|
Deviant posted:already gone. “Senator Johnson just told reporters that he wants Ambassador Bolton to testify.”
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
Deviant posted:already gone. https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1222207102061633536 https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1222207267703066630 The original was, basically, "Note what note"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:The original was, basically, "Note what note" the deleted tweet i posted was this https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1222212540710694913
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:This is great for the Senate GOP, though, right? Call the witnesses like most of the country wants, then let Trump sink his approval rating by making it obvious how much he doesn’t anyone to eat what Bolton has to say until either the levee breaks and Trump can be safely stood against or until the GOP faithful agree that you shouldn’t hear new evidence, and then they can sweep it under the rug without taking a hit. No, this is exceptionally bad for the senate gop basically any way this shakes out. There's no path forward for them that doesn't involve pissing off like 50% of the country at minimum
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
i have no idea what the bullshit waffling of “There’s no vote required. I’m just saying ‘John, come forward.’” means but it's probably him signalling he's on board with Bolton without daring to say YES I AM VOTING AGAINST TRUMP'S WISHES
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:i have no idea what the bullshit waffling of “There’s no vote required. I’m just saying ‘John, come forward.’” means It's pretty clear that the votes for witnesses exist, but they also don't want to deal with the bullshit of publicly being one of the first to concretely say they're voting for witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
lol: https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1222212678510424065 "Look, we should be able to just rely on hearsay instead of cross-examining a witness" is such an awesome argument, it owns that they've fallen back on it, their entire case is falling apart out-of-court statements are bad and unreliable for you, but they're extremely good and cool when they help me
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The prisoners' dilemma is only a dilemma if the prisoners can't coordinate. Well if they all want to band together to call for witnesses but nobody wants to deal with Trump’s anger, there’s a lot of incentive to say you want witnesses to your fellow senators, but hope they hit the 51 votes necessary before you actually have to vote. Edit: explained better here than with my caffeine-deprived brain: Herstory Begins Now posted:It's pretty clear that the votes for witnesses exist, but they also don't want to deal with the bullshit of publicly being one of the first to concretely say they're voting for witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
I'd be amazed if, on a personal level, a third or even a half of the senate didn't hate Trump's guts for a ton of different things. Someone as polarizing and offensive and as potentially as much of a liability as him is never even close to universally loved, even if previously McConnell has been able to wrangle the votes in his defense. Like Trump is an outsider who made his name calling them all corrupt and part of the swamp and now their careers are being pinned to his dumb impulsive dementia decisions, there's no way a bunch of them wouldn't privately love to see Trump go down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
If they're smart, once they know there's enough votes for witnesses, they all vote for witnesses, leaving no senator vulnerable, then say, well of course, under new circumstances, we'll fix the House negligence and call Bolton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
I know they're going to acquit him anyway but I'm pretty amused at just how disastrously badly this has gone for the gop so far. It's actually the worst it could possibly have gone for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
empty whippet box posted:I know they're going to acquit him anyway but I'm pretty amused at just how disastrously badly this has gone for the gop so far. It's actually the worst it could possibly have gone for them. Short of Trump getting convicted this is actually about as bad as things could possibly get for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
IMO the real question isn't 'what's the best case scenario for trump?' it's 'what is the absolute worst case scenario that could unfold' because that's a lot more likely than the other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:it's 'what is the absolute worst case scenario that could unfold' because that's a lot more likely than the other. republicans allow witnesses and have to vote down trump's demand to call Obama and Hillary and Joe Biden
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Short of Trump getting convicted this is actually about as bad as things could possibly get for them. i don't know, with all the curveballs so far i'm optimistic that something else could go disastrously wrong for them
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
It boggles my mind that the only reason we've gotten this far is a CIA whistleblower and John Bolton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:IMO the real question isn't 'what's the best case scenario for trump?' it's 'what is the absolute worst case scenario that could unfold' because that's a lot more likely than the other. The worst case is not only are the GOP forced to vote to remove Trump but Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and Pence are all openly implicated and forced to resign as well making way for President Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:IMO the real question isn't 'what's the best case scenario for trump?' it's 'what is the absolute worst case scenario that could unfold' because that's a lot more likely than the other. Something like 5-15 senators break ranks to vote to convict him after weeks of new witnesses and evidence. He won't be removed and the party gets mired in an internal war/purge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:republicans allow witnesses and have to vote down trump's demand to call Obama and Hillary and Joe Biden Hahaha, in a surprise twist, they call hillary and she testifies. Directly, under oath, she reveals that she and Trump conspired together, then the universe implodes in a crimes paradox
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:If they're smart, once they know there's enough votes for witnesses, they all vote for witnesses, leaving no senator vulnerable, then say, well of course, under new circumstances, we'll fix the House negligence and call Bolton. Were the senate to unanimously vote for witnesses (and vote down calling for the Bidens) I could see Trump either a) pulling a Nixon by stepping down knowing he’s hosed and demanding Pence preemptively pardon him for all crimes, or b) having a stress induced stroke or heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:It boggles my mind that the only reason we've gotten this far is a CIA whistleblower and John Bolton. And a sweaty, greasy Eastern European dude who's basically a real-live Boris Badenov.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Djarum posted:The worst case is not only are the GOP forced to vote to remove Trump but Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and Pence are all openly implicated and forced to resign as well making way for President Pelosi. I wouldn't know whether to poo poo or go blind if that happened. I would love to see the DOJ go back to being non partisan though. that would be a definite step in the right direction. I keep thinking about when Harris was asking Barr if anyone at the white house asked him to start an investigation into anyone and he was answering like a toddler that got into the cookies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
KillHour posted:White dwarfs are too small to become black holes Aw I got sick that day in middle school science class 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
Djarum posted:The worst case is not only are the GOP forced to vote to remove Trump but Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney and Pence are all openly implicated and forced to resign as well making way for President Pelosi. Yeah I think that this spreading out to very directly include and implicate specifically those 4 is really the worst case scenario and is very directly what they are afraid of if they start calling witnesses because all of those except for pence are extremely natural people to call after bolton. Realistically I think the dems would legitimately prefer to keep pence in power than gently caress with him for purely public perception reasons, but yeah that's basically the end of the hypothetical worst case scenario for them. TGLT posted:Something like 5-15 senators break ranks to vote to convict him after weeks of new witnesses and evidence. He won't be removed and the party gets mired in an internal war/purge. This is pretty much the best worst case scenario for them, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:I wouldn't know whether to poo poo or go blind if that happened. I would love to see the DOJ go back to being non partisan though. that would be a definite step in the right direction. I keep thinking about when Harris was asking Barr if anyone at the white house asked him to start an investigation into anyone and he was answering like a toddler that got into the cookies. Under the GOP I don't think the DOJ will ever go back to being non partisan. Trump broke a lot of long standing safe guards. I hope that if the Democrats take back the Senate and Presidency that they force in checks for all of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:And a sweaty, greasy Eastern European dude who's basically a real-live Boris Badenov. Turns out Marie Yovanovich was standing in the way of investigations into Moose und Squirrel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Yeah I think that this spreading out to very directly include and implicate specifically those 4 is really the worst case scenario and is very directly what they are afraid of if they start calling witnesses because all of those except for pence are extremely natural people to call after bolton. Well it doesn't help that Pence has gone on the record now multiple times saying he had no knowledge or anything to do with it. If for example Bolton or Mulvaney comes right out and says Pence was in the room or he was directly told things he is extremely hosed. Even if they don't remove Pence he would effectively be a lame duck. I am not sure he would run for the election and I am much more skeptical he could win. Only issue for the GOP is that they have 8-9 months to figure out a candidate and get them out there. That is if Trump doesn't decide to keep running as well which would be their nightmare scenario there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1222201460219424768 I thought the whole point of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial was so he could make calls about poo poo like this since, you know, Supreme Court is where it'd all end up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
His goal is to obstruct not to actually win. It works in real estate because the longer it goes on the more it costs the person he’s screwing over (since it’s been proven time and time again he stiffs people for their work as contractors AND as lawyers so lol no pay but we’d love to have you again). He now has the US lawyers that have no choice but to work for his devious plans so even if he is on no ground in the basis of the law he still wants to get out of it and his instincts scream stall until the opposition caves
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I thought the whole point of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial was so he could make calls about poo poo like this since, you know, Supreme Court is where it'd all end up anyway. He could. Either way it is a bad bluff by them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I thought the whole point of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial was so he could make calls about poo poo like this since, you know, Supreme Court is where it'd all end up anyway. it's a surprisingly complicated question but there's an extremely good and solid argument that the Chief Justice can make all necessary determinations about privilege here (and if the Senate is unhappy with him, a majority could overrule his holding) basically the core precedent from Nixon v. U.S.* is that the Senate can craft whatever procedures they want in an impeachment trial, and that the Supreme Court has no role in telling them how to do things unless they start doing wild poo poo that no longer even resembles a trial-type proceeding. there's no reason that shouldn't be extended to allowing Roberts to rule on the lack of privilege here of course, Trump would still be able to file an emergency petition for judicial review, but I think we know which way the Supreme Court would be going if Roberts had already ruled (and, if Roberts were to recuse from the case about the validity of his holding, a 4-4 Supreme Court would be unable to overturn whatever the lower court rules, and the lower court here would be the majority-democrat-appointed DC Circuit) * Judge Walter Nixon, not to be confused with U.S. v. Nixon eke out fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jan 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Realistically I think the dems would legitimately prefer to keep pence in power than gently caress with him for purely public perception reasons, but yeah that's basically the end of the hypothetical worst case scenario for them. Even in the crazy universe where suddenly republicans grow a conscience and start removing corrupt officials, getting rid of Trump and Pence simultaneously would be a tough sell since they're not going to want to get President Pelosi. The likely scenario in that case is they remove Pence (or he resigns), the senate confirms a new VP, then Trump is removed. Basically the Rockefeller-Nixon-Ford approach, though Rockefeller had his own crimes rather than riding Nixon's. Of course, that's so hypothetical it makes string theorists go, "That's a bit out there."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I thought the whole point of having the Chief Justice preside over the trial was so he could make calls about poo poo like this since, you know, Supreme Court is where it'd all end up anyway. Reality and legality are both very flexible in this timeline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Now they're trying to say the president is allowed to limit access to materials to only those who need it to do their job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:think we will get witnesses? For what its worth I've generally found that assessments of his tenure as senate minority leader as completely capitulating to all GOP demands all the time to be largely exaggerated. Hes not an exciting politician, hes not the guy you look to for a sick own or belligerent nonsense like Republicans (and thats not necessarily a bad thing),but he does seem to have the right of it most times I've heard him speak. I can't entirely blame the guy for Mitch McConnell hijacking the senate as majority leader either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Well it doesn't help that Pence has gone on the record now multiple times saying he had no knowledge or anything to do with it. If for example Bolton or Mulvaney comes right out and says Pence was in the room or he was directly told things he is extremely hosed. Could you imagine the Handmaiden's Tale-esque things he would try to do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Even in the crazy universe where suddenly republicans grow a conscience and start removing corrupt officials, getting rid of Trump and Pence simultaneously would be a tough sell since they're not going to want to get President Pelosi. The likely scenario in that case is they remove Pence (or he resigns), the senate confirms a new VP, then Trump is removed. Basically the Rockefeller-Nixon-Ford approach, though Rockefeller had his own crimes rather than riding Nixon's. I have zero faith they would do it willingly. The question is if they were forced to go the Rockefeller-Nixon-Ford approach who could they get to fill the spot? It would have to be someone moderate enough to not cause waves and not interfere with things going forward IE not have further political ambition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
eke out posted:it's a surprisingly complicated question but there's an extremely good and solid argument that the Chief Justice can make all necessary determinations about privilege here (and if the Senate is unhappy with him, a majority could overrule his holding) Wait, Nixon v. U.S. is about impeachment but unrelated to Richard Nixon?!? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222183788924502017 He hates anything or anyone that criticizes him in any way it doesnt matter what he thought the day before. Literally any action he takes can be explained this way, hes that one dimensional. If they praise the poo poo out of him for something tommorrow he'll share it and it'll be like this never happened
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Wait, Nixon v. U.S. is about impeachment but unrelated to Richard Nixon?!? yeah, the holding of U.S. v. Nixon is "you have to turn over those tapes, absolute privilege doesn't protect you" and the holding of Nixon v. U.S. is "you can't go to court to overturn the senate removing you from office just because you don't like how they did it." considering the only other big impeachment precedent in modern law is Clinton v. Jones it makes it pretty confusing
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:38
|
|