|
Kale posted: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 His hatred means little now. Much like everything Trump has done, it was effective at first but diminishing returns have left it less effective than a limp dick.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
okay i turned on sekulow and he's whining about Carter Page lol and now he's literally yelling about Comey their conclusion is going well
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Kale posted: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. the problem with schumer is the fact he takes corporate money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
i'm a little confused, by the way: does any of this extend the trial or are they still going to try and cram the whole thing in before superbowl
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
cash crab posted:i'm a little confused, by the way: does any of this extend the trial or are they still going to try and cram the whole thing in before superbowl bolton testifying will for sure extend the trial, though who knows by how long we won't know if that's definitely happening until late friday, probably
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
eke out posted:okay i turned on sekulow and he's whining about Carter Page lol Audience of 1, they get paid either way (unless Trump is stiffing them, which he probably is lol) Sekulow is possibly the dumbest lawyer alive
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
I know this is not what he's trying to do, but Sekulow is presenting a hell of a case for Bolton testifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Sekulow is possibly the dumbest lawyer alive i read this and then looked at twitter and https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1222232906644541441 great point jay! it's hearsay, we need Bolton's testimony under oath
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Jesus. Apparently what we got was the short version of their Mueller, Mueller, Mueller presentation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Sekulow is full of a bunch of nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
So apparently the Senate R line on Bolton (at this particular moment) is that a) the conversation that Bolton says he had with the President never happened, and b) it's covered by executive privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
SubG posted:So apparently the Senate R line on Bolton (at this particular moment) is that a) the conversation that Bolton says he had with the President never happened, and b) it's covered by executive privilege. Their argument is...the conversation that is in his book never happened and even though it never happened it's covered by executive privilege despite the fact it's in the book means that it's not under executive privilege but it never happened therefore  Do I have that right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
At least this guy is being transparent about his strategy to induce fear with zero content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:35
|
|
Ma Me Mi Mo Mu
|
mdemone posted:Wait, Nixon v. U.S. is about impeachment but unrelated to Richard Nixon?!?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1222242146490769413?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:the problem with schumer is the fact he takes corporate money. Thats been a problem with congress in general for a long long time so you might as well hold it against all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Yup, Judge Nixon wanted a full review/trial by the Senate, judiciary said suck it a committee and vote is all you get
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Mike Braun continuing to be so outspoken in his desire to pretend literally nothing has happened is making me wonder just what kind of mausoleum is in his closet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
I really wish my state didn't vote that idiot in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Kale posted:Thats been a problem with congress in general for a long long time so you might as well hold it against all of them. Indeed I do. Its a sick sad system. It crushes the poor and allows the elites to put their fingers in everything to acquire more wealth and power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Their argument is...the conversation that is in his book never happened and even though it never happened it's covered by executive privilege despite the fact it's in the book means that it's not under executive privilege but it never happened therefore So the shrieking cloud of blood and madness under a comb-over that they have on the NewsHour stream to represent the Republican side just got done arguing that this whole Russian election interference thing is overblown and people spend too much time worrying about it. But low-key the thing that keeps sticking with me is that the Republicans seem to have successfully shifted the discussion into whether or not Trump might have some legitimate interest in corruption investigations in Ukraine (which by itself is pretty lol, imaging actually believing in Trump as an anticorruption crusader), and not how even if that was the case what he actually did is holy lol not how you'd go about that kind of investigation. And I don't mean the qpq poo poo. I mean like everyone seems to have just accepted for the purposes of this discussion that it's okay for the President to unilaterally just decide to start secret investigations into US citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
McConnel confirms: - questions begin tomorrow at 1:00pm - 8 hours each tomorrow and Thursday - questions are submitted in writing to the Chief Justice (and can be directed to either side), read in alternating order, one D one R - roughly 5 minutes apiece, but not a strict time limit on responses eke out fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
SubG posted:But low-key the thing that keeps sticking with me is that the Republicans seem to have successfully shifted the discussion into whether or not Trump might have some legitimate interest in corruption investigations in Ukraine (which by itself is pretty lol, imaging actually believing in Trump as an anticorruption crusader), and not how even if that was the case what he actually did is holy lol not how you'd go about that kind of investigation. And I don't mean the qpq poo poo. I mean like everyone seems to have just accepted for the purposes of this discussion that it's okay for the President to unilaterally just decide to start secret investigations into US citizens. That is what the GOP is trying to say. I don't think it works very well as well can and will get torn down under the least bit of questioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
SubG posted:I mean like everyone seems to have just accepted for the purposes of this discussion that it's okay for the President to unilaterally just decide to start secret investigations into US citizens. Unless it's Barack Obama using his secret microwave oven spy drones. I'm actually surprised though that the GOP is going in that direction given that during the House hearings several Democratic congresspeople were like "Trump is insanely corrupt, here's some examples, are we really supposed to believe he cared about fighting corruption?" I don't really think it's the GOP's best line of attack (as usual their best line of attack has been to throw Trump under the bus but they're too scared of a dementia-addled narcissist to do that, and/or they're all part of the corrupt grift)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1222201460219424768 No it won't. The chief justice is right there, he'll decide in moments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
eke out posted:McConnel confirms:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:questions to whom?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
eke out posted:McConnel confirms: Mr. Schiff, have you considered the case of up your butt vs. a coconut?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
eke out posted:McConnel confirms: If one side runs out of questions they just keep going with the other side’s, right? E: Or I’m misreading and it means all questions from a single senator (up to five minutes) and then they move on to an opposing senator, with red getting a couple in a row at the end? Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
I managed to tune into the very end to hear Mitch unfurl from his shell long enough to speak. I feel like I heard the only relevant info I needed to in those few moments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
hanales posted:Mr. Schiff, have you considered the case of up your butt vs. a coconut? *Schiff convinces everyone but the Republican Senators to add coconut to their diet for the fiber*
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I'm actually surprised though that the GOP is going in that direction given that during the House hearings several Democratic congresspeople were like "Trump is insanely corrupt, here's some examples, are we really supposed to believe he cared about fighting corruption?" But more than the fact that corruption is more or less Trump's brand, there's the whole Guiliani thing. On the one hand they're arguing that he's irrelevant because he was just a personal attorney acting on behalf of Trump the private citizen, but on the other hand the thing he's been tasked with--investigating the Bidens--is only kosher because it's part of what they're arguing is a compelling public interest being pursued by the President in his role as the head of the Executive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
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. Speaking of lame ducks and the thought of Pence... If Pence gets removed somehow too, that means Pelosi becomes president, right? I know it's an impossibility but my god that would be the most hilarious pike up Trump's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Speaking of lame ducks and the thought of Pence... They would definitely stagger it so that Pence has time to name a VP which would then replace him if the GOP felt it was going to come to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:They would definitely stagger it so that Pence has time to name a VP which would then replace him if the GOP felt it was going to come to that. As per the 25th Amendment (the boring part that isn't about the President dying or going nuts) a replacement VP has to be confirmed by both houses, so that would be a fun fight. haveblue fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:They would definitely stagger it so that Pence has time to name a VP which would then replace him if the GOP felt it was going to come to that. "I name Donald Trump wearing a fake mustache as my new VP"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:As per the 25th Amendment (the part that isn't about the President dying or going nuts) a replacement VP has to be confirmed by both houses, so that would be a fun fight. Merrick Garland
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Merrick Garland was not approved by both houses? what's your argument here? the point is that they can't just rush in a VP pick without getting the house to say okay so either you're agreeing in a weird way or you missed the point
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:was not approved by both houses? what's your argument here? Maybe he means Garland would be the only VP that the house would confirm, as a piece of obstructionist performance art by the Democratic House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Kale posted: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. I've noticed that a lot of people tend to expect that politicians taking stands will lead to "everyone stood up and clapped" moments on the floor rather than what actually seems to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2020 22:06
|
|
