Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5901  
Old Yesterday, 03:19 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,185
"Whaddaya mean the Ukrainian server is in a cloud? Go get it and bring it here!"
  #5902  
Old Yesterday, 03:20 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,185
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 Yesterday, 03:32 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,743
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 Yesterday, 03:49 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,204
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 Yesterday, 04:10 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,940
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 Yesterday, 04:19 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,227
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 Yesterday, 04:22 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,486
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 Yesterday, 04:33 PM
Running with Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,461
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 Yesterday, 05:55 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,806
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 Yesterday, 06:23 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,959
This bovine hijack is udderly appalling!
  #5911  
Old Yesterday, 06:26 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Cud you all just knock it off?
Don't have a cow, man!
  #5912  
Old Yesterday, 06:54 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,629
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 Yesterday, 06:56 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,261
I got a beef with all you heifers. Steer it back on topic before the mods prod you.
  #5914  
Old Yesterday, 07:33 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,097
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 Yesterday, 07:37 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,556
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; Yesterday at 07:41 PM.
  #5916  
Old Yesterday, 07:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,228
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 Yesterday, 08:19 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,937
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 Yesterday, 09:00 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,304
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 Yesterday, 09:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,228
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 Yesterday, 11:38 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,854
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 Yesterday, 11:39 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,694
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.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #5922  
Old Yesterday, 11:43 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,084
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 Today, 12:03 AM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,854
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 Today, 01:03 AM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 88
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 Today, 03:03 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,291
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 Today, 09:35 AM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,743
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 Today, 09:39 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,842
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 Today, 09:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,075
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/p...es-impeachment

Pelosi directs House Judiciary committee to draft articles of impeachment
  #5929  
Old Today, 09:55 AM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,152
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 Today, 10:44 AM
crucible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
That attempt at humor was a flop for both of you...
udderly charming
  #5931  
Old Today, 10:46 AM
Lightnin''s Avatar
Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 7,503
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 Today, 10:56 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,024
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 Today, 11:02 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,024
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 Today, 01:01 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,537
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 Today, 01:49 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,858
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 Today, 03:20 PM
rocking chair is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: on the porch
Posts: 7,937
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 Today, 03:34 PM
MulderMuffin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 88
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 Today, 03:39 PM
simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,383
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.
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 04:04 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