The Robert Mueller Investigation

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, Gap03 said:

I don't disagree with all of this, but there is a reasonable argument that part of the game is getting McConnell out of his position as Senate Majority Leader.  I'm not sure that it would work, but if you could put a handful of senators in 2020 battleground states in a position that they have to go on record as supporting the traitor in the White House, maybe the Dems could regain control of the Senate.  Ultimately, I suspect that McConnell would let some of the R senators vote to remove if it was critical for their election prospects since all he needs is 34 senators to block, but I think there could be some value for making a strong case for removal in the Senate and making the Rs own their treachery.  

And you very well may be correct. Impeachment in the house and failure to remove in the senate may very well increase the chance trump loses 2020. Impeachment should be based on political calculus, messaging, polling, politik. Impeachment should not be based on emotional angst and whining. The only thing that matters is whether it helps or hurts in the election

[retread 2,951]

Nancy's had at least a couple of good jumping off points for starting impeachment hearings, but she won't jump. The 47 day recess won't help any momentum that the Ds currently have.

Edited July 26, 2019 by retread

[triplehorn 2,664]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Yea, but Mueller didn't have a lot of oomph during the hearings. His voice was, at times, shaky. There were no new revelations. GOPs declared it a shattering defeat for the Dems.

You're forgetting all of that important stuff just to list a couple of facts.

The courts will see your smooth sarcasm and raise you an unfavorable decision for Trump. 

And right now Dems are '98 Midland Lee with an offense consisting entirely of Ced Benson up the gut for 3ypc.  Call it ineffective and boring, but let's see where that takes them over time.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

We're getting killed in this game, my friend. We line up to kick the ball, and a sniper in the press box takes out the kicker.

The ref throws a flag, and the other team shouts him down while refusing to allow the yardage to be stepped off.

We decide to play it safe for the rest of the half because we have a plan to win in the second half.

We come out in the second half, and a massive pit has been dug in the middle of the field and filled with alligators.

The most vocal and active part of the crowd is loving it while we look at each with WTF looks.

In the first half we should have run the crazy impeachment play. Maybe it won't work. Probably it won't work to win the game, but we don't just keep standing around with our thumbs up our asses.

Impeach. Who knows what will happen? It can't be worse. If America decides they want a pustule as president after an impeachment, then power to the sub-human people.

Act now, not later. Nothing is going the way it should. Waiting won't go the way it should, either.

I get the sense you want an emotional win and impeachment in house would do it for you.

Im afraid I don’t care about your feelings. Sorry, friend.

The only thing that matters is removal of potus. Removal as fast as possible. Everything else is just a means to that end.

[RomaVicta 29,905]

15 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I get the sense you want an emotional win and impeachment in house would do it for you.

Im afraid I don’t care about your feelings. Sorry, friend.

The only thing that matters is removal of potus. Removal as fast as possible. Everything else is just a means to that end.

I wasn't using friend ironically. It was respectful.

You misread my intention. I want the best chance for any win and, I believe, that's what my post clearly alludes to. I would like Trump removed today under arrest, but I don't see that happening.

I might go for the sure thing of Trump being removed in an election if it was, indeed, a sure thing as you seem to assume. I don't assume that.

We have a man openly committing impeachable and criminal offenses that would have destroyed any prior presidency once they became public. Go back further, and you have his improbable election in the first place.

I want impeachment pretty much because of the uncertainty. Let them worry about what's going to happen next for awhile. Let the GOPs run having voted to support the crimes and villainy that Trump revels in. Make it the issue in the election if the Senate refuses to remove.

Believing in the simple formula that Trump will be brought down by the electorate if we just stand pat is not very well supported by the last few years of his administration.

If the GOPs take over in a landslide, well that's democracy. Everybody will know where they stand.

Don't dismiss me or this position as an emotionalist.

Edited July 26, 2019 by RomaVicta

[triplehorn 2,664]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Nancy's had at least a couple of good jumping off points for starting impeachment hearings, but she won't jump. The 47 day recess won't help any momentum that the Ds currently have.

It'd be worse to have announced a formal impeachment inquiry Wednesday then have a 6 week recess for Trump to grind on the public over it.  That would be a killer for Dems.  Alternatively they could cancel the break and go full bore, but without Trump's financials and unsettled court cases on subpoena enforcement.  Also premature, especially given Mueller's highly damaging albeit reluctant, if not deflating, emotional delivery.  

getting the financials = seeing the whites of their eyes, filling the streets, and breaking cobble.

If there's nothing to the financials, then you go with what you got and maximize impeachment through emotional proximity to the elections.

[retread 2,951]

November '20 may as well be 10 years in the future. Rs and their Russian buddies are going to cheat like hell, just like in '16. Defeating him at the ballot box is no certainty.

There is one constitutional action that the Ds can take right now, and they should do it. I think the future of the Republic is worth cancelling a 6-week recess.

I'll believe the financial evidence when I see it. Maybe it materializes, and maybe it doesn't.

Any president before Trump would have been removed for what's in the Mueller report. Not impeaching is normalizing that behavior.

Edited July 26, 2019 by retread

[henrygandorf 29,189]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It'd be worse to have announced a formal impeachment inquiry Wednesday then have a 6 week recess for Trump to grind on the public over it.  That would be a killer for Dems.  Alternatively they could cancel the break and go full bore, but without Trump's financials and unsettled court cases on subpoena enforcement.  Also premature, especially given Mueller's highly damaging albeit reluctant, if not deflating, emotional delivery.  

getting the financials = seeing the whites of their eyes, filling the streets, and breaking cobble.

If there's nothing to the financials, then you go with what you got and maximize impeachment through emotional proximity to the elections.

disagree.  if you lay out the timeframe, it would've really gotten under his skin.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

1 hour ago, JimmyHoffa said:

 

yeah, I get that but tough shit. It's like not wanting to play a game because the other team is better than you. It's why the game is fucking played. If you don't it's a loser mentality and you have nobody to blame but yourself. 

Exactly. We need another TR.

 

It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.

Theodore Roosevelt

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

22 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I wasn't using friend ironically. It was respectful.

You misread my intention. I want the best chance for any win and, I believe, that's what my post clearly alludes to. I would like Trump removed today under arrest, but I don't see that happening.

I might go for the sure thing of Trump being removed in an election if it was, indeed, a sure thing as you seem to assume. I don't assume that.

We have a man openly committing impeachable and criminal offenses that would have destroyed any prior presidency once they became public. Go back further, and you have his improbable election in the first place.

I want impeachment pretty much because of the uncertainty. Let them worry about what's going to happen next for awhile. Let the GOPs run having voted to support the crimes and villainy that Trump revels in. Make it the issue in the election if the Senate refuses to remove.

Believing in the simple formula that Trump will brought down by the electorate if we just stand pat is not very well supported by the last few years of his administration.

If the GOPs take over in a landslide, well that's democracy. Everybody will know where they stand.

Don't dismiss me or this position as an emotionalist.

I also was not using ‘friend’ ironically. And at the same time I am dismissing the notion that we need to act now, that we have to have impeachment now, that we need to satisfy the feelings of angst toward our current situation, that we need to succumb to desperation.

I understand you want impeachment because of the uncertainty. Ideally, calls for impeachment would be based on it increasing the chances trump loses in 2020. Those calls should be based political calculus. I don’t know the answer to that calculus however trump wanting impeachment while Nancy holding steady carries a lot of weight in my mind.

If you need something to focus on, look to the status of subpoenas in the courts and the status of receiving trump’s financials. No impeachment will occur until financials are obtained.

Why would anyone feel that trump losing 2020 is a sure thing? Why would anyone think standing pat is what would do it? 

Edited July 26, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[RomaVicta 29,905]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

that we need to satisfy the feelings of angst toward our current situation, that we need to succumb to desperation.

Again, we just see strategies differently. You seem rather insistent on injecting hysteria as a source of my reasoning. I may be idiotic, but I'm not raving.

Glad we can discuss this with mutual respect. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

Why do you think Trump wants the impeachment process to start?

If the house moves to impeach the Senate will not convict and he will claim TOTAL EXONERATION, and his base will believe it

 

If the house doesn't move to impeach he will claim WITCH HUNT, TOTAL EXONERATION, his base and most of America that doesn't watch the news (hint a shit ton of voters) will believe it.

 

Either way he is going to claim the same thing. The Dems can at least claim that they tried to save the republic as opposed to fiddling and watching it burn and in the process keep the engaged Dem leaning voters from staying home in 2020 and possibly get through to the unwashed masses that care more about who each Kardashian is fucking.

 

 

[retread 2,951]

Not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer to this, but I fully expect DOTUS to try to fight discovery during the impeachment inquiry, if it happens. Based on what I've read about it, the Judiciary Committee would have a bit more authority to call witnesses, etc. I don't know how much more. Would those subpoenas have to go through the courts also?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

3 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Why do you think Trump wants the impeachment process to start?

If the house moves to impeach the Senate will not convict and he will claim TOTAL EXONERATION, and his base will believe it

 

If the house doesn't move to impeach he will claim WITCH HUNT, TOTAL EXONERATION, his base and most of America that doesn't watch the news (hint a shit ton of voters) will believe it.

 

Either way he is going to claim the same thing. The Dems can at least claim that they tried to save the republic as opposed to fiddling and watching it burn and in the process keep the engaged Dem leaning voters from staying home in 2020 and possibly get through to the unwashed masses that care more about who each Kardashian is fucking.

 

 

You are asking the right questions. How does impeachment in the house influence the 2020 election? How does impeachment timing affect it? What about impeachment that includes financial crimes? Where, in the calculus of all of those variables, can me maximize the potential to win the game and remove potus?

[RomaVicta 29,905]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

fully expect DOTUS to try to fight discovery during the impeachment inquiry,

Good point. Trump fighting subpoenas in an impeachment hearing could carry greater weight with the public than just ordering his people to ignore a Congressional Committee.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

And so it begins 

From the filing — "The D.C. Circuit has construed that provision to apply where, as here, this Committee is conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment."

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

Trump is going to break his phone.

[Chad Fuck 17,671]

“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m f---ed.”

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are asking the right questions. How does impeachment in the house influence the 2020 election? How does impeachment timing affect it? What about impeachment that includes financial crimes? Where, in the calculus of all of those variables, can me maximize the potential to win the game and remove potus?

To add to this, what is the audience for all of this? Who is the focus of this politik calculus? Does it have to do with a small slice of voters in a few swing states? The slice labeled “undecided”? Cambridge Analytica would label the “persuadables” for those that have seen The Great Hack

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

This appears to be so the courts will provide the house judiciary committee the grand jury materials associated with the redacted mueller report

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

"Yes, we’re crossing a threshold with this filing,” Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) said. “And we are now officially entering into an examination of whether or not to recommend the articles of impeachment.”

Other committee members who have called for an official impeachment inquiry into Trump confirmed that view.

“From my personal point of view, we are in an impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said.

“This is an impeachment investigation,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Asked if he agrees that the committee is in an impeachment investigation, Nadler replied, “In effect.”

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d3b3952e4b0a6d6373f162a

Edited July 26, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[triplehorn 2,664]

17 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

This appears to be so the courts will provide the house judiciary committee the grand jury materials associated with the redacted mueller report

Yes that's exactly it. 

Again from the presser Wed w Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, and Cummings, Nadler directly said the immediate next steps this week were to proceed through the courts with enforcement of McGahn's subpoena and to pursue the grand jury material from the Mueller report.

I'm wondering if that could also include transcripts of Mueller interviews of witnesses that didn't involve grand juries.  Think of all the characters that cooperated with Mueller who are attempting to blow of Congressional subpoenas right now.  Would be nice to have those transcripts to compare side by side with public testimony.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by triplehorn

[TwiceHorn 31,451]

47 minutes ago, retread said:

Not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer to this, but I fully expect DOTUS to try to fight discovery during the impeachment inquiry, if it happens. Based on what I've read about it, the Judiciary Committee would have a bit more authority to call witnesses, etc. I don't know how much more. Would those subpoenas have to go through the courts also?

Impeachment tends to be based on evidence already collected (see Watergate tapes).  It's not like a lawsuit where you commence discovery after you file suit, although you certainly can.  In the best lawsuits, the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prevail before they drop the complaint/petition.  So too with the strongest impeachment strategy.

I rather seriously doubt that an impeachment committee would be sending subpoenas to Trump (maybe other people) to support their work.  But yes, the subpoenas would be subject to court enforcement and the rather extreme vagaries thereof.

[RomaVicta 29,905]

[suddenly shaggy 929]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

The courts will see your smooth sarcasm and raise you an unfavorable decision for Trump. 

And right now Dems are '98 Midland Lee with an offense consisting entirely of Ced Benson up the gut for 3ypc.  Call it ineffective and boring, but let's see where that takes them over time.

3+3+3 = Punt. 

The Dems have been like early 2000's Texas going against OU, taking what the GOP gives them and running bubble screens for losses and 3-yard outs on third and long. The best plays and young talent have been handcuffed and on the sideline.

Trump is a good attacker, but terrible at defense, Mike Stoops deep ball off playaction bad. Dems can take the initiative by launching an impeachment inquiry, skipping vacation to get to work, staking out a unified message, and dictating to the GOP how the rest of this is going to go. Even with the breaking news from Judiciary, I'm still skeptical they will do that. I really hope I'm wrong. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 minute ago, suddenly shaggy said:

3+3+3 = Punt. 

 

3+3+3+3 = 1st down

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Just now, triplehorn said:

3+3+3+3 = 1st down

Yeah, going for it on 4th down multiple times every possession is a great strategy. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Just now, suddenly shaggy said:

Yeah, going for it on 4th down multiple times every possession is a great strategy. 

3 consecutive TX State Championships is a decent outcome.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Impeachment tends to be based on evidence already collected (see Watergate tapes).  It's not like a lawsuit where you commence discovery after you file suit, although you certainly can.  In the best lawsuits, the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prevail before they drop the complaint/petition.  So too with the strongest impeachment strategy.

I rather seriously doubt that an impeachment committee would be sending subpoenas to Trump (maybe other people) to support their work.  But yes, the subpoenas would be subject to court enforcement and the rather extreme vagaries thereof.

also not a lawyer, but i would think the process might be a little different here since the desired outcome is different.

this isn't about winning a case or a trial.  this is about the court of public opinion, putting trump and his administration on the defensive, and hoping that they shit themselves (more so) all over twitter.  we all already know there have been multiple impeachable offenses committed.

this is the only chance the dems have to control the narrative during the next 16 months leading up to the election.  the current tactics aren't working, and the country needs to see that this is all actually leading somewhere.

[Biff Tannen 45,675]

So is it happening?

[triplehorn 2,664]

Look at what Pelosi/Nadler appear to have done: today the House has acknowledged it's conducting an actual impeachment inquiry. Right now they are using that as leverage in seeking a court order compelling Don McGahn to testify or face jail and fines as well as for leverage in pursuit of Mueller 6(e) grand jury materials. 

The kicker is they've done this without a House vote that, as of today, would have gone down in defeat.  
 

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So is it happening?

I'd say we got the gal to agree to a date, but dinner and drinks are gonna have to go really well if we expect to close the deal.

[RomaVicta 29,905]

2 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Look at what Pelosi/Nadler appear to have done: today the House has acknowledged it's conducting an actual impeachment inquiry. Right now they are using that as leverage in seeking a court order compelling Don McGahn to testify or face jail and fines as well as for leverage in pursuit of Mueller 6(e) grand jury materials. 

The kicker is they've done this without a House vote that, as of today, would have gone down in defeat.  
 

Is it certain that the vote would have been against? I honestly don't know.

I'd persecute any Dems that broke ranks. I wouldn't mind having them identified. Fuck them.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd say we got the gal to agree to a date, but dinner and drinks are gonna have to go really well if we expect to close the deal.

No dude. She just gave you her number. You haven’t called it yet and don’t even know if it’s a real number. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

3 consecutive TX State Championships is a decent outcome.

Dude, seriously? 3 consecutive state championships is a great outcome, but Ced averaged a shit load more than 3 yards a carry.

I can't find how many carries or yards he had in 1998. According to Dave Campbell's Texas football, in 1999 Benson rushed for 3,526 yards, 8th all time in Texas. You really think he carried the ball 1,175 times that year alone to get those yards? For reference, Jonathan Grey holds the record with 1,225 career carries and Jacquizz Rodgers is second with 1,134 career carries. 

Ced had under 1000 career carries and under 408 carries in any season, since he doesn't crack the top-10 in either stat. His 1999 stats are at least 8.66 yards per carry. 3,526/407 = 8.66. 

 

[henrygandorf 29,189]

6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Is it certain that the vote would have been against? I honestly don't know.

I'd persecute any Dems that broke ranks. I wouldn't mind having them identified. Fuck them.

yeah, this is a good point/question.

there's a big difference between, "haven't yet come out for impeachment" and "going on the record and voting against it".

[notre dame joe 187]

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Impeachment tends to be based on evidence already collected (see Watergate tapes).  It's not like a lawsuit where you commence discovery after you file suit, although you certainly can.  In the best lawsuits, the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prevail before they drop the complaint/petition.  So too with the strongest impeachment strategy.

I rather seriously doubt that an impeachment committee would be sending subpoenas to Trump (maybe other people) to support their work.  But yes, the subpoenas would be subject to court enforcement and the rather extreme vagaries thereof.

Impeachment is purely political, "evidence" is not necessary.  Exhibit A the past two years Ds don't even pretend to care what the evidence showed. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Is it certain that the vote would have been against? I honestly don't know.

I'd persecute any Dems that broke ranks. I wouldn't mind having them identified. Fuck them.

I believe this has been an ongoing orchestrated roll-out to formal impeachment.  Pelosi will probably signal the 'holdouts' when to individually and publicly advocate to impeach Trump.  It will serve to whip up overall momentum at the right time. 

[retread 2,951]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Impeachment tends to be based on evidence already collected (see Watergate tapes).  It's not like a lawsuit where you commence discovery after you file suit, although you certainly can.  In the best lawsuits, the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prevail before they drop the complaint/petition.  So too with the strongest impeachment strategy. 

Thanks for the info, Twice. I was thinking specifically about Mueller's comments in his report about various witnesses being less than cooperative. I believe there was even some destruction of evidence. Seems like there might be some opportunities there to bolster the case against Trump.

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

No dude. She just gave you her number. You haven’t called it yet and don’t even know if it’s a real number. 

(512) 459-2222 is real to me.

[jimmyjazz 45,899]

7 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Dude, seriously? 3 consecutive state championships is a great outcome, but Ced averaged a shit load more than 3 yards a carry.

I can't find how many carries or yards he had in 1998. According to Dave Campbell's Texas football, in 1999 Benson rushed for 3,526 yards, 8th all time in Texas. You really think he carried the ball 1,175 times that year alone to get those yards? For reference, Jonathan Grey holds the record with 1,225 career carries and Jacquizz Rodgers is second with 1,134 career carries. 

Ced had under 1000 career carries and under 408 carries in any season, since he doesn't crack the top-10 in either stat. His 1999 stats are at least 8.66 yards per carry. 3,526/407 = 8.66. 

 

He wasn't referring to Cedric Benson or his HS team.  He was referring to the team that never punts and has great success in doing so.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He wasn't referring to Cedric Benson or his HS team.  He was referring to the team that never punts and has great success in doing so.

Would have had no argument from me if that was the case. That's exactly what the dems need to do, be aggresive and attack. Make the GOP spend all their time defending a traitorous felon and hang that millstone around the GOP's neck at every opportunity.  

[RomaVicta 29,905]

11 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I believe this has been an ongoing orchestrated roll-out to formal impeachment.  Pelosi will probably signal the 'holdouts' when to individually and publicly advocate to impeach Trump.  It will serve to whip up overall momentum at the right time. 

Thanks. I like the sound of that. I'd originally thought that she might be angling for impeachment timing rather than holding off until the election. My faith had been shaken.

I'm all in on the impeachment, as you can tell. People need to declare which standard they align with.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd say we got the gal to agree to a date, but dinner and drinks are gonna have to go really well if we expect to close the deal.

 

24 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

No dude. She just gave you her number. You haven’t called it yet and don’t even know if it’s a real number. 

this is how the house democrats are going to handle this:

the democrats don't even realize they got these big fucking claws, man

[hayden_horn 11,362]

for the record, i made it about halfway through that clip before i had to bail. it's one of the most painful clips of cinema in the history of...cinema.

[Biff Tannen 45,675]

Holy shit that's a great analogy.  Hi this is Nikki leave a message!

[Drew 2,405]

What a waste of time.  He'll be out of office next year. All this will do is make this political climate even more hate filled and divisive.

I know everyone is getting off on it, but the clown won't win in 2020 and we can go back to being unproductive in Washington as we were before and during this administration. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

17 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Would have had no argument from me if that was the case. That's exactly what the dems need to do, be aggresive and attack. Make the GOP spend all their time defending a traitorous felon and hang that millstone around the GOP's neck at every opportunity.  

I attended the state semifinal game Ced's senior Sr yr at Lee at some stadium in Fort Worth with my dad.  At that level of competition, it was '3 yards and a cloud of dust.' But they didn't panic, stayed disciplined and methodical and stuck to what they knew would eventually work.  There had to have been several 4th and short situations and they just kept pushing it, knowing they could stretch it, and ultimately advanced.

Also went to the TX HS all-star game played at the UT Arlington stadium to watch Edwin Simmons.  Former House Rep Joe Barton should have taken notes.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

12 minutes ago, Drew said:

What a waste of time.  He'll be out of office next year. All this will do is make this political climate even more hate filled and divisive.

I know everyone is getting off on it, but the clown won't win in 2020 and we can go back to being unproductive in Washington as we were before and during this administration.