Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 1/30/2020 at 11:47 PM, Rougarou said:

If/when Donny Trump wriggles his way out of this, it won’t be a win because Republican absurdity and hypocrisy is on record as much as it will be a loss because of the moral hazard; GOP have pushed the line of the rules and what can be taken advantage of and get away with Scott free (and don’t give me any moral victory stuff about how being impeached by the House and having an asterisk next to his name means anything to anyone). This is all bad.

The reason it is bad is because half the country are members of the Cyclops third eye clan from HBOs Watchmen and the other half are not and we have no Superhero’s.

Expand  

Welcome to the lanai!

I have a table of Speyside single-malts to introduce you to.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

So if  I commit a federal crime, I can tell the prosecutor he is not allowed to introduce evidence, he only has 5 minutes to present his case, and I get to select the judge?  

Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:31 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that may have played with her base, but that was a disingenuous piece of business right there.  She knows better.

I am disappoint.

Expand  

Bullshit. He signed on to Kennedy’s disastrous citizen united opinion which led directly to that question ever being asked Today. 
 

Fuck him. Dred Scott legacy is his forever. 

  • Like 3
Posted
  On 1/30/2020 at 11:56 PM, HenryJames said:

 

Expand  

its an obv question but a good one. if we are participating in a complete failure of one of the branches of government then the entire apparatus is also gone. not just the SCOTUS. now they may not be corrupted in the manner that congress is, but they are down a notch in whatever credibility they once had. 

its like that one long note of suck. just keeps going and growing. and sucking. roberts can EABOD for being the complicit asswad he has been pretty much the entire time of his service. he is the tahoehorn of the fucking top of one of our core institutions. big words, examples, the big board, and every other goddamn evasive dance move you can imagine to avoid doing what everyone knows is right. a round fuck him too. 

  • Like 3
Posted

Must be strange presiding as the judge over the sham trial caused by a court opinion you signed on to that may very likely lead to the dissolution of the senate and the Republic in favor of an emperor.
 

Don’t even think that happened in Rome. Quite an accomplishment. 
 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 1/30/2020 at 11:26 PM, DDD Dad said:

Recognize that the Democrats' position on Clinton was nearly equally partisan and use to your advantage here.

Expand  

The entire premise of the Whitewater investigation never even pretended to be a defense of fair elections or our democratic institutions and devolved into a fishing expedition of even less relevant issues relating to the public interest. 

 

According to Volume 2 of the Mueller Report and Robert Mueller's own public testimony, Donald Trump, under oath and with the help of his lawyers, failed an open book take home test regarding a foreign authoritarian government's interference in our democratic elections.

The "nearly equally partisan" Democrats declined even an attempt to impeach him on that.

They declined to even investigate him for the same circumstances that ended John Edward's campaign and got him indicted. The president fucking a porn star and conspiring with the press to kill the story during an election campaign doesn't even get the sleepy Democratic hound dog off the porch.

Corroborating sworn affidavits testifying Trump raped and threatened the life of a 13 year-old? Nope.

Emoluments? Lol.

Stop.

 

  • Like 8
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:31 AM, TwiceHorn said:
Yeah, that may have played with her base, but that was a disingenuous piece of business right there.  She knows better.
I am disappoint.


Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them
Posted (edited)

So now out country is like.... Catholic priests before the internet. Somebody is getting fucked over and over and over, but we really, really, do not want to know anything.  ANYTHING!

This moment, right here and right now, are why Dems should be more interested in Gun ownership.

Edited by horn4life
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:53 AM, SquishMitten said:

Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them

 

Expand  

Perhaps. But the Constitution gives them the power to do exactly that.

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:41 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Islay > Speyside

Expand  


When I was a younger man I thought Islays were where it's at but then I had a Cambeltown (Springbank 15 year old) that blew my mind. Since then I've gotten into the Glen Scotias and Glengyles.  Delicious. So much depth.  Don't get me wrong, I still like Laphroaig, Ardbeg, Bowmore etc... but once you go Cambeltown you never go back.  

  • Like 1
Posted

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/trump-president-impeachment-dictator-945579/

 

  Quote

We may be witnessing the end of the United States presidency as we know it. It doesn’t come in large, destructive gestures, like the demolition of the White House. Instead, we most often see it arrive in the mild utterances of old men. Such was the case on the Senate floor on Wednesday, when Alan Dershowitz spoke up in favor of President Trump’s autocracy.

Expand  

 

  Quote

We should have seen this coming, as Trump hardly ever misses an opportunity to reach for more power, not even amidst a process ostensibly about stripping it from him. Ironically and most unfortunately for the Democrats who sought even a modicum of accountability for President Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors, the impeachmentprocess is being perverted into a process to make Trump into a dictator.

Expand  

 

  Quote

Trump’s defense against impeachment has, to this point, been somewhat bifurcated. At once, Trump was supposedly utterly innocent of the charges being brought against him — it was a perfect call with the Ukrainian president, we keep being told; just look at the White House’s doctored transcript — and it was also perfectly fine if Trump did everything he was charged with, because he is allowed to do whatever he likes. It was hard to discern which argument was more disturbing or less befitting of a president.

Expand  

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 4
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:43 AM, Al Bundy said:
The entire premise of the Whitewater investigation never even pretended to be a defense of fair elections or our democratic institutions and devolved into a fishing expedition of even less relevant issues relating to the public interest. 
 
According to Volume 2 of the Mueller Report and Robert Mueller's own public testimony, Donald Trump, under oath and with the help of his lawyers, failed an open book take home test regarding a foreign authoritarian government's interference in our democratic elections.
The "nearly equally partisan" Democrats declined even an attempt to impeach him on that.
They declined to even investigate him for the same circumstances that ended John Edward's campaign and got him indicted. The president fucking a porn star and conspiring with the press to kill the story during an election campaign doesn't even get the sleepy Democratic hound dog off the porch.
Corroborating sworn affidavits testifying Trump raped and threatened the life of a 13 year-old? Nope.
Emoluments? Lol.
Stop.
 

102c9df4085fa0510df25290c6080bf1.gif
Posted (edited)
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:35 AM, JimmyJames said:

Bullshit. He signed on to Kennedy’s disastrous citizen united opinion which led directly to that question ever being asked Today. 
 

Fuck him. Dred Scott legacy is his forever. 

Expand  

You can criticize him, you can criticize the Courts' decisions,  but trying to blame this shitshow impeachment trial on him and the Supreme Court is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And as Dennison notes, the CJ's role in the impeachment process is minimal and the Supreme Court's is none.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 2
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:33 AM, Nivek said:

So if  I commit a federal crime, I can tell the prosecutor he is not allowed to introduce evidence, he only has 5 minutes to present his case, and I get to select the judge?  

Expand  

Are you a Republican?

  • Like 2
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 12:53 AM, SquishMitten said:

 


Gotta disagree. It’s the reality of the situation. We have three branches of government. We are watching one branch actively arguing for their own nullification. And in doing so, they are potentially dragging the judiciary down with them

 

Expand  

And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.

He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.

Posted (edited)
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:32 AM, TwiceHorn said:

You can criticize him, you can criticize the Courts' decisions,  but trying to blame this shitshow impeachment trial on him and the Supreme Court is bullshit of the purest ray serene.

And as Dennison notes, the CJ's role in the impeachment process is minimal and the Supreme Court's is none.

Expand  

The Supreme Court decision in the dred Scott decision led to the civil war. 
 

The Supreme Court decision in citizens united led to trump. 
 

So yes. The Supreme Court led to the shit show we are currently witnessing. 
 

It ain’t minimal. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 2:00 AM, Anastasis said:

Too bad we don't have Schiff spinning tales about "debunked conspiracy theories".

 

Expand  

Which conspiracy theories do you think have not been debunked?  Honest curiosity.  I haven't seen the whole circus today.

Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 2:03 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Which conspiracy theories do you think have not been debunked?  Honest curiosity.  I haven't seen the whole circus today.

Expand  

Schiff would be a great person to ask about the bunking of a variety of conspiracy theories. 

Posted

That’s a pretty stunning stance by Philbin. You can’t just impeach, you have to escalate and use impeachment after exhausting all other options? 

Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:45 AM, TwiceHorn said:
And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.
He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.


I don’t think the Constitution really specifies the limits of his role. I don’t really read in there a necessity to protect whistleblowers or admonish impoliteness, but to remain silent on other subjects. My impression is that his role has been defined mostly by a very limited tradition. Maybe that’s appropriate, but I don’t think it’s a question that is beyond the pale to challenge.
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:53 AM, JimmyJames said:

The Supreme Court decision in the dred Scott decision led to the civil war. 
 

The Supreme Court decision in citizens united led to trump. 
 

So yes. The Supreme Court led to the shit show we are currently witnessing. 
 

It ain’t minimal. 

Expand  

Except that isn't what she meant.  It's a post hoc defense.

She's my candidate, but I'll call her on bullshit.

Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:05 AM, David Dennison said:
Perhaps. But the Constitution gives them the power to do exactly that.

This. Our constitution has an Achilles heel. If a criminal conspiracy controls the senate, then it’s game over.
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:15 AM, Hornius Emeritus said:

When I was a younger man I thought Islays were where it's at but then I had a Cambeltown (Springbank 15 year old) that blew my mind. Since then I've gotten into the Glen Scotias and Glengyles.  Delicious. So much depth.  Don't get me wrong, I still like Laphroaig, Ardbeg, Bowmore etc... but once you go Cambeltown you never go back.  

My man. HUGE Cambelton fan here.
Posted
  On 1/31/2020 at 1:45 AM, TwiceHorn said:

And the reality of the situation is that the Constitution gives the Chief Justice a minimal role in this proceeding and the Supreme Court none.

He's not acting as a federal district judge presiding over a criminal trial and Liz damn well knows it.  Weak analogies between this and a criminal trial are ok for laypeople I suppose, but not for Elizabeth Warren.

Expand  

If there is a tie vote on allowing witnesses, doesn't the chief justice cast the deciding vote?  If so, Warren's question may be about nudging him in that case.

Posted (edited)
  On 1/31/2020 at 2:14 AM, Tuco said:

 


I don’t think the Constitution really specifies the limits of his role. I don’t really read in there a necessity to protect whistleblowers or admonish impoliteness, but to remain silent on other subjects. My impression is that his role has been defined mostly by a very limited tradition. Maybe that’s appropriate, but I don’t think it’s a question that is beyond the pale to challenge.

 

Expand  

That is true.  But that's not what she did. She implied that he had that role.

Interestingly, Article 1, Section 3 provides:

  Quote

When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Expand  

Which is similar to the role of the Vice President in the Senate generally, which by a longer and stronger tradition, is mostly ceremonial and confined to matters of decorum.  And the VP presides over impeachment trials except in the case of the President.  So it's pretty reasonable to give the Chief Justice a similar role to the VP.  There's nearly zero implication of some strong judicial role for the CJ.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn


×
×
  • Create New...