Donald Trump's Second Impeachment: A TVIV Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Donald Trump's Second Impeachment: A TVIV Thread

«‹›2 »

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Castor is currently apparently arguing we don't deserve security.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 21:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 12:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

According to this argument, if you take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" you're only bound by it if an action simultaneously does all three.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 22:53

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", therefore you have no right to petition unless you're simultaneously peaceably assembling.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 22:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

This is like when the Access Hollywood tape dropped and they tried to pretend that the reason people were objecting to it was that he used the word "pussy".

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 18:56

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

This is actually fascist propaganda.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 18:59

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

This is fuckin' pathetic.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 19:26

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Holy poo poo this Brandenburg slide was poorly thought out because you can go through the checklist and see how Trump literally ticks them all off.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 19:42

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Deteriorata posted:

This is like one of those signs at an amusement park except it says "You must be this dumb to be on the Trump defence team".

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 19:44

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

mdemone posted:

Oh my loving actual god

Edit: I'm only following through you guys, please tell me he didn't cite Brandenburg in defense

It's the damnedest goddamn thing.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 19:45

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

You say my guy incited violence, so here he is saying they fight like a boxer, but they need to fight harder.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 19:48

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Angry_Ed posted:

https://twitter.com/Grace_Segers/status/1360306619460931584

Lisa Murkowski aiming to make it the "dumbest person in Congress" crown.

She's not saying that because she's dumb. She's saying that because she's complicit.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 20:23

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

"It wasn't an insurrection because they didn't take over the TV stations" is a hell of a take.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 20:40

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

My client couldn't have planned a coup because he's such good friends with the state security services is also a hell of a take.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 20:46

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Oh god he's going through Brandenburg again.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 20:47

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

This can't be a crime, it was premeditated!

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 21:04

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Velocity Raptor posted:

So the entire defense is just "He didn't explicitly say 'Attack the Capitol' and therefore isn't guilty for inciting," huh?

Everybody knew that the people at the rally were there to commit violence, so when Trump told them to march on the Capital he did nothing wrong because the First Amendment and also many Democrats have used the word "fight" before.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 21:10

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

You can't convict my client, there's a pandemic!

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 21:15

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Velocity Raptor posted:

I guess so. The CSpan anchor just said both sides have finished their statements and now they're going on to questions. They had all of tomorrow available, but I guess have decided not to use it.

I guess they originally thought the sizzle reel of Democrats saying "fight" would run longer.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 21:46

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

When my client gave the go-ahead on the day of the attack his words had no effect because the attack had been planned in advance.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2021 23:10

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

It's not going to change anything because it's evidence and what's going on in the Senate has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.

I mean in a rational world yeah it would make a difference but I mean seriously which republicans do you think are going to hear that and then change their vote? As opposed to the republicans whose brains immediately seize up and cause them to start making noises about how you're just taking Trump's comments out of context, they're protected by the First Amendment, it's just locker room talk, he was only joking, it can't have anything to do with the insurrection because those guys were going to riot no matter what he said, &c, &c, &c.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 01:09

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

eke out posted:

no one said it was going to magically change votes to acquit, people are saying it could affect the democrats' calculations about calling witnesses, which they absolutely can do if they choose to

I understand that, my point is it doesn't change anything. It isn't as if the House Managers were previously unaware of the availability of witnesses. Seriously: you're one of the Managers. How does this change your calculus? And I'm not asking as a zinger here, but an actual question. If you're one of the Managers, what were you trying to accomplish over the past several days that this piece of evidence suddenly changes?

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 01:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

eke out posted:

what it changes is the upside: there's people you can actually use to prove that Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was fleeing from the mob he incited while Trump tweeted more things inciting the mob against Pence! people who're already on the record telling media this can directly prove his state of mind with firsthand knowledge in a way you can't dishonestly dismiss as just hearsay

Why is this more true of McCarthy today than it was of Lee and Tuberville previously? Or for that matter McCarthy previously? Again, serious question.

We already knew McCarthy was on the phone with Trump during the insurrection and that the call was "heated". I guess getting a specific quote makes it easier to hammer on as a rhetorical thing, but I don't know how it changes the calculus.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 01:36

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Orthanc6 posted:

I'd say it does. For anyone that any facts matter at all hearing the actual words, whether from the tape or the person testifying in court, is always going to be much more substantial than simply "there was a call, it was heated, X was angry". Getting the actual words lets people figure out for themselves what is relevant, rather than just getting an opinion on the incident handed down to them. Since this is all just a political event anyways, that should have more of the intended effect.

I agree part of what you're getting at--the rhetorical value of a specific quote is greater than a general rumour, yeah. But my point is that this isn't something that just changed. That's the same question the House Managers have been weighing the whole time. Again: if you're the House Managers, how does that quote leaking change your calculus on calling witnesses? Like you already knew that McCarthy called Trump during the insurrection, and that Trump basically refused to help. So unless you think the specific leaked quote is so golden that it'll have some effect, and you can compel McCarthy to come and repeat it in the Senate, then what do you get out of calling him as a witness now that you didn't think you'd get out of calling him before?

I mean I actually think the US needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and/or a trial in front of the fuckin' Hague. So I'm in favour of getting as many of the bastards on record as possible. But I just don't see what play the House Managers have today that they didn't already have before the McCarthy quote dropped.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 01:57

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

kartikeya posted:

Won't make a difference, but adds to the pile of making the vote to acquit look as cowardly as possible in the eyes of the public.

I agree with most of this, but it isn't what I was asking about. A number of people in the thread responded to the story as if made it more likely that the House Managers would decide to call witnesses tomorrow.

I think things will continue to look worse and worse as more details come out--both from the inevitable leaks like this one, and as the insurrectionists make their way through the courts--but that doesn't change the calculus involved in the decision whether or not to call witnesses before the vote in the Senate.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 07:24

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Social Studies 3rd Period posted:

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1360606289819222027

Haha, shows what I know.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 16:08

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

LegionAreI posted:

This guy on Trump's team is loving reaching and he knows it, he sounds like he's pounding the table.

He literally was. As I type this he literally is.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 16:16

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

LegionAreI posted:

And now the entire chamber is laughing at him for wanting in-person depositions.

They're laughing because his client ignores subpoenas.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 16:18

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Graham's gonna get to the bottom of this whole Benghazi thing.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 16:33

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Xaerael posted:

Who's the maskless Republican guy that looks like Dr Strangelove?

"Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!"

*neighbor shows up*

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 16:41

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Thom12255 posted:

Trump infamously used a personal cellphone for business so it is likely there is no transcript.

Third impeachment of Donald J. Trump for violating the Presidential Records Act.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 17:00

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Random Stranger posted:

Getting Trump in will be a real perjury trap. And I mean "pejury trap" the way republicans do: having a pathological liar answer basic things under oath that there would be no reason to lie about.

"State your name for the record."

*in a fake mustache* "John Barron"

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 17:01

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Thom12255 posted:

https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1360619527525052419

True, but these motherfuckers could be stunned and stupefied by their own fuckin' shadow.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 17:02

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Social Studies 3rd Period posted:

https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1360628329070669826

Holy poo poo Trump's lawyers are in the Senate doing prop comedy.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 17:39

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

This is even more disappointing that if they'd just gone immediately to a vote at the start of the day.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 18:53

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Social Studies 3rd Period posted:

Yeah. I expected that. This is... worse.

Yeah, I spent last night arguing they wouldn't call witnesses and the JHB/McCarthy thing wouldn't matter, and then was perfectly willing to eat my words and be happily surprised when Raskin made his opening statement today, and then they cleared a vote for witnesses...and then they decide not to call witnesses after all.

Who was it that said the Democratic party is like going to a rock concert where the band keeps telling the fans to simmer down?

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 18:58

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

a.lo posted:

how long did benghazi hearings last?

Longer than the hearings on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 combined.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 19:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Yeah, nobody was expecting witnesses to change the outcome. And in fact this was the reason I thought, yesterday, that the JHB wouldn't change anything--because it doesn't actually change any of the fundamental realities of the process or the outcome.

But losing something hurts more than never having it in the first place. Give somebody :10bux:

and they'll feel a little better, take :10bux:

away and they'll feel a little worse, but do one then the other and they won't be back where they started because they'll feel the loss more keenly than they felt the gain.

That's where we are right now. If they'd just started the day going to the vote people would feel better than if they hadn't felt like they had reason to hope for a couple hours earlier in the day.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 19:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Grapplejack posted:

Okay so, with your logic, this is how it goes:

No impeachment: Bad
Impeachment that you kinda halfass and bail on: peak performance
Impeachment that you call witnesses for: bad, waste of time

An impeachment trial gets the 45 +/- Rs that will vote to acquit on record as being complicit. Independent of the impeachment process more poo poo is going to come out about the insurrection, as it has been today, and as will no doubt happen with increasing frequency as the insurrectionists start working their way through the court system. And hopefully that makes the complicity of the 45 +/- look worse and worse. Whether or not that will ever be worth anything has a lot to do with what their districts look like and absolutely nothing to do with anything that would happen in the Senate trial in any possible universe.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 19:46

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Parrotine posted:

Why the gently caress did they bail on calling the witness? What deal could republicans have possibly thrown on the table to get them to take the offer?

I can't find a single article explaining what they got in return for this, this is completely bonkers

The concession they got was a news article getting read into the record as evidence. That's literally it.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 19:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 12:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Uglycat posted:

So trump's defense /depends/ upon the proposition that he was unaware of facts that we have multiple witnesses attesting that they were present when he was brought up to speed (with clear timestamps to establish chronology).

No, Trump's defence depends on 45-ish Senators with (R) next to their name being unwilling to vote to convict in any circumstances. As in they literally don't care about evidence at all, actually literally, because they believe--or are purporting to believe--that the process is unconstitutional.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2021 19:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Donald Trump's Second Impeachment: A TVIV Thread

«‹›2 »