impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

oh dang:

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I went to high school with with Daniel. Huckabee picked the wrong guy to fuck with - Daniel was the guy who could never let an argument end and would argue about anything.

 

 

What the above tweet refers to if you can’t see it on Tapa -

 

 

 https://twitter.com/politico/status/1213195853470609409?s=21

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

17 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

oh dang:

 

I would like this to matter and not another, well, nevertheless.

[Dnaguy 11943]

4 hours ago, horn4life said:

The bottom line is that the GOP simply does not want the TRUTH to be known.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, parse it, or rationalize it they simply do not want the truth to be known.  

This can’t be said enough.

A party built that holds power through voter suppression and lies.

Eventually their house of cards will crash down.... but It’ll probably be too late.

[Goredho 17399]

*crickets*

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

On 1/2/2020 at 1:29 PM, Goredho said:

How did polling suddenly become so unreliable in 2016?

Because a lot of people knew Trump was a dumbass, racist shitheel but were going to vote for him anyway; they just wouldn't admit it to strangers.

I get it that secret ballots are important, but if you deep down know the guy is so shitty that you can't admit you like him then that says a lot about the team you are backing.

[henrygandorf 29189]

hmm, bolton news?

[jimmyjazz 45899]

CNN just pushed a blurb that said he's prepared to testify.  Book must be done.

[wildcat09 29349]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

CNN just pushed a blurb that said he's prepared to testify.  Book must be done.

If subpoena'd by the Senate. Meaning he's not prepared to testify but wants to pretend otherwise.

[jimmyjazz 45899]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

If subpoena'd by the Senate. Meaning he's not prepared to testify but wants to pretend otherwise.

Yeah, I only saw the abbreviated version that hit my phone.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, I only saw the abbreviated version that hit my phone.

Yeah it's basically saying he's agreeing to do something they will never ask him to do.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

Still playing both sides. Who could've predicted that?

[Chad Fuck 17670]

Moustache:  I'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know!  Just ask!

GOP Senators:  We didn't ask.  

 

 

 

 

[Pasken 1309]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If subpoena'd by the Senate. Meaning he's not prepared to testify but wants to pretend otherwise.

How can he testify if they don't call him as a witness? 

[wildcat09 29349]

3 minutes ago, Pasken said:

How can he testify if they don't call him as a witness? 

Any of numerous House investigations would love to hear him testify in the House about all sorts of shit.

[Pasken 1309]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Any of numerous House investigations would love to hear him testify in the House about all sorts of shit.

That's not the point. He's saying he will testify if called to by the Senate. That's significant and likely matters more than testifying in the dem led house. This is the kind of drama that our stupid country needs. 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

Oh, it's definitely a non-starter.  The limitation to a Senate subpoena says everything.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

House should subpoena him anyway and make him say no. Put that fucker on record. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

5 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

House should subpoena him anyway and make him say no. Put that fucker on record. 

this is what i was thinking.  even if they send over the articles, they never really have to be "done" investigating.

[LABEVO 928]

Bolton is definitely that person who follows up a meeting with an email stating, "per our conversation...."

[TexArcher 37774]

Bolton to Mitch:  You're not gonna let the Senate subpoena me, right?

Mitch:  Haha, you're such a kidder!  Literal L-O-L at this farce having ANY witnesses, least of all you!

Bolton to media:  I will fulfill my duty and testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

[triplehorn 2664]

Even if Mitch would never consider it, Bolton indicating he's open and willing to testify to the Senate if subpoenaed doesn't exactly help Mitch in his cover-up bid.

[henrygandorf 29189]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Even if Mitch would never consider it, Bolton indicating he's open and willing to testify to the Senate if subpoenaed doesn't exactly help Mitch in his cover-up bid.

yeah, i don't see much downside to this development.  it likely changes very little, but bolton coming out saying he's willing to testify is better than his continued silence.

best-case scenario, it starts begging the question, "well, then why isn't he testifying?"  if mitch's only answer is "because we don't feel like allowing witnesses" then that's a bad look for r senators.  not that they give a shit.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, i don't see much downside to this development.  it likely changes very little, but bolton coming out saying he's willing to testify is better than his continued silence.

best-case scenario, it starts begging the question, "well, then why isn't he testifying?"  if mitch's only answer is "because we don't feel like allowing witnesses" then that's a bad look for r senators.  not that they give a shit.

The hillbillies in Kentucky like it, that's all Mitch cares about. These republicans march to the beet of Trump's twitter handle, nothing else matters to them. There is no line Trump could cross that would reverse their sycophancy. If Trump tweets that the Senate should not call witnesses, they will not call witnesses. 

[jimmyjazz 45899]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, i don't see much downside to this development.  it likely changes very little, but bolton coming out saying he's willing to testify is better than his continued silence.

best-case scenario, it starts begging the question, "well, then why isn't he testifying?"  if mitch's only answer is "because we don't feel like allowing witnesses" then that's a bad look for r senators.  not that they give a shit.

The current trend I'm seeing in social media is "the Dems didn't play by the rules during House hearings, why should the Republicans do so in the Senate trial?"

Never mind that the House investigations went exactly by the book.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13510]

While this could be a big deal, I'm skeptical. Say that Mitch even allows witnesses, he would 100% place a time limit that is extremely short and shared between the 2 sides. And that doesn't even mean that Bolton would agree to a pre-interview so the House managers would be left with perhaps as short as 30 minutes to question Bolton, all the while being interrupted with objections.

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

The current trend I'm seeing in social media is "the Dems didn't play by the rules during House hearings, why should the Republicans do so in the Senate trial?"

Never mind that the House investigations went exactly by the book.

When fake news becomes reality.

[Dnaguy 11943]

6 hours ago, Goredho said:

*crickets*

The quiet before the storm!

[henrygandorf 29189]

8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The hillbillies in Kentucky like it, that's all Mitch cares about. These republicans march to the beet of Trump's twitter handle, nothing else matters to them. There is no line Trump could cross that would reverse their sycophancy. If Trump tweets that the Senate should not call witnesses, they will not call witnesses. 

the people you're describing were lost a long time ago.

i'm not really worried about their perspective.

[kevwun 15774]

I would like it to be known that I am fully prepared to have sex with Gal Gadot if called upon to do so.

Edited January 6, 2020 by kevwun

[Brandywine 1316]

21 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I would like it to be known that I am fully prepared to have sex with Gal Gadot if called upon to do so.

What you do for God and country. 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

54 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I would like it to be known that I am fully prepared to have sex with Gal Gadot if called upon to do so.

I’m willing to accept Lynda Carter as a substitute.  

[Chad Fuck 17670]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m willing to accept Lynda Carter as a substitute.  

Current Lynda Carter, or 1977 Lynda Carter? 

Because I feel like you're leaving a lot on the table there.

 

[atomheartbevo 89648]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Current Lynda Carter, or 1977 Lynda Carter? 

Because I feel like you're leaving a lot on the table there.

Being a man in my 40s, I’d be cool with current Lynda Carter.   

[triplehorn 2664]

 

[DDD Dad 14332]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

I would like it to be known that I am fully prepared to have sex with Gal Gadot if called upon to do so.

 

25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m willing to accept Lynda Carter as a substitute.  

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by DDD Dad

[Chad Fuck 17670]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Being a man in my 40s, I’d be cool with current Lynda Carter.   

[DDD Dad 14332]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

 

Over 60 thread

Edited January 6, 2020 by DDD Dad

[Red Five 40852]

Turtle was just talking and I had to turn the sound off. "There weren't witnesses in the Clinton trial, so what's fair is fair...."

Jesus Fucking Christ, how is he still saying this. There weren't witnesses because the testimonies of all the relevant witnesses had already been taken, including the fucking POTUS (eight hours worth, IIRC). There was no reason for more witnesses, hence the 100-0 vote. Since fair is fair, I guess Trump will be sitting down to give his testimony any second now right? 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Red Five

[Chad Fuck 17670]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Over 60 thread

That room looks dark.

Maybe not dark enough.

[4th&Five 41525]

Sure...that sounds fair.

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, 4th&Five said:

Sure...that sounds fair.

 

I'm sure it will all be on the up and up. 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

12 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"There weren't witnesses in the Clinton trial, so what's fair is fair...."

Here's the right wing talking point for the next several days.

[Tuco 5076]

Have we talked about how the White House turned over emails that redacted the following sentence about continuing the hold: 

Quote

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.”

I mean, everyone knew the hold came from the President.  His apologists claim it came from him due to concerns corruption or Europeans not doing their part.  It's horseshit, but that is supposed to be his defense.  Yet, they still blacked it out, because they don't really know what his defense is, and they have no problem obstructing justice.  They don't even have to be good at crime to get away with it. They just need a complicit Party. 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Here's the right wing talking point for the next several days.

Shit, they have several talking points in the bullpen, ready to go whenever one is proven to be no longer valid.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

They don't even have to be good at crime to get away with it. They just need a complicit Party. 

This has been clear since 2017.  The Constitution means fuck all if people don't stand up for it.

[TexArcher 37774]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m willing to accept Lynda Carter as a substitute.  

 

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

Current Lynda Carter, or 1977 Lynda Carter? 

Because I feel like you're leaving a lot on the table there.

 

I would take Prime Lynda Carter over Prime Gal Gadot.

#teamtitties

[Chad Fuck 17670]

6 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

I would take Prime Lynda Carter over Prime Gal Gadot.

#teamtitties

This is definitely a topic about which reasonable men can disagree.

The 70s were my jam.  I witnessed my brother (pre-VCR, mind you) taking pictures of our 14 inch GE color television with a Kodak 110 Instamatic so he could have pics of Ms. Carter.  He was probably 5, so you'll have to cut him some slack for not buying a teenie mag, but I still admire his effort and taste.  

That said, I would kill any or all of you with a smile if I got to spend a minute basking in Gal Gadot's glory.

But I digress from the topic and spirit of the thread.

[bolverk 29661]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Turtle was just talking and I had to turn the sound off. "There weren't witnesses in the Clinton trial, so what's fair is fair...."

Jesus Fucking Christ, how is he still saying this. There weren't witnesses because the testimonies of all the relevant witnesses had already been taken, including the fucking POTUS (eight hours worth, IIRC). There was no reason for more witnesses, hence the 100-0 vote. Since fair is fair, I guess Trump will be sitting down to give his testimony any second now right? 

I don't have time to fact check but this CNN article says that there were three witnesses.

McConnell promptly rejected that proposal from Schumer. "We don't create impeachments," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "We judge them."
But here's the catch: The rules of how a Senate trial will work -- with regard to calling witnesses and all the rest -- are determined by the Senate. In the last impeachment trial -- for Bill Clinton in January 1999 -- the rules package governing how the trial would proceed was approved 100-0. (Three witnesses were allowed to testify in that trial.) While McConnell has signaled that he will try to negotiate a deal with Schumer over the rules, it's hard to see how the two will find common ground -- especially over the question of witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-senate-mcconnell/index.html

[TwiceHorn 31450]

On 1/2/2020 at 2:27 PM, DDD Dad said:

I hear you but I don't see a paradox.  The Independent Counsel's approach was based on an expired statutory provision that was replaced by the Special Counsel regulations under which Mueller operated.  That the House elected not to proceed on any of Mueller's findings is indicative of the limitations of that replacement procedure.  The fact that the Independent Counsel law was allowed to expire reflects the issues surrounding it, and why many viewed it as flawed.  The current inquiry is completely independent of special and independent counsel actions, which is why I don't see any point in trying to compare them.  Instead I view the evidence that was revealed in both to reach conclusions that to me are completely consistent.

Neal Katyal (who worked on drafting the current regulations) did a deep dive on this matter with the NYT a year or so ago; it is very interesting stuff, but not particularly relevant to the question of the current impeachment inquiry involving Ukraine.

Nicely summarized.

I do think that Mueller could have given strong opinions about criminal conduct by Trump, but because Starr was heavily criticized for doing so, refrained.