Holman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:52 pm
It's not like Nadler can charge contempt by just announcing "I Charge Thee!" during the hearing. There's legal paperwork involved.
In the long run, it might prove best that an asshole like Lewandowski went first. I have to assume that whoever was setting the schedule knew what to expect.
Sure that isn't how it works but I really recommend watching the first 10 minutes after statements. Nadler was completely unprepared for Lewandowski. And like you said they had to know it'd be contentious but he simply got all flustered by him. He was *not* impressive on the first day of his 'unofficial' impeachment inquiry. Which is another bone of contention since Pelosi won't acknowledge it. And that is what Rick Wilson and a lot of the #nevertrump commentators are getting at. The Democratic leadership in the House is all over the place. They seemingly have no strategy other than win in 2020 and it is a pretty depressing strategy. Since by win in 2020...at this point it feels a whole lot like it hinges them hoping it'll work out. They are in a powerful position but seemingly have no *clue* what to do with it.
In the end the hearing did possibly produce pay dirt because in spite of their complete ineffectual questioning they were smart enough to leave time for professional counsel to question the witness. And Barry Berke tore Lewandowski apart at the seams. He simultaneously got Lewandowski to effectively confirm the obstruction he was involved in as documented in the Mueller report, he possibly trashed his Senate run, and made him toxic to any reputable news network. He was competent, prepared, and ready to go which was a whole lot more than any of the House members on either side.
I totally agree that the party trying to play by the rules is getting fucked by the party willing to ignore all the rules. My hope (and it's only a hope) is that there are advisers and wise people standing by to noose up the rope the GOP is handing us on live TV.
It's infuriating, but it's also true that crimes committed in plain sight are usually punished. I hate it, but that's all I've got.
This is what we get when electability itself is the single most importantrtamt quality for our representatives.
Once they get in they are out-matched in everything but getting re-elected. And we measure them against all the other one-trick ponies.
" 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
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:06 pm
This is what we get when electability itself is the single most importantrtamt quality for our representatives.
Once they get in they are out-matched in everything but getting re-elected. And we measure them against all the other one-trick ponies.
Agreed 100%.
I wonder what it is, exactly that the house can do? If they hold Lewandowski in contempt isn't that then referred to the AG? Instead of looking like they're doing nothing, when Barr comes back with a 'verdict' of the Dems are playing politics and there's nothing to this, won't that look worse to a relatively unengaged swing voter than doing nothing? And the swing vote is who the dems need to remove these clowns.
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:06 pm
This is what we get when electability itself is the single most importantrtamt quality for our representatives.
Once they get in they are out-matched in everything but getting re-elected. And we measure them against all the other one-trick ponies.
Agreed 100%.
I wonder what it is, exactly that the house can do? If they hold Lewandowski in contempt isn't that then referred to the AG? Instead of looking like they're doing nothing, when Barr comes back with a 'verdict' of the Dems are playing politics and there's nothing to this, won't that look worse to a relatively unengaged swing voter than doing nothing? And the swing vote is who the dems need to remove these clowns.
The big swing that House Democrats can take (either with Lewandowski or others) is to invoke 'inherent contempt'. Basically the House would hold someone in contempt of Congress (I suppose in contempt of the House) and would basically direct the House Sargeant at Arms (I think) to essentially arrest and hold the person in question. So that doesn't rely on Barr or anyone else.
The catch with that is that (IIRC) it hasn't been used since I think the 1930s, there would no doubt be resulting litigation of some sort, and it's an enormous bomb whose political impacts are somewhat unpredictable. Also, it might be better used on someone who is more directly defying the House - Lewondowski appeared pursuant to a subpoena and answered questions obnoxiously, but did technically answer them. It may make sense to invoke it against someone who is refusing to answer, to appear, or to produce documents altogether.
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
So they need to find the tough answers. That's their job and that is(was) why the job is(was) held in such high esteem. Instead they're getting played and walked all over by an opponent whose only collective advantage is disregard for the law.
" 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
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:06 pm
This is what we get when electability itself is the single most importantrtamt quality for our representatives.
Once they get in they are out-matched in everything but getting re-elected. And we measure them against all the other one-trick ponies.
Agreed 100%.
I wonder what it is, exactly that the house can do? If they hold Lewandowski in contempt isn't that then referred to the AG? Instead of looking like they're doing nothing, when Barr comes back with a 'verdict' of the Dems are playing politics and there's nothing to this, won't that look worse to a relatively unengaged swing voter than doing nothing? And the swing vote is who the dems need to remove these clowns.
The big swing that House Democrats can take (either with Lewandowski or others) is to invoke 'inherent contempt'. Basically the House would hold someone in contempt of Congress (I suppose in contempt of the House) and would basically direct the House Sargeant at Arms (I think) to essentially arrest and hold the person in question. So that doesn't rely on Barr or anyone else.
The catch with that is that (IIRC) it hasn't been used since I think the 1930s, there would no doubt be resulting litigation of some sort, and it's an enormous bomb whose political impacts are somewhat unpredictable. Also, it might be better used on someone who is more directly defying the House - Lewondowski appeared pursuant to a subpoena and answered questions obnoxiously, but did technically answer them. It may make sense to invoke it against someone who is refusing to answer, to appear, or to produce documents altogether.
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
Good info thanks. But if they hold someone in inherent contempt and direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest them, what happens if that person simply doesn't show up? Does this Sergeant have the power or even the resources to find someone and arrest them? Can they employ the DC police to carry out an arrest? Seems really murky, to me, from a legal stand point.
And to LawBeeef's point, yeah they are getting played but do the Dems just sink to the GOP'S level and simply stop respecting norms also? Where does that get us? I'm asking bc I don't know but it sure seems like it gets us exactly where putin wanted us when he got this dumbass elected
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
GungHo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:39 pmAnd to LawBeeef's point, yeah they are getting played but do the Dems just sink to the GOP'S level and simply stop respecting norms also? Where does that get us? I'm asking bc I don't know but it sure seems like it gets us exactly where putin wanted us when he got this dumbass elected
They dont have to smash norms. The minimum bar we should expect is that they have a plan and appear competent. Again I recommend anyone who doesn't get the criticism to watch the beginning of the hearing. The chairman of the committee was completely unprepared to deal with the witness. The reps badly need to be much, much better than this.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
So they need to find the tough answers. That's their job and that is(was) why the job is(was) held in such high esteem. Instead they're getting played and walked all over by an opponent whose only collective advantage is disregard for the law.
Disregard for the law, ruthlessness, and the Presidency and Senate are pretty powerful advantages.
GungHo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:39 pmAnd to LawBeeef's point, yeah they are getting played but do the Dems just sink to the GOP'S level and simply stop respecting norms also? Where does that get us? I'm asking bc I don't know but it sure seems like it gets us exactly where putin wanted us when he got this dumbass elected
They dont have to smash norms. The minimum bar we should expect is that they have a plan and appear competent. Again I recommend anyone who doesn't get the criticism to watch the beginning of the hearing. The chairman of the committee was completely unprepared to deal with the witness. The reps badly need to be much, much better than this.
If nothing else I think they need to lean more on retained counsel in these situations. Sounds like the outside guy tore up Lewondowski pretty good.
I'm anxious to hear what the Mangerine promised another world leader, if the reports about the substance of the whistleblower's claim are true. I'm assuming it had something to do with giving them Eric Trump in exchange for a new Trump Dubai, followed by a lot of pleading and sobbing as the other world leader tried to avoid that trade.
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:25 am
I'm anxious to hear what the Mangerine promised another world leader, if the reports about the substance of the whistleblower's claim are true. I'm assuming it had something to do with giving them Eric Trump in exchange for a new Trump Dubai, followed by a lot of pleading and sobbing as the other world leader tried to avoid that trade.
People on Twitter are putting together pieces that seem to indicate it was a promise to Putin.
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:25 am
I'm anxious to hear what the Mangerine promised another world leader, if the reports about the substance of the whistleblower's claim are true. I'm assuming it had something to do with giving them Eric Trump in exchange for a new Trump Dubai, followed by a lot of pleading and sobbing as the other world leader tried to avoid that trade.
People on Twitter are putting together pieces that seem to indicate it was a promise to Putin.
What are the pieces, beyond it's Trump and that's the kind of thing he would do? I also wouldn't be shocked if it were, say, Trump promising Mohammed Bin Salman that he's going to strike Iran, for example.
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:25 am
I'm anxious to hear what the Mangerine promised another world leader, if the reports about the substance of the whistleblower's claim are true. I'm assuming it had something to do with giving them Eric Trump in exchange for a new Trump Dubai, followed by a lot of pleading and sobbing as the other world leader tried to avoid that trade.
People on Twitter are putting together pieces that seem to indicate it was a promise to Putin.
What are the pieces, beyond it's Trump and that's the kind of thing he would do? I also wouldn't be shocked if it were, say, Trump promising Mohammed Bin Salman that he's going to strike Iran, for example.
Here's a WaPo timeline of some key events before and after the whistleblower complaint was made.
Given the fact that the promise appears to be made via a phone call, and you're off to the races.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
So they need to find the tough answers. That's their job and that is(was) why the job is(was) held in such high esteem. Instead they're getting played and walked all over by an opponent whose only collective advantage is disregard for the law.
Disregard for the law, ruthlessness, and the Presidency and Senate are pretty powerful advantages.
Sure. But fighting abuse of those advantages is the very reason Congress exists. If they are doing anything other than putting an end to it they are neglecting their jobs. This shredding of the Constitution is our most immediate threat. I mean at least walk over to the Senate and punch McConnell in face. If you're not going to do anything might as well go out in style.
" 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
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:50 am
I will say that I don't think we should be *too* glib in attacking House democrats on this stuff. There's no easy answers on how best to go about this, and it's easy to throw stones from the sidelines. Though I think we are in general agreement that the House should do *something* more dramatic to shake things up here.
So they need to find the tough answers. That's their job and that is(was) why the job is(was) held in such high esteem. Instead they're getting played and walked all over by an opponent whose only collective advantage is disregard for the law.
Disregard for the law, ruthlessness, and the Presidency and Senate are pretty powerful advantages.
Sure. But fighting abuse of those advantages is the very reason Congress exists. If they are doing anything other than putting an end to it they are neglecting their jobs. This shredding of the Constitution is our most immediate threat. I mean at least walk over to the Senate and punch McConnell in face. If you're not going to do anything might as well go out in style.
Absolutely. Everyone's in agreement that they need to do what they can. The question is what are the right steps in particular to take. And all I was saying is that this is not an easy problem.
When Pelosi is saying she would have done something, you know things must be serious:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told members of her caucus in a closed-door meeting Wednesday that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee should have held former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in contempt “then and there” during Tuesday’s hearing.
Ohhhh yeah that makes a lot of sense. Trump and Guliani have been pretty explicit about trying to get Ukraine to help them tar Biden via Biden's son. And they've been leaning on the Ukranian government as part of that. So wouldn't be shocking in the least if Trump essentially said, "Yes, you get us dirt on Biden and we'll give you military aid" or what have you.
Ohhhh yeah that makes a lot of sense. Trump and Guliani have been pretty explicit about trying to get Ukraine to help them tar Biden via Biden's son. And they've been leaning on the Ukranian government as part of that. So wouldn't be shocking in the least if Trump essentially said, "Yes, you get us dirt on Biden and we'll give you military aid" or what have you.
I'm curious about putin's response to this, if trump really did promise aid(especially military aid) to Ukraine, that can't make putin happy. But then I probably think putin is playing 3D chess while I'm playing checkers when it comes to all of this (and trump is playing Go Fish), so maybe just the scandal(s) is enough for putin.
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.
They really should stop having Rudy talk. I'm sure this will just amount to nothing so I just sit here and pray that the idiot will just keel over one day and this will be over.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Ohhhh yeah that makes a lot of sense. Trump and Guliani have been pretty explicit about trying to get Ukraine to help them tar Biden via Biden's son. And they've been leaning on the Ukranian government as part of that. So wouldn't be shocking in the least if Trump essentially said, "Yes, you get us dirt on Biden and we'll give you military aid" or what have you.
I'm curious about putin's response to this, if trump really did promise aid(especially military aid) to Ukraine, that can't make putin happy. But then I probably think putin is playing 3D chess while I'm playing checkers when it comes to all of this (and trump is playing Go Fish), so maybe just the scandal(s) is enough for putin.
I'm sure that Putin would rather have U.S. aid to Ukraine zero'd out. However, I doubt this aid (which I think is just the threat of withdrawing aid, not the promise of additional aid) is a game-changer for Putin either way. And if Trump can gin up an FBI investigation of Biden for 2020 (and Biden is the nominee), that probably does marginally boost Trump's chances of reelection. And Putin probably cares more about Trump getting reelected than aid to Ukraine.
" 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
"Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?" Cuomo asked Giuliani.
"No, actually I didn't. I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the Ukrainians for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, for which there is already a court finding," Giuliani responded.
"You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden and his role with the prosecutor?" Cuomo asked.
"The only thing I asked about Joe Biden is to get to the bottom of how it was that Lutsenko, who was appointed, dismissed the case," Giuliani said.
"So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?" Cuomo pressed.
The blow back should this turn out to be a big ol' nothing burger will result in Trump being able to extend his "I'm a victim tour" by quite a bit. So I hope folks in Washington AND in the media are very careful.
Smart people online have figured out that the phone call to the Ukraine President took place the day after the televised Mueller hearings. Clearly he was left with the impression that the hearings absolved him completely of wrongdoing, so he got on the phone and engaged in wrongdoings. Amazing.
President Donald Trump said Friday it "doesn't matter" if he asked the government of Ukraine to investigate Democratic opponent Joe Biden and that it should be done anyway.
...
The president also said his conversations with world leaders are “always appropriate, at the highest level always appropriate.”
Asked whether he discussed Biden in this conversation, Trump said: "It doesn’t matter what I discussed."
New reports are stating that Trump repeatedly asked Ukrainian officials to work with Rudy "My nose won't go further up there, sir!" Giuliani on the Biden thing, but says he never made withholding aid a part of it.
I'm sure this will just amount to nothing so I just sit here and pray that the idiot will just keel over one day and this will be over.
