
McConnell is not going to lose his next election. That's a pipe dream. Gaetz is from the reddest district in Florida and while he has some views on marijuana that diverge from the party (and probably line up more with the electorate just like everywhere else in the country) he's a member of the house who doesn't matter at all. He could lose half his support and still win comfortably, and his family is still in control of the political machine back home. Lambert posted:How is this a "good sign"? I'm perplexed. Manchin hedging like this means it's close enough that he doesn't want to be the deciding vote. His MO is always siding with the dems when it's necessary, but switching to the GOP when it's a blowout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Lambert posted:How is this a "good sign"? I'm perplexed. manchin is saying "Trump's lawyers did a great job, but it seems like they've confirmed we have a factual dispute, so we need to hear from the witnesses who can testify about those facts" this is literally the thing you will be hearing Susan Collins and friends say if the democrats prevail on the witness issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Lambert posted:How is this a "good sign"? I'm perplexed. He'd love to hear from witnesses. For a DINO that has to kiss Trumper rear end it's practically a scream he will break ranks to vote for witnesses. Basically its less poltically damaging for his future to go against the president.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:He'd love to hear from witnesses. For a DINO that has to kiss Trumper rear end it's practically a scream he will break ranks to vote for witnesses. and if Manchin sees it as damaging to not vote for witnesses, that's a great sign. national polls are at like 2/3 in favor of witnesses right now i'm not saying that it's definitely going to happen or anything, just that it's a sign that they've done a good job on this issue so far. if they'd done poorly and the wind was blowing the other way, you can bet Manchin would be saying something else
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
eke out posted:and if Manchin sees it as damaging to not vote for witnesses, that's a great sign. national polls are at like 2/3 in favor of witnesses right now yea I don't expect witnesses but I do at least expect 'these loving simps wouldn't even vote to listen to witnesses because they're so up Trump's rear end' to be a fairly good cudgel in november
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
FYI Romney just gave NBC a statement saying he's "very likely to vote for witnesses"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221140946320084995 look at this lap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:McConnell is not going to lose his next election. That's a pipe dream. McConnell is underwater in Kentucky. Talking to people I know in the state even the most hardcore Republicans are tired of him at this point. It depends on his opponent, although he is going to have a fight on his hands even with the primary as Wesley Morgan has been drawing a lot of support. While him losing isn't a sure thing let's not say that him winning re-election is a sure thing here. He is going to have a battle unlike anything he has had in decades. As for Geatz because he is in a safe seat he can show that path away from Trump. I think he is a loathsome scumbag but I would love nothing more than to have Trump's ire focused on him and it does nothing. If Romney grows a spine somehow I imagine we would see much the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Djarum posted:McConnell is underwater in Kentucky. Talking to people I know in the state even the most hardcore Republicans are tired of him at this point. It depends on his opponent, although he is going to have a fight on his hands even with the primary as Wesley Morgan has been drawing a lot of support. While him losing isn't a sure thing let's not say that him winning re-election is a sure thing here. He is going to have a battle unlike anything he has had in decades. “If”.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
eke out posted:FYI Romney just gave NBC a statement saying he's "very likely to vote for witnesses" I keep thinking that they will vote to call witnesses, the House managers will call Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. Trump will again block them and the Senate will do nothing about it. "Welp, you got to call your witnesses. Too bad."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I keep thinking that they will vote to call witnesses, the House managers will call Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. Trump will again block them and the Senate will do nothing about it. "Welp, you got to call your witnesses. Too bad." sure but that won't help trump at all and it will turn into even a bigger circus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Did Fox broadcast the impeachment with sound today now that its Trumps defense time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Then you report every single day that the government won't answer any questions on anything anymore and you explain to your audience why this is a Very Bad Thing in a democracy. You keep painting them as detached elitists who think they are so much better than you they don't even have to explain themselves to you. Basically put their contempt, for the press, for the democratic process and for the public, front and center every single day. Dude you are right on the money. Our press is really run by advertisers so ratings is what they are after rather than an informed electorate. They don't want to lose access so they won't ever press an issue or follow up on a question that the person in the admin wouldn't want to answer. Also they are corporate owned so someone like Bernie Sanders either doesn't get any press or they smear him in such a contemptible fashion. Its basically a big bag of gently caress you to the american people. Don't get me started about Fox Entertainment (can't call it news). E:I wanted to add to the discussion that the GOP has the most well developed propaganda machines in the US. It doesn't really matter how lovely the defense lawyers do because all the bucktooth applejohns that watch fox are going to be getting a completely different story. ManBoyChef fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Did Fox broadcast the impeachment with sound today now that its Trumps defense time? I've been wondering that too, but not enough to actually check 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Is there anything stopping Congress from legislating itself a subpoena/contempt enforcement division with arrest powers, so we don’t have to deal with the quite obvious problem of congress being dependent on the executive branch to enforce oversight efforts against itself? Other than the constitution I guess lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Is there anything stopping Congress from legislating itself a subpoena/contempt enforcement division with arrest powers, so we don’t have to deal with the quite obvious problem of congress being dependent on the executive branch to enforce oversight efforts against itself? It's called inherent contempt, they already have the power
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
I mean I understand the unitary executive concept but I’m not aware of any Supreme Court decision on this particular subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I mean I understand the unitary executive concept but I’m not aware of any Supreme Court decision on this particular subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken Inherent contempt is when the house or senate sends their sergeant at arms to arrest someone anywhere in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
TheSpartacus posted:It's called inherent contempt, they already have the power Yeah and they don’t ever use it for some reason, or haven’t in like 100 years. Seems toothless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Your right, we've never had a justice department so partisan. They could use it, but are afraid of the political consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Literally Kermit posted:Then loving TELL THEM, dude. How the gently caress do you think I know they don't know, idiot? I live in South Mississippi, the gently caress do you expect out of chudland?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
TheSpartacus posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurney_v._MacCracken I meant I’m not aware of any case that says the Congress can’t create itself such a statutorily defined enforcement agency, free from oversight by DOJ or the executive, so that its inherent contempt powers are clearly laid out and enforcement is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:sure but that won't help trump at all and it will turn into even a bigger circus. Trump doesn't care. It will deflect and delay which is their strategy all along. Their bet is to either run out the clock to make it not matter or muddy the water so much that it isn't effective anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I meant I’m not aware of any case that says the Congress can’t create itself such a statutorily defined enforcement agency, free from oversight by DOJ or the executive, so that its inherent contempt powers are clearly laid out and enforcement is mandatory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1221161548363657217
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I would argue the basic structure of our government would make such a thing unconstitutional. Congress clearly was not given the power to enforce law so how would that get the ability to just gave themselves an enforcement agency? It’s not that clear actually. If the power to enforce congressional authority was meant to be exclusive to the executive branch, they could have said so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
eke out posted:FYI Romney just gave NBC a statement saying he's "very likely to vote for witnesses" Romney's moral courage here is illusory because of alphabetical order. By the time he has to vote he'll already know how Alexander, Collins, Murkowski and Manchin have voted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It’s not that clear actually. If the power to enforce congressional authority was meant to be exclusive to the executive branch, they could have said so. It would be drawn out in court for years
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It would be drawn out in court for years Oh ok, so different from how it is now. I’m not really talking about a solution to this acute problem we are having now, just in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I keep thinking that they will vote to call witnesses, the House managers will call Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. Trump will again block them and the Senate will do nothing about it. "Welp, you got to call your witnesses. Too bad." If they vote to allow witnesses, Roberts will have the authority to rule on privilege issues and I can't see even him accepting Republican's "gently caress you" theory of executive privilege. The Senate can vote to overrule, but any Republican who has already defected has zero reason to turn back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:Romney's moral courage here is illusory because of alphabetical order. By the time he has to vote he'll already know how Alexander, Collins, Murkowski and Manchin have voted. Is that really how it works? If I got elected to the Senate, I could change my name to Zzzphenotype and always vote last?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:If they vote to allow witnesses, Roberts will have the authority to rule on privilege issues and I can't see even him accepting Republican's "gently caress you" theory of executive privilege. The Senate can vote to overrule, but any Republican who has already defected has zero reason to turn back. Maybe we should remember the words of the great William Rehnquist: "I did nothing in-particular, and I did it very well"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:If they vote to allow witnesses, Roberts will have the authority to rule on privilege issues and I can't see even him accepting Republican's "gently caress you" theory of executive privilege. The Senate can vote to overrule, but any Republican who has already defected has zero reason to turn back. The entire point of Roberts is to give right-wing authoritarianism the window-dressing of reasonable legality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Maybe we should remember the words of the great William Rehnquist: "I did nothing in-particular, and I did it very well" IIRC he didn't need to do anything because politics wasn't quite broken enough to allow for the president to tell witnesses (which I think there were) not to testify and to tell the senate to gently caress itself without consequence
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:The entire point of Roberts is to give right-wing authoritarianism the window-dressing of reasonable legality. Very true, but Roberts wants to be remembered as reasonable. There is literally no way to square Trump's "you can't talk to anyone or review any documents" with Congress's oversight power. He'll usher law and policy to the right wherever he can, but I don't think he wants gently caress all to do with preserving Trump's prestige.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:Very true, but Roberts wants to be remembered as reasonable. There is literally no way to square Trump's "you can't talk to anyone or review any documents" with Congress's oversight power. He'll usher law and policy to the right wherever he can, but I don't think he wants gently caress all to do with preserving Trump's prestige. Roberts can rule that privilege but that still doesn't mean anything will happen. The DOJ isn't going to do anything and there is no mechanism in place to force them to do anything otherwise. They will vote to not convict Trump citing "lack of evidence". Roberts and the GOP have their cover. The chuds will laugh at "owning the libs". I really, really hope for a different outcome but as of the moment I don't see it working out any way but this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
Djarum posted:Roberts can rule that privilege but that still doesn't mean anything will happen. The DOJ isn't going to do anything and there is no mechanism in place to force them to do anything otherwise. They will vote to not convict Trump citing "lack of evidence". Roberts and the GOP have their cover. The chuds will laugh at "owning the libs". Not every single Trumper is a die hard follower. There will be those that become disillusioned if he hides behind the senate and doesn't respond with all the sound and fury he promised on twitter. Those people may not be convinced to vote Democrat, but they may just opt out of voting in the next election. This will also galvanize everyone just left of center to get out and vote. The GOP has run off the myth the country is more conservative than it is because Hilary was such an awful candidate: she assumed the presidency was her's, she didn't campaign in the blue wall states to ensure the wall remained, she was already disliked and the debacle with Bernie buried her. 2016 wasn't an embrace of conservatism it was a middle finger to the Clinton's and Hilary especially. The next candidate isn't saddled with her baggage, plus Florida will be a hilarious if the Democrats get all the ex-convicts to register to vote since they can do that now. Oh yeah that reminds me last election when Hilary ran out of funds for her get out and vote initiatives, she didn't plunk more money down to keep it going, she stopped and that lack of effort didn't help. The whole "own the libs" thing doesn't work unless you make a vulgar display of power to show dominance. Nothing so far has come close to that. Edite: Literally this is the bare minimum that needs to happen to see Trump gone:  This is doable. Alkabob fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:45
|
|