|
Angry_Ed posted:I essentially think Nunes was trying to say "you can't possibly out the whistleblower since you don't know who they are, so just give me some names". Which probably would've led to those people being harassed even if they weren't the whistleblower. So yes. nunes also knows who the alleged whistleblower is, so if he could get a witness to say their name he would suddenly start asking a whole hell of a lot of questions about them
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
1glitch0 posted:How the hell do people remember all this poo poo? If something exploded at my workplace six months after the fact good luck getting me to remember who was in the room when something happened. It is standard to prepare for a hearing like this with your lawyer to go over all of the documentary evidence you have to refresh your recollection as best as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
tek79 posted:Random thought/question regarding the whistleblower. Does Schiff know who the person is? And is it possible that they've already testified, are currently testifying, or are scheduled to testify, but just their anonymity as being the actual whistleblower has been/will be kept? That is to say, is it possible we've already heard from them or will hear from them but the public isn't aware? He does not know who it is, but presumably knows who the sewers of the internet have been batting around as the whistleblower.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:Once again it's "don't ask questions if you don't already know the answer" so i have been mulling over this and i think it's not necessarily applicable here. this is 100% true in a trial for a few reasons. first, the jury is required to pay attention to the whole thing, and will see the whole thing, and you're bound by the rules of evidence. you need the whole cross-examination to hang together as a single story despite the witness being entirely unwilling to tell that story. a single question that gives the witness a chance to redirect your story is a significant blow. here, this is essentially a political action and most people will not watch this live. the most important thing in these hearings is to get a few key video clips that will drive the tv coverage and other news - and for republicans in perticular something they can put on fox. it's more like a deposition. as a result, it's worth asking questions where you've got a chance of getting what you need, as long as you think it's not going to horribly backfire. plus, anything that will horribly backfire is, presumably, already going to be asked by the other side. and with their ability to push narratives through fox they can just flatly ignore bad stuff. so it's not as much of a fuckup as it might seem. the context here is different than a trial. you can afford questions you don't know the answer to, or that you may not even get an answer to because you just want the clip of you asking it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He just needs the chuds to see him attacking the deep state never trumper. He accomplished that. nah jordan got owned on that exchange he was trying to very cautiously smear him with someone else's words while doing nothing of the sort because it's nearly impossible to respond to something like "x said you have bad judgement. how do you respond" because it lacks any facts you can address and "i have good judgement" just isn't that strong of an argument. that was obviously scripted for jordan who is far too dumb to try and be subtle in that way a written evaluation that you can wave in front of the committee to say "well i dunno but here's objective proof it's wrong" was 100% unexpected by jordan and was way off his "idiots guide to smearing the witness" picture book
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
DebtBeat posted:Ratcliffe: wow way to move the goalposts Dems, first you said quid pro quo, then extortion, now bribery as you know, the president is too stupid to commit multiple crimes at once
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:It's so much worse than that. It's: fact witnesses that shouldn't be making criminal judgments have never done so therefore no crime was committed. in fact, a fact witness testifying to that effect would have their testimony objected to, and properly so. the decision about if the facts established constitute a crime is a question for the judge and jury, not the witness and a witness (even an expert witness) may not opine on it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I can't decide how much of the logical fallacies these guys believe. Like, are they just using this as a defense bc they know their chud constituents will hook on, or do they actually thing this is a legitimate defense? 'The words changed!' is some YouTube comment-level debate. whose constituents do you think are leaving those youtube comments
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Hannity. I guaran loving tee you it's from Hannity gulaini appears to be the conduit to trump of the super-insane conspiracy nonsense w/r/t ukraine
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:didn't her opponent raise a poo poo ton of money last time she grandstanded? who needs a congressional seat when you can get a fox news sinecure
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Is Gym going to ask a question or is he just jerking it to Trump right now? none of his other questions have gone well for him so he might as well spend the time auditioning for a new job, like to replace mulvaney
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
apparently these two witnesses were requested by republicans, but allowed because democrats think it was, uh, not a super idea for republicans to request them
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Aren’t depositions always secret? that is the typical practice (and was done by republicans as well) they don't HAVE to be but if you're at all concerned about people lying to you or coordinating testimony it is very wise
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/BarbaraComstock/status/1196911378818359297 she would know something about republicans doing moronic things that don't play well with voters
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:They had a several hour head start though, didn't they? The news that Sondland was going to flip broke hours before the hearing. They couldn't have at least slapped something together in that time? i think this is basically like saying "look, we told you a day in advance this skyscraper was going to collapse, and we gave you a toddler's play toolbox. why didn't you do a better job?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
"you believe the president, correct?" "i decline to answer that question. i suggest you move on"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Why would you ask to identify other material witnesses!? make sure that you've got time to get to them and beg them not to testify?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
I'm just listening to the opening testimony now and lol that he's throwing Johnson under the bus as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Sanskrit Scat posted:Castor isn't doing well at all but he has quite literally nothing to work with. Although, someone more competent would at least not be doing favors to the Dems to this effect. he doesn't have much to work with to win this, but he is actively doing a bad job from what i've seen and actively damaging his own case
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He isn't hitting their conspiracy theories as well as he could. nah what he's doing is really poor cross-examination. every time it seems like he gets a statement republicans could use as a bloody shirt he keeps asking follow-up questions until sondland clarifies whatever poor wording he had.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1197197096547495942 lol castor asked sondland if he believed the president already and sondland very clearly refused to say yes and gave castor a chance to move on without him needing to say no and so naturally this idiot goes back to get yet another quote that sondland does not believe trump
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Again, attacking Sondland's reliability is the only good argument they have. Why he didn't start hammering on that from the beginning instead of letting Sondland expand his testimony is beyond me. why he gave sondland a chance to respond to it at the end is really beyond me
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
eke out posted:brilliant trial strategy: spend 44 minutes asking the witness for testimony as if it is truthful and valid to try to help your side, then spend your last minute explaining why we should not believe it also, reiterating that he doesn't have access to the notes you are withholding from him
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:It does seem that the Republicans couldn't convince a single trial attorney to get in the boat with them. yeah this is inexcusable not all lawyers are trial lawyers, but you can get good trial lawyers to defend the utterly indefensible just for the challenge of it and i gotta believe you can find a republican trial attorney who was competent and would give this a college try edit: that said, those competent trial attorneys demand to be in charge of the strategy so that's probably the issue heh
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1197200412790665217
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
high-res trump thoughts https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1197200696044654593
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I wonder if the Dems are going to touch on the obvious bribery that went into Sondland being named an ambassador in the first place? no, both parties do it routinely. it is bipartisan practice that big donors get ambassadorships
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Wylie posted:Hey, EW, a lawyer question: How much does it hurt Castor as a cross-examiner that he has to fill out 45 minutes of time? What's stopping him from just, you know, not running out the clock and saying "I'm done here, I yield back"? he doesn't need to use all 45 minutes but it would be embarrassing not to. that said, a good cross-examination is a lawyer basically giving a speech punctuated by an occasional "yes" from the witness. and here, there's no judge to whack you on the knuckles when you flagrantly violate the rules and actually don't even bother to involve the witness. but sondland is so damaging and willing to throw everyone under the bus i'd have struggled to fill 45 minutes, but i would have had an outline prepared for this eventuality that was basically attacking his credibility for changing his testimony and the like and just making him answer yes or no questions about lack of specific pieces of evidence where he is given no chance to explain
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think it would be brought up if one of the right members was on this committee but they arent. nobody cares. ambassadorships are a vestigial position that sounds important but isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think people do care. Selling off jobs to rich assholes is pretty good for a culture of corruption narrative. the reality is that our current campaign financing structure creates much, much worse corruption. giving a pointless vestigial job with no policy-making ability that sounds important is among the most innocent things you can give to a large donor. there's better things to focus on about how our campaign financing structure creates corruption, especially things that are specific to the corrupt people
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Wasn't Nixon in a stronger position before it tipped over? yes and no nixon had won in an actual landslide. but back in nixon's day, the parties had not really finished ideological sorting: there were plenty of elected republicans who had more in common ideologically with elected democrats and vice versa. so while nixon was much more popular nation-wide than trump is, he had far less control over the party base and people in congress. nixon's resignation and the southern strategy are big factors in the parties eventually sorting out into nationwide ideological parties which wasn't really fully complete until the obama years, when the last vestiges of the "southern democrats" got swept out
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
PlasticAutomaton posted:So I missed pretty much everything to this point, is Sondland flipping and throwing Rudy under the bus? And the Republicans have actually fled the room in a panic? yes and yes also the republicans in the audience slunk away too, not just the members https://twitter.com/Milbank/status/1197205168275775489
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
lol at nunes being pissed off at the extra "magical minutes"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:What is Nunes even trying to accomplish other than flailing i mean wasting time flailing is better than what that lawyer was doing
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
looooooooooool https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/1197210032766640129 "i have figured out every second i spend talking hurts"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Dave Grool posted:"Why didn't you mention this crime?" this was actually fairly well done sondland offered to discuss it several times and the lawyer made sure to direct him away from that to avoid sondland assuredly saying "well i have no reason to believe this nonsense"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
sim posted:The idea that Trump or anyone outside of Ukraine would give two-shits about Burisma WITHOUT Hunter Biden, is laughable. Like sure, you can pretend ignorance because no one explicitly said "The Bidens", but I haven't heard anyone give a reason why Burisma was specifically mentioned over and over. the obama administration did give two shits about burisma, mostly because it wasn't getting investigated because the prosecutor took a bribe the idea that anyone in the trump administration, led by a man who opposes the existence of the foreign corrupt practices act, cares about corruption though is a lol
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
quote:Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted that Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s public testimony on Wednesday dealt a major blow to Republicans’ defense of President Donald Trump in the impeachment investigation. sure was fascinating, all right
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Yeah. Sondland’s entire story is that he was told this, got confused at the time, talked to trump who denied it, but as of today he’s put two and two together and realizes a) trump was lying, b) there was totally quid pro quo in the background. rudy does, uh, not strike me as the type to fall on his sword instead of lashing out in a rage throwing everyone else under the bus
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Andronian posted:Nunes keeps bringing up that there’s some other testimony that D’s are “hiding” or at least not calling to testify. I realize that Nunes lives in a fantasy world where time is magical, but does ANY of that have basis in reality or is he just making poo poo up whole cloth for Fox talking points the hilarious thing is basically nunes was saying "wouldn't it be easier for you to testify if we told you exactly what we already know, so you could get your story straight"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 19:28
|
|