Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why are Texas Republicans so fucking stupid?

The intelligence of Republican reps is inversely proportional to the redness of their district.

  • Like 1
Posted

Man, Turley is as bad as the "scientists" Exxon trots out that say, "the best thing for the environment is to drill for oil.  All the animals in the world love when humans are drilling and fracking.  It's the best thing for them and the land".

  • Like 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not that facts matter, but Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform.  If ANYTHING, less scrutiny would be warranted, not more.

Most politicians do. Zelensky does have close ties with Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who, yeah, is probably a mobster.  And it's not like Z has a strong resume of fighting crime.  He was a TV star on Kolomoyski's TV station playing the President.  Like Trump, his resume consisted of pretending to be someone important. 

But, the consensus view of the intelligence community and the State department was that Z was someone that was a move in the right direction for fighting corruption.  And Lev/Igor had approached Kolomoyski seeking assistance in digging up dirt on Biden.  Kolomoyski, unlike Firtash, told them to fuck off.  So it's not like the anti-Biden coalition of morons was particularly concerned about Kolomoyski's checkered past. 

It might be a reasonable defense of Trump's actions if Trump had done anything, literally anything, to indicate he was worried about corruption and Zelensky.  There were no inquiries to State or the CIA.  He didn't announce concerns to Congressional committees.  It wasn't mentioned to the OBM, so it wasn't noted in the Congressional notifications on the delay of funds.  He didn't even mention the concern to Z on either of the phone calls, except outside of the very specific concerns about Burisma and Crowdstrike, which there are no indications Z had connections to. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

Has anyone raised the fact that Turly’s argument against impeachment is only there because the WH is obstructing anyone with 1st hand knowledge  from testifying?

  • Like 2
Posted

"Process is essential to the institution."

So, for instance, the process of considering a duly nominated judge for SCOTUS?  The process of issuing Congressional subpoenas and having them honored?  Those kind of processes?

Fuck off, Rep Roby.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Dnaguy said:

Has anyone raised the fact that Turly’s argument against impeachment is only there because the WH is obstructing anyone with 1st hand knowledge  from testifying?

No and I don't know why the fuck not.

Posted
2 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

how can Turley say with a straight face that there haven't been witnesses with direct knowledge of Trump's improper demands of Ukraine???

Or fail to take a negative inference regarding those who refused to testify?

Posted
1 minute ago, Dnaguy said:

Has anyone raised the fact that Turly’s argument against impeachment is only there because the WH is obstructing anyone with 1st hand knowledge  from testifying?

This is why I am wondering why someone isn't trying to hammer him?  I realize the old saw about not asking a question on cross if you don't know the answer, but you have three other lawyers there who will be able to counter whatever he says if you have to go there.

Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

No and I don't know why the fuck not.

Why don’t the dem’s engage the repub witness. 

You have to go straight at him. That’s the only way. Destroy him. 

Posted
1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Or fail to take a negative inference regarding those who refused to testify?

Or challenge him on evidence...as in there were people with direct knowledge of what happened who testified

Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

This is actually smart on their part. You usually have to give people visuals to persuade them but often technology comes off as too slick. 

It helps when you’re not corrupt assholes though like the republicans. 

This is true for a jury.  Not sure any of it holds true for this venue.

Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh snap, Karlan puts it right back on the Republican committee members.

What did she say this time?

i liked this one- "The Constitution doesn’t allow titles of nobility," she said. "The president can name his son Barron, but he can’t make him a baron."

 

 

Posted

haha, gaetz propensity to self-own...jesus.

i know his audience is one massive orange hobgoblin, but he looks like a complete asshole to the rest of us. 

but that russian nra money though

Posted (edited)

Karlan is gonna beat the shit out of Gaetz behind the dumpster.

EDIT:  that said, the rest of the Dems need to direct questioning to diffuse this bullshit and slay Turley while they're at it.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
Just now, GRHorn said:

Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?

I'm homeless and on the dole.  You?

  • Like 6
Posted
Just now, GRHorn said:

Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?

i do math type things, and stream the hearings on one of my three monitors.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

Side bar- What jobs do y’all have that allow you to watch and comment on these hearings so thoroughly?

I don't work and live off the government.

Edited by Biff Tannen
Jimmyjazz is in good company
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...