malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:11 pm
If you aren't watching the GOP is essentially using their time to read in propaganda into the record, complain about Schiff, whine about the whistle blower, and *NOT ASK THE WITNESS ANYTHING*. She is just sitting there. Now the Dems are doing the same to defend the whistle blower. Ugh. I want to scream 'Don't play their games!'. They have other ways to address this.
This might be the first hiccup. Schiff and co have been *extremely* good at not getting sucked into the GOP’s distractions so far.
Yeah - I am guessing that it was partially planned. They had to know the Republicans were going to clown it up and they felt they needed to have a mechanism to respond to particular story lines. This is part of the effect of the checkers game that the GOP is playing. The most effective way they've done it is to cede time to Schiff and let him ask questions to the witness to clarify.
However, they were talking about bullshit that had nothing to do with her so they must have felt they needed to play the game a little. I fear the Republicans will double down on the theatrics because they literally have no argument here to defend Trump and the Dems will feel tempted to respond. I hope they don't.
Listening to these GOP apparatchiks griping on CNN about the hearing and Adam Schiff is depressing. I don't know if they are in on the scheme or are truly drinking the koolaid. Neither possibility is comforting. Their behavior is galling.
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:10 pm
What?!? Why?!? They are the adults in the room. They remain above it all and maintain decorum. It is totally working out. Really. Any day now...
Edit: Hahahaha - true words. This was my exact perception. Castor...is either throwing the fight or he was way down the list under: the only dope willing to go on tv to carry buckets of bullshit for us.
You make it look like that's transcript.
It never occurred to me that anyone would take that as anything other than a humorous paraphrasing. Sorry for the confusion.
Given the level of Republican crazy, I thought it was an exact quote.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
I know the Democratic strategy is to do this rather quickly, but I really think they need to take the time to go to court and get Giuliani and Mulvaney in these hearings. Right now you have people testifying that are considered by Trumpers as "hostile" to the president, so no matter how credible they are, their testimony will be discounted. People need to hear those two testify. Giuliani is at the center of this and needs to testify. He - other than Trump - is the center of the spider web. Frankly, I would not surprised if he was actually manipulating Trump all in order to further his business dealings and clients in Ukraine. He needs to testify.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Good God, if the WH were to allow Giuliani to testify, they might as well just just step outside after he's done talking and overdose on sleeping pills. There is absolutely no scenario imaginable where that would end up being a win for them. Giuliani is quite literally one of the worst lawyers to have ever paid to pass the bar.
You're not going to get much actual information out of Giuliani if you put him on the stand. He's going to claim attorney-client privilege and/or take the 5th, particularly with news that the DOJ has opened an investigation on him. If the goal is to just make him look bad by having him do that, then I suppose you could push for it. I don't know that it really gets you that much, though, and you lose a lot of time waiting for the courts to rule just to make him look a little worse and get no substantive info.
It isn't clear what that was about but it felt like a scheme. Perhaps they wanted to have Schiff on tv shhh-ing a woman. However, their audience isn't very pc conscious so that feels like a stretch. That said she was the most cogent attacker which also makes her the most insidious because it was pretty obvious she was not acting in good faith.
It's all a show for the faithful. From both sides. Is shouldn't be about rules of order. It should be about the president of the United States of America strongarming nations to do his personal bidding.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
The opening statement of the staffer who overheard the Trump call with Sondland was just read on tv...Sondland is going to jail. Trump definitely ordered an investigation if you believe that the staffer connects the dots. Sondland is going to take the 5th is my bet.
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:29 pm
You're not going to get much actual information out of Giuliani if you put him on the stand. He's going to claim attorney-client privilege and/or take the 5th, particularly with news that the DOJ has opened an investigation on him. If the goal is to just make him look bad by having him do that, then I suppose you could push for it. I don't know that it really gets you that much, though, and you lose a lot of time waiting for the courts to rule just to make him look a little worse and get no substantive info.
Unless, of course, he gets flipped. In addition to the FARA registration and campaign finance investigation revealed yesterday, the Parnas investigation is proceeding:
Investigators want to know if Giuliani would have personally profited from the Ukrainian natural-gas business pushed by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The Russian-born operatives, who are now in U.S. custody, were at the time helping with Rudy's efforts to dig up political dirt that could help Trump in the 2020 re-election campaign, the WSJ reports.
Excerpt:
Mr. Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, pitched their new company, and plans for a Poland-to-Ukraine pipeline carrying U.S. natural gas, in meetings with Ukrainian officials and energy executives this year, saying the project had the support of the Trump administration, according to people briefed on the meetings. In many of the same meetings, the two men also pushed for assistance on investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and alleged interference by Ukraine in the 2016 U.S. election, some of the people said.
In conversations that continued into this summer, Messrs. Parnas and Fruman told Ukrainian officials and others that Mr. Giuliani was a partner in the pipeline venture, which was a project of their company, Global Energy Producers, one of the people said. Another person said the men considered Mr. Giuliani a prospective investor in their company more broadly, but said the pitch was unsophisticated and exaggerated.
For his part, Giuliani today denied any involvement in the energy company or the pipeline pitch on Friday.
“I have no personal interest in any business in Ukraine, including that business,” Mr. Giuliani said,
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:29 pm
You're not going to get much actual information out of Giuliani if you put him on the stand. He's going to claim attorney-client privilege and/or take the 5th, particularly with news that the DOJ has opened an investigation on him. If the goal is to just make him look bad by having him do that, then I suppose you could push for it. I don't know that it really gets you that much, though, and you lose a lot of time waiting for the courts to rule just to make him look a little worse and get no substantive info.
I think you're giving him too much credit. He's already appeared on numerous tv shows and indicted himself and his clients with his inability to keep his damn mouth shut. Giuliana the celebrity has completely and utterly subsumed Giuliani the lawyer.
I did not ... invest ... with ... that Ukranian company.
I await the discovery of Giuliani’s blue dress.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:29 pm
You're not going to get much actual information out of Giuliani if you put him on the stand. He's going to claim attorney-client privilege and/or take the 5th, particularly with news that the DOJ has opened an investigation on him. If the goal is to just make him look bad by having him do that, then I suppose you could push for it. I don't know that it really gets you that much, though, and you lose a lot of time waiting for the courts to rule just to make him look a little worse and get no substantive info.
From what I have read, his ability to claim privilege is likely to be quite limited due to his public comments. He's already said so much that privilege is largely waived at this point.
Then, again, you're the lawyer so what do I know
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
The spin coming out of the Sandy deposition is what you would expect. Democrats think it helps nail down specifics of the aid being withheld. Republicans said there's no there there.
pr0ner wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:06 am
The spin coming out of the Sandy deposition is what you would expect. Democrats think it helps nail down specifics of the aid being withheld. Republicans said there's no there there.
How do you combat the ostrich defense, where the lot of them stick their head in the sand and repeats "there's nothing to see here?" And their dumb-ass base puts their heads in the same and say "golly gee, you're right! There is nothing here!"
At this point I think you just have to make the case to the American people at large and hope for the best. I think the Democratic strategy is working - don't respond to the right's provocation. Just lay out the facts clearly and keep moving along.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:09 pm
At this point I think you just have to make the case to the American people at large and hope for the best. I think the Democratic strategy is working - don't respond to the right's provocation. Just lay out the facts clearly and keep moving along.
It's clearly working and I feel like this is just the beginning of the flood waters lapping over the dam about to burst. I have a feeling many more official will come forward to report other wrong doings. I'm not sure it will make it into an impeachment but more investigations and hearings will follow. Even when the senate votes to not indict him in the spring the all of the evidence has already been presented.
Seems like a lot rides on Sondland’s testimony this week. He’s the direct link to Trump. I think he really only has two choices: (1) he concedes that Trump told him the WH meeting and military aid were contingent on Ukraine opening up investigations into Biden and 2016 election 🗳 interference, or (2) he testifies that he was freelancing or that he never received such instructions from Trump but perhaps misunderstood what Trump wanted him to do.
If he goes (1), that seems like a powerful addition to the case against Trump. If he goes (2), regardless of how incredible that position is, it seems like the ball hasn’t been advanced all that far in terms of directly establishing Trump’s complicity in “Giuliani’s drug deal.”
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
I almost never post political stuff on Facebook, but every now and then an article comes along that I think is so important for both sides to read that it makes me pull the trigger. This is one of those:
TLDR: A history of the right's stoking the fires of tribal epistemology, how Trump is a symptom of it that has gotten out of control, and how the impeachment inquiry may be the last test of whether or not it has broken democracy forever.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:14 pm
I almost never post political stuff on Facebook, but every now and then an article comes along that I think is so important for both sides to read that it makes me pull the trigger. This is one of those:
TLDR: A history of the right's stoking the fires of tribal epistemology, how Trump is a symptom of it that has gotten out of control, and how the impeachment inquiry may be the last test of whether or not it has broken democracy forever.
This much is true: I automatically disbelieve everything released by the administration, and by most Republicans in general.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:14 pm
I almost never post political stuff on Facebook, but every now and then an article comes along that I think is so important for both sides to read that it makes me pull the trigger. This is one of those:
TLDR: A history of the right's stoking the fires of tribal epistemology, how Trump is a symptom of it that has gotten out of control, and how the impeachment inquiry may be the last test of whether or not it has broken democracy forever.
The ironic thing is that no one on the right who is 100% in the tribe will even take the time to read that article. They will dismiss is after the opening paragraphs dare to point out the evidence for impeachment.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:14 pm
I almost never post political stuff on Facebook, but every now and then an article comes along that I think is so important for both sides to read that it makes me pull the trigger. This is one of those:
TLDR: A history of the right's stoking the fires of tribal epistemology, how Trump is a symptom of it that has gotten out of control, and how the impeachment inquiry may be the last test of whether or not it has broken democracy forever.
The ironic thing is that no one on the right who is 100% in the tribe will even take the time to read that article. They will dismiss it after the opening paragraphs dare to point out the evidence for impeachment.
Last edited by Scraper on Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:14 pm
I almost never post political stuff on Facebook, but every now and then an article comes along that I think is so important for both sides to read that it makes me pull the trigger. This is one of those:
TLDR: A history of the right's stoking the fires of tribal epistemology, how Trump is a symptom of it that has gotten out of control, and how the impeachment inquiry may be the last test of whether or not it has broken democracy forever.
This much is true: I automatically disbelieve everything released by the administration, and by most Republicans in general.
I don't but I am quicker to fact check the right. I was much slower to fact check sources from the left until the whole Kentucky Catholic high school kid in DC thing. I was really surprised and disappointed in myself learning how easily I was set off with only a small portion of picture. I also pretty much disregard anything that presents itself as fact based news presented when presented as a "pictures for R&P" format. I used to ask for cites and sources but I gave up.
Trump tweeted that he likes the idea that Pelosi floated of him testifying in person or in writing and that he is considering it. I know Guliani is the only lawyer on earth who likely thinks this is a good idea, but can you imagine the fun if he actually did it?
stessier wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm
Trump tweeted that he likes the idea that Pelosi floated of him testifying in person or in writing and that he is considering it.
He wants to but he's under IRS audit. What are you going to do?
stessier wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm
Trump tweeted that he likes the idea that Pelosi floated of him testifying in person or in writing and that he is considering it. I know Guliani is the only lawyer on earth who likely thinks this is a good idea, but can you imagine the fun if he actually did it?
He said the same thing about the Mueller investigation, but in the end his lawyers wouldn't let him because they knew he'd commit perjury. Someone, I don't know who/where described Trump perfectly - he's a bullshitter. He's incapable of telling the truth, he loves to make up stuff, especially stuff that he thinks makes him look good, or to try and flatter others. There's no way his lawyers let me testify, much less respond in writing.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
He will never, in a million years, do this. Even he knows his ass is grass the moment they ask him his name and he replies "Donald Jesus Trump" or some other stupid friggin' lie that he cannot avoid telling to make himself sound important. There isn't a single lawyer on Earth that would suggest he testify in any way. Giuliani doesn't count as he's not actually a lawyer. He just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:02 pm
He will never, in a million years, do this. Even he knows his ass is grass the moment they ask him his name and he replies "Donald Jesus Trump" or some other stupid friggin' lie that he cannot avoid telling to make himself sound important. There isn't a single lawyer on Earth that would suggest he testify in any way. Giuliani doesn't count as he's not actually a lawyer. He just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.
Oh, I can see him in writing "testifying" that he doesn't recall anything.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
stessier wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm
Trump tweeted that he likes the idea that Pelosi floated of him testifying in person or in writing and that he is considering it. I know Guliani is the only lawyer on earth who likely thinks this is a good idea, but can you imagine the fun if he actually did it?
He said the same thing about the Mueller investigation, but in the end his lawyers wouldn't let him because they knew he'd commit perjury. Someone, I don't know who/where described Trump perfectly - he's a bullshitter. He's incapable of telling the truth, he loves to make up stuff, especially stuff that he thinks makes him look good, or to try and flatter others. There's no way his lawyers let me testify, much less respond in writing.
But he did answer questions in writing and now the House is investigating whether he lied.
The House of Representatives is now investigating whether President Donald Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller in written answers he provided in the Russia investigation, the House's general counsel said in federal court Monday.
And the third judge, Neomi Rao, whom Trump appointed, asked whether the courts should be involved in releasing information to the House that could influence an impeachment investigation.
What does this mean? If they don't get involved does that mean the House should just seize the information? I don't understand.
If they know he isn't going to tell the truth, what is the point of questioning? Once its perjury, does it get worse? Double perjury? Just ask him a fact based question that is easily measurable, listen to the answer, prove the answer is a lie, and then excuse him because he is incapable of answering questions truthfully and doesn't understand the consequences of lying to congress.
For example. Mr President, how tall are you?
stessier wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:35 pm
Trump tweeted that he likes the idea that Pelosi floated of him testifying in person or in writing and that he is considering it. I know Guliani is the only lawyer on earth who likely thinks this is a good idea, but can you imagine the fun if he actually did it?
He said the same thing about the Mueller investigation, but in the end his lawyers wouldn't let him because they knew he'd commit perjury. Someone, I don't know who/where described Trump perfectly - he's a bullshitter. He's incapable of telling the truth, he loves to make up stuff, especially stuff that he thinks makes him look good, or to try and flatter others. There's no way his lawyers let me testify, much less respond in writing.
But he did answer questions in writing and now the House is investigating whether he lied.
The House of Representatives is now investigating whether President Donald Trump lied to special counsel Robert Mueller in written answers he provided in the Russia investigation, the House's general counsel said in federal court Monday.
It's important to remember that Mueller knew that Manafort's Attorneys were leaking to the White House at the time Trump was preparing his answers as well. It is very likely that Mueller's team may have orchestrated some information to leak that would make the President believe he could get away with lies in his written answers.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
