|
oxsnard posted:didn't see this yet seems like there's nothing new here and no actual information showing anything has changed, just one faction telling the Hill that they will be Victorious and Everything's Turning Up Trump! this clickbait poo poo is the Hill's primary business model, laundering the talking points of one side into a provocative lede while adding zilch to the conversation
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
drat, dersh is massaging the truth so hard i hope it kept its underwear on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:reporting that Murkowski is a no and Romney didn't give a comment i think its too early for mitch to count his eggs. its 2 days of this(counting today) and i am sure more stuff with bolton will happen and parnas is doing his weird side quest that involves graham.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
I tune back in just in time to hear Philbin say "it's all a political charade."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:well than congrats, they gently caress themselves more. there isn't a victory for them if thats what they think it is. I'm still really suspicious though, this seems like a real step back considering the number of Senators hedging their statements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:seems like there's nothing new here and no actual information showing anything has changed, just one faction telling the Hill that they will be Victorious and Everything's Turning Up Trump! the hill sucks, but the no comments are telling. This is also where you'd expect to see insider trading at PredictIt, odds of bolton testifying dropped 30 cents over the past 24 hours and now at 28% https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/6268/Will-John-Bolton-testify-publicly-in-a-Senate-trial-by-Mar-31
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Why wouldn't the House managers sorta concede the point that their investigation didn't include certain witnesses and they didn't exhaust all avenues. They could give reasons for that or not. Doesn't it end up begging the question of what the Senate is supposed to be judging here? I mean, why do I honestly care whether the House's investigation was 100% perfect? There are witnesses who have yet to testify who could answer open questions. Concede the point that the investigation isn't complete yet and then allow the Senate to finish the job by calling the witness. It just feels like continuing to bicker over whether they should have pursued subpoenas through court is a total red herring. e - sekulow giving me the reason now. If House does a bad job and you let it slide, they'll do worse in the future. Got it. Tunafish fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:It's probably the best strategy for the Republicans - no way calling Bolton doesn't put pressure on them to call others, and then you've got pressure to vote for removal. Probably the better vote to have of the two. i dont know what will happen. either way boltons shits gonna come out before November.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i think its too early for mitch to count his eggs. its 2 days of this(counting today) and i am sure more stuff with bolton will happen and parnas is doing his weird side quest that involves graham. i can't help but think that parnas is roaming the halls of congress clinking bottles together and calling graham's name none of these turds are this cool but, i wish
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:the hill sucks, but the no comments are telling. This is also where you'd expect to see insider trading at PredictIt, odds of bolton testifying dropped 30 cents over the past 24 hours and now at 28% haha there should be some internet maxim that if you have to cite a sudden swing on predictit as support for your position, you have implicitly lost the argument already
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
There is around 70% public support for witnesses. The GOP should make it a Bolton for Biden trade to at least spread the blame around. No witnesses followed by the Bolton book in March is a double whammy. If Trump tries to block Bolton’s testimony, at least the GOP could have said they tried. Just going for an outright no is an exceptionally bad move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
If they want Biden why not ask for Trump to testify and get purjury?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:There is around 70% public support for witnesses. The GOP should make it a Bolton for Biden trade to at least spread the blame around. No witnesses followed by the Bolton book in March is a double whammy. the bolton book will probably leaked early or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Ugh, WH counsel: How dare they ask for witnesses in the Senate after we prevented witnesses from testifying in the House 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Really wish the response to "With regard to the issue of impeachment delaying the Senate, isn't it true that the depositions in the Clinton impeachment took only a day, and that as Chief Justice Roberts is presiding he can resolve any issues of privilege quickly" had just been "Yes." and then left the lectern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Really wish the response to "With regard to the issue of impeachment delaying the Senate, isn't it true that the depositions in the Clinton impeachment took only a day, and that as Chief Justice Roberts is presiding he can resolve any issues of privilege quickly" had just been "Yes." and then left the lectern. Also lol that the House managers saying that we can't wait for the courts to decide on subpoenas because it would take too long and the House has the inherent power to issue subpoenas, and the WH lawyers responding by arguing that the Senate shouldn't call witnesses because it would take too long and it's the House that has that power anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I can answer questions 2, 4, and 6 for you, Mitt: I think it's pretty interesting that Mitt is showing his cards here, so that both sides have time to prepare answers (even though only one side will be making sense).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Am I completely off base, or does this idiot keep referring to Nixon vs US, rather than what he probably actually means, which is US vs Nixon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
You cannot subpoena anyone who has ever talked with a president, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:There is around 70% public support for witnesses. The GOP should make it a Bolton for Biden trade to at least spread the blame around. No witnesses followed by the Bolton book in March is a double whammy. There is no reason for the Democrats to make a Bolton for Biden trade. The Democrats have the high ground here. They either vote for no witnesses and then get buried for it or vote for Bolton and take their chances individually. Politically, the safer option would be to vote for witnesses and call for Bolton. Even if he ends up as bad as it will likely be for Trump you have given yourself enough cover that no one can fault you for the judgement. The worst move is to do no witnesses and then rush to not convict Trump. Every Senator up for re-election will be hosed for it. As I said before Trump used his political capital during the Kavanaugh confirmation. If they push this through you are looking at least 4 Senate seats lost for the GOP, depending on what comes out after even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Ted Cruz to the House managers: please read my Obama fan fiction and offer comment
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If they want Biden why not ask for Trump to testify and get purjury? Nothing anyone with the last name 'Biden' has done is material to the trial - it's bullshit whataboutist nonsense meant as a distraction that shouldn't be entertained seriously. Plus, Trump perjuring himself doesn't matter unless it makes removal more likely. I personally don't think it moves the needle enough because everyone knows he lies constantly already, so that's just baked into the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
Yes let's call in Mitt Romney's hypothetical son to testify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
I shall give Adam Schiff more time on the floor - Genius brain take from Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Nice backfire, Graham. "There are legitimate ways to have an investigation."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Did the Parnas thing not happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
refleks posted:I shall give Adam Schiff more time on the floor - Genius brain take from Cruz. edit: Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Did the Parnas thing not happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:Did the Parnas thing not happen? not yet. maybe tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:not yet. maybe tonight. Yeah 7-8 PM is when the bombs start to go off. We just got some early fireworks before the session started today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Yeah 7-8 PM is when the bombs start to go off. We just got some early fireworks before the session started today. i hope so. i hope its not him just marching around the senate because news.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Sombrerotron posted:And Graham, bizarrely enough. Surely he must've foreseen that Schiff's answer would be "yes, if Obama had done the same thing it would have been wrong and grounds for impeachment as well." I'm planning on calling and thanking Cruz for his question, tbh (that's one of the ones I did hear while driving around today). I suspect (because all Republicans seem to understand is projection) that Cruz (and maybe Graham) really did expect Schiff to be flustered, to say "Obama would never do that" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Sombrerotron posted:And Graham, bizarrely enough. Surely he must've foreseen that Schiff's answer would be "yes, if Obama had done the same thing it would have been wrong and grounds for impeachment as well." There’s been a lot of times I think some GOP rep or Senator has tried that move and was shocked the answer was saying it would be wrong and something should be done instead of circling the wagons to protect a corrupt leader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
They expect Democrats to operate the way they do: eviscerating their opponents for things while excusing their "team" for the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i hope so. i hope its not him just marching around the senate because news. He's roaming the Senate halls to find and punch Jacob Wohl right in the goddamned mouth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:I'm planning on calling and thanking Cruz for his question, tbh (that's one of the ones I did hear while driving around today). I suspect (because all Republicans seem to understand is projection) that Cruz (and maybe Graham) really did expect Schiff to be flustered, to say "Obama would never do that" or something. His main point was riding along in his question which was that Trump had a good reason for requiring the investigation. AKA the Bidens are the real problem here and the Dems just won't admit it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
To be fair Bill Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:He's roaming the Senate halls to find and punch Jacob Wohl right in the goddamned mouth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNyHark4xk now i am just picturing grifter version of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
The democrat house members were all elected. Clearly, they are exhibiting the will of the people. It would be unfair for the Senate to deny the will of the people. Anything the house wants to do is the will of the people. Even if it's illegal or unconstitutional. If it were not, they would not have been elected. QED A vote to acquit nullifies the house elections and overrides the will of the people. Acquittal is undemocratic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
So the argument is that only the House has subpoena power, therefore a committee of the House does not have subpoena power??
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:So the argument is that only the House has subpoena power, therefore a committee of the House does not have subpoena power?? They didn't write RE: Impeachment on them, so they don't count.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2020 21:21
|
|