impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[henrygandorf 29192]

5 hours ago, Rougarou said:

Serious question for a political noob; what is the value and gain in not sending impeachment docs to the Senate? Why should the opposition (GOP) care and want them and be forced to acknowledge or do anything with it?

If it hangs in purgatory for a year that seems good for them, they don’t have to address it and it falls out of the news cycle and it’s like it never happened and/or doesn’t exist, and it looks like the lack of any consequence would be the D’s fault for not progressing the process and letting it stall out. Right? Of course I’m the guy that has learned what the impeachment process was only last month and I’m 15 years out of Social Studies civics class where you’d think I’d have learned that stuff but public schools and/or I am dumb.

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

[TwiceHorn 31496]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

Yep.  It keeps the issue alive and GOP complicity in the air longer than sending it over only to have it "defeated" immediately.  And, there's a remote chance that by making enough noise, witnesses are permitted to keep the freak show going a bit longer.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

That seems like as good a take as any and the way you've laid it out makes sense to me.

With respect to waiting, there was always the chance that items like the OMB emails or the Parnas group or other issues might create some noise. Usually it is the Republican members creating noise, using it as a distraction and a deterrent- -the squeaky toy for their constituents and for their Leader. Pelosi and Schiff were fairly patient throughout this whole process and seemed informed on what the other committees as well as the courts were doing. They had to know that Barr was going to stall-it is what he's known for, but there was indeed a little more info that came out.

Trump is still bringing up Hunter ad nauseum at his rallies, so Mitch may be sweating the way those generals were sweating in the Trump press conference the other day. Unless of course he really is Palpatine in which case he doesn't sweat, he oozes.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

apparently collins walked it all back on twitter today, not that it matters at all.

 

What you're seeing and what you're reading isn't what's happening. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Let me be clear.  Doug Collins can go fuck himself.

Garry is right and so are you.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Garry is right and so are you.

 

Shut up and chess!

[Rougarou 594]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

Thanks, that is a very informative distillation and from the lack of input I assume I'm not the only one that was educated here :)

[henrygandorf 29192]

55 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Garry is right and so are you.

 

it's an obvious formula and we see it on the daily.

the sad thing is that when they apologize on twitter, it's basically admitting they knew they were full of shit on fox news.  they're not lazy or stupid.  they're calculated liars and propagandists in plain sight.  fucking sickening.

we really live in two different realities.  and one of them really sucks.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

@henrygandorf Yes, it does and it's why I am a placeholder on the ledge and the lanai. Brisket has a fair enough view of the world right now IMO.

Nancy Pelosi's full letter to House Democrats from earlier:

 

[henrygandorf 29192]

we want everyone to come forward and tell the truth.  except the people who know bad stuff i did.

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

it's an obvious formula and we see it on the daily.

the sad thing is that when they apologize on twitter, it's basically admitting they knew they were full of shit on fox news.  they're not lazy or stupid.  they're calculated liars and propagandists in plain sight.  fucking sickening.

we really live in two different realities.  and one of them really sucks.

I believe "the swamp" is the preferred nomenclature, dude. 

[notre dame joe 188]

On 1/9/2020 at 7:12 PM, henrygandorf said:

do the bidens have information about the withheld aid?

if so, yes, i would very much like to hear from them.

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

[safe sex 11735]

You are breathtakingly stupid

[henrygandorf 29192]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

it was a yes or no question. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

 

So you have a problem with the adult children of politicians that trade on their parents influence and power to personally enrich themselves, yes?

 

I’m all for that.

 

Let’s start with Don Junior, Eric, Ivanka, and Jared since their parent/parent-in-law is the actual current president.

 

I’m sure your position will remain consistent on this issue.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

6 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

I think it would be a case of corporate negligence to allow someone with such diminished mental capacity to serve on a board.

[brown water 3778]

Any vacancies on the Blue Bell board?  He’d slide in pretty nicely there. 

[jimmyjazz 45976]

15 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

we want everyone to come forward and tell the truth.  except the people who know bad stuff i did.

 

Quote

“I would have no problem [with Bolton testifying] other than we have to protect, we have to be able to protect” executive privilege, Trump said.

Two days ago.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

He has no idea what executive privilege means. 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He has no idea what executive privilege means. 

He believes it means he's a king and can do whatever he wants. He thinks it says so in Article II of the Constitution. He's the ultimate fulfillment of the Imperial Presidency. 

They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have the most corrupt, and most corruptable, man ever as President and he believes he wields absolute power.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Karma, Karma, Karma Karma Chameleon

Poor Mike, such a victim....

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

Weird how the Rs love them some Russian mobster types. I’m sure it’s all on the up and up though. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

The various GOP and NRA delegations to Russia were essentially capo missions to get their orders. What is not being reported is that Rudy traveled the globe on behalf of Trump (as essentially an unregistered foreign agent) and we probably know so much less than what is actually out there. Scary. Due to the two party system, we have a battle between the Democrats and the Mob. Lovely. Where's Sean Connery and Kevin Costner?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well well well.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

21 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Well well well.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Well well well.

 

I have a few questions that bubble up every time Lev Parnas hits the news. The stories don't discuss Igor Fruman much. Was he not as voluble as Lev? Didn't play as big a role? Has a different attorney who is following a different strategy? Is it like the tv crime shows, and Lev, being more extroverted, decided to jump at a possible plea agreement?

And what about the other American that is only charged with one count, David Correia? He hung around as the point man for Global Energy partners and did a lot of the dirty work with the documents, etc.He has denied being associated with Firtash, but his phone and other witnesses have apparently linked him with Firtash and Firtash's attorneys.

Florida is where a lot of this went down with these three, and I'm sure the lack of scrutiny compared to NY and DC doesn't hurt, but I hope some folks are doing more digging around there.

[yoladu 4094]

On 1/10/2020 at 4:17 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

Garry is right and so are you.

 

Lie on Fox News, apologize on Twitter or CNN.

So much this. The lie gets heard by the intended audience.

The apology is heard by only those demanding one. 

[tantric superman 4667]

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I have a few questions that bubble up every time Lev Parnas hits the news

I have but one line of inquiry.

[jimmyjazz 45976]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

I have but one line of inquiry.

She looks like a blowup sex doll based on Claire Danes.

[Chad Fuck 17685]

She looks like a blowup sex doll based on Claire Danes.

I’d be cool with that.

[Pescado_Rojo 19423]

37 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

She looks like a blowup sex doll based on Claire Danes.

[DDD Dad 14339]

This might make things interesting.

 

[4th&Five 41558]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

5 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

This might make things interesting.

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Lev’s lawyer is my new favorite person.

He’s bringing the heat on Twitter lately.

[notre dame joe 188]

On 1/11/2020 at 2:31 AM, Bama Chick said:

 

So you have a problem with the adult children of politicians that trade on their parents influence and power to personally enrich themselves, yes?

 

I’m all for that.

 

Let’s start with Don Junior, Eric, Ivanka, and Jared since their parent/parent-in-law is the actual current president.

 

I’m sure your position will remain consistent on this issue.

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

[Chad Fuck 17685]

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

All of them?

Wait - this is a trick question because Hunter Biden wasn’t on any country’s payroll, right?

[Mapache 1117]

 

[henrygandorf 29192]

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

this is an impeachment trial. the trial is based on two charges. do any of the children of politicians on either side have any facts that indict or clear the accused?

you know how trials work, right?

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Lev’s lawyer is my new favorite person.

He’s bringing the heat on Twitter lately.

 

To what end though?  Rudy hasn’t been charged with anything and the rest of it falls in the “ah, nevertheless “ category.

None of it matters.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

13 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

10 hours ago, Mapache said:

 

MOAR!

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

13 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

 

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I believe Notre Dame only requires 1 writing/rhetoric course for their core curriculum, so perhaps they need to add more writing intensive courses to the degree plans. Plus, the first apostrophe is definitely on brand.

[triplehorn 2664]

There appears to be more than a remote possibility that some news bombshells are known within the House - like related to Lev's comms - and stand to drop smack in the middle of the Senate trial.  There's a clear nexus between Lev and pals, Firtash. Rudy and Trump wrt to the whole Ukraine scandal around which Trump has abused his power and obstructed Congress.  It could make for a difficult spot for GOP Senate hell bent on perpetuating the coverup.  At least I hope that's the case.  It certainly could help explain why Trump has pivoted to calling for outright dismissal of his impeachment by the Senate sans trial.

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by triplehorn

[Biff Tannen 45691]

It pisses me off that, at best, like 95% of the dotard's unconstitutional, self-dealing, traitorous bullshit is going to be successfully covered up by the Rs.  We will never know the depths of depravity this buffoon has gone to to fuck us all over.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

When the Senate actually holds the "trial," (can we have that after February 4th please so there won't be a 'no obstruction,' "I'm vindicated' rally) will there be a separate thread? It seems the inquiry is ongoing, but the trial is going to be either short and done, or perhaps involve witnesses (not holding my breath).

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

This should get broadcast far and wide. Trump completely maligned this career public servant.

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Makes this a little more clear when Trump said that Ambassador Yovanovitch "would go through some things"

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Link

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Huh