Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5901  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:19 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,449
"Whaddaya mean the Ukrainian server is in a cloud? Go get it and bring it here!"
  #5902  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Puns are bad enough, but now you're riffing on cow noises? Low.
Can't prove it.
  #5903  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:32 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,931
I didn't hear Turley's statement, just the news summary recaps: but it sounds like his problem isn't whether or not the offense is impeachable, but whether or not the evidence is convincing that the crime actually occurred.

If so, I'd love to have a congressperson ask him to confirm that. "If a hypothetical president asked a foreign leader to assist in his election in exchange for something...would you consider that an impeachable offense?"
  #5904  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:49 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
I didn't hear Turley's statement, just the news summary recaps: but it sounds like his problem isn't whether or not the offense is impeachable, but whether or not the evidence is convincing that the crime actually occurred.

If so, I'd love to have a congressperson ask him to confirm that. "If a hypothetical president asked a foreign leader to assist in his election in exchange for something...would you consider that an impeachable offense?"
I've been listening off and on and in general his schtick is that he doesn't think that what Trump did is kosher, but he doesn't think it's a crime and he certainly doesn't think it's impeachable. The country is divided, see, and we're all angry, and this is moving way too fast, so we should just drop it and move on.

Under questioning, though, he seems to be willing to agree with whatever ridiculous nonsense the Republicans throw his way, so who knows.
  #5905  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:10 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 62,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Puns are bad enough, but now you're riffing on cow noises? Low.
I see what you did there.
  #5906  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:19 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
The question is moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Puns are bad enough, but now you're riffing on cow noises? Low.
That attempt at humor was a flop for both of you...
  #5907  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:22 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Today's Q&A with the constitutional scholars was a fascinating tutorial on the law of the land. Even the Republican shill had interesting things to say. The pubbies on the committee, of course, used their time to grandstand and sputter "but...but...Bidens!"
I think vast majority of Trump fans are not going to care about professors opinions. Except maybe the one who was not in favor of impeachment.
  #5908  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:33 PM
Running with Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
That attempt at humor was a flop for both of you...
You've milked this situation for all it's worth. Nothing to see here, please moove along...
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel
  #5909  
Old 12-04-2019, 05:55 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 43,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Running with Scissors View Post
You've milked this situation for all it's worth. Nothing to see here, please moove along...
Cud you all just knock it off?
  #5910  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:23 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,239
This bovine hijack is udderly appalling!
  #5911  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:26 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Cud you all just knock it off?
Don't have a cow, man!
  #5912  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:54 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"Whaddaya mean the Ukrainian server is in a cloud? Go get it and bring it here!"
"Get me the Air Force!"
  #5913  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:56 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,530
I got a beef with all you heifers. Steer it back on topic before the mods prod you.
  #5914  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:33 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,129
What kind of bull is this? I really gotta ox the question...
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #5915  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:37 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is online now
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
(Collins) seems to be a bit smarter than Jordan (a low bar), but his dignity and morals are about the same.
He finds it "interesting". He found many things "interesting". I was struck by his limited choice of words and phrasings but assume he must be intelligent to be where he is. So let me ask: do he and Jordan always sound like this - loud, angry, and proudly boorish? Or is it an act for their voters?

ETA: I am basing my observations on his opening statement. I haven't seen (yet) anything he might have said later.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 12-04-2019 at 07:41 PM.
  #5916  
Old 12-04-2019, 07:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Today's Q&A with the constitutional scholars was a fascinating tutorial on the law of the land. Even the Republican shill had interesting things to say. The pubbies on the committee, of course, used their time to grandstand and sputter "but...but...Bidens!"
I'll give Turley his due: he's one of the few Republican defenders who's actually thought out how to develop a cogent defense
  #5917  
Old 12-04-2019, 08:19 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I got a beef with all you heifers. Steer it back on topic before the mods prod you.
Reported for Junior Mooing!
__________________
=========================================
  #5918  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'll give Turley his due: he's one of the few Republican defenders who's actually thought out how to develop a cogent defense
Turley's defense of Trump was 'you Dems cannot impeach because you haven't heard from the witnesses Trump won't allow to testify.'

"Cogent" is not the word I would use.
  #5919  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Turley's defense of Trump was 'you Dems cannot impeach because you haven't heard from the witnesses Trump won't allow to testify.'

"Cogent" is not the word I would use.
Except that the courts haven't ruled on whether they're compelled to testify. I'm not saying I subscribe to Turley's line of reasoning, but it at least dresses itself up like an argument that could be made.
  #5920  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:38 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Except that the courts haven't ruled on whether they're compelled to testify. I'm not saying I subscribe to Turley's line of reasoning, but it at least dresses itself up like an argument that could be made.
They shouldn’t have to rule. Trump himself has said that he would like for them to testify. Of course, he also said that he’d like to release his tax returns, talk to Mueller, and that Mexico would pay for the wall.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #5921  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:39 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
What kind of bull is this? I really gotta ox the question...
It's quite the scandal in Jersey. Someone call Woodward and Holstein.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #5922  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:43 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
If so, I'd love to have a congressperson ask him to confirm that. "If a hypothetical president asked a foreign leader to assist in his election in exchange for something...would you consider that an impeachable offense?"
Why not use a real gotcha? Ask him "If President Obama had asked a foreign leader to provide him with information about a political opponent in an upcoming election, would you have considered that an impeachable offense?"

Because you know if you make the question about Obama, Trump will be dumb enough to say it's impeachable.
  #5923  
Old 12-05-2019, 12:03 AM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Why not use a real gotcha? Ask him "If President Obama had asked a foreign leader to provide him with information about a political opponent in an upcoming election, would you have considered that an impeachable offense?"

Because you know if you make the question about Obama, Trump will be dumb enough to say it's impeachable.
It wouldn’t help. They thought Obama was a foreign leader.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #5924  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:03 AM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Except that the courts haven't ruled on whether they're compelled to testify. I'm not saying I subscribe to Turley's line of reasoning, but it at least dresses itself up like an argument that could be made.
It's my understanding that the courts don't need to rule. The House has the sole power of impeachment. They are holding an impeachment inquiry. Why is Turley saying we have to wait on the courts to decide if these people are required to answer subpoenas from the House in regards to an impeachment inquiry? I just don't see the need for anyone to ratify their power. It is. It exists. There's not a question. They can debate whether or not they should answer specific questions, but they have to show up. That's just a plain fact. No court ruling needed.

I agree that Turley at least spoke rationally. More than I can say for the folks on the Right.

For example, did you know that in most of the states that elected the democratic Representatives, they also voted for Clinton in 2016? That dramatic point was made, with charts!, to prove that Democratic House members on the committee were elected by people who *gasp* didn't vote for Trump at all! It's like it's a conspiracy he uncovered!
  #5925  
Old 12-05-2019, 03:03 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,621
Kudos to Pamela Karlan for owning up to her remark about Barron. I've heard more awful things said in public discourse, but I'll still give a nod Pam's way.
And, she concluded, it would be nice for Trump to apologize for some of the things he's done that's wrong.
Karlan added that she'd also like a well-endowed, sabre-toothed unicorn with flame-throwing MagnaFlow Exhaust System, four-foot-high spoiler and six-pack abs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Boy I thought Jordan was a Donald Dick Sucker, but this guy Collins has him beat.
Those two - along with Devin Psycho Eyes Nunez - would make a more appropriate three-headed hydra in that drawing that made the rounds a couple weeks back, with the heads of Schumer, Pelosi and (I think) Ginsberg replacing those of some fantasy film characters from a film I can't remmeber, and can't find right now on the internet.


So on to Monday, and getting this goofy IG shit out of the way with.
  #5926  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:35 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,931
Dumb move by Karlan, for the sake of a bad pun, to invoke pearl-clutching faux outrage over the privacy of a minor. By Gad she even caused the First Lady to sit up and take notice.
  #5927  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:39 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,051
Some day there'll be a Catholic school named for Melania: Our Lady Of Perpetual Victimhood. Give me a fucking break- she said Donald could name is son Barron but could not make him a Baron. How will Barron ever recover? Boo fucking hoo.
  #5928  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,817
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/p...es-impeachment

Pelosi directs House Judiciary committee to draft articles of impeachment
  #5929  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:55 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Kudos to Pamela Karlan for owning up to her remark about Barron. I've heard more awful things said in public discourse, but I'll still give a nod Pam's way.
What was there for her to own to though? She didn't insult the kid, merely mentioned that he exists and confirmed the fact that he can't be given a title like he would be given in a monarchy.

Melania's outrage is disproportionate. Barron will be politicized whether she likes it or not and she's got Rush Limbaugh to thank for that. But thank you Melania, for telegraphing yet another one of your family's weaknesses. All this impeachment stuff is a risky gamble but frothing Trump into a heart attack would solve everything.

Apropos of nothing, Barron is 13 now? Wow, he sure is growing up fast. I hope he didn't get his definition of consent from his father.
  #5930  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:44 AM
crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
That attempt at humor was a flop for both of you...
udderly charming
  #5931  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:46 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
What was there for her to own to though? She didn't insult the kid, merely mentioned that he exists and confirmed the fact that he can't be given a title like he would be given in a monarchy.

Melania's outrage is disproportionate.
Hell, I doubt Melania actually even wrote the tweet. It just reeks of political victimhood- nobody can look at what Karlan said and see it as a threat, and Trump "politicized" Barron when he took office.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #5932  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:56 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'll give Turley his due: he's one of the few Republican defenders who's actually thought out how to develop a cogent defense
Quote:
"When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct."

Jonathan Turley, 1998, before his prefrontal cortex was wiped and reloaded
From here.
  #5933  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:02 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Some day there'll be a Catholic school named for Melania: Our Lady Of Perpetual Victimhood. Give me a fucking break- she said Donald could name is son Barron but could not make him a Baron. How will Barron ever recover? Boo fucking hoo.
This.

Josh Marshall:
Quote:
Perhaps better left unsaid but not remotely hostile or disrespectful. Be honest, Trumpism is a victim and grievance cult
  #5934  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:01 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
Apropos of nothing, Barron is 13 now? Wow, he sure is growing up fast. I hope he didn't get his definition of consent from his father.
Are bone spurs hereditary?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #5935  
Old 12-05-2019, 01:49 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
If trump had asked the Ukrainians to divert a couple mill of that military aid into a certain numbered Swiss bank account, that would be undeniably impeachable conduct. This is worse because A.) Staying in the presidency does mean the continued ability to enrich himself at the public trough and may even be his only means of maintaining his liberty. B.) Undermining the free election process is a greater offense against the nation than simply lining one's own pockets.
Solid post.
  #5936  
Old 12-05-2019, 03:20 PM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
Clinton operatives obviously picked Nunes pocket called Parnas, and then carefully replaced the phone to his pocket before he noticed it was gone, on each of those 4 separate occasions. Jeez, connect that dots sheeple!
wouldn't you know that some on fox news did claim that other people were using nunes phone during the "alleged" calls. apparently some are claiming that rudi used nunes phone to call parnes.

yep, things are going far down the naked mole rat hole.
  #5937  
Old 12-05-2019, 03:34 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
I sometimes wonder if Trump actually knows or accepts that he did anything wrong in regards to Ukraine.

Like a spoiled and enabled child is constantly assured by his parents that anything bad is not his fault, that everyone else is just jealous or mean, or the system is rigged, or that the teacher obviously hates him, Trump is constantly assured by his lackeys that he's omnipotent, bulletproof, and in the right and that the Democrats are jealous and mean, the system is rigged against him, and the press obviously hates him.

The original coverup came from White House lawyers locking down the transcript and the Justice Department burying the whistleblower complaint, as far as I understand it, not from the President trying to cover up what he did. He even released the transcript against all advice and said, "Ah ha! See? Nothing here!" as if he really believed it. The continuing obstruction boils down to Trump saying the democrats are mean and unfair and he doesn't have to play with them, with all of his (deeply implicated) advisors telling him that he's absolutely right. The press doesn't agree, but they obviously hate him and don't matter. His rallies are filled with cheering fans, they matter. Would the other Republicans be supporting him if he was wrong? Obviously not, he thinks! Therefore he's right!

The way he keeps harping on "read the transcript!" and seems genuinely unable to comprehend how anyone who does could still see anything wrong leads me to think he believes his own press. He was outraged that any Republicans could even go so far as to say it was bad, but not impeachable. I think he actually feels that since he didn't overtly say that there was a quid pro quo, that there wasn't. There was just diplomacy and deal-making.

He's still wrong, and guilty, and an idiot, but I'm starting to believe he's deluded enough to honestly not see it. That doesn't exonerate him, and certainly doesn't explain why the nominally rational adults in the room continue to enable this spoiled child.
  #5938  
Old 12-05-2019, 03:39 PM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I sometimes wonder if Trump actually knows or accepts that he did anything wrong in regards to Ukraine.

Like a spoiled and enabled child is constantly assured by his parents that anything bad is not his fault, that everyone else is just jealous or mean, or the system is rigged, or that the teacher obviously hates him, Trump is constantly assured by his lackeys that he's omnipotent, bulletproof, and in the right and that the Democrats are jealous and mean, the system is rigged against him, and the press obviously hates him.

The original coverup came from White House lawyers locking down the transcript and the Justice Department burying the whistleblower complaint, as far as I understand it, not from the President trying to cover up what he did. He even released the transcript against all advice and said, "Ah ha! See? Nothing here!" as if he really believed it. The continuing obstruction boils down to Trump saying the democrats are mean and unfair and he doesn't have to play with them, with all of his (deeply implicated) advisors telling him that he's absolutely right. The press doesn't agree, but they obviously hate him and don't matter. His rallies are filled with cheering fans, they matter. Would the other Republicans be supporting him if he was wrong? Obviously not, he thinks! Therefore he's right!

The way he keeps harping on "read the transcript!" and seems genuinely unable to comprehend how anyone who does could still see anything wrong leads me to think he believes his own press. He was outraged that any Republicans could even go so far as to say it was bad, but not impeachable. I think he actually feels that since he didn't overtly say that there was a quid pro quo, that there wasn't. There was just diplomacy and deal-making.

He's still wrong, and guilty, and an idiot, but I'm starting to believe he's deluded enough to honestly not see it. That doesn't exonerate him, and certainly doesn't explain why the nominally rational adults in the room continue to enable this spoiled child.
He is so used to throwing his 'weight' around like that in his business dealings - and never getting called on it - that he probably does not see it for what it is. Seperately - he is only concerned with his own 'wins' - that he cannot seperate what 'he' wants with what the country needs.
  #5939  
Old 12-05-2019, 06:58 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/p...es-impeachment

Pelosi directs House Judiciary committee to draft articles of impeachment
So the hearings are over?
  #5940  
Old 12-05-2019, 07:10 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So the hearings are over?
The inquiry is over.

Now they'll put forth articles of impeachment and begin debate over whether to vote for them. There may possibly be new interviews during this phase, or they may rely on the depositions already in evidence.

If impeachment articles are voted for, there may also be additional hearings in the Senate.

I think we'll still be hearing from some people who haven't yet been interviewed.
  #5941  
Old 12-05-2019, 08:11 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I sometimes wonder if Trump actually knows or accepts that he did anything wrong in regards to Ukraine.

Like a spoiled and enabled child is constantly assured by his parents that anything bad is not his fault, that everyone else is just jealous or mean, or the system is rigged, or that the teacher obviously hates him, Trump is constantly assured by his lackeys that he's omnipotent, bulletproof, and in the right and that the Democrats are jealous and mean, the system is rigged against him, and the press obviously hates him.

...

He's still wrong, and guilty, and an idiot, but I'm starting to believe he's deluded enough to honestly not see it. That doesn't exonerate him, and certainly doesn't explain why the nominally rational adults in the room continue to enable this spoiled child.
I think about this a lot. Not in regards to Ukraine specifically, but his crap in general all along. He's gotten away with EVERYTHING his entire life. How has he not faced any criminal charges or lost business licenses? He lies, he threatens, he pays his way out of things. To be held accountable after 7+ decades must actually, from his shriveled little brain's perspective, be stunning and hard to comprehend. It probably DOES feel like a witch hunt or he's being persecuted. Why should he get in trouble now for what he's done all along? Why aren't the things he normally does allowed now of all times?

He's not smart enough to realize that this time he has 300 million bosses and that he is more visible. Keeping his head down and just being a FOX news guest wouldn't have invited this level of scrutiny. And the options of crimes? They've expanded so he's doing more of them.

It's a perfect storm of being sheltered and unaccountable his whole life plus being a terrible human being who isn't very smart or introspective.
  #5942  
Old 12-05-2019, 08:24 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So the hearings are over?
The hearings are over with respect to this impeachment inquiry. However, I expect investigations will continue and further public hearings will occur. Just as the Mueller investigation constituted one investigation, and the Ukraine matter constituted another investigation, it's almost beyond comprehension that more wrongdoing by Trump won't come to light and require further investigation and oversight.

What if a review of his tax returns reveal long-term, widespread money laundering for the Russians?

What if, as has already been hinted at, Russian oligarchs are the co-signers on his big loans with Deutsche Bank, and we learn they basically own him?

What if we discover he has also done a quid pro quo with the House of Saud, say, troop support in exchange for 2020 election subversion?

Dems won't stop, and they shouldn't. But getting this impeachment process in the works is extremely important, given the urgent concerns over the upcoming election.
  #5943  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:31 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
I sometimes wonder if Trump actually knows or accepts that he did anything wrong in regards to Ukraine.

Like a spoiled and enabled child is constantly assured by his parents that anything bad is not his fault, that everyone else is just jealous or mean, or the system is rigged, or that the teacher obviously hates him, Trump is constantly assured by his lackeys that he's omnipotent, bulletproof, and in the right and that the Democrats are jealous and mean, the system is rigged against him, and the press obviously hates him.

He's still wrong, and guilty, and an idiot, but I'm starting to believe he's deluded enough to honestly not see it. That doesn't exonerate him, and certainly doesn't explain why the nominally rational adults in the room continue to enable this spoiled child.
I wonder that like I sometimes wonder whether the sun rises in the east. You are absolutely positively 100% correct, of course. This was true for the 2016 interference as well. Trump sees absolutely no light between “what is good for him” and “what is good for the country”. To him, what is good for the country is for Trump to be president for the next 5 years, at least. And the end justifies the means, no matter what they are. And unfortunately, his supporters feel the same way. That’s why the entire Republican Party is engaging in such highly outrageous gaslighting.

And, it’s different from other similar scandals in one major way — Trump’s absolute and total lack of contrition, or even an awareness that his actions were wrong. And I’ll pose this to any conservatives that may be reading......it’s killing you deep inside, isn’t it? It would be so easy to make this go away. One press conference, turn on the charm and talk about how business is different from government and you got carried away, one apology to the American people and Zelensky, and poof......goodbye. But no, instead he’s making you say stupid stuff like “No, I don’t think Trumps focus on Hunter and Joe Biden is related in any way to Biden’s candidacy” with a straight face.

Oh yeah, one more news tidbit. Zelensky IS cleaning up corruption, and he started by firing a prosecutor that has been working with Giuliani. Not Shokin and Lutsenko, that’s old news, but the 3rd Musketeer of corrupt Ukrainian prosecutors, Kulyk.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-to-f.../30272137.html

Wonder how that will go over with the White House / Russia alliance. Will they try to withhold more aid? Stay tuned for the next episode.
  #5944  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:59 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Are bone spurs hereditary?
All things being equal I truly, genuinely wish Barron well. If the kid has an ounce of situational awareness he probably does not want to grow up to be anything like his father. And no matter what happens over the next few years, his life is going to be fucked up in all manner of ways.

How about this for poetic justice? Barron Trump, entirely despite his father's influence, grows up to be a decent human being and eventually decides to run for office... as a Democrat. He tells detailed stories about watching his father burn the country down and how he knew from a young age that it was his duty to clean up the old man's mess.

Well, one can hope.

Also, regarding Nunes and his supposed butt-dials... isn't that a secure phone? Like not the kind of thing you are going to hand to strangers who are going to make a bunch of calls to Ukrainian gangsters? If Nunes wants to claim those calls happened on accident he's welcome to try but it doesn't make him look any better.
  #5945  
Old 12-06-2019, 12:15 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
"Get me the Air Force!"
"No, wait. Didn't I create a Space Force? I did? Get them!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
...How about this for poetic justice? Barron Trump, entirely despite his father's influence, grows up to be a decent human being and eventually decides to run for office... as a Democrat. He tells detailed stories about watching his father burn the country down and how he knew from a young age that it was his duty to clean up the old man's mess.

Well, one can hope....
Ron Reagan Jr. kinda sorta took that path.
  #5946  
Old 12-06-2019, 12:39 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 15,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
How about this for poetic justice? Barron Trump, entirely despite his father's influence, grows up to be a decent human being and eventually decides to run for office... as a Democrat.
That would be as likely as Sergei Khrushchev, son of Nikita, moving to America and becoming an capitalist American citizen.

Oh wait a minute ...
__________________
=========================================
  #5947  
Old 12-06-2019, 01:00 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
A review of the Constitutional legalities of the Executive branch refusing to comply with subpoenas, by Lawfare:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/revisiti...chment-inquiry

The first argument in favor of the White House, as I understand it, basically says that the White House is immune from statute so obstruction laws don't apply. But, more specifically, the immunity arises from the separation of powers and the special status of the Executive as being self-governing as the default, and only affected by law if the law specifically states that it applies to the President and/or the Executive branch's activities.

I feel like it should be pointed out that this is the same logic by which things like the Hatch Act are Constitutional, rather than usurping the First Amendment rights of the members of the Executive Branch. The Bill of Rights pertains to the rights of "the people". The government is not "the people".

So if we must accept that the Executive is immune to statute on the basis of his special status then, likewise, due process does not apply. The President has no implicit 5th Amendment rights, nor do any of the people who are refusing their subpoenas.

Fundamentally, if you want to take the hard core view that the Executive is a distinct entity, separate from citizens and legal obligations, then you cannot pick and choose on that. You not only lose the normal legal obligations, you also lose your legal rights.

The OLC opinion of immunity is not actually an opinion of immunity, it's an opinion of minimalism. If the Constitution and law clearly state that something applies to the Executive, then it applies to the Executive. If it does not, though, then there is no right nor obligation for the Executive. It's all Old West, all the time, hangings on the gallows on the White House lawn.

The Democrats might consider leaning into rather than push against the Barr/Cippolone view of the matter.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-06-2019 at 01:02 AM.
  #5948  
Old 12-06-2019, 01:07 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Continued:

Trump can refuse to comply and stonewall, using the legal system. But, likewise, Congress can throw his people in jail with little to no cause and those individuals will have to fight their way out through the long slow process of the legal system. And they may not win as there are no protections against Congress under impeachment and you are not citizens with the rights of an every day American.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-06-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #5949  
Old 12-06-2019, 03:38 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
I think about this a lot. Not in regards to Ukraine specifically, but his crap in general all along.
Trump knows that the things he does are wrong, because those are always the things that he accuses others of doing. It's like clockwork: reflexive, childish projection, to distract the public. Whatever accusation Trump makes is exactly what he himself is doing.

However, his socio-pathology doesn't have a clear-cut, objective sense of right and wrong. When he is the one doing something, it can't be wrong, no matter what it is. It's only wrong if others do it.
  #5950  
Old 12-06-2019, 04:13 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Why not use a real gotcha? Ask him "If President Obama had asked a foreign leader to provide him with information about a political opponent in an upcoming election, would you have considered that an impeachable offense?"

Because you know if you make the question about Obama, Trump will be dumb enough to say it's impeachable.
This question has been asked of a number of trump defenders, and I believe every time they have refused to answer the question. "I won't answer a question about a hypothetical that the president didn't do".
Because even they realize that if they were to agree that that behaviour is impeachable, that would come back to haunt them when inevitably the defence shifts over to acknowledging he did it but arguing that it is not impeachable (I think we're more or less there now, it's just that trump keeps denying it, so his supporters are trying to find a position in between a rock and an all the evidence).

Of course, how things would proceed in an ideal world, is that anyone watching such a response on TV, would realize what a cop-out answer it is, and what it implies about the president's guilt and the interviewee's tacit acceptance of it.
Unfortunately we live in the bizarre alternate reality where much of the american public has had a very localized stroke and are incapable of such epiphanies.

Obviously trump himself is not smart enough to dodge this particular bullet, but so what? He's dumb enough to incriminate himself without anyone even asking him any questions.

*

Last edited by Mijin; 12-06-2019 at 04:15 AM.
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 09:03 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