StillUnknown Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Destino said: I can only play along for so long before I need to look away. sadly, thats exactly what they want/expect. they know they don't have right on their side, they also know it doesn't matter one damn iota because Murica is proud to be extremely ****ing stupid right now. part of me wants to see how history writes about this, another part of me thinks that, judging by how things are playing out, people may not be allowed to write about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Dems are trying to win the war regardless of how this battle plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 30 minutes ago, StillUnknown said: sadly, thats exactly what they want/expect. they know they don't have right on their side, they also know it doesn't matter one damn iota because Murica is proud to be extremely ****ing stupid right now. part of me wants to see how history writes about this, another part of me thinks that, judging by how things are playing out, people may not be allowed to write about it More likely, people will be too stupid to be able to write about it. Readin' 'n' 'ritin' what's that good fer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 The House Managers keep using the word "scheme". I like that. 😈 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, StillUnknown said: part of me wants to see how history writes about this, another part of me thinks that, judging by how things are playing out, people may not be allowed to write about it Your grandchildren are going to be studying textbooks with large portions dedicated to the patriotism of Matt Gaetz. I’m especially looking forward to the chapter on how Trump’s combat heroics single handedly won us the Vietnam war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, StillUnknown said: sadly, thats exactly what they want/expect. they know they don't have right on their side, they also know it doesn't matter one damn iota because Murica is proud to be extremely ****ing stupid right now. part of me wants to see how history writes about this, another part of me thinks that, judging by how things are playing out, people may not be allowed to write about it I agree that the message the electorate is sending the ruling class right now does not bode well. It’s essentially signaling that rules don’t matter so long as the intent is screwing over the other team. Nixon would have loved that mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Your grandchildren are going to be studying textbooks with large portions dedicated to the patriotism of Matt Gaetz. I’m especially looking forward to the chapter on how Trump’s combat heroics single handedly won us the Vietnam war. Probably be depicted like this but Trump will request his dong be made more massive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 1 hour ago, NoCalMike said: Have any of the GOP or Trump's counsel said any of the following in their arguments 1. Trump didn't do it 2. What he did was perfectly fine Haven't really gotten there yet, currently the House Managers (Dems) have 24 hours over 3 days and then Trump's counsel will get 24 hours over 3 days. But you gotta define "it." If "it" means, "Was the President charged/convicted of a crime in a court of law?" Then yes, they all already said he wasn't a bunch of times in the first day. Or if "it" means, "Outrageous Democratic allegations," then yes, they all already said he didn't do any of those a bunch of times. But if you mean, "Did the President withhold approved military aid to Ukraine for a public investigation into the Bidens?" Then nope, didn't say anything about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 4 hours ago, Destino said: There's an absurdity to this that's gets harder to shake the more I watch it. It would be similar to the feeling I get when having a tea party with my daughter, if you replaced the joy with shame. This looks like an impeachment trial. Everyone is saying the right things and wearing the appropriately somber expressions. But this is bull****. I'm watching evidence being laid out as if there is someone in the room that might be convinced, knowing that this isn't so. Republicans aren't interested in the evidence and the outcome of this trial is not in doubt. I can only play along for so long before I need to look away. You are likely right. But I heard from more than one person (Claire McKaskell for one) in the aftermath of Schiff’s brilliant, compelling chronology of the scheme saying that many Republican senators up to this point hadn’t really gotten the full scope of Ukraine scandal. They’ve heard snippets and the Fox News and partisan spin on it, but in their busy lives they hadn’t been paying full attention. Now they are compelled to. And Schiff laid it out point by point today. And those GOP senators, at least during Schiff’s summary tonight,were rapt. At the very least, he’s laid out a challenge for Trump’s gaggle of lawyers to respond to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 BTW, did everybody see trump brag at Davos that his side has the advantage because “We have the material and they don’t”? Lierally bragging that he’s withholding evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dan T. said: BTW, did everybody see trump brag at Davos that his side has the advantage because “We have the material and they don’t”? Lierally bragging that he’s withholding evidence. Here’s the problem with that, he’s allowed to argue he doesn’t have to turn it over until the courts say he has to. That’s how it works for the rich and powerful. You or I hide some documents and we get another charge added to the pile. The rich refuse everything and make the government fight them piece by piece in court. So he’s allowed to say he hasn’t given anything up until someone challenges him in court, but the House didn’t do that and the senate sure as hell will not. So Trump going to get away with it, and he’s not a gracious winner. He’s just begun gloating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 34 minutes ago, Dan T. said: BTW, did everybody see trump brag at Davos that his side has the advantage because “We have the material and they don’t”? Lierally bragging that he’s withholding evidence. I will crucify the Dems if that isn’t played or quoted at some point during this “trial.” Hell, they should play the clip on a loop when they present evidence about the obstruction of congress part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I know we don't get a ton of conservatives posting in this thread, but I assume there are plenty lurking. I am also going to assume they watch Fox News (at least as part of their rotation). Every time I would flip to Fox News out of curiosity they are pretty much always just talking over the Senate Hearing. I guess they feel it is more newsworthy for Tucker Carlson to be talking about Hillary vs Bernie, or for Laura Ingrahm to.....I don't even know honestly. However, for Fox News viewers themselves, does this bother them at all? Fox is definitely betting that their viewers are never going to veer off that channel, that they will refuse to spend even 10 minutes watching the "lol liberal media" however I am curious if their viewers are even the least bit curious about what is actually being said during the senate trial. Do they deem the content of the trial itself to be more newsworthy than listening to Sean Hannity talk over it? Nah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 I'm not looking forward to 24 hours of the Republicans saying Trump did nothing wrong and the Dems are trying to destroy our electoral process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 5 hours ago, NoCalMike said: However, for Fox News viewers themselves, does this bother them at all? No. It’s all part of thinking this whole thing is a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Destino said: Here’s the problem with that, he’s allowed to argue he doesn’t have to turn it over until the courts say he has to. They did. In 1974. US vs Nixon. Ruled that yes, the executive branch is required to comply with congressional subpoenas. So has every court Trump has appealed to, for the last year. There is no rule stating that subpoenas don't count unless the Supreme Court has ruled on the validity of every individual subpoena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Destino said: but the House didn’t do that and the senate sure as hell will not. Yes the House did. Pretty sure there's been over a dozen court rulings on the subject of Trump's BS "justifications" for him ordering the entire executive branch not to comply with any subpoenas whatsoever. And he's lost every single one of them. The "the House didn't go to court" us a completely false right wing talking point. It's shorthand for "But the House, when they voted to call it an impeachment, didn't reset everything back to zero, and start the entire delay game back over at step zero, by launching another suit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, Larry said: They did. In 1974. US vs Nixon. Ruled that yes, the executive branch is required to comply with congressional subpoenas. So has every court Trump has appealed to, for the last year. There is no rule stating that subpoenas don't count unless the Supreme Court has ruled on the validity of every individual subpoena. I've heard this several times now and it makes me wonder what the hold up is then? Why have there been no repercussions for trumps obstruction if case law stipulates he is not allowed to do it? Is it simply that the Republicans hold a majority in the senate and the Democrats know that it wont matter? Honest questions because I have no idea and I'm curious as to why it hasn't gone beyond whining about it and moved into actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 because Larry is leaving out important details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, twa said: because Larry is leaving out important details. Could you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 From what I remember, they did go to court, multiple courts, and every single time Trump would appeal to the higher court, he'd get laughed out of court once again because every judge immediately would see through his "I can do this because....I want to" defense. When it finally came time for the supreme court to take the matter up, they showed no indication that they would jettison the case on their priority list, so if the Dems were to wait for them to finally decide to see the case, the process likely would stall for months, but make no mistake about it, the courts were in fact involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, redskinss said: Could you elaborate? US vs Nixon was a criminal case for one. https://qz.com/1733405/executive-privilege-is-untested-in-an-impeachment-inquiry/ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf The House never went thru the steps needed to deal with privilege claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 26 minutes ago, redskinss said: I've heard this several times now and it makes me wonder what the hold up is then? Why have there been no repercussions for trumps obstruction if case law stipulates he is not allowed to do it? Is it simply that the Republicans hold a majority in the senate and the Democrats know that it wont matter? Honest questions because I have no idea and I'm curious as to why it hasn't gone beyond whining about it and moved into actions. I will say, kinda in defense of Team Trump, that the Judicial Branch sure seems to be willing to go along with the stall game. Every time a court rules against Trump, the court (or the next one up the chain) grants him another temporary stay while he appeals his nonsense argument to the next court up the chain. (Which takes another 6-12 months.) At least from what I understand, if Trump's arguments are really as stupid as people are claiming, what ought to be happening is a court ruling that "motion is denied, and no, you don't get a pass to spend another year waiting for the next court to tell you the same thing. You will comply, Tuesday, or I'm issuing warrants." (And the next court up the line also declines to give him a delay.) But so far, while every single court has ruled that Trump's claims are completely bogus, every one of them has also given a permit to delay, while he attempts to try to find a different court who will pretend to swallow it. Edit: Which also explains why the House chose not to reset everything back to step one and start over, but with the word "impeachment" attached to it. And explains why the Republicans want to try to pretend that there's something unfair about the House not starting the whole delay thing over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2020 Share Posted January 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, redskinss said: Could you elaborate? He's never showed that capability before, so I wouldn't count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.