US Politics, November 2019: These people are truly sick.

thought Daniel Goldman was much better as a staff counsel questioner than Steve Castor

I thought the most interesting new piece of information in the impeachment hearing today was Taylor reporting that David Holmes, his aide, was present with Sondland when he spoke on the phone to Trump the day after the call to Zelensky.

His tax returns must show tax deductible donations to some sissy liberal organization

He probably donated to HILLARY.

David Holmes - This Countrys Crap, Lets Slash The Aid

lol

He apparently reported hearing Trump on the other end of the call asking about the status of the investigations and Sondland replying that things were moving forward

ha ha at Willl

there's going to be something in them so damning they would have prevented him from ever getting elected in the first place

Nah. I mean, maaaaybe it could’ve swayed an extra 8000 in Wisconsin or whatever, but keep in mind that Trump voters had already swallowed so much shit leading up to that...the Trump U fraud, the Access Hollywood tape, the nonstop blatant lies...I don’t think there’s anything in there that would’ve swayed them. It would’ve been stupidly explained away and somehow turned into a big story about Hillary’s emails.

Fox guest says George Soros controls the State Department, FBI agents, and wants to control Ukraine using the US government pic.twitter.com/U5vTX3db6M

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) November 14, 2019

Xpost I mean one of the lines of defense used for Access Hollywood tape is that it reflected worse on libs as he was a registered Democrat at the time.

When shit like that works ya don't even need snake oil

isn't being a "guy off television" Donald Trump's entire mission?

His senior economic advisor is "a guy off television".

att Grisso:

https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations

isn't being a "guy off television" Donald Trump's entire mission?

isn’t “lunatic, obvious, constant projection” Donald Trump’s entire mission?

His mission is to take a shit on America until he's voted out, dies, or shapeshifts

I loved Taylor's reaction shots to all of the republican fantasy questions

sorry I mean just actual reactions

if I was testifying there is no way I could keep a straight face.

Renato: "I’ve tried many federal criminal cases, and Wednesday’s hearing looked a lot like trials in which the prosecution has the defendant on tape admitting to a crime."

Quid Pro Ohhhhhhhh

Worldstar!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJTfXYhXYAAUYRs?format=jpg

God fuck both of em

"oh hey reaching across the aisle might be the solution, i mean if only that had been tried before, wish we had some case history to go off of"

If the democrats just voted like republicans they might get more republican support.

Irony of a staff writer for an organization for "Center for American Progress" writing this shit.

Sure, minorities should just voluntarily tolerate being disenfranchised a little, gay people should accept a dash of workplace discrimination, and we should all join the NRA so that in 2020, one extra Senate seat might have a D in front of it

Jordan's "Star Witness" line is getting traction as a sound bite.

of course neera tanden uses two spaces after a period

keep showing them that belly. they'll toss that treat aaaanny minute now

more likely they will command you to 'sit', place the treat balanced on your nose and make you sit totally still until they give you permission to eat it. then they won't give you permission.

Did I just see a news item that Schiff changed it to five-minute rounds per member? Ugh, I guess there's no reason to watch anymore, he's sending in the clowns.

They do 45 minute rounds then switch to 5 minutes once he decides they've done enough with the long-form questioning.

They have to submit questions in haiku form next round

Hey why not just send the rest of the questions to Jimmy Fallon and let him ask the prez directly, maybe tousle his hair a bit, we could get this farce over by the time they cut to commercial

At any rate, I appreciate the move towards a hipper, snappier, MTV-style lightning round questioning style. Whatever it takes to alleviate our Commander in Chief's boredom!

Jordan's "Star Witness" line is getting traction as a sound bite.

― a bevy of supermodels, musicians and Lena Dunham (C. Grisso/McCain)

getting some help from the NYT as well. here's their current headline:

https://i.imgur.com/3TuahVC.jpg

GOP Senators publicly arguing w each other, you love to see it

Senators are pushing for a speedy impeachment trial as the proceedings appear poised to spill into 2020.

With House Democrats aiming to vote on articles of impeachment by Christmas, Republicans view a trial as all but guaranteed but are warning they don’t want to drag it out.

How long a trial could last is a rolling point of debate. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) raised eyebrows by suggesting it could last six to eight weeks, longer than the proceedings against former President Clinton, which lasted just over a month.

Burr argued the case against Clinton was “cookie-cutter” compared to the current investigation.

“Bill Clinton admitted that he lied to the FBI,” Burr said. “His took five weeks and it didn’t meet the threshold of removal from office. I figured since the president hadn’t admitted to a crime, nor has the House process proven a crime, that it would probably take them some more time.”

But GOP senators — who view it as all but guaranteed that President Trump will not be convicted — balked at a long timeline, questioning why they would want to eat up extra weeks on a trial that seems prebaked.

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), asked about Burr’s prediction, said, “I don’t know who he was kidding, but no, it’s not going to take that long.”

“It doesn’t sound like there’s going to be much they’re going to give us, so I think a week is more than enough time to get all that adjudicated, get it out there and exposed, and be done with this,” Perdue added.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who was in office for the Clinton trial, characterized himself as “in shock” over the idea of taking six to eight weeks for the Senate’s impeachment proceedings.
ADVERTISEMENT

“I’m not sure why it should,” he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was a House manager in 1999, also questioned why a trial would need to take up to two months.

“It’s not a complicated fact pattern. I doubt if a trial would last that long,” he said.

Talk about a potential Senate trial comes as the House is holding its first public hearings as part of their impeachment inquiry after weeks of closed-door depositions. House lawmakers are examining if Trump held up Ukraine aid in an effort to pressure the country to open up an investigation into former Vice President Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

One option that has been discussed by some GOP senators, as well as conservative pundits, would be to try to dismiss the articles of impeachment, effectively ending a trial before it could get underway. Democrats tried to dismiss the articles against Clinton, but the vote, which requires a simple majority, fell short.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dismissed the idea during a weekly leadership press conference on Wednesday, telling reporters that there will be a trial if the House sends over articles of impeachment.

“The rules of impeachment are very clear, we’ll have to have a trial. My own view is that we should give people an opportunity to put the case on. ... On the issue of how long it goes on, it’s really kind of up to the Senate,” he said.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell, also told reporters that he didn’t think the votes were there to dismiss impeachment articles.

Meanwhile, Perdue added that Trump should “get his day in court.”

“I’m one that says, no, put it out there and let’s show everybody just how weak this is, how ridiculous this is,” he said.

Democrats had initially aimed to vote on articles of impeachment by Thanksgiving. Under that time frame, McConnell had told GOP senators that a trial could wrap by the end of the year.

But that time frame has slipped amid weeks of closed-door depositions. House Democrats are now aiming to hold a floor vote by Christmas.

The Senate is scheduled to wrap up its work for the year on Dec. 13. Senators are hoping leadership would be able to come up with a deal to avoid working through the holidays.

Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of GOP leadership, said a Christmas vote in the House could “encourage us [in the Senate] to come to some quick agreement on both a time frame and some rules that accommodates Christmas at least, and maybe that whole week.”

Bribery is pretty easy to understand, have been wondering why House Dems weren't pushing this as a clear message

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday accused President Trump of "bribery" in his dealings with Ukrainian leaders, linking the president's actions to the Constitution's impeachment clause even while emphasizing that Democrats remain undecided on whether they'll draft impeachment articles.

"That is in the Constitution, attached to the impeachment proceedings," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol.

She then explained the basis for the charge, which stems from a whistleblower's complaint that has since supported by numerous government officials, that Trump leveraged U.S. military aid to Kyiv to secure political favors from Ukrainian leaders.

"The bribe is to grant or withhold military assistance in return for a public statement of a fake investigation into the elections," she said. "That's bribery."

Pelosi declined to say if the bribery charge would become an article of impeachment, insisting Democrats — even as they move ahead with their investigation — have not concluded Trump committed impeachable offenses.

"We haven't even made a decision to impeach," she said. "That's what the inquiry is about. And when the committees decide that, then they will decide what the articles are."

"But I am saying, that what the president has admitted to, and says it's "perfect," I said it's perfectly wrong," she added. "It's bribery."

Trump needs some coaching from Ja Rule on how to deny criminal activity

can i share some naive information age whining, related to how the world sucks?

is anyone else weirded out by how, collectively, we all expect terrible outcomes and anticipate them to the point that we guarantee that the future will be a version of self-fulfilling prophecy?

(when i say "we", i mean people that matter to impeachment decisions. so, rich people, name brand journalists, and a few hundred people voting on impeachment. yes, my assumption is that none of what i, or you, or anyone reading about this thinks about impeachment matters to their decision. yes, this is pessimistic. yes, i'm aware that the current level of support for impeachment (~50%) is very high, historically. no, i don't think it's enough to change the senate vote. yes, if somehow support for impeachment gets above 70-80%, i think it would be enough to peel off some republican votes. no, i don't think that we'll get to 70% support in the public, because the people in this country are so uninformed, misinformed, and disinformed. yes, i'm aware that there is a thread where people answer their own questions. no, i'm not going to admit that i made it)

we've already played out the fight over the senate votes. the senate republicans won't vote for impeachment, no matter what. on the left, we've already gone through the (outdated) kübler-ross stages of grief, with many of us trying to figure out how to accept things as they are (or will be??) and move on (from the future??). by the time the senate actually votes (not guilty!), we will have fully accepted it and moved on. we've already lived through the rage and the disbelief, and we can't live in that state for long without breaking down, so we accept it.

it's amazing how far this infiltrates the population. i heard a podcast this morning with a 3rd grade, talking about impeachment. they asked him what he thought would happen, and he said that he expected the house to vote for it, but not the senate. granted, this boy was precocious as hell.

but the end result is that when it comes down the unthinkable act, the sequel to the merrick garland slow-motion fuckover, the golden boy brett kavanaugh disingenuous pukefest, the sight of several dozen white republican men seeing indisputable evidence that the president is and has been a criminal from day one and voting "not guilty" anyway, we will be exhausted and will have already played out the whole cycle in our head.

we've grown accustomed to using simulations to create models from past events, in order to simulate future outcomes. but now, we're simulating the future, deciding the most likely outcome, socializing that prediction through endless discussions and information sharing, then collectively walking toward the simulated outcome that we think is most likely. it's really fucking weird? we are missing out on the moment of collective SHOCK and RAGE that would come from watching the unthinkable happen in real time.

weirded out? not really, but it is super-annoying.

Booming post.

A lot in there to delve into deeper, though I'm not sure this thread is the best place for that.

optimism is necessary to effect change. cynicism leads to inaction.

I thought the 2018 election was a vital counter to this. It felt so good for the right thing to happen for once, and had the Dems not make that progress last year we wouldn't even be talking about impeachment, and god knows what we *would* be talking about.

the point of impeachment right now isn't to immediately get Trump out of office, it's to stoke rage at the craven amorality of the entire GOP for protecting him, thereby driving turnout and robbing them of the Senate majority and the Presidency in the 2020 election.

which tbh is much more likely than 20 GOP Senators suddenly voting to remove him from office when impeachment support hits 60% in the polls

Yeah the Senate is vital. Court packing a must. I want 33 nominees

if somehow support for impeachment gets above 70-80%, i think it would be enough to peel off some republican votes

While that would be grand, I think it's unlikely these days. Bucking a party-line vote gets more and more impossible. _However_, their kneejerk party loyalty could make them vulnerable at election time, which imo is just as good. As Οὖτις says, flipping the Senate is a pretty desirable prize, perhaps even more important than removing President. (Though of course I'd like both.)

My instinctual pessimism is but a chocolatey outer layer that encloses a delightful nougaty center of optimism

the quite real risk here is that once he does survive trial in the Senate, he is sure to immediately lash out and do something highly provocative and/or even more illegal in an attempt to drive up enthusiasm for his re-election

xp

ultimately the big problem is that politics in this country is just a large scale representation of the "prisoner's dilemma"...if one side is willing to lie & cheat in order to retain power and the other isn't, the dishonest side will always win.

that said impeachment is most certainly worth pursuing, not only because it'll irritate and distract Trump leading up to the election but also because it puts his corruption front and center in the news on a daily basis

The GOP wins elections by keeping its neanderthal base continuously stoked. That's all I've wanted from the impeachment hearings.

optimism is necessary to effect change. cynicism leads to inaction.

yeah, i agree! and i do try to keep that in mind.

but this is something different, more sweeping. (this as in the widespread understanding of the scam that is coming up in the senate). there are precedents, of course. but it's still a uniquely 2010s, information overload kind of thing, where everyone has the information, and the outcome has already been widely discussed months ahead of time.