|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I am hoping I am wrong but Jesus pelosi. This is one that f those moments you west wing assholes wait for and you still may piss it away. Isn't there a meeting scheduled for this afternoon? I can't imagine she'd say anything before that.
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
The gently caress? I ... don't know what to say to that. Also, is it correct that a formal impeachment inquiry grants additional authority to the investigators and so would change the current investigations? I thought I read that somewhere but can't find much on it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
eke out posted:What? No, opening an impeachment inquiry absolutely does give them additional authority, they no longer have to show that their subpoenas have a legitimate legislative purpose and several other hurdles in the way disappear (e.g.: 6(e) grand jury secrecy). Thanks for the clarification. After more looking I found a good explanation of the differences here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house It's worth a look if you're interested.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
The DNI uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing: https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/1176647188916686849?s=19
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
So one Republican talking point I've seen is that the whistleblower didn't have firsthand information on the calls/content. This seems to back that up a bit: https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1176914168823332864?s=20 But at this point, I'm not sure it matters. It does seem to call into question whether the whistleblower protections can/should apply though, based on that thread. Does it matter that the complainant only seems to have heard about the calls from "white house officials?"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
I still can't believe that 4 hours later the only statements we've seen from Republicans who have seen the full report are three saying "troubling." That's nuts. Feels big to me. Under normal circumstances they'd be doing what Graham did this morning.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Not a lot we weren't expecting. The terrible phone call, and a ridiculous coverup. Yeah there wasn't much in there that hasn't been reported already. But there is reference to a verbatim transcript that apparently exists or used to exist. So that's kind of new.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Rabble posted:This is a little convoluted, but it’s incredibly damming. Not only did Trump actually lean on Ukraine by withholding aid until Ukraine “play ball”; but there are direct transcripts of this phone call, and it’s not the first time that Trump has potential done something like this because the admin has placed other non-security related transcripts in the national security server. Yeah that last bit is probably the biggest "new" information we have. That they've done this with other calls seems like a nice juicy lead for the investigators. I wonder if those files still exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Does it make me a bad person that I wish Devin Nunes to be hosed to death by a syphilitic donkey? Fire this motherfucker into the sun already. It might, but rest assured, you have company.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
Apparently there's no fuller transcript according to Ron Johnson. Whatever that's worth. https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1177281870016503809?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1177674702405427201?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
These seem like good numbers this early. https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1178318148304609282?s=19
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:obama is very stupid if he thought garland had any chance of getting through. then again he did seem delusional for a lot of his presidency in regards to bipartisanship and assorted bullshit. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Garland looked like he had a decent chance. Again, you can quibble with the strategy (you're not doing that, just calling people dumb) but it was, at the time, a valid choice. It didn't work, but it was only "very stupid" in hindsight. 1glitch0 posted:Obama went "welp" and did nothing for months. What should he have done? Rescind Garland and nominate someone else that wouldn't get a hearing? AhhYes fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
This is from a few pages back but goddamn. These numbers have been moving. Very, very surprised at the GOP movement. He might really be in trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:If he doesn't announce a subpoena here he's worse than useless. I only caught the last few seconds. Did he say anything substantive?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Well. That's intriguing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Ok so what the gently caress is up with this guy There were some choice quotes from him earlier in the day. He seems like he might be thinking about breaking ranks. Not retiring, not in a close district. Pretty interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Exactly. He can say whatever is expedient for him because he doesn't have any constituents to answer to. This is true, but you also don't get to the loyal ones until these types have come out in favor. In a world where Trump is impeached and removed, people like Kasich come out in favor. Really important? No. A sign that things are at least moving in the right direction? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Yeah movement has to start somewhere. Sure, Trump should have been denied at the RNC. But here we are. The appearance of Mitt and Rooney trying baby steps into these positions is a significant and necessary step. I don't think you're going to have the Lindsey Grahams all clamoring to vote for impeachment over one night. Right. First you'll see polling move in the right direction. (We're seeing this pretty comprehensively) Then come the "moderates" or Never-Trumpers. The loyalists will always come last, if they ever do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Today: Republicans insist a vote is necessary to legitimatize the impeachment inquiry. One thing I saw included was authorizations to release transcripts, have open hearings, and even process rights for the White House, obviously to counter the "secret process" narrative the GOP has been trying to build. https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/1188902172144144387?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
I'm an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Ok but there's no reason to give due process because this isn't a criminal trial, and the President is not under arrest (yet). Yeah, it's just a bluff call. FlamingLiberal posted:They are once again just playing to the GOP’s narrative. They will try, that's for sure. But the thinking is: They haven't argued substance because that's very, very hard given the evidence, so they argue process. Take away the process argument and you force them into increasingly ridiculous places. AhhYes fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Oct 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What are the odds that it comes out that Trump actually did literally use the magic words Quid Pro Quo on the call? I give it even odds at least. I'd agree with you if I thought it were likely he could use that term accurately at the time. Even so, I can't bring myself to totally rule it out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
That's exactly what Taylor said.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ArdenFarhi/status/1189948192986714118?s=20 Don't think I've seen this discussed. This IIRC is the first testimony to proactively say they didn't think anything illegal was said on the call.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
So the NSC attorney who placed the call on the codeword server is expected to testify: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/nsc-lawyer-who-placed-trump-zelensky-call-in-code-word-system-expected-to-testify/ One thing about that I've never really understood. My understanding is that placing calls on that server is unusual (illegal?) and also makes the information much harder to get rid of due to access issues and regs surrounding the disposal of classified information. Putting the call there has been presented mostly as an abuse of the classification system. But I have been wondering about that. If the goal was to make that information tough to access, why not just break the presidential records acts and destroy the transcripts/recordings? You're breaking the law either way. It seems to me that placing it on the secure server both draws attention to it and makes it much harder to get rid of. Could it be that this attorney did it to preserve evidence? Or is that giving them way too much credit?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1192857033051181063 https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1192857222390407169?s=20 lol "absent yourself" Edit: Also L-O-V-E love Jordan eating that poo poo. AhhYes fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:i think the obvious alternative take is that he wants to stab trump over and over again through leaks like the above, and he wants you to buy his book, but he loving despises democrats and doesn't actually want to help them in any way by testifying so is quite happy with how this is going I think this is a valid take, but I've absolutely been getting a "Oh please don't make me testify (wink, nudge)" vibe from his camp. The question is who does he despise more? House Dems or Trump? I'm leaning Trump because his tenure was so short and he was publicly and personally embarrassed by the whole thing. I think personal grudge > political history here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be of any service for Schiff to start things out by saying, "this is the investigation, not the trial." Basically give a small civics lesson, explain the difference, and note that the trial and the President's due process will be overseen by the Chief Justice and the Senate. Would that do any good?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
I know everyone is saying it, but man, a real litigator makes so much difference. It's the only way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
queeb posted:lmao as we've been encouraged to do Yeah love it. Read the transcript eh? Ok.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
Yep. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1194666140997427200?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1194656748499537921?s=20 People seem to think Holmes is the guy who overheard the call between Trump and Sondland.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Hobo Clown posted:How many times do they go back and forth today? Or is it just 45 minutes to each? Think they can go as many rounds as the majority wants, but equal time is given for each one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoshNBCNews/status/1194668796147048449?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Minority counsel seems very nervous. Lots of ums
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
"How do you account for not being involved in the call prep?" "Uh, we work in an embassy overseas. The NSC does that." lolol canepazzo posted:The Republican counsel is like the public defender from My Cousin Vinny. Lol had the same thought.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Counsel looks like he's in pain. I wonder if he's like, got a stomach bug. He's occasionally looked like he's cramping up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Oh man, that lack of an answer was great. Councel says re: Sondland's involvement with Ukraine: "It's certainly not outlandish..." Taylor just smiles and shakes his head, unable to answer such a weird question. That poo poo was giffable LOL VVVVV 
AhhYes fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:
Somewhere between Blue Steel and Magnum. Needs more work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 19:24
|
|
