Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11751  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:44 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Why are you all comparing actual impeachment hearings with... whatever is happening in Congress now?
Are you claiming that labeling what's happening in Congress "impeachment hearings" would substantially change the situation--namely, lack of interest/lack of viewership--being discussed?

If so, on what basis?
  #11752  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:40 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Are you claiming that labeling what's happening in Congress "impeachment hearings" would substantially change the situation--namely, lack of interest/lack of viewership--being discussed?



If so, on what basis?
Yes because simply calling it Impeachment Proceedings will change the narrative in the media. Are you honestly telling me that the media that is breathlessly asking Pelosi Nadler and anyone else in Congress whether they want to impeach that should actual impeachment start that it would be business as usual?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #11753  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:42 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Yes because simply calling it Impeachment Proceedings will change the narrative in the media. Are you honestly telling me that the media that is breathlessly asking Pelosi Nadler and anyone else in Congress whether they want to impeach that should actual impeachment start that it would be business as usual?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere "oversight" the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven't made the case to the American people, it ain't shit.

Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there's an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000...I don't know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn't exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don't use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.

I've said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can't win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn't meant to be. Maybe it's not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don't think that's the case. There's a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we're desperate. That's fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that's just not the case.

Last edited by asahi; 06-11-2019 at 09:43 PM.
  #11754  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Be sure to allow the Republican members every opportunity to rebut the evidence and witnesses. Cut them all the procedural slack there is! Give them rope, give till it hurts, and then give some more rope. Then don't interfere with the natural course of events.
  #11755  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:41 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere "oversight" the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven't made the case to the American people, it ain't shit.

Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there's an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000...I don't know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn't exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don't use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.

I've said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can't win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn't meant to be. Maybe it's not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don't think that's the case. There's a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we're desperate. That's fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that's just not the case.
You missed the point really badly. I didn't make a peep one way or another on whether impeachment would be a good or bad idea. I was addressing the fact that people in this thread were mixing up the coverage of actual impeachment hearings compared to what congress is doing now. They are not the same thing which is why the media is not treating them the same, not because the media/america are suddenly uninterested in impeachment hearings.

The media is *very* interested in impeachment hearings. This is exactly why they are chomping at the bit to start covering some.
  #11756  
Old 06-12-2019, 02:44 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,769
However, fuck that noise. Trump needs to be held accountable, but even if you really feel that the voting booth is the way to do this, this administration has done dick to address interference in the next election. Even if Trump and his henchmen decided to not actively collude with Russia (or anyone else who wants to put their thumb on the scale) simply sitting back and doing nothing can have the same affect.
  #11757  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:58 AM
slumtrimpet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canukistan
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Of course it would change the fucking narrative, because now instead of conducting mere "oversight" the House Democrats, who were just elected a few months ago, and many of whom were elected in House districts that were drawn by Republicans, are going to talk about removing the President, which is something that voters inherently would rather take ownership of than a bunch of congresspeople, many of whom they never appointed to un-democratically remove their president. I get that you think impeachment is on the table, as do I. But if you haven't made the case to the American people, it ain't shit.
Here's a thought; maybe those Dems that were elected in Republican drawn districts won because the American people are fucking sick of the same old, same old shit and want those Dems to do something useful - like get rid of The Donald and his crew.

Quote:
Yes, it would change the narrative. But is that necessarily a good thing? What, pray tell, of the last 2 years and change has given you any indication that the public is in the mood to use congress to remove the president? I know there's an assumption that impeaching the president would so badly poison him and his party that it would carry over into the presidential election. What data do we have to work with? Al Gore? 2000? Mate, Al Gore actually won the fucking election. He won the popular vote. Would have won the electoral vote had Scalia and partisan hacks on the bench legislated from the bench to end the recount. But as for why it was so close to begin with in 2000...I don't know, people get bored with the same party in the White House. And Al Gore wasn't exactly the most charismatic chap. All of this is to say, don't use the lessons of 2000 or 1974 as any kind of evidence that supports impeachment. There is no evidence - absolutely none - right now that indicates Democrats should pursue impeachment.
Because they actually elected a congress that is under Democratic control?... And one that has a surprising number of progressive members? Ones that were elected in "safe" districts or even Republican controlled districts. That didn't happen in 2018 because of voter apathy.
Al Gore was boring Clinton. And yes, people get tired of the same old, same old shit which is what Gore represented. And he still won the numbers. And then the Republicans had 8 more years to re-write and re-draw the rules some more. And then we had Obama; "Hope and Change!!!111" and got a whole lot more of the same old shit. Because Congress. Because 'must please the centrist", because "don't piss off the lunatic base", or something.

Quote:
I've said it over and over again, and nobody has successfully rebutted it: beat Trump at the ballot box. Beat Trump and the Republicans on the issues. Seriously, if the Democrats cannot fucking do this in the course of a regular campaign, if they cannot communicate why Trump is a horrible candidate, then they just can't win. Accept it. Maybe it wasn't meant to be. Maybe it's not their time. Maybe Democrats need more time to develop a field that is politically savvy enough to defeat Republicans. But I don't think that's the case. There's a good field out there running now, and I say let them develop a platform and a message of hope and optimism that people can relate to. Impeachment sends entirely the wrong message: it sends the message that this country is fucking fucked and we're desperate. That's fine if your voters are in near total agreement, but right now, that's just not the case.
Hello? This country is fucking fucked and you should jolly well be desperate. And one way to make that clear to the American voter - what's left of them that haven't been disenfranchised or brainwashed - is to shove it in their faces every single fucking day from now until November 2020. What John_Stamos'_Left_Ear said. Take over the narrative. Give the media something to crow about. And make all the dirty nasty shit that The Donald and his crew (including all the complicit congress critters) super public. Every day. All of it.
  #11758  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:40 AM
Celidin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by slumtrimpet View Post
Here's a thought; maybe those Dems that were elected in Republican drawn districts won because the American people are fucking sick of the same old, same old shit and want those Dems to do something useful - like get rid of The Donald and his crew.
I live and vote in one of those districts. And I sure as hell voted for the Democrat to get rid of the cancer that is the Donald Trump administration.

I do not want to wait until November 2020. That's still a year and a half away, and that's way too much time to allow Donald, his children, and his Club of Cronies to lie, cheat, and steal their way into destroying more of America. I am also a little worried that there will be more election interference that throws the results into doubt and don't trust this disaster of an administration to do anything about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slumtrimpet View Post
Hello? This country is fucking fucked and you should jolly well be desperate. And one way to make that clear to the American voter - what's left of them that haven't been disenfranchised or brainwashed - is to shove it in their faces every single fucking day from now until November 2020. What John_Stamos'_Left_Ear said. Take over the narrative. Give the media something to crow about. And make all the dirty nasty shit that The Donald and his crew (including all the complicit congress critters) super public. Every day. All of it.
This. A million times this. Make it obvious to everyone that votes for Donald or other Republicans are vote to continue "the swamp", to continue to get shafted on a daily basis, to continue to redistribute money to the wealthy, and most of all are votes to re-elect a genuine asshole to the White House.

Last edited by Celidin; 06-12-2019 at 11:41 AM.
  #11759  
Old 06-12-2019, 04:34 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,516
Hope Hicks has agreed to a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee June 19th! One week from today!
  #11760  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:09 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,735
We can stop arguing about whether Trump accepted help from foreign governments, because he tells us today that he would and will in the future. So, why are we still arguing about whether collusion would hypothetically happen, when we know that Russia tried to help his campaign, and he tells us that he would accept such help? Seems pretty clear that he is acknowledging that he did, in fact, collude with a foreign government, and worst of all, plans to do so again in 2020.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 06-12-2019 at 06:09 PM.
  #11761  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:13 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Yes because simply calling it Impeachment Proceedings will change the narrative in the media. Are you honestly telling me that the media that is breathlessly asking Pelosi Nadler and anyone else in Congress whether they want to impeach that should actual impeachment start that it would be business as usual?
Yes. That's what I'm telling you.

The hearings, whether called "impeachment" or not, will have the same personnel involved. Trump won't let anyone actually mentioned in the Mueller Report show up, so for the most part it will be law professors and political commentators.

And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the "impeachment" hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because "impeachment hearings" will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.

The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.

And that was a high-water mark for the drama and conflict the news outlets seek. It doesn't get any more dramatic than that. Yet they didn't show anything but excerpts.

The reason the news outlets are harping on 'when will you start impeachment?' is because of the question's potential to elicit newsworthy stammers and annoyance and gaffes and criticisms of other Democrats .........................not because the news outlets think impeachment proceedings will garner ratings. They know impeachment proceedings won't garner ratings. They have no intention of showing the impeachment proceedings.

Once the House Dems pull that lever, the next badgering question will be: when will you hold the Vote? And again, that's not because the anchors and reporters think a vote should be held-----it's because the question has the potential to elicit newsworthy displays of anger or annoyance or embarrassment or criticism of fellow-Democrats. Conflict! Ratings!



And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?

Trump wins.

You may be 'fine' with that. I am not.
  #11762  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:28 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,545
#LoseOrDoNothing2020!
  #11763  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:50 PM
slumtrimpet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canukistan
Posts: 648
Interesting article:
Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?
Especially
Quote:
One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank Bowman said. In the impeachment context, “virtually no part of a president’s duties or behavior is exempt from scrutiny,” Bowman added.
hmmmmm
  #11764  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:57 PM
slumtrimpet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canukistan
Posts: 648
Also, Americans is weird.
June 12, 2019 - A Sitting President Should Face Charges, U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Still Say Don't Impeach Trump
Quote:
Any sitting president should be subject to criminal charges, 69 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today, while 24 percent say a president should be charged with crimes after he or she leaves office.

Support for charging a sitting president is 52 - 35 percent among Republicans, 83 - 12 percent among Democrats and 68 - 26 percent among independent voters, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds.
I guess that means the Democrats need to prove to Americans that The Donald is a crook.
  #11765  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:24 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
We can stop arguing about whether Trump accepted help from foreign governments, because he tells us today that he would and will in the future. So, why are we still arguing about whether collusion would hypothetically happen, when we know that Russia tried to help his campaign, and he tells us that he would accept such help? Seems pretty clear that he is acknowledging that he did, in fact, collude with a foreign government, and worst of all, plans to do so again in 2020.
And he's basically told any and all American politicians that it is completely excusable and acceptable for them to cozy up to foreign intelligence agencies, in the name of "winning".

He's basically just signaled the start of the great takeover of the US government by foreign powers.

Though, granted, only his side will have that advantage - depending on how partisan Christopher Wray is.
  #11766  
Old 06-12-2019, 07:26 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by slumtrimpet View Post
Also, Americans is weird.
June 12, 2019 - A Sitting President Should Face Charges, U.S. Voters Say, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Still Say Don't Impeach Trump


I guess that means the Democrats need to prove to Americans that The Donald is a crook.
There probably is an argument to be made that immunity to criminal trials isn't actually part of the constitution.

It would be weird for Congress to not impeach if the President is found guilty, but there's nowhere in the whole Constitution where it says that the impeachment has to precede anything else.

As to your latter point, I still marvel that no one seems to care that Trump's charity was for veterans - and he embezzled from it. He stole from people who got their legs blown off, serving the flag. The media really needs to stop smoking so much weed and start getting their ducks in a line. They can't just keep being idiots and letting Trump get the best of them.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-12-2019 at 07:29 PM.
  #11767  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the "impeachment" hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because "impeachment hearings" will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.
In the 1970s, we had mass media; in 2019, we have de-massified media. Instead of 4 or 5 networks reporting essentially the same thing and coloring it the same way, we'll have potentially millions of different ways of interpreting what happened. What Trump should fear the most is when millions of people, including his supporters, share the same experience. That's when the shit gets twisted in the other direction - I don't care how Fox News spins it. The reason why Trump's support hasn't changed since the Fall of 2016 is because there have been millions of ways to report on Trump, but most of us haven't had a bad experience living in the US. Most of us have seen things we don't like about Trump, but even many of his harshest critics have enjoyed a strong economy and haven't suffered or even visibly seen the consequences of his incompetence. Honestly, it's a lot like Bush in 2002-3. Bush's critics said "ZOMG! Iraq!" But the average person - even those annoying assholes with those yellow "Support the Troops" stickers on their cars - weren't living with that. All that changed in 205 with Katrina and then later the financial crisis. It'll happen again, give it time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.
I love Jon Stewart, and I love the NYFD. But Jon Stewart is a super star (who's really good in front of a camera) and the NYFD 9/11 survivors' treatment should be low-hanging fruit. As someone else said on another thread, how the fuck did this not happen sooner? What it shows me is that the average person has no influence at all. Bruh, your average Russian or Chinese oligarch owns more of American democracy than you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Trump wins.

You may be 'fine' with that. I am not.
Here's the truth: maybe an impeachment inquiry does make Trump look worse than he does now? Okay, so what? We're here now because voters are cynical. Trump got elected because voters are cynical. I understand the intellectual arguments about checks and balances, the values in the Constitution, and all that. But at the end of the day, what any democracy wants is for the people to believe that their vote matters, and that their influence matters. That's one thing to consider.

But just thinking of the strategy of it all, to use a boxing analogy, impeachment seems to be like a boxer going for the quick knockout. Great boxers work the body first, knowing that the head will stop moving in the later rounds.
  #11768  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:27 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Yes. That's what I'm telling you.



The hearings, whether called "impeachment" or not, will have the same personnel involved. Trump won't let anyone actually mentioned in the Mueller Report show up, so for the most part it will be law professors and political commentators.



And MSNBC and CNN and the networks will show the "impeachment" hearings to the same extent they showed the hearings Monday: a couple of excerpts here, a couple of excerpts there. Because "impeachment hearings" will tank in the ratings just as much as non-impeachment hearings do.



The news outlets go with conflict and drama. Look at the Jon Stewart testimony yesterday: it was as dramatic and conflict-driven as it gets----and it was not, repeat, NOT, carried in its entirety. Just excerpts.



And that was a high-water mark for the drama and conflict the news outlets seek. It doesn't get any more dramatic than that. Yet they didn't show anything but excerpts.



The reason the news outlets are harping on 'when will you start impeachment?' is because of the question's potential to elicit newsworthy stammers and annoyance and gaffes and criticisms of other Democrats .........................not because the news outlets think impeachment proceedings will garner ratings. They know impeachment proceedings won't garner ratings. They have no intention of showing the impeachment proceedings.



Once the House Dems pull that lever, the next badgering question will be: when will you hold the Vote? And again, that's not because the anchors and reporters think a vote should be held-----it's because the question has the potential to elicit newsworthy displays of anger or annoyance or embarrassment or criticism of fellow-Democrats. Conflict! Ratings!







And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?



Trump wins.



You may be 'fine' with that. I am not.
Fortunately you're wrong about just about everything.

Good talk.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #11769  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:48 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,769
I would just like to point out how ridiculous the positions that asahi takes. In previous threads/posts he has been all but ready to bring out the pitchforks and burn everything down, but he cringes that impeachment hearings are a bridge too far and is oh-so concerned about how big, bad Trump using that to his advantage. It's mind-numbingly inconsistent.
  #11770  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:28 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I would just like to point out how ridiculous the positions that asahi takes. In previous threads/posts he has been all but ready to bring out the pitchforks and burn everything down, but he cringes that impeachment hearings are a bridge too far and is oh-so concerned about how big, bad Trump using that to his advantage. It's mind-numbingly inconsistent.
Well, just to be clear, I never advocated pitchforks and burning everything to the ground. I did have a shit fit or two in which I fantasized about throwing Trump voters in education camps, but I was under the assumption nobody here took it seriously. I'll settle for taking back control of the White House and the DoJ, and using the criminal justice system to prosecute, convict, and imprison most of the Trump White House once there's enough evidence of their corruption and treason in hand.

But I digress...

Actually, what I've written is not at all inconsistent -- not at all.

It's you guys who have been saying "Chill out, Mueller's got this." And "Chill out, we just took back the House." And I've been telling you all along that these fuckers don't play by rules. I've got several "Cut it out, Chicken Little" threads floating around here but the funny thing is, it's you guys who are now freaking out. I still am myself, but I've seen this one coming for a while.

What I am saying is stop being so fucking naive as to believe that impeachment is going to get you any more mileage than 2 years and change of non-stop Mueller, Russia, Cohen, Comey, Sessions, Barr, and whoever else press. Mueller's investigation has already indicted 34 people -- thirty - fucking - four. And have Donald Trump's poll numbers changed? Nope.

You wanna know why? Because 46% out of the electorate voted for a guy who was already pretty shady to begin with, who was a racist, who suggested that his political rival be bumped off, who suggested in front of a Super Bowl type audience that he'd put his political rival in jail. Sorry, dude, but impeachment ain't gonna fix a fucking thing. And deep down, everyone here knows it. They just want to do it because they think it'll feel good. But that's dumb, because the way you beat a guy like Trump is not through procedures, or rules, or regulations, or the constitution, because he's already made it clear, that's your battlefield, not his.

Donald Trump is a populist. He won as a populist politician. That is the base and the source of his power. He appeals in particular to white people who feel a need to dominate others, and who believe that it is more important to have a society based on ethnic hierarchy than it is an inclusive society in which people share the fruits of our collective achievements and production. The way you change that isn't through impeachment; you change it by communicating with them and explaining to them over and over again why they're wrong (as politely as you can, I suppose). Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders are admittedly better at that part than I am, which is why they're running for office and I'm not.

As I've said again and again, impeachment might be a thing down the road if Trump becomes so unhinged that he starts to scare even his base. But not until then. In the meantime, Democrats would do far more damage to Trump if they'd start visiting flood stricken farms and farms ravaged by the trade war and explain why a) climate change is a thing, b) trade wars don't work, and c) how Donald Trump will only help himself and his cronies at their expense. Better yet, just explain how they can help them. After all, people vote out of self interest. And then go visit Hispanic communities in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and explain how Latino voters can end the nightmare of the Trump presidency. And visit every other place and do the same thing with a range of issues. My concern is that if Democrats go for impeachment, it will either a) result in a quick acquittal, or b) drag on and be such a huge topic that it will drown out their message, which is really a lot more important than just embarrassing Trump politically.

Last edited by asahi; 06-13-2019 at 10:31 AM.
  #11771  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:34 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
And of course, meanwhile, real-life consequences are barreling ahead. The proceedings start; the Dems are goaded into a Vote; the Senate acquits, and all investigation is over. Every chance the Democrats might have had to make the case that Trump is a crook-----gone. Over. Done. How can the Democrats investigate a man declared by the United States Senate to be innocent?

Trump wins.

You may be 'fine' with that. I am not.
This is my fear exactly. Once he's been impeached and acquitted by the senate he will be totally free to do whatever he wants. Lock up journalists, openly accept bribes, what'cha gonna do. There is no way that trying to investigate/impeach him again after you failed the first time is going to be viewed as anything but partisan sour grapes.
  #11772  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
This is my fear exactly. Once he's been impeached and acquitted by the senate he will be totally free to do whatever he wants. Lock up journalists, openly accept bribes, what'cha gonna do. There is no way that trying to investigate/impeach him again after you failed the first time is going to be viewed as anything but partisan sour grapes.
If that's your fear, impeachment and acquittal isn't what you should worry about. It's the possibility that Trump could get re-elected that should be more frightening.

The reason that presidents in the past haven't done half of what Trump has is that they assumed (correctly) that there would be political consequences and that the country wouldn't tolerate it. Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on authoritarianism. He knows, along with much of the Republican party, that perhaps 30-40% of the country would support throwing journalists in jail, and another 10-20% either wouldn't care or wouldn't know what to make of the situation. And as for bribes...I mean, he's probably already there.

I think people who are hellbent on impeachment no matter what are missing a fundamental truth: it's the people who have sanctioned this. A good 46% of voters voted for what Trump is doing now, even if they didn't explicitly say so. That's what is different from the past. That is what makes Trump and the GOP dangerous. Voters have rewarded authoritarians with power, again and again. They need to stop doing that.

Last edited by asahi; 06-13-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #11773  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Well, just to be clear, I never advocated pitchforks and burning everything to the ground. I did have a shit fit or two in which I fantasized about throwing Trump voters in education camps, but I was under the assumption nobody here took it seriously. I'll settle for taking back control of the White House and the DoJ, and using the criminal justice system to prosecute, convict, and imprison most of the Trump White House once there's enough evidence of their corruption and treason in hand.

But I digress...

Actually, what I've written is not at all inconsistent -- not at all.

It's you guys who have been saying "Chill out, Mueller's got this." And "Chill out, we just took back the House." And I've been telling you all along that these fuckers don't play by rules. I've got several "Cut it out, Chicken Little" threads floating around here but the funny thing is, it's you guys who are now freaking out. I still am myself, but I've seen this one coming for a while.

What I am saying is stop being so fucking naive as to believe that impeachment is going to get you any more mileage than 2 years and change of non-stop Mueller, Russia, Cohen, Comey, Sessions, Barr, and whoever else press. Mueller's investigation has already indicted 34 people -- thirty - fucking - four. And have Donald Trump's poll numbers changed? Nope.

You wanna know why? Because 46% out of the electorate voted for a guy who was already pretty shady to begin with, who was a racist, who suggested that his political rival be bumped off, who suggested in front of a Super Bowl type audience that he'd put his political rival in jail. Sorry, dude, but impeachment ain't gonna fix a fucking thing. And deep down, everyone here knows it. They just want to do it because they think it'll feel good. But that's dumb, because the way you beat a guy like Trump is not through procedures, or rules, or regulations, or the constitution, because he's already made it clear, that's your battlefield, not his.

Donald Trump is a populist. He won as a populist politician. That is the base and the source of his power. He appeals in particular to white people who feel a need to dominate others, and who believe that it is more important to have a society based on ethnic hierarchy than it is an inclusive society in which people share the fruits of our collective achievements and production. The way you change that isn't through impeachment; you change it by communicating with them and explaining to them over and over again why they're wrong (as politely as you can, I suppose). Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders are admittedly better at that part than I am, which is why they're running for office and I'm not.

As I've said again and again, impeachment might be a thing down the road if Trump becomes so unhinged that he starts to scare even his base. But not until then. In the meantime, Democrats would do far more damage to Trump if they'd start visiting flood stricken farms and farms ravaged by the trade war and explain why a) climate change is a thing, b) trade wars don't work, and c) how Donald Trump will only help himself and his cronies at their expense. Better yet, just explain how they can help them. After all, people vote out of self interest. And then go visit Hispanic communities in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and explain how Latino voters can end the nightmare of the Trump presidency. And visit every other place and do the same thing with a range of issues. My concern is that if Democrats go for impeachment, it will either a) result in a quick acquittal, or b) drag on and be such a huge topic that it will drown out their message, which is really a lot more important than just embarrassing Trump politically.
I don't mind your positions, but your certainty and arrogance are often so condescending that you cross into self-parody, IMO.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-13-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #11774  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:59 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't mind your positions, but your certainty and arrogance are often so condescending that you cross into self-parody, IMO.
I agree with this.
  #11775  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:27 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...
As I've said again and again, impeachment might be a thing down the road if Trump becomes so unhinged that he starts to scare even his base. But not until then. In the meantime, Democrats would do far more damage to Trump if they'd start visiting flood stricken farms and farms ravaged by the trade war and explain why a) climate change is a thing, b) trade wars don't work, and c) how Donald Trump will only help himself and his cronies at their expense. Better yet, just explain how they can help them. After all, people vote out of self interest. And then go visit Hispanic communities in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, and explain how Latino voters can end the nightmare of the Trump presidency. And visit every other place and do the same thing with a range of issues. My concern is that if Democrats go for impeachment, it will either a) result in a quick acquittal, or b) drag on and be such a huge topic that it will drown out their message, which is really a lot more important than just embarrassing Trump politically.
I think this makes perfect sense. The downside of a failed impeachment (and as long as McConnell is running the Senate, impeachment *will* fail to remove Trump) is too horrible to contemplate: an unfettered Trump for another 6 years. It's not worth the risk. So the Democratic field has to do everything they can to make sure that the investigative muck sticks to Trump, and present themselves as a positive alternative.

The real problem is that 43% of the electorate is hopelessly cynical + completely removed from the norms and traditions of the Constitution + dumber than a bag of hammers. It'll take a lot of work to fix that.
  #11776  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't mind your positions, but your certainty and arrogance are often so condescending that you cross into self-parody, IMO.
I won't disagree with you - I know I go overboard sometimes, especially on a Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night after I've had a few pops. But let's be honest: this is SDMB. I'd say a lot of us are pretty proud of ourselves from time to time, ain't we? I've felt the smug, as much as I've given it.

I digress - I don't wanna make another thread about me.
  #11777  
Old 06-18-2019, 04:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...rk-prison.html

The magic hands of Bill Barr gets Manafort out of Riker's.
  #11778  
Old 06-18-2019, 08:23 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...rk-prison.html

The magic hands of Bill Barr gets Manafort out of Riker's.
For the purposes of accuracy, it's surely time to change the name of the place Barr works: from "Department of Justice" to "Department of Trump-Protection."

(There's always still a danger of Manafort becoming more cooperative with ongoing investigations if he gets too unhappy...)
  #11779  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:11 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
For the purposes of accuracy, it's surely time to change the name of the place Barr works: from "Department of Justice" to "Department of Trump-Protection."
Whether that's how Eric Holder actually acted in his position or not, I couldn't say, but it's certainly what Trump seemed to be aiming to hire based on how he lamented not having his own "Eric Holder to protect him".
  #11780  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:38 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
For the purposes of accuracy, it's surely time to change the name of the place Barr works: from "Department of Justice" to "Department of Trump-Protection."

(There's always still a danger of Manafort becoming more cooperative with ongoing investigations if he gets too unhappy...)

How long before Trump issues an executive order to have lèse-majesté punishable in the US. Seriously, I'm really not seeing all that much difference between him and Scudder at this point.
  #11781  
Old 06-19-2019, 06:11 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Whether that's how Eric Holder actually acted in his position or not, I couldn't say, but it's certainly what Trump seemed to be aiming to hire based on how he lamented not having his own "Eric Holder to protect him".
I'm not Holder's biggest fan, but the idea that he conducted himself in any way analogous to the way Barr has behaved, seems quite unfair to Holder.

Of course no one would expect Trump to understand such differences.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
How long before Trump issues an executive order to have lèse-majesté punishable in the US. Seriously, I'm really not seeing all that much difference between him and Scudder at this point.
The Heinlein character? At least that character appears to have had enough familiarity with fundamentalist religious thought to be able to construct a government based on it. The same can't be said for "Two Corinthians" Donald.

In any case, a bet that Trump hasn't asked---repeatedly---if he can have critics jailed, would almost certainly lose.
  #11782  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:45 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
No extra information beyond the headline that Rosenstein, at some point, expanded the scope of Mueller's investigation at least a 3rd time:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...robert-mueller

As said, there's no more information than what I just said.
  #11783  
Old 06-20-2019, 04:23 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
No extra information beyond the headline that Rosenstein, at some point, expanded the scope of Mueller's investigation at least a 3rd time:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...robert-mueller

As said, there's no more information than what I just said.
I don't suppose this appears in any other, more...reliable... news sources? The Washington Examiner is not exactly the go-to news organ for the reality-based readership.
  #11784  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:50 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I don't suppose this appears in any other, more...reliable... news sources? The Washington Examiner is not exactly the go-to news organ for the reality-based readership.
It was the only right-wing news source to say that the caravan conspiracy theory was a load of crap, and mediabiasfactcheck gives it high truthfulness:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/

Obviously it is a right wing source, but that's different from lying. It's probably about as honest as Vox or someplace like that. There's only so much you can do when the writers are partisan.
  #11785  
Old 06-20-2019, 05:35 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Hope Hicks transcript from (I believe) yesterday:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4140...ipt#from_embed

I'm on page 22. As yet, it's a load of "Nope." The White House has told her to say exactly nothing and, apparently, she is going with that.
  #11786  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,895
Reading some more of it, I have to say that Pelosi messed up by keeping Schiff and Nadler as the heads of their committees (on the Democratic side). Obviously, Schiff isn't part of the Hicks debacle, but my earlier recommendation holds: You're not going to win this one by playing politics. Do this for real and by the book. If you're just doing things to make a statement and/or spin it one way or the other, then you're wasting the country's time. And, particularly in the case where there's actually a case to be made, goofing off and letting things fall by the wayside is stupid.

Granted, to be fair, there could be more to this than we know. It could be that this is all cover, while the FBI tracks down the bigger fish, but I have no reason to believe that to be the case at the moment.

Specifically, as one of the Republicans points out and liable is true, Nadler has been sending out subpoenas to individuals, rather than to the organizations who own the documents. And, I personally note, he's simply accepting Executive immunity, despite that being something completely irrelevant for an impeachment hearing and it was already pretty clear that he was just going to get a load of nope if he's going to accept all of the various privileges enjoyed by the Executive branch. And if, for whatever reason, he genuinely didn't realize that the White House was going to object to all testimony going into this, it certainly should have been his key takeaway after. Instead, his statements after the hearing were just, "They refused to answer. I'm helpless against that, what do you want me to do?"

Do your job.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-20-2019 at 06:26 PM.
  #11787  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:34 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Reading some more of it, I have to say that Pelosi messed up by keeping Schiff and Nadler as the heads of their committees (on the Democratic side). Obviously, Schiff isn't part of the Hicks debacle, but my earlier recommendation holds: You're not going to win this one by playing politics. Do this for real and by the book. If you're just doing things to make a statement and/or spin it one way or the other, then you're wasting the country's time. And, particularly in the case where there's actually a case to be made, goofing off and letting things fall by the wayside is stupid.

Granted, to be fair, there could be more to this than we know. It could be that this is all cover, while the FBI tracks down the bigger fish, but I have no reason to believe that to be the case at the moment.

Specifically, as one of the Republicans points out and liable is true, Nadler has been sending out subpoenas to individuals, rather than to the organizations who own the documents. And, I personally note, he's simply accepting Executive immunity, despite that being something completely irrelevant for an impeachment hearing and it was already pretty clear that he was just going to get a load of nope if he's going to accept all of the various privileges enjoyed by the Executive branch. And if, for whatever reason, he genuinely didn't realize that the White House was going to object to all testimony going into this, it certainly should have been his key takeaway after. Instead, his statements after the hearing were just, "They refused to answer. I'm helpless against that, what do you want me to do?"

Do your job.
I don't think you understand what Chairmen Nadler and Schiff are there to do. They are doing their job.

You have an occupant in the Oval Office who is unlawfully asserting a privilege that does not exist, in order to prevent lawful testimony being heard by congressional committees tasked with the legitimate purpose of oversight.

Additionally, you have an Attorney General who is acting wholly outside his authority, taking on the position of protector of his master and disregarding any part of his job that is in conflict with that objective -- including ignoring any enforcement duties that would ordinarily fall to the DOJ on behalf of Congress.

In short, there is little Nadler can expect from Barr to undertake enforcement of congressional subpoenas and/or arrest warrants. This is an unparalleled situation that Nadler and Schiff face. It has never happened before.

So Nadler and Schiff are left with only the courts as their final remedy to this ongoing, dangerous, anti-democratic course of conduct.

What Nadler is doing is creating a record. He is demonstrating to any future court that will rule on these issues, perhaps even the Supreme Court setting precedent, just how many ways he attempted to work with the Executive Branch, how many times he gave them the opportunity to do the right thing. He is working to box those courts in, not give them any opportunity to say, "Gosh, Chairman Nadler, why didn't you give the Executive Branch the chance to do fill-in-the-blank?"

Triers of fact do this all the time. It's referred to as appeal-proofing your case. The judge -- in this case, Nadler or Schiff or whomever is responsible for establishing the facts before them -- bends over backward to accommodate an adverse party, usually the defendant, so the defendant cannot later make an argument to an appellate court that he was not afforded an opportunity to address his/her concerns.

Let them do their job.
  #11788  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:29 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,777
And to get back to the original criticism, Pelosi isn't the final arbiter of who is the committee chair or indeed, the committee membership. As Speaker she is first among equals and has a big influence but is not the only voice.
  #11789  
Old 06-21-2019, 08:33 AM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I don't think you understand what Chairmen Nadler and Schiff are there to do. They are doing their job.

You have an occupant in the Oval Office who is unlawfully asserting a privilege that does not exist, in order to prevent lawful testimony being heard by congressional committees tasked with the legitimate purpose of oversight.

Additionally, you have an Attorney General who is acting wholly outside his authority, taking on the position of protector of his master and disregarding any part of his job that is in conflict with that objective -- including ignoring any enforcement duties that would ordinarily fall to the DOJ on behalf of Congress.

In short, there is little Nadler can expect from Barr to undertake enforcement of congressional subpoenas and/or arrest warrants. This is an unparalleled situation that Nadler and Schiff face. It has never happened before.

So Nadler and Schiff are left with only the courts as their final remedy to this ongoing, dangerous, anti-democratic course of conduct.

What Nadler is doing is creating a record. He is demonstrating to any future court that will rule on these issues, perhaps even the Supreme Court setting precedent, just how many ways he attempted to work with the Executive Branch, how many times he gave them the opportunity to do the right thing. He is working to box those courts in, not give them any opportunity to say, "Gosh, Chairman Nadler, why didn't you give the Executive Branch the chance to do fill-in-the-blank?"

Triers of fact do this all the time. It's referred to as appeal-proofing your case. The judge -- in this case, Nadler or Schiff or whomever is responsible for establishing the facts before them -- bends over backward to accommodate an adverse party, usually the defendant, so the defendant cannot later make an argument to an appellate court that he was not afforded an opportunity to address his/her concerns.

Let them do their job.
They could threaten contempt and inherent contempt, which doesn't need Barr, unless they specifically invoke executive privilege. Right now, they're just planning on wasting time in courts over a privilege that doesn't even exist (absolute immunity). Then at least they could get on to the real fight instead of this gish gallop stuff that the administration is pulling.
  #11790  
Old 06-21-2019, 09:44 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
After reading the beginning of the transcript, they should just skip challenging "absolute immunity" and apply whatever sanction they can to Hicks. She herself didn't assert or claim any privilege, she just refused to answer questions. That's on her.
  #11791  
Old 06-21-2019, 10:39 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
What was the phrase in her local vernacular? Oh yes - "LOCK HER UP".
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #11792  
Old 06-21-2019, 10:55 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
What was the phrase in her local vernacular? Oh yes - "LOCK HER UP".
The problem with this is that Hicks is a young, attractive, white female. Coming down hard on her is going to elicit major sympathy points from the public at large. It shouldn't be that way, it sucks that its that way, but that is the way it is.
  #11793  
Old 06-21-2019, 11:09 AM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The problem with this is that Hicks is a young, attractive, white female.
OK, I'll just throw this out here. It probably makes me a terrible person, but I can't look at Hope Hicks without thinking that her career path involved plans to become ex-Mrs Trump #4, to put it as delicately as possible.
  #11794  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:22 PM
JohnGalt's Avatar
JohnGalt is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Med city USA
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
OK, I'll just throw this out here. It probably makes me a terrible person, but I can't look at Hope Hicks without thinking that her career path involved plans to become ex-Mrs Trump #4, to put it as delicately as possible.
You're not far from the truth, I was thinking the same thing. She is younger than Ivanka, 30 versus 37.
  #11795  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:42 PM
Celidin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 413
This is an interesting tweet. Has anyone seen actual written info on it?

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status...67965065994247

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Swaine, Sr Reporter for The Guardian
Chat logs from 2017 between Paul Manafort and a Trump ally named SEAN, who appears to present an evening television show, were just unsealed in Manafort's case in D.C.

Last edited by Celidin; 06-21-2019 at 03:43 PM.
  #11796  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:44 PM
Celidin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celidin View Post
This is an interesting tweet. Has anyone seen actual written info on it?
Oh wait here we go https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...fort-logs.html
  #11797  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:01 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celidin View Post
Okay, who did that half-assed redaction job on pages 40+?
  #11798  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:15 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,400
Is there anything of note? I made it through about 20 pages of text messages and the only surprise was that Sean Hannity apparently really does believe his own horseshit.
  #11799  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:18 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Okay, who did that half-assed redaction job on pages 40+?
You know, I was thinking it might be Hannity. The Fox show, the radio show, etc. But once I got to page 40, I knew for sure.
  #11800  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:21 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
...the only surprise was that Sean Hannity apparently really does believe his own horseshit.
I, too, was surprised by that.
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 02:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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