Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’s got to make Stefanik nervous, and may even make the GOP spend money there it doesn’t necessarily have.  Stefanik hasn’t exactly made herself look good.   

One thing I’ve learned over the years is the thought of a political party running out of money for a campaign (that they deem important) is complete bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

The faster-track case being decided in the courts right now re the Don McGahn (former WH counsel) claim of "absolute immunity" will have a cascade effect on all the other potential House witnesses refusing.  If the courts rule against he hokey absolute immunity claim, McGahn will be compelled to testify.  I suppose daily fines or jail time could follow.  So in other words, it's not necessarily going to be a war of attrition with every witness.  Once McGahn's case is resolved, the rest should follow in short order.

It would seem unlikely that a highly-paid private (now) attorney like McGahn is going to risk his law license over trump. McGahn is only 51 so his top earning potential is in front of him.   If a court tells him he has to testify, I would expect him to fully testify.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when MoscowMitch was talking about the Senate hearing the impeachment case by Thanksgiving ?? 

Spoiler

 

My, that was wishful thinking, wasn't it  Mitch?? No, this is going into election season 2020.  Pelosi has already proclaimed that before impeaching Trump, the case would have to be "ironclad".  I expect that means they will wait for the courts to rule on key witnesses being c ompelled to testify in the multiple cases of Mueller reTrump obstruction of justice, the Ukraine bribery scheme, an possibly those associated with Trump financial fraud.  On that last note, the other pending matters that could make impeachment ironclad are the final rulings on Mazars turning over his tax returns and the banks (Deutsche bank in particular) turning over their Trump financial records.  

Keep in mind we've only had two days of public witness testimony in the impeachment inquiry so far.  Shit went south for dotard fast at the inception in the last few days.  It's only just getting started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a risk that people will eventually tune it out.  

But, there are so many things happening in parallel which could affect the impeachment greatly, including the case against Lev and Igor.  

I wonder if she just wants to send a signal to potential, reluctant witnesses that they are not waiting this shit out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

in terms of officials refusing to testify, the democrats are going to have to take them to court to compel them. While I agree a president and his staff should have limited exec priv, it can’t be a higher power than congress impeaching a president.

if exec priv creates that power, the a president could do anything as long as he only speaks with his loyal staff. If not just with one loyal person.

can a question about exec privilege and impeachment go directly to the SCOTUS for a quick response? Or is losing that battle too much of a risk for the Dems?

 

Trump clearly never saw GoodFellas or if he did, didn’t pay attention to how Paulie only gave orders to one person and never on the phone.

And he still had ended up in jail after getting ratted out by Henry Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Trump clearly never saw GoodFellas or if he did, didn’t pay attention to how Paulie only gave orders to one person and never on the phone.

And he still had ended up in jail after getting ratted out by Henry Hill.

Henry Hill wound up selling his "art" before he died.   Basically, I bought a piece that shows a pizza and a rat and a gun, with the quote " As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster..."  Was not expensive.  Or good.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

There is a risk that people will eventually tune it out.  

But, there are so many things happening in parallel which could affect the impeachment greatly, including the case against Lev and Igor.  

I wonder if she just wants to send a signal to potential, reluctant witnesses that they are not waiting this shit out. 

Fiona testifying on, what is it, Thursday? has a lot of potential to hold people's attention. While she was not in office during the phone call (was on vacation) her 446 pages of testimony include a lot of Bolton, Sondland, Giuliani and his two friends. Gym Jordan was present and asked questions as did Zeldin, so they can't claim they didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

One thing I’ve learned over the years is the thought of a political party running out of money for a campaign (that they deem important) is complete bullshit.

No, they won’t run out.   It’s more about if they have to dump additional money into her campaign, that is money that won’t be available elsewhere.    Will it cost a seat somewhere else?  Normally, probably not.   But if there are half-a-dozen, a dozen, maybe more House seats that need additional money defending them, it becomes a serious problem.

The problem for the Republicans in the House is that next year is 2020.  GOP ain’t getting the House back next year, and their priority is to retain the Senate and the White House.

More importantly, the US Census wraps up in December of 2020, which means state legislatures start redrawing lines in 2021.

Next year will see money poured into state legislature races the likes of which we have never seen before. The GOP will pull out all of the stops, because if they lose more state legislatures/governorships, then it won’t make a shit how much they pour into a lot of Republican House races.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this is over the Democrats will be making a substantiated point that Trump was acting in Putin's best interests by withholding the defense aid from Ukraine, blaming Ukraine for the 2016 election interference and suggesting that Maybe Russia should just keep Crimea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Henry Hill wound up selling his "art" before he died.   Basically, I bought a piece that shows a pizza and a rat and a gun, with the quote " As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster..."  Was not expensive.  Or good.

 

One rat goes one way, the gun goes the other way, and the pizza's sayin', "Whadda ya want from me?'

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Name your price

I'm such a big fan of the movie, I can't let go of it.   I'm sure there are other "pieces" around.  He even had some kind of half-assed certificate of authenticity that went with  it.   Hell, he might have had his buddies paint and sell them after he died.  I mean, it's fuckin' Henry Hill.    He'd rest easy knowing he took some marks after he died.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Henry Hill wound up selling his "art" before he died.   Basically, I bought a piece that shows a pizza and a rat and a gun, with the quote " As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster..."  Was not expensive.  Or good.

 

 

I'm going to need to see a picture of this masterpiece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I'm such a big fan of the movie, I can't let go of it.   I'm sure there are other "pieces" around.  He even had some kind of half-assed certificate of authenticity that went with  it.   Hell, he might have had his buddies paint and sell them after he died.  I mean, it's fuckin' Henry Hill.    He'd rest easy knowing he took some marks after he died.     

Yeah that's badass. I don't care if it looks as shitty as my chick's "wine and paint" sunset painting hanging in my hallway, it's a sweet talking point. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah that's badass. I don't care if it looks as shitty as my chick's "wine and paint" sunset painting hanging in my hallway, it's a sweet talking point. 

Yup.   This.    Chicks don't dig it at all.  Guys usually love it.   But it balances out the palette of the poker playing dogs tapestry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Name your price

There’s some stuff out there if you don’t mind parting with a few hundred bucks.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HENRY-HILL-GOODFELLAS-PAINTING-GANGSTER-RAT-Mobster-Art-Gangster-Ray-Liotta/123801589564?hash=item1cd326573c:g:WZYAAOSwVClc-t1N

Edited by conVINCEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I'm such a big fan of the movie, I can't let go of it.   I'm sure there are other "pieces" around.  He even had some kind of half-assed certificate of authenticity that went with  it.   Hell, he might have had his buddies paint and sell them after he died.  I mean, it's fuckin' Henry Hill.    He'd rest easy knowing he took some marks after he died.     

Did you hear any of Henry Hill’s calls in to the Stern show?  Late in his life and deep in to his alcoholism Henry would call in and basically beg the mafia to come kill him. Terribly sad yet compelling radio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sachick said:

40d7b4d4cdda527fce51b5c013ab4505.jpg

And guy not yet on there testified yesterday behind closed doors:

”Mark Sandy, a career official at the White House Office of Management and Budget, delivered a potentially damning closed-door testimony on Saturday about the timeline and events surrounding the decision to freeze aid. 

[...]
“All I expect him to say is he doesn’t know why the aid was held and wished that he did,” Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican and close ally to the president, told the Associated Press, adding: “But I may be surprised.”

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tuco said:


Yep. That’s the one where there will be a change in direction. He could plead the fifth, refute other witnesses, or change his testimony. (Or try a “I don’t recall” approach.)

Chance of occurrence: 

Change his testimony to layer in a shitload of “I don’t recall” - 80%

Plead the 5th - 18%

Refute other witnesses - 2%*

*- technically, he really can’t refute what Taylor, Kent, and Yovanovitch testified, as they were not on the calls or in the rooms.  He can say they did not understand because of this, but that would be a tightrope to walk with all the other witness testimony.  He could refute Holmes’ testimony, but he would most likely perjure himself if he is not extremely careful with his words.

Edited by SizzleChest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Sondland on Wednesday. 

 

28 minutes ago, Tuco said:


Yep. That’s the one where there will be a change in direction. He could plead the fifth, refute other witnesses, or change his testimony. (Or try a “I don’t recall” approach.)

He can "forget," but Dr. Hill goes on Thursday and while not on the call, she could provide some back story. She was the one Bolton sent down the hall to see what scheme they were cooking up, etc. I am going to be shocked, shocked and awed if Jim Jordan doesn't play up the theme that her counterpart when she was a national intelligence officer was Christopher Steele. He (Jordan) quizzed her about it during a large part of his time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SizzleChest said:

Chance of occurrence: 

Change his testimony to layer in a shitload of “I don’t recall” - 80%

Plead the 5th - 18%

Refute other witnesses - 2%*

*- technically, he really can’t refute what Taylor, Kent, and Yovanovitch testified, as they were not on the calls or in the rooms.  He can say they did not understand because of this, but that would be a tightrope to walk with all the other witness testimony.  He could refute Holmes’ testimony, but he would most likely perjure himself if he is not extremely careful with his words.

I'd put the selective amnesia percentage considerably lower.  It'd be one thing if it was three years ago.  This was 3 months ago, and it was something he had appeared to have a strong opinion on.  I'm betting his lawyers are telling him it won't stand up in a perjury trial. And I don't think he is acting like someone who is willing to do prison time to cover Trump.   I think it's 50% he doesn't testify (either takes the fifth, jumps on the executive privilege bandwagon painfully late, or there is a delay while he works through a deal.) If he does testify, I think it's 50/50 on whether he says Trump explicitly told him to push the investigation-for-military support, and whether he just pretends he wasn't told explicitly to push the quid pro quo, but had misinterpreted the President's intent.  This latter approach would be roughly consistent with his past testimony, but would continue to put Sondland at risk should their be direct evidence to the contrary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd put the selective amnesia percentage considerably lower.  It'd be one thing if it was three years ago.  This was 3 months ago, and it was something he had appeared to have a strong opinion on. 

That's a good point plus the folks testifying both before and after him, seem to have no difficulty recalling the events in question. I've definitely had some days where I draw a blank ("but Mom, don't you remember you said I could go?"), but if given a moment, I can usually recall enough to give a general account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2019 at 10:05 AM, Brisketexan said:


“I had no idea that working for Don Vito Corleone’s Totally Legitimate Waste Management Business, and Definitely not a Criminal Enterprise, was a bad idea.”

*olive oil importer

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...