Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6801  
Old 01-10-2020, 01:38 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
That left wing rag Wall St Journal says Trump killed the guy to help out with votes on impeachment
Dog-wagging, like weenie-wagging and tongue-wagging, are too obvious to ignore.
  #6802  
Old 01-10-2020, 02:01 PM
Crane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,145
I agree with #6800 - Next Tuesday is a date for another date.
  #6803  
Old 01-10-2020, 03:00 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,216
30 minute trial? That's longer than I thought moscow mitch was planning.
  #6804  
Old 01-10-2020, 03:01 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,348
Quote:
Senate Susan Collins (R-ME) said Friday that she is coordinating with a “fairly small group” of Republicans, including senators and party leaders, on an agreement on impeachment trial rules that will allow witnesses to be called, according to the Bangor Daily News....
Uh-huh. Sure. Hugh Betcha. Sue folds while the cards are being shuffled.
  #6805  
Old 01-10-2020, 03:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post

My guess, today, is that McConnell is going to through with the "duck and cover" option, dismiss the whole thing and pretend its normal.
Really, the Republican party as a whole should just go all the way. Organize their own paramilitary organization, and have the Democrat party deemed illegal. Round up all of their political enemies and imprison them.
  #6806  
Old 01-10-2020, 03:32 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,348
"Your papers are in order, citizen. Why are your papers in order?"
  #6807  
Old 01-10-2020, 03:53 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Uh-huh. Sure. Hugh Betcha. Sue folds while the cards are being shuffled.
She could just grab her friends Murkowski, Paul, and Lee, join the Democratic caucus, and BOOM! Everything that's needed to ensure a fair trial.

But that would require actually DOING something, rather than implying she not be a craven liar. THIS TIME, she might just actually follow through. I'm not holding my breath.
  #6808  
Old 01-10-2020, 05:04 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"Your papers are in order, citizen. Why are your papers in order?"
"I have never seen such clever forgeries."
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #6809  
Old 01-10-2020, 08:23 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 109
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...stimony-097349

"President Donald Trump on Friday said he planned to invoke executive privilege in the event former national security adviser John Bolton was subpoenaed by lawmakers for the Senate impeachment trial."

So can Trump actually prevent Bolton from testifying if it comes to that? More than a dozen people testified despite Trump's claim of divine immunity, or whatever he calls it. Some claimed they were torn between obeying Congress, or obeying the president, so it seems the person has a choice. Bolton himself said that absent a ruling he decided for himself that he should testify.

Can Trump do anything to stop him? Again, if it even comes to that...

Last edited by MulderMuffin; 01-10-2020 at 08:25 PM.
  #6810  
Old 01-10-2020, 09:50 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
No, he can't, if the witness decides to just testify. It's not like the Executive Privilege Police will swoop in. All it would do is give Bolton or whoever an out.

Last edited by squeegee; 01-10-2020 at 09:50 PM.
  #6811  
Old 01-10-2020, 11:10 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
No, he can't, if the witness decides to just testify. It's not like the Executive Privilege Police will swoop in. All it would do is give Bolton or whoever an out.
And John Bolton knows that.

So he says that he'll testify and then he'll back down over a totally unexpected challenge on grounds of executive privilege

Like I said, Bolton is only going to talk if Trump chickens out and doesn't put extreme pressure on Iran.
  #6812  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:10 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,092
An interesting (at least to me) question: If you are a Republican House member who voted against impeachment, should you vote against transmitting the articles?

On one hand, if you don't believe that Trump should be removed, it seems to make sense to take any lawful action to keep the possibility from happening. On the other, you would like to see the process finally dismissed.

Could there be a coalition of Republicans and Democrats that would gain a majority of votes not to transmit, Nancy's agreement notwithstanding?
  #6813  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:15 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
It's ok if you're not paying attention - it's referring to McConnell and Graham blatantly stating that they are not going to even consider the evidence; they will vote "not guilty", 100%, no questions asked, no fucks given. In your incredibly extensive experience, have you EVER had a prosecutor allow a jurist that openly stated "The defendant is not guilty, no matter what" during selection?



Brilliant lawyer-speak, parsed JUST RIGHT to cover-up that the impeachment managers WERE allowed to depose several witnesses during the trial and present those videotaped depositions to the Senate.

I'm perfectly fine with that. Can we start with Bolton?

1) I've never heard anyone say that they would never, never, ever vote to convict Trump. The only thing that they have said is that they would not vote to convict based upon this evidence. And, once again, this is not like a criminal trial and senators are not jurors.

2) The rules haven't been set on witnesses in this trial. I'm sure that the House Managers can present the televised testimony of all of the witnesses they called in front of them. If 51 senators want to let them call Bolton, they can call Bolton. If 51 senators think that they should have done that already, took the House at its word that the impeachable conduct is already clear without hearing from Bolton, and are not going to allow for a fishing expedition in the Senate, they can do that.
  #6814  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:16 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
An interesting (at least to me) question: If you are a Republican House member who voted against impeachment, should you vote against transmitting the articles?

On one hand, if you don't believe that Trump should be removed, it seems to make sense to take any lawful action to keep the possibility from happening. On the other, you would like to see the process finally dismissed.

Could there be a coalition of Republicans and Democrats that would gain a majority of votes not to transmit, Nancy's agreement notwithstanding?
Is Pelosi asking anyone's permission to transmit or not transmit? I hadn't heard that it was something to be voted on. Did I miss something?
__________________
=========================================
  #6815  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:51 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) I've never heard anyone say that they would never, never, ever vote to convict Trump. The only thing that they have said is that they would not vote to convict based upon this evidence. And, once again, this is not like a criminal trial and senators are not jurors.
Then fucking pay attention:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leningrad Lindsey
I think what's best for the country is to get this thing over with. I have clearly made up my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moscow Mitch
There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closeted Graham Again
I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.
I hope you've been educated.

Quote:
2) The rules haven't been set on witnesses in this trial. I'm sure that the House Managers can present the televised testimony of all of the witnesses they called in front of them. If 51 senators want to let them call Bolton, they can call Bolton. If 51 senators think that they should have done that already, took the House at its word that the impeachable conduct is already clear without hearing from Bolton, and are not going to allow for a fishing expedition in the Senate, they can do that.
I don't give a fuck about the rules as they stand now. I'm asking YOUR opinion.

Last edited by Chisquirrel; 01-11-2020 at 12:54 AM. Reason: Removed some nuts
  #6816  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:53 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Could there be a coalition of Republicans and Democrats that would gain a majority of votes not to transmit, Nancy's agreement notwithstanding?
This is as likely as a coalition of Republicans and Democrats that could gain a majority to force McConnell to not be a sycophantic slug.
  #6817  
Old 01-11-2020, 08:22 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,624
The reality is that, this time, the political wizard in the House, Pelosi, has been out-played by the political wizard in the Senate, Moscow Mitch. It's time to transmit the articles and be done with it, and Pelosi knows it.

Last edited by asahi; 01-11-2020 at 08:23 AM.
  #6818  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:12 AM
Crane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,145
Or table them. Why not just wait until the Senate is able to conduct a fair trial. Of course that's bullshit but the world runs on bullshit.
  #6819  
Old 01-11-2020, 11:38 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"Your papers are in order, citizen. Why are your papers in order?"
You know this is how Himmler was caught, right?
  #6820  
Old 01-11-2020, 12:57 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
You know this is how Himmler was caught, right?
I never knew that. Fascinating story.
  #6821  
Old 01-11-2020, 06:27 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
You know this is how Himmler was caught, right?
Wow! The irony is superb. His papers were TOO good! (IIRC US agents in USSR had similar problems with counterfeit papers sturdier than actual Soviet pulp.) Then a body search revealed small balls or something similar, verifying his identity.

Back to subject. Speaker Pelosi's hinting at presenting the Articles of Impeachment next week suggests she's been handed explosive evidence against Tramp, whose wag-the-dog Iran ploy suggests he's VERY afraid of such exposure. What can blow up before then?
  #6822  
Old 01-11-2020, 07:09 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,348
Maybe she's just letting it all marinate. Let a couple, three polls get done, see how America is rallying around the War President.

Which we always do. Until lately.

If she really has The Shit, McConnell's only play is the pre-emptive dismissal. An outright refusal to even pretend to impartial consideration and evidence. So Republican Senators have to think about selling that to the folks back home.

Remember: if they exonerate him now, whatever comes out later is on them. So, yeah, they are thinking about that, and she's fine with giving them time to think some more.
  #6823  
Old 01-13-2020, 07:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,466
https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...esses-reports/

Report that McConnell doesn't have the votes to dismiss or block witnesses. If true, Nancy wins again, and timed this perfectly.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #6824  
Old 01-13-2020, 08:09 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

Report that McConnell doesn't have the votes to dismiss or block witnesses. If true, Nancy wins again, and timed this perfectly.
As she's highest ranking Italian-American EVER in office, I bow down to her playing this since the fall. Her timing has been good and while she doesn't have the best hand, she's playing the right cards at the right times so as not to lose everything foolishly. But I have to say I am disappointed in my fellow Italian-Americans for not acknowledging her badassery. We (collective we, not me personally) lose our shit over the idea of maybe not having Columbus Day be a thing but ignore one of our own rising so high and doing such an effective job, whether or not you agree with her. I hated Alito, but I had to tip my hat in his direction.
  #6825  
Old 01-13-2020, 10:57 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,242
You're right -- we should judge decisions and actions based on the ethnicity of the people concerned.
  #6826  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:30 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 10,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
You're right -- we should judge decisions and actions based on the ethnicity of the people concerned.
Well, of course those Scandinavian-heritaged-Americans don't want to go to war... I mean, lutefisk, am I right?
  #6827  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:39 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,774
I have a question.
The House Democrats are the prosecutors. Does the defense/impeached one have defense attorneys who interrogate the witnesses called by the prosecution? Do they then have the right to call their own witnesses?
  #6828  
Old 01-13-2020, 11:46 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
I have a question.
The House Democrats are the prosecutors. Does the defense/impeached one have defense attorneys who interrogate the witnesses called by the prosecution? Do they then have the right to call their own witnesses?
At this point nobody can call witnesses. The entire subject of witnesses, for either side, is up to the Senate, and they've decided (via Majority Leader McConnell) not to decide until later.
  #6829  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:20 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
I have a question.
The House Democrats are the prosecutors. Does the defense/impeached one have defense attorneys who interrogate the witnesses called by the prosecution? Do they then have the right to call their own witnesses?
The procedures in the trial are completely and unreviewably up to 51 senators. Call anyone you want? If 51 senators vote to do so, then that is the thing. No witnesses for anyone? Up to 51 senators.

The unresolved question is whether Roberts can cast a tie breaking vote. I think almost assuredly he must. Although the Constitution doesn't specify this power (as it does with the VP) it will be necessary.

Say that the House Managers ask that a subpoena be issued for John Bolton to testify. Roberts can do one of three things:

1) He can order the subpoena be issued
2) He can deny the request for a subpoena or
3) He can put the question to the Senate.

If he does #1 or #2, then the question can be appealed to the Senate where 51 votes would be required to overrule him. If he does #3 and it is a 50-50 tie, then something has to happen. Either Bolton is called or he is not, and then only possible person to make that decision has to be Roberts.

So I think in all three circumstances you have what is, in effect, a tie breaking vote by Roberts.
  #6830  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:34 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,797
Missouri senator Roy Blunt says that the votes just "aren't there" for the Senate to just dismiss the charges outright.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #6831  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:32 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Missouri senator Roy Blunt says that the votes just "aren't there" for the Senate to just dismiss the charges outright.
Well that's a relief....just slightly better than "the votes aren't there to declare January 15th 'Hooray For President Trump Day'."
  #6832  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:17 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 17,094
Be prepared to fight a dangerous new wave of disinformation during the Senate trial
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-senate-trial/
Quote:
...The first [tactic] is to deny facts. For instance, Putin initially denied that Russian soldiers had seized control of Crimea in February 2014, denies Russian involvement in the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, and denies any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A second tactic is to deflect attention from the facts, also known as “whataboutism.” When criticized about Crimean annexing Crimea, Putin’s media shoot back, what about Kosovo? Or New Mexico? When criticized about civilian casualties from Russian military intervention in Syria, Kremlin defenders retort, what about Iraq, Vietnam or Hiroshima? When confronted with evidence of Russian meddling in U.S. elections, the Russian standard refrain is, you do it all the time.

A third practice is the dissemination of lies. Russian state media once asserted that President Barack Obama and former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi embraced the same ideology. I may be more sensitive than most about this tactic, because when I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Kremlin media outlets accused me of fomenting revolution against Putin’s regime; perhaps most disgustingly of all, a video was circulated suggesting I was a pedophile. When Putin met with President Trump in July 2018 in Helsinki, the Russian president again lied about me, claiming I had broken Russian law while working in the White House.

A cumulative effect of all these tactics is nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth.
....
"Nihilistic debasement of the very concept of truth." Yup. That about says it.

A White House that can tweet a picture of "the first snow of the year," when it's 70 degrees, and no snow is falling...well... What happens when DJT issues an Executive Order declaring that the Earth is flat?
  #6833  
Old 01-14-2020, 12:21 PM
Defensive Indifference is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Missouri senator Roy Blunt says that the votes just "aren't there" for the Senate to just dismiss the charges outright.
The only phrase that makes me more ashamed of my home state than "Missouri Senator Roy Blunt" is "Missouri Senator Josh Hawley". We used to be represented by Danforth and Eagleton, for Christ sake.
  #6834  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:01 PM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by digs View Post
Well, of course those Scandinavian-heritaged-Americans don't want to go to war... I mean, lutefisk, am I right?
indeed. sadly lutefisk is considered a dangerous bio weapon and stupid geneva convention.

on the other hand, the viennese pastries infiltration has been quite the success!
  #6835  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:59 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The procedures in the trial are completely and unreviewably up to 51 senators. Call anyone you want? If 51 senators vote to do so, then that is the thing. No witnesses for anyone? Up to 51 senators.
You didn't answer me before, what about filibusters?

~Max
  #6836  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:52 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If he does #3 and it is a 50-50 tie, then something has to happen. Either Bolton is called or he is not, and then only possible person to make that decision has to be Roberts.
Unless the Vice President gets to break the tie. I think that would be a stupid interpretation of art. II sect 3 but I can see some Republicans going for it.

Another stupid interpretation is that the Chief Justice gets a vote, even when the Senate is not "equally divided".

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 01-14-2020 at 03:53 PM. Reason: another stupid interpretation
  #6837  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:17 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,216
Since this is going to be essentially a game show maybe Alex Trebek can be host? Or Drew Carey.
  #6838  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:31 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Since this is going to be essentially a game show maybe Alex Trebek can be host? Or Drew Carey.
I think they should have the Holey Moley people do it.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #6839  
Old 01-14-2020, 04:37 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
art. II sect 3
Should have read: art. I sect 3

~Max
  #6840  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:04 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,113
So... can it be construed that the President of the United States and/or his personal attorney were involved on arranging a hit on a sitting ambassador?

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/s...705179648?s=19

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...048027136?s=19
  #6841  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:08 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,113
Mike Flynn withdraws plea agreement.

https://twitter.com/File411/status/1...987543040?s=19

Last edited by JohnT; 01-14-2020 at 09:09 PM.
  #6842  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:13 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
So... can it be construed that the President of the United States and/or his personal attorney were involved on arranging a hit on a sitting ambassador?

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/s...705179648?s=19

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...048027136?s=19
You scared me there, John. I thought by "hit" you meant assassination, what with the U.S. recently going around assassinating people and all. Then I read "Yovanovitch" and assumed you meant "fired". Phew! That's old news.

Then I read your second link.

I reserve the right to judge the intent of those text messages at a later date.

~Max
  #6843  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:27 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,113
I cannot think of any professional frame of reference where such language is used.
  #6844  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:50 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
So... can it be construed that the President of the United States and/or his personal attorney were involved on arranging a hit on a sitting ambassador?

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/s...705179648?s=19

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...048027136?s=19
Can you please unwind whatever this is about? I'm not grasping it from these tweets. Something about Yavanovitch blahblah

Last edited by squeegee; 01-14-2020 at 09:54 PM.
  #6845  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:57 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You didn't answer me before, what about filibusters?

~Max
The Senate rules while sitting as a Court of Impeachment are different that the standing rules. A filibuster would only be allowed if the impeachment rules permit it, and that I am unsure about.
  #6846  
Old 01-14-2020, 09:57 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Mike Flynn withdraws plea agreement.

https://twitter.com/File411/status/1...987543040?s=19
Flynn REQUESTS to withdraw his plea. The judge would have to grant the motion for that to happen. But I bet that won’t happen.

When a judge takes a plea, they ask a series of questions regarding the plea to establish that it meets the legal standard (“knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”). Questions like, “did you have enough time to read the plea paperwork?” “Did anybody make any promises, other than what’s in writing, to get you to accept the plea?” “Are you satisfied with your representation?”

The judge is going to be quite hostile to this request. Unless he can show that there was some factual error in the plea, I doubt he’ll get the request granted.
  #6847  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:03 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Flynn REQUESTS to withdraw his plea. The judge would have to grant the motion for that to happen. But I bet that won’t happen.

When a judge takes a plea, they ask a series of questions regarding the plea to establish that it meets the legal standard (“knowing, intelligent, and voluntary”). Questions like, “did you have enough time to read the plea paperwork?” “Did anybody make any promises, other than what’s in writing, to get you to accept the plea?” “Are you satisfied with your representation?”

The judge is going to be quite hostile to this request. Unless he can show that there was some factual error in the plea, I doubt he’ll get the request granted.
On top of which (as I'm sure you already know), Judge Emmet Sullivan has pretty much had it up to his gullet with Flynn. I wouldn't be surprised if he denied the motion to withdraw the plea, then immediately advanced the sentencing date to "forthwith." I wouldn't blame him a bit.
  #6848  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:03 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,113
No problem.

The House released a tranche of documents from Lev Parnas today:

Trump supporter and Giuliani associate discussed surveilling Yovanovitch

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...tch/index.html

Quote:
Using coarse language, Hyde suggested to Parnas in messages throughout March 2019 that Yovanovitch should be removed from her post, and Hyde implied he or his allies were surveilling her.

"F**k that bitch," Hyde told Parnas on March 22, 2019, in response to a series of articles and tweets Parnas sent him. The following day, Hyde continued: "Wow. Can't believe Trump (sic) hasn't fired this bitch. I'll get right in that."

In a cryptic message, Hyde later wrote to Parnas: "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price." Hyde added: "Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told."
Analysis:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ex-American Ambassador to Qatar, Dana Shell Smith
There was an American plot against the security of a US Ambassador. State must turn over what it has and what steps were taken to protect her AND end the plot. You don’t pull the Ambassador because an American is threatening her. You have the threat arrested.

And I say this as an Ambassador that had threats against her, albeit not from other Americans!
https://twitter.com/AmbDana/status/1...726451200?s=19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natasha Bertrand, Politico/MSNBC
Um holy sh*t. This certainly makes it sound like Parnas and co. were actively tracking Yovanovitch's movements. This could explain why Yovanovitch was moved out of Ukraine so quickly. https://t.co/4rBRB06ZGN
(Embedded link in quote takes you to House files.)

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...754577409?s=19

Last edited by JohnT; 01-14-2020 at 10:08 PM.
  #6849  
Old 01-14-2020, 10:06 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The Senate rules while sitting as a Court of Impeachment are different that the standing rules. A filibuster would only be allowed if the impeachment rules permit it, and that I am unsure about.
The Senate is invoking the Clinton impeachment rules as their guiding star, under the "fair's fair" doctrine. So if nobody could filibuster then (and I'm sure somebody would have tried such a thing and we'd know about it), I feel safe asserting that nobody will be able to do it this time.

That said, there's been no vote on the Senate's rules for this impeachment, so we'll see what clever stuff gets added or not by the majority.
  #6850  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:26 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
The Senate is invoking the Clinton impeachment rules as their guiding star, under the "fair's fair" doctrine. So if nobody could filibuster then (and I'm sure somebody would have tried such a thing and we'd know about it), I feel safe asserting that nobody will be able to do it this time.

That said, there's been no vote on the Senate's rules for this impeachment, so we'll see what clever stuff gets added or not by the majority.
I'm not exactly sure what the Clinton rules were but, suspecting that the Republicans held the majority in the Senate at the time, expectation would be that they allow for the majority to decide most things.

I suspect that there are worse rulesets that could have been adopted but I doubt that it's a wonderfully friendly to the minority.

On the other hand, it's probably quite aggressive towards the executive branch should the majority vote that they want something from the executive branch. You don't need all that many defectors for a majority on the left.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017