What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

[BrickHorn 18447]

^^^^Exactly right.  The GOP values Conservative Judges over all.  Burn down our Republic?  Betray our allies?  Lock up kids in mumps-infested border prisons?  Fine.  Just nominate a slate of enthusiastic young regressives and we’re happy!

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Any other President would be impeached/convicted by both parties for attempting to break the law like this. But it seems like Trump can worm his way out of this in that he only came close to breaking the law, and actually never intended to break the law. Giuliani will explain that pretending to break the law is a shrewd international political move by all top politicians.  The Senate GOP will go along because all they care about now are judges.  With the loss of the House, McConnell's only priority is to get as many judges in place as possible by Jan 2021.

Side note: If you're a right leaning lawyer under 45, why haven't you been nominated for a district judgeship yet?

one of my R classmates became magistrate a year or two ago.  i've been speculating she'll become one soon. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Even when he tries to deny it, he admits to abusing the power of his office. 

To be fair, I watched this live, and this guy is cutting off Trump's quote in a misleading way.   By the last sentence, Trump meant that Biden was the one putting pressure on Ukraine for corrupt purposes when he was VP, and Trump made that clear (despite this confusing phrasing) with what he said immediately after this quote.   And that is obviously a bullshit attempt at distraction, etc., but that's a different story. 

[Pig Bellmont 8884]

👀

[NWBuck 8629]

And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

[Brisketexan 106874]

And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34102]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.

could you.... maybe.... stop posting that for a while. let us idiots feel at least a moment of justice?

[kevwun 16437]

He's our own Eeyore.  The House is going to impeach Trump.  That's fucking something even if the Senate will shit all over the country.

Edited September 24, 2019 by kevwun

[triplehorn 2664]

5 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

aaaand there's the bait and switch.  

Full whistleblower report you cowardly mobbed up motherfucker.

[Pig Bellmont 8884]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re not going to get it . The self-serving narrative has been decided, and will dominate.

It’s over. He’s won. There’s no defeating someone who doesn’t have to follow any rules.

This time the House has the simpler narrative. The ask of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s kid is the whole thing. There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo (there was, but it doesn’t matter). He and Giuliani already admitted to the impeachable offense and the abuse of power. Every slack jawed yokel should understand the President can’t get on the horn and pressure a foreign country to influence an upcoming election. It’s by definition un-American. Likely the Senate won’t convict, but this will be a major fucking deal in 2020 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Pig Bellmont

[kevwun 16437]

His name will also still go down with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  There's not a million moving pieces like with the Mueller Report.  You can sum up the entire scandal in 2 sentences and newspaper headlines will be clear and to the point.

Edited September 24, 2019 by kevwun

[Red Five 41703]

"I released the transcript, and they're still trying to impeach me!! It's a coup!!"

[Pig Bellmont 8884]

Just now, Red Five said:

"I released the transcript, and they're still trying to impeach me!! It's a coup!!"

That will come at 1 AM tonight when he’s on the toilet 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This time the House has the simpler narrative. The ask of Ukraine to investigate Biden’s kid is the whole thing. There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo (there was, but it doesn’t matter). He and Giuliani already admitted to the impeachable offense and the abuse of power. Every slack jawed yokel should understand the President can’t get on the horn and pressure a foreign country to influence an upcoming election. It’s by definition un-American. Likely the Senate won’t convict, but this will be a major fucking deal in 2020 

I think it does for the bribery treason high crimes and misdemeanors part.  With the bare ask, he’s just soliciting help from foreigners.  You’d probably be able to come up with 100 historical interactions with Britain or Israel that could be similar.  With the quid pro quo, you get him interfering with a US governmental function (providing those funds for defense against Russia) in exchange for the personal benefit.  That tracks the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

Edited September 24, 2019 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

[Chad Fuck 18134]

That will come at 1 AM tonight when he’s on the toilet 

Try immediately after Pelosi speaks.

[triplehorn 2664]

22 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Also, keep an eye on the ball here.  Trump is trying a bait and switch between the whistleblower report and the transcript of his convo with Zelensky.  The WB report allegedly contains far more information, involves multiple events, likely involves additional individuals, and could depict malfeasance worse than extortion and bribery.  They want the public to think the transcript is a legit substitute for the WB report.  

VVV

18 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

aaaand there's the bait and switch.  

Full whistleblower report you cowardly mobbed up motherfucker.

 

called it yesterday.  saw it coming a mile away.  Don the Con.

 

[Biff Tannen 46151]

38 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

👀

[atomheartbevo 90636]

[SquishMitten 10496]

41 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

And Guliani's conversations? And the ones that might have happened previously regarding withholding funding, regardless of who they were with?

Nope. That's not how this game works. Not unless Pelosi begins impeachment.

The complaint was based on a series of events, but the general media narrative is "the phone call." Standing alone, the transcript isn't likely to be much of anything more than we already know. Fox will run with the "See! Another witch hunt by the Dems! Suck it, libs!" approach. The actual media will focus too much on the transcript, and most will utterly fail to reiterate that the complaint is based on much more. It'll be the same slow-trickle effect we saw with the Mueller report. If everything came out at once, it would have been Earth-shattering. Instead, we were subjected to bits and pieces over a period of time longer than our collective attention spans can handle. Pelosi will have to get everything out in the public fast or this ship will sail like all the others.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SquishMitten

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Getting the full whistleblower report to Congress is the only thing that matters. The transcript is just a diversion to placate his base and give Fox News something to spin. 

[Pig Bellmont 8884]

18 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it does for the bribery treason high crimes and misdemeanors part.  With the bare ask, he’s just soliciting help from foreigners.  You’d probably be able to come up with 100 historical interactions with Britain or Israel that could be similar.  With the quid pro quo, you get him interfering with a US governmental function (providing those funds for defense against Russia) in exchange for the personal benefit.  That tracks the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.  

You’re over thinking. The ask is a felony by itself. 

I mean, yes to bribery too, but committing a felony should be “high crimes and misdemeanors”

[triplehorn 2664]

50 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

👀

The gas just got turned up on acting DNI Maguire.  He's in violation of the law right now by not forwarding the full WB report to House Intel.  The WB report was filed in accordance with all existing rules and regulations.  An independent Trump-appointed IG, Michael Atkinson, already determined it to be credible and urgent.  

If there's a a public move to impeachment before Thursday's House Intel hearing with acting DNI Maguire and IG Atkinson, and he fails to show or provide the WB report as the law requires, he'd be planting himself squarely in the scope of obstruction of Congress.  Your move, Maguire.

[SimonBolivar 11062]

33 minutes ago, kevwun said:

His name will also still go down with Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  There's not a million moving pieces like with the Mueller Report.  You can sum up the entire scandal in 2 sentences and newspaper headlines will be clear and to the point.

Probably, but he's also the 6th president in a row (only 13th total) to have someone call for a house resolution on impeachment. Tells you where our cultural war is at.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[SquishMitten 10496]

Big difference between someone "calling for it" and "there actually being a reason to call for it"

[Brisketexan 106874]

48 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

could you.... maybe.... stop posting that for a while. let us idiots feel at least a moment of justice?

I see you guys doing the Aggy roller coaster.....

....and friends don't let friends do the aggy roller coaster.

This all ends in "Furk."  It always has.  Don't get on the roller coaster.

[kevwun 16437]

4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Big difference between someone "calling for it" and "there actually being a reason to call for it"

Yeah, there isn't a comparable sized scandal to this one until you get to Reagan and Iran-Contra and there is no disputing the President's involvement in this one.

Edited September 24, 2019 by kevwun

[SimonBolivar 11062]

4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Big difference between someone "calling for it" and "there actually being a reason to call for it"

Absolutely, and a big difference when it's the speaker calling it. I just thought it was an interesting statistic.

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Yeah, there isn't a comparable sized scandal to this one until you get to Reagan and Iran-Contra and there is no disputing the President's involvement in this one.

FIFY

[jimmyjazz 47127]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I see you guys doing the Aggy roller coaster.....

This all ends in "Furk."  It always has.  Don't get on the roller coaster.

You need to commit to buying us all a round of scotch at an Austin bar of our choosing should he actually be impeached, just as penance for constantly subjecting us to your cocksure apocalyptic testimony over the past couple of years.  I will commit to buying you a scotch should he not be impeached.  Limit $20, I'm not metaphorically flying your ass to Edinburgh. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It's sad that someone in our intelligence apparatus had to blow up his or her career to get Democrats to do what they should have done after the Mueller report.  And, really, Mueller should have gone further to help that process along then. 

[kevwun 16437]

The millions they'll get from the book and movie rights will be some comfort at least.

[jimmyjazz 47127]

Mueller turned out to be a little less on the ball than most of us thought he was.

[Brisketexan 106874]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

You need to commit to buying us all a round of scotch at an Austin bar of our choosing should he actually be impeached, just as penance for constantly subjecting us to your cocksure apocalyptic testimony over the past couple of years.  I will commit to buying you a scotch should he not be impeached.  Limit $20, I'm not metaphorically flying your ass to Edinburgh. 

"impeached?"  Naah, I won't take that bet.  The House is free to flail about pointlessly.  Issue a billion articles of impeachment for all I care.

CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE PURSUANT TO THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?  Now that's a bet I'll take.  Because if I'm wrong, and that happens, I'll be so euphoric I'll be happy to buy a round for the house that night, no questions.  Nothing would make me happier than to be 100% wrong on that point.

Still....a flight to Edinburgh would be nice.  Just sayin'.

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

23 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

So it seems like the Trumpkin line is that politicians kids shouldn't be out there trying to make money for themselves. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! OK, good one, let's start with the Trumps. 

I'm also hearing a lot of the Fox talking heads talk about how Hunter Biden isn't qualified to be on their board because he was not in the Natural Gas Business, which is just, I mean, do they know how corporate boards work? Exxon's current board is comprised of a couple former pharma execs, a former Pepsi exect, an academic, former Caterpillar exec, former IBM exec, former Insurance exec and a former Johnson and Johnson exec. I doubt any of their past experience in medicine, insurance, soft drinks, baby diapers and tractors taught them anything about petroleum and chemical engineering, hydraulic fracturing or crack spreads. 

I'm not saying Hunter Biden's decision to take that board seat was smart considering the possibility of bad optics, but to say a Yale Law Grad former board member of Amtrak (appointed by GW Bush), former Chairman of the Board of the World Food Programme USA, practicing lawyer and head of a hedge fund would be unqualified for any board seat.  

Jared Kushner has an office in the White House and is in charge of making peace in the Middle East. And they want to argue qualifications? Fuck them. Now and forever. They should never be taken seriously again. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

25 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re over thinking. The ask is a felony by itself. 

I mean, yes to bribery too, but committing a felony should be “high crimes and misdemeanors”

I think you would be walking on pretty thin ice to go forward with something that wasn't an abuse of the office itself.  Treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors does not mean "crimes."  It has elements of using the office for inappropriate ends.  And anyone can call up someone and ask for help in an election -- Warren could do that today.  What makes it a high crime is flexing the power he has because of the office to aid in it.  In this case, it is withholding the funds or pressuring related to the funds.

There are of course felonies that would be impeachable themselves.  "Shooting someone on 5th Avenue," etc.   The campaign finance violation might qualify, but it would be a tougher argument to make.  (Note the weird effect of just saying "felony does the trick":  You don't want to basically put in the hands of Congress the right to write statutes to post-hoc change the meaning of the constitution, which would be the case since they define what is a felony).

Hugo  Charles Black wrote a good book on it from Nixon's time and Phillip Bobbitt has an update for the present.  It goes through the whole process and includes a pretty in depth look at what the debate was all about in 1789.  It's pretty excellent.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SuingToGetAMessageBoard?
charles, not hugo. goddammit stiglitz, you are in my brain too much

[GW Hayduke 1957]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

"impeached?"  Naah, I won't take that bet.  The House is free to flail about pointlessly.  Issue a billion articles of impeachment for all I care.

CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE PURSUANT TO THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?  Now that's a bet I'll take.  Because if I'm wrong, and that happens, I'll be so euphoric I'll be happy to buy a round for the house that night, no questions.  Nothing would make me happier than to be 100% wrong on that point.

Still....a flight to Edinburgh would be nice.  Just sayin'.

Was there ever any thought that the Senate would remove trump? If so, I missed it.

This has been and will only be about the 2020 election. That’s the only way trump is removed from office. That has been the only purpose to impeachment, a political process - will it increase or decrease potential for trump losing in 2020.

Impeach and then removal was never a consideration. The GOP would never let that happen

[Pig Bellmont 8884]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think you would be walking on pretty thin ice to go forward with something that wasn't an abuse of the office itself.  Treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors does not mean "crimes."  It has elements of using the office for inappropriate ends.  And anyone can call up someone and ask for help in an election -- Warren could do that today.  What makes it a high crime is flexing the power he has because of the office to aid in it.  In this case, it is withholding the funds or pressuring related to the funds.

There are of course felonies that would be impeachable themselves.  "Shooting someone on 5th Avenue," etc.   The campaign finance violation might qualify, but it would be a tougher argument to make.  (Note the weird effect of just saying "felony does the trick":  You don't want to basically put in the hands of Congress the right to write statutes to post-hoc change the meaning of the constitution, which would be the case since they define what is a felony).

Hugo Black wrote a good book on it from Nixon's time and Phillip Bobbitt has an update for the present.  It goes through the whole process and includes a pretty in depth look at what the debate was all about in 1789.  It's pretty excellent.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 1) there is no doubt in my mind he withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine. 2) you can’t convince me that a sitting President committing a felony isn’t impeachable. End of sentence. A felony is serious, especially one involving the very integrity of our fucking democracy. 

[shnsajax 3607]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Mueller turned out to be a little less on the ball than most of us thought he was.

No one has seen the good parts of the Mueller Report yet. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 1) there is no doubt in my mind he withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine. 2) you can’t convince me that a sitting President committing a felony isn’t impeachable. End of sentence. A felony is serious, especially one involving the very integrity of our fucking democracy. 

sounds like we don't disagree, since that is flexing the power of the office in aiding his improper ask.

[WhatTheBuck 28928]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Mueller turned out to be a little less on the ball than most of us thought he was.

That's what we get for putting our faith in a Republican. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

[jimmyjazz 47127]

3 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

No one has seen the good parts of the Mueller Report yet. 

But we all saw him in testimony, and he was a bit cloudy in his responses.

[Jack Straw 2955]

4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Even when he tries to deny it, he admits to abusing the power of his office. 

"oh, yeah that, well, you can't take what he says seriously, he was totally trolling the libs."

-All Republicans

[Bama Chick 28596]

Maybe the Republicans WILL save us!

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

probably the very last tweet I expected to see.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

probably a typo anyway.  likely "MCCONNELL has hotcarled the resolution calling for release of the whistleblower report."

[Francisco 2.0 32585]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Maybe the Republicans WILL save us!
 

 

McConnell sees the writing on the wall. He's getting ahead of this as much as he possibly can + try to get some daylight between he and Trump.

 

I'd say at this point, he's looking more at covering his ass for November 2020 and hopefully keeping the Senate with the GOP rather than running interference for Trump.

[SimonBolivar 11062]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Maybe the Republicans WILL save us!
 

LOL more like they'll say they have nothing to hide and then say it isn't a big deal whatever it is and we move on to something else and the divide grows ever larger.

[SimonBolivar 11062]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

McConnell sees the writing on the wall. He's getting ahead of this as much as he possibly can + try to get some daylight between he and Trump.

 

I'd say at this point, he's looking more at covering his ass for November 2020 and hopefully keeping the Senate with the GOP rather than running interference for Trump.

I just don't see it and no way he is willingly giving up on Trump (look at Trump's numbers with the base compared to Mitch's). This is all about talking points.

Edited September 24, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[triplehorn 2664]

"...slowly at first, then all at once..."