Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker

[Chooky 13321]

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think it’s the right move to go hard AF to the paint on this.  You can’t let it drag out and lose the public’s focus like with Mueller.  

This is really clear cut.  

Also, this doesn’t have to do with Hillary (who is polarizing) but you can see Trump trying to drag her into it to muddy the waters.

FOCUSNESS PELOSI 

(she will probably fuck it up)

 

13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The basic assumption has to be that the Senate will never remove, so the point of impeaching is using the process of impeachment to explain to as many Americans as possible the full scope of Trump's corruption and criminality and the GOP's support for it.  Focusing on just this Ukraine issue gives the rest of the GOP a pass.

 

3 minutes ago, retread said:

^ Yep. Total cop-out if Aunt Nancy limits it to Ukraine.

I tend to agree.  She might want to consolidate the focus and force the easily distracted and typically sleeveless portion of Trump's base and his supporters in Congress to get a good close look at the single pile of yellowish orange dogshit in the middle of the living room floor without blaming the other 10 turds on the cat.  Agreed that you can do more, but I think she's grooving on Senate Republicans defending this one thing out in the open without them claiming victory on four or five other aspects and saying something bone breakingly retarded like "1 and 6 don't get you to no bowl game.  They want us to impeach on a dadgum one win season?  This here is more uh that socialist everyone gets a gottdurn trophy nonsense."  I know, the ignorance of the country shouldn't dictate the rule of law, but it does.  It just does.  

[Chooky 13321]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The basic assumption has to be that the Senate will never remove, so the point of impeaching is using the process of impeachment to explain to as many Americans as possible the full scope of Trump's corruption and criminality and the GOP's support for it.  Focusing on just this Ukraine issue gives the rest of the GOP a pass.

I see your point and it's certainly odd to consolidate crimes and let others slide a little, especially from the fucking president.  I think it'd be slick to invite McCarthy to thoroughly examine and investigate Biden's role, which they really don't want to do.  Publicly beg them to exhaust all avenues between Trump and the Bidens.  Offer them the opportunity to shine a bright light on everything Ukraine and let everyone watch them decline. 

[wildcat09 29453]

3 minutes ago, Chooky said:

 

 

I tend to agree.  She might want to consolidate the focus and force the easily distracted and typically sleeveless portion of Trump's base and his supporters in Congress to get a good close look at the single pile of yellowish orange dogshit in the middle of the living room floor without blaming the other 10 turds on the cat.  Agreed that you can do more, but I think she's grooving on Senate Republicans defending this one thing out in the open without them claiming victory on four or five other aspects and saying something bone breakingly retarded like "1 and 6 don't get you to no bowl game.  They want us to impeach on a dadgum one win season?  This here is more uh that socialist everyone gets a gottdurn trophy nonsense."  I know, the ignorance of the country shouldn't dictate the rule of law, but it does.  It just does.  

The audience isn't Republicans, it's undecided voters and disinterested people who don't generally follow politics. That message would only work on the GOP base. The Dems should spend at least a month hitting him on every single crime he's remotely connected to with the possible exception of that time his campaign sent an automated email to some Europeans asking soliciting personal donations. It would be a tsunami of incredibly damaging information and it would be on every channel every day.  And every single day should wrap up with some evidence that members of the GOP knew about it and condoned it, or helped cover it up, as applicable.  There's no way the GOP would be able to even begin mounting a defense or an effective misdirection campaign.  Look at how badly they're handling this shit today.

The GOP has used the overwhelming amount of corruption to hide everything in plain site, because as long as the marginal voters aren't paying much attention it all just seems like standard political noise, and when they do pay attention it's all filtered through pundits.  Broad and sustained impeachment proceedings would capture the intended audience and give the Dems the ability to directly communicate the message that the entire GOP is completely corrupt. A quick vote on just this Ukraine shit will give them the ability to go "well nobody told me about it so I had no idea!" and walk away clean. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Look, ideally you would want the GOP to co-sign their names to all of Trump's malfeasance but there's way too much for the public to digest and comprehend.  If you stack the deck with everything, it just looks like you're being ridiculous and over-the top. 

If you focus on two to three things like abuse of power and obstruction of justice, the public can easily digest the facts of the case.  Voters will be more likely to make a reasonable conclusion for themselves.  You will inflict more damage politically with a concentrated three page memo than a 468 page report.  

Keep it simple, for stupid people. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Why wouldn't you include the Mueller stuff in the articles of impeachment?  That's insane.   Not only should that be impeachable as a matter of establishing future precedent, but it lays the groundwork for what is essentially now a repeat offense.    Trump got help from Russia to trash his opponent in 2016, and is now trying to manufacture the same situation in 2020.   It's a compelling story of corruption and abuse of power. 

[wildcat09 29453]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Look, ideally you would want the GOP to co-sign their names to all of Trump's malfeasance but there's way too much for the public to digest and comprehend.  If you stack the deck with everything, it just looks like you're being ridiculous and over-the top. 

If you focus on two to three things like abuse of power and obstruction of justice, the public can easily digest the facts of the case.  Voters will be more likely to make a reasonable conclusion for themselves.  You will inflict more damage politically with a concentrated three page memo than a 468 page report.  

Keep it simple, for stupid people. 

If they can't message shit like "Donald Trump used American foreign policy to encourage the Saudis to blockade Qatar, endangering US troops stationed in Qatar, in order to extort Qatar into paying his son in law over a billion dollars" they should all resign. There are probably 40 to 50 stories that could be told like that. You don't need overwhelming details, you just need to tell narratives about how Trump used official power to enrich himself and his family.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why wouldn't you include the Mueller stuff in the articles of impeachment?  That's insane.   Not only should that be impeachable as a matter of establishing future precedent, but it lays the groundwork for what is essentially now a repeat offense.    Trump got help from Russia to trash his opponent in 2016, and is now trying to manufacture the same situation in 2020.   It's a compelling story of corruption and abuse of power. 

You should include parts of the Mueller report.  The most egregious cases of obstruction. 

If you do everything and he gets acquitted in the senate, wouldn’t it make it more difficult to get a conviction on those crimes once trump is out of office? 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you stack the deck with everything, it just looks like you're being ridiculous and over-the top. 

This whole thing IS ridiculous and over the top.  That's what makes it so vexing.  He's a god damn comic book villain come to life.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

If they can't message shit like "Donald Trump used American foreign policy to encourage the Saudis to blockade Qatar, endangering US troops stationed in Qatar, in order to extort Qatar into paying his son in law over a billion dollars" they should all resign. There are probably 40 to 50 stories that could be told like that. You don't need overwhelming details, you just need to tell narratives about how Trump used official power to enrich himself and his family.

I’d pick three or four out of the 40 that are the most compelling, easy to message, and base articles of impeachment off that.

The jury here is public opinion.  That’s what you need to influence most.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You should include parts of the Mueller report.  The most egregious cases of obstruction. 

If you do everything and he gets acquitted in the senate, wouldn’t it make it more difficult to get a conviction on those crimes once trump is out of office? 

I don't see why it would. The processes are completely separate.    Bill Clinton wasn't convincted in the Senate but had to cut a deal afterwards where he lost his bar license, etc. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I don't see why it would. The processes are completely separate.    Bill Clinton wasn't convincted in the Senate but had to cut a deal afterwards where he lost his bar license, etc. 

Couldn’t a defense attorney use acquittal in the Senate trial as a defense.

”100 US Senators couldn’t convict my client on these charges but the prosecution thinks 12 random citizens are going to get a different result?”

[wildcat09 29453]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d pick three or four out of the 40 that are the most compelling, easy to message, and base articles of impeachment off that.

The jury here is public opinion.  That’s what you need to influence most.  

But is the goal to sway public opinion only about Trump, or about the GOP generally? The more you limit the issues, the easier it is for Republicans to convince those we want to convince that they had no idea and obviously had they known would not have supported etc. etc.  I'm not as worried about convincing the intended audience that Trump is bad (that's extremely easy and most will agree the moment they start paying attention) as I am that he's a symptom of the Republican party, not the disease.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Couldn’t a defense attorney use acquittal in the Senate trial as a defense.

”100 US Senators couldn’t convict my client on these charges but the prosecution thinks 12 random citizens are going to get a different result?”

No.  That's an argument for PR/the media, maybe, but it would hold no sway in a court, and a jury wouldn't even be allowed to hear it.  Not getting removed from office for a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" has no bearing on the legal elements for federal statutory crimes. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[wildcat09 29453]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Couldn’t a defense attorney use acquittal in the Senate trial as a defense.

”100 US Senators couldn’t convict my client on these charges but the prosecution thinks 12 random citizens are going to get a different result?”

That would verge on malpractice.

[Chad Fuck 17842]

"Sir, I'm going to make some crazy shit up now."

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

So you couldn’t use it in court but it would be an okay PR strategy.  Do I have this right?

Edited September 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So you couldn’t use it in court but it would be an effective PR strategy.  Do I have this right?

I don't know if it would be effective, but I see what you're going for.  

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’d pick three or four out of the 40 that are the most compelling, easy to message, and base articles of impeachment off that.

The jury here is public opinion.  That’s what you need to influence most.  

This.  It needs to be morally and factually clear what happened.  Tell a story of trump using the presidency for his own personal gain.  Focus on a few things- probably emoluments (the hotel in DC with foreign diplomats), having the Air Force stay at trump properties, and then even most egregiously, using the office to bully foreign governments to obtain dirt on opponents (Ukraine).  Don't muddy it up with anything else.  Tell a story of trump is taking our tax dollars and the office we entrusted him to, and using those things for personal gain.

 

Maybe the articles of impeachment could be much longer, but the trial/hearing should focus on a few, extremely egregious things that anyone would have difficulty defending and make the GOP look like fools defending those things.

[Biff Tannen 45764]

Gotta say I have very little faith that Pelosi and the Dems can string this along for another year.  This shit will be largely forgotten in a week.  What is the play?  Impeach ASAP?  Then what?  The public forgets and re-elect him anyway.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  It needs to be morally and factually clear what happened.  Tell a story of trump using the presidency for his own personal gain.  Focus on a few things- probably emoluments (the hotel in DC with foreign diplomats), having the Air Force stay at trump properties, and then even most egregiously, using the office to bully foreign governments to obtain dirt on opponents (Ukraine).  Don't muddy it up with anything else.  Tell a story of trump is taking our tax dollars and the office we entrusted him to, and using those things for personal gain.

 

Maybe the articles of impeachment could be much longer, but the trial/hearing should focus on a few, extremely egregious things that anyone would have difficulty defending and make the GOP look like fools defending those things.

Picking three or four real winners out of several dozen arguments and telling a compelling story around those three is literally High School debate 101.  

You don’t go for everything to convince the judges to rule in your favor.  You determine the few powerful arguments you need to win and explain if you win these crucial points, you win the whole thing. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[wildcat09 29453]

22 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

This.  It needs to be morally and factually clear what happened.  Tell a story of trump using the presidency for his own personal gain.  Focus on a few things- probably emoluments (the hotel in DC with foreign diplomats), having the Air Force stay at trump properties, and then even most egregiously, using the office to bully foreign governments to obtain dirt on opponents (Ukraine).  Don't muddy it up with anything else.  Tell a story of trump is taking our tax dollars and the office we entrusted him to, and using those things for personal gain.

 

Maybe the articles of impeachment could be much longer, but the trial/hearing should focus on a few, extremely egregious things that anyone would have difficulty defending and make the GOP look like fools defending those things.

Here's one people forget about: when Trump shut the government down out of spite, the National Park Service closed the clock tower at his hotel (the tower is considered a national park). However, something like a week into the shutdown, the NPS suddenly reopened the tower.

He's so corrupt he couldn't help but force the NPS to reopen the the tower in his hotel during the shutdown to make sure he wasn't costing himself any money. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but doesn't it paint the perfect picture of who he is?  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33919]

ouch

 

[triplehorn 2664]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think it’s the right move to go hard AF to the paint on this.  You can’t let it drag out and lose the public’s focus like with Mueller.  

This is really clear cut.  

Also, this doesn’t have to do with Hillary (who is polarizing) but you can see Trump trying to drag her into it to muddy the waters.

FOCUSNESS PELOSI 

(she will probably fuck it up)

They need to go hard AF to the paint with this WB report while they advance everything else behind the scenes.  Overnight, this has changed the entire landscape.  Don't dilute the public energy and attention by bringing in other subjects that are just as impeachable.  If they can accomplish that focus for a 6-8 weeks until the Trump financials get handed over, then finish him off with cold receipts for money laundering, bank fraud, and tax evasion.  

It's still going to take until Feb-March to get full articles of impeachment in order.  Put it all together then consider an offering for Senate GOP to unwrap on their laps.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

28 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

It's still going to take until Feb-March to get full articles of impeachment in order. 

I can get you full articles of impeachment by 3PM tomorrow, with nail polish. 

They aren’t waiting around until next year to bring articles.  They need them by the end of next month. 

[bad_teammate 13301]

*40,000 impeachable crimes file past that do not also implicate the Democrats*

Nancy, "Nah."

*1 impeachable crime files past that also implicates the 2020 frontrunner*

Nancy, "Ooooh, now I'm listening."

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by bad_teammate

[HenryJames 66278]

 

[Js1 85748]

You have come into my wheelhouse!

[DixonHur 11600]

25 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You have come into my wheelhouse!

Pence's eyes look as black as his soul.

[wildcat09 29453]

This does a better job of saying what I was getting at yesterday:

 

Quote

If Democrats want a political argument for dragging this out, they can look to history: The Watergate hearings were a television show that lasted 250 hours. The articles of impeachment drafted against Nixon were not narrowly focused on the most blatant and well-supported abuses of Watergate, but included the secret bombing of Cambodia and tax evasion. They followed the investigation where it led, and the public eventually went along with them.

But gaming out how this will “play” with the electorate is beside the point. House Democrats should conceive of their intended audience not as swing voters or cable news pundits but posterity. They are responsible to history. Congressional majorities have tools, like subpoena power and security clearance, that journalists and historians lack. The point of investigating the administration is not to find the one thing they could nail him on, but to find all the things he ought to be nailed on.

Assuming there is no chance of the Republican Senate convicting Trump, and I still don’t think there is, an impeachment vote on one solitary scandal amounts to a vote of censure: a weightless illusion of accountability, and a chance for members of our political class to say that our system worked as intended when it really has not done so for some time now. Censure only humbles a person with respect for the system. Trump isn’t terrified of the prospect of an eternal asterisk in his Wikipedia entry labeled “impeached.” He’s terrified that people will actually find out every rotten thing he and his kids have been up to.

 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This does a better job of saying what I was getting at yesterday:

 

 

I can see the merits of both strategies, but I worry that the public today is not the public of Watergate.  They are just as dumb, I'm sure, but massively more misinformed and able to be manipulated by social media.  I don't know if they have the wherewithall to pay attention to a year of hearings.

[Incredulity 11687]

Also, there is no way Trump is going to resign.  The building pressure stategy has been going on since day one.

[Guest Lobo]

I wonder if she's still coming to Austin this weekend with everything she has going on right now.  

[wildcat09 29453]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can see the merits of both strategies, but I worry that the public today is not the public of Watergate.  They are just as dumb, I'm sure, but massively more misinformed and able to be manipulated by social media.  I don't know if they have the wherewithall to pay attention to a year of hearings.

At some point it doesn't matter if they get tired. Everyone got tired of the Benghazi hearings but they still effectively served their purpose, and those were bullshit.  We don't need everyone to understand every detail of a hundred different criminal schemes, we just need them to understand that there were at least a hundred different criminal schemes and that the GOP knew about and supported all of them.

[Trey3216 15380]

20 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why wouldn't you include the Mueller stuff in the articles of impeachment?  That's insane.   Not only should that be impeachable as a matter of establishing future precedent, but it lays the groundwork for what is essentially now a repeat offense.    Trump got help from Russia to trash his opponent in 2016, and is now trying to manufacture the same situation in 2020.   It's a compelling story of corruption and abuse of power. 

The big thing is, Russia helped both Trump and Clinton trash each other.  Russia didn’t give a tinker’s damn who was elected.  Their goal in the entire deal was to sow discord among the American populace, divide the country, and do whatever they could to promote the idea that whichever candidate was elected was done so in illegitimate fashion.   

Well, they fucking won.   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Russia didn’t give a tinker’s damn who was elected.

Yeah, no.   Couldn’t be more wrong.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, Trey3216 said:

The big thing is, Russia helped both Trump and Clinton trash each other.  Russia didn’t give a tinker’s damn who was elected.  Their goal in the entire deal was to sow discord among the American populace, divide the country, and do whatever they could to promote the idea that whichever candidate was elected was done so in illegitimate fashion.   

Well, they fucking won.   

No, the Mueller report concluded specifically that they wanted Trump to win.   If their ultimate goal was to sow discord, they thought that would best happen by helping elect Trump.   But there's also evidence that they thought Trump would help with the sanctions Obama had put on them, and that's certainly what Flynn was suggesting to them, which gives another reason for their preference. 

But the larger issue was not that Russia wanted Trump to win, but that Trump sought and welcomed their help, and then obstructed the investigation into that. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Their goal in the entire deal was to sow discord among the American populace, divide the country, and do whatever they could to promote the idea that whichever candidate was elected was done so in illegitimate fashion.

This is accurate and the long game strategy.

However, in 2016, they had a preferred candidate 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’d argue Russia was more anti-Hillary than they were pro-Trump.  If Cruz was the nominee in 2016, they would have done the exact same thing, cripple Hillary and boost Cruz. 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

At some point it doesn't matter if they get tired. Everyone got tired of the Benghazi hearings but they still effectively served their purpose, and those were bullshit.  We don't need everyone to understand every detail of a hundred different criminal schemes, we just need them to understand that there were at least a hundred different criminal schemes and that the GOP knew about and supported all of them.

The hearings served their purpose with the Rs who are by and large easily manipulated and spoonfed their "news" by Fox, Rush, et al.  People like that buy into conspiracy theories and are rabid.  I'm afraid Dems and Independents will check out and stay home.  

[triplehorn 2664]

Pelosi is honing in.  Given the last 48 hrs, this appears to be a wise decision moving forward.  Schiff also indicated today they're instead working through the recess as a result:

Pelosi taps House Intel to lead narrow impeachment push over Ukraine scandal

 

(CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tasked the Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, telling her colleagues that the probe will be focused on allegations that he asked the leader of Ukraine to initiate an investigation that could have benefited his reelection, according to sources involved in the conversations.

Democrats no longer plan to make the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller's report into potential obstruction of justice central to their impeachment push, which has been under review by the House Judiciary Committee, though Pelosi has told Democrats that the probe into those and other matters will continue.

The focus, however, will be squarely on the whistleblower allegations of wrongdoing by the President, as Democrats push to rapidly move forward on formal articles of impeachment as soon as this fall.

The decision to make the House Intelligence Committee the lead is a shift from how Pelosi characterized the strategy earlier this week when she said the probe would be done by six committees under the "umbrella" of an impeachment inquiry. The initial description led to some confusion among members about how the investigation would take shape.
 

cont.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I still want the taxes and the Deutsche Bank info to come forward as a close second to the whistleblower allegations.

It should piss Americans off to no end that no matter how much we gripe and moan about paying taxes, we would be in prison in a hot minute if we pulled one percent of what DJ did. The money laundering, the loans, the tax evasion, the appropriating of our! tax dollars at his properties where we would be persona non grata should we chose to argue that we've already paid for our stay many millions of dollars over. Just because white collar crime is not violent does not mean it isn't criminal and he is a crook. Plain and simple. If a Trump supporter wants to argue that "DJ is just like me!" then they are not for "the rule of law."

[Message Board User 12397]

Cat fight!

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

If I ever saw that vile bleached skeleton in person I’d kick her square in the crotch and tell her she’s undeserving of a vagina and on behalf of women everywhere she can eat all the shit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

On 9/26/2019 at 5:01 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Just because white collar crime is not violent does not mean it isn't criminal and he is a crook.

I find white collar crime, in most instances, worse than "blue collar" crime.  It's pre-meditated and just a total disregard for all the human beings it affects.

[tx 3 putt 77927]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

If I ever saw that vile bleached skeleton in person I’d kick her square in the crotch and tell her she’s undeserving of a vagina and on behalf of women everywhere she can eat all the shit.

Marry me !!!!!!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45764]

Lol wut?

[tx 3 putt 77927]

Troll level : Expert