|
I think it would be worth adding a blurb to the very good first post about the Bidens / Burisma explaining the underlying conspiracy theory and why it is bonkers.
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Oughta get CLE credit for this seminar on how not to call rebuttal witnesses.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
I'm kinda wondering if Volker developed a sudden eagerness to testify again, and Nunes or Jordan outright didn't bother to ask the the obvious question.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
awww yeah this is the good poo poo https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1196930888787005441
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
just wait till you see the second page https://twitter.com/ChuckTingle/status/1197219352149258240
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Quote this post if you want the ‘I want nothing’ Gang Tag whenever it gets uploaded. https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/status/727626922239397889
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:because they want to get all the evidence in the public record to lay out the strongest possible public case for impeachment Also, Republicans and their witnesses keep helping with that, and we shouldn't spurn such an appeal to the spirit of bipartisanship in these polarized times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Companion Cube posted:hello I hear you can get a snazzy I WANT NOTHING gang tag by asking in this thread to commemorate the historic event of the President of the United States being a big wet-brained pissbaby who wants nothing Deadline's passed, other opportunities may emerge.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Law <space> suit Y’know, you got your law suit, your interview suit, your white collar criming suit, your international criming suit...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Footnote: Turley is not, specifically, a movement conservative rear end in a top hat. He's a law prof with a health condition that requires him to be on camera whenever possible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Rip Testes posted:It is going to suck rear end when RBG passes away and this guy gets the seat. Turley's not a movement conservative. He's a media whore. Zero chance he makes FedSoc short lists for anything important.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
If anyone's feeling bored, here is a law review article written by one Prof. Turley regarding the nature of impeachment proceedings.quote:The records from the Constitutional Convention and state ratification debates are simply too sparse and varied to sustain any clear interpretation of the adoption of the English standard. Three conclusions about this standard, however, appear well established and generally accepted. First, the impeachment standard was clearly intended to extend beyond criminal acts to include some noncriminal acts....
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Like even as an academic historian I find "the Founders' Intent" argument stupid as gently caress. The French don't go "well what would Louis XIV do?!", nor do the British ask what Elizabeth the Great's opinion would be on foreign policy, because it's loving irrelevant to modern times and problems A law prof named Jonathan Turley wrote about that point a few years ago: Turley posted:All mythologies, constitutional or literary, have an underlying purpose or theme. Presented with complex facts or realities, mythology offers a consistent account to an audience eager for clarity. At a time of national crisis, the desire for a clear basis of resolution is almost overwhelming. In such times, we often look to the Framers to compel a course of action. This desire for a dead-hand control over contemporary problems is understandable but not always supportable. Ironically, the only clear intent of the Framers on some questions was to leave the resolution of conflicts to each generation. The Framers often were more concerned with how we would conclude conflicts than the conclusions themselves. This appears to have been the resolution over the impeachment language. Faced with various views of the basis for impeachment, the Framers focused on where and how impeachment would occur. The evolutionary standard of impeachment, "high crimes and misdemeanors," would necessarily change with society, but the static procedural conditions would remain constant. Thus, society may come to view certain acts of misconduct as impeachable that were not even viewed as objectionable-let alone actionable-in the 1700s.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Link for that last one, if anyone cares: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3825&context=nclr
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah this is a key point: trump's interests aren't aligned with the republican party's, except in the "get acquitted at the end" part I think that discomfort probably has a lot to do with why we're hearing harrumphing about procedural stuff. It's not that McConnell has the votes to laugh off the need for a performance, it's that nobody (other than maybe Roberts) wants to be on the hook for voting to keep the shitshow contained.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
A bellweather: Kendra Horn has stated she's pro-impeachment. She's the rep who got elected in a Trump+14 district in Oklahoma.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
eke out posted:from the Van Drew party switch we've learned that Democrat leadership was telling him, flat-out, "we will endorse someone against you in a primary if you do not vote yes" We did? I missed that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah there were pieces saying that he was told directly that by democrats in no uncertain terms. Ha! I just read that he'd been successfully wooed by the GOP. I missed all this. Yeah if he was the sort to inspire that kind of personal loyalty from rando staffers, he probably wouldn't need to be quite so worried about a primary challenge.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:A coworker straight up admitted this to me recently. He was being lambasted by multiple people, mostly apolitical centrist types, about how big a piece of poo poo Trump is and the chud in question literally threw his hands up and said he didn't care because they got 2 justices out of him. The next day he started to say something to me about AOC and I told him I don't need to talk politics with him anymore since he admitted he doesn't care about anything other than winning. He looked genuinely taken aback but he hasn't said poo poo since then (it's been maybe 3 weeks or so). I'm thinking we see at least one more scam dating app for conservative men show up before the election's done, and maybe two or three after if Trump loses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Rosalie_A posted:High crimes and misdemeanors includes crimes against humanity, just so you know. Yeah, personally, I’d put stealing children from their parents and leaving them to die of preventable diseases in cages at least on par with a misdemeanor offense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Stickman posted:E: I'm no expert, though - maybe there's a better source? Not actually joking: contrasting the Turley paper I linked upthread with Turley’s recent testimony isn’t a bad overview of the positions one could take.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2019 02:49
|
|