Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:04 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:25 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am If tRump gets reelected we can expect that he will be in for life and whomever of his brood survives the battle for control after his death will take the seat next. All of the suggesting we should wait for the election noise, to me, suggests they feel they have that on lock down already. The more the Republicans cling to him in spite of the obvious abuses the more I am convinced we have already ceased being a true democracy.

This is over the top exaggeration. Our government is dysfunctional right now, but we’re not about to anoint anyone to a lifelong term as POTUS.

How would we stop it?

The military will prevent a coup of this sort - their oaths are to the Constitution, not the President and while some would support a 3rd term and be willing to abrogate their Oaths, that will be a very, very minor portion. Even if he managed to declare Martial Law somehow, he won't get enough Military support for anything of the kind without the Supremes also ruling in favor of it, and that won't happen either.

Far more likely would be President Don Jr/Jared/Ivanka somehow.

It wouldn't have to be a coup, and there wouldn't have to be martial law. He'd have his lawyers draw up some bullshit argument about why he could run for a third term, then he'd do it, and then he'd refuse to leave. Then we'd be in a position where we would have to count on the military and/or police to actively go in and arrest him. Which is a bad situation in and of itself.

That said, I do think that a Don Jr. type situation is more likely in the short term. Remember that as Putin was consolidating his power and gutting Russian democracy (such as it was) he had a flunky (Medvedev) run for President and serve a term while Putin himself technically served as 'prime minister'. Which gave Putin four more years to undermine Russian democratic institutions to the point where he could openly serve as president indefinitely.

SCOTUS would still have to bless the 3rd term, which won't happen, and if he tries to stay w/o SCOTUS blessing, it is a *coup*. If anything, it will be a different Trump family member running in 2024.

It *probably* won't happen, but I wouldn't guarantee that. Especially bearing in mind that by 2024 a President Trump has probably at least replaced Ginsburg.

I'd say your scenario is well into tinfoil hat territory.

I started, but it's 440 pages and it begins with 11 pages of Geatz refusing to leave. I can't do it.

for those who can

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/77751159 ... y-official

Hot damn, shit gettin' real...maybe.

Bolton's lawyer says he has 'relevant' information on Ukraine that hasn't been disclosed. He won't testify though until someone rules that the subpoena MUST be followed. Sounds like he's trying to cover his ass from the wrath of the orange monkey god sitting in the WH.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:02 pm I started, but it's 440 pages and it begins with 11 pages of Geatz refusing to leave. I can't do it.

for those who can

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/77751159 ... y-official

That whole Geatz thing is why I am confident in Schiff. He had plays ready for GOP shenanigans - Gaetz won't leave? Ok I'll treat you fools like the children you are and just dock time out of your questioning. He didn't engage in Geatz's show me the rule I'm violating nonsense, etc. Nadler would probably have sputtered and fumbled his way through the 'attack' on the process.

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:06 pm Hot damn, shit gettin' real...maybe.

Bolton's lawyer says he has 'relevant' information on Ukraine that hasn't been disclosed. He won't testify though until someone rules that the subpoena MUST be followed. Sounds like he's trying to cover his ass from the wrath of the orange monkey god sitting in the WH.

The court stuff is about his future prospects. He knows the Democrats aren't going to wait months for a ruling. He is just being a douche.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:13 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:06 pm Hot damn, shit gettin' real...maybe.

Bolton's lawyer says he has 'relevant' information on Ukraine that hasn't been disclosed. He won't testify though until someone rules that the subpoena MUST be followed. Sounds like he's trying to cover his ass from the wrath of the orange monkey god sitting in the WH.

The court stuff is about his future prospects. He knows the Democrats aren't going to wait months for a ruling. He is just being a douche.

Are Democrats part of the court proceedings on compliance with the relevant testimonial subpoena? This statement from the lawyer would be a pretty great way to get a prompt court ruling. Basically a filing saying: (1) this information is material; (2) this information is time sensitive; and (3) this information won't be revealed until the court rules on this would be a pretty reliable way to get a court to move fast.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:46 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:04 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:25 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am If tRump gets reelected we can expect that he will be in for life and whomever of his brood survives the battle for control after his death will take the seat next. All of the suggesting we should wait for the election noise, to me, suggests they feel they have that on lock down already. The more the Republicans cling to him in spite of the obvious abuses the more I am convinced we have already ceased being a true democracy.

This is over the top exaggeration. Our government is dysfunctional right now, but we’re not about to anoint anyone to a lifelong term as POTUS.

How would we stop it?

The military will prevent a coup of this sort - their oaths are to the Constitution, not the President and while some would support a 3rd term and be willing to abrogate their Oaths, that will be a very, very minor portion. Even if he managed to declare Martial Law somehow, he won't get enough Military support for anything of the kind without the Supremes also ruling in favor of it, and that won't happen either.

Far more likely would be President Don Jr/Jared/Ivanka somehow.

It wouldn't have to be a coup, and there wouldn't have to be martial law. He'd have his lawyers draw up some bullshit argument about why he could run for a third term, then he'd do it, and then he'd refuse to leave. Then we'd be in a position where we would have to count on the military and/or police to actively go in and arrest him. Which is a bad situation in and of itself.

That said, I do think that a Don Jr. type situation is more likely in the short term. Remember that as Putin was consolidating his power and gutting Russian democracy (such as it was) he had a flunky (Medvedev) run for President and serve a term while Putin himself technically served as 'prime minister'. Which gave Putin four more years to undermine Russian democratic institutions to the point where he could openly serve as president indefinitely.

SCOTUS would still have to bless the 3rd term, which won't happen, and if he tries to stay w/o SCOTUS blessing, it is a *coup*. If anything, it will be a different Trump family member running in 2024.

It *probably* won't happen, but I wouldn't guarantee that. Especially bearing in mind that by 2024 a President Trump has probably at least replaced Ginsburg.

I'd say your scenario is well into tinfoil hat territory.

Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

Yeah - people forget how outrageous that ruling actually was.

Or that GOP activity has been open defiance of norms and the law. In all this, we can expect maybe 1 or 2 GOP Senators to vote to convict. Maybe. People don't want to face the reality of how out of control and dysfunctional this system actually is or how the experts on authoritarianism are accurately predicting how things have and will progress.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

This part. I'm not familiar with the Bush v Gore case (just the result), but I'm assuming there wasn't an Amendment that they had to reason their way around. It's a rule every school kid knows - you get 2 terms. To go against that...tin foil hat territory.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:29 pm Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

All this would happen before the election as he would have to get on the ballots in enough states to get the Electoral College victory. There would be legal challenges in every one.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:29 pm Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

Yeah - people forget how outrageous that ruling actually was.

Or that GOP activity has been open defiance of norms and the law. In all this, we can expect maybe 1 or 2 GOP Senators to vote to convict. Maybe. People don't want to face the reality of how out of control and dysfunctional this system actually is or the experts on authoritarianism literally calling the shots weeks/months/years in advance about what is going to happen.

Or the Obamacare ruling! It upheld the ACA (while gutting the Medicaid expansion), but people forget: (1) the interstate commerce part of the ruling (that the law was unsupportable under regulating commerce) was COMPLETELY bonkers under existing precedent; (2) the Medicaid gutting part was completely bonkers; and (3) Roberts initially sided with the conservative side (invalidating the entire law on bonkers grounds) before backing off at the last minute. I really don't have nearly as much faith as I used to that courts won't endorse bonkers legal theories that support "their side".

And to be clear, I'm not saying that we are doomed to dictatorship. I'm just saying that the odds that we wind up like Hungary within the next 10 years, if Trump is reelected in 2020, are way higher than I think most people appreciate.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:37 pm And to be clear, I'm not saying that we are doomed to dictatorship. I'm just saying that the odds that we wind up like Hungary within the next 10 years, if Trump is reelected in 2020, are way higher than I think most people appreciate.

The roadmap to Banana Republic becomes a much easier one to follow. Too easy not to show concern... Which, of course, for someone like me means fear. The fear is on me. The concern should be on everyone.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:34 pmIt's a rule every school kid knows - you get 2 terms. To go against that...tin foil hat territory.

We'll see. The man's attorneys literally are arguing a new immunity against the impeachment hearings. And people are hiding behind it. Again we are way off the map here in the dark. It isn't tinfoil hat land to wonder if they'll be able to completely break the system in 6 years. Ask Poland or Hungary how quickly the system collapsed under them once the judiciary was compromised...which is literally the GOP game plan right now.

Trump doesn't want three terms. He hates the job, and he's only running again because quitting would look like quitting.

He also knows that four more years of Trump will guarantee that the Trump family never faces any penalty for their crimes. By 2024 the government will be so entirely trumpified that no GOP-connected American oligarch will ever need to fear justice.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

Yes, it's tinfoil hat territory. Even if Trump were to contest the election (and it most assuredly would be on spurious grounds), I have no doubt that the SC would expedite any hearings and over rule Trump, thus allowing his successor to take office on schedule as the Constitution requires The Supreme Court is political, that's reality but there is absolutely no reason to believe that they would support Trump invalidating the Constitution in any way regarding the election. You're looking as hyper-partisan as many of the other side. This kind of stuff just isn't going to happen, it's just not.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:29 pm Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

The decision in the Bush/Gore didn't take months, no reason to believe that this would either.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

And you had 4 Democrats/liberals voting the other way. Yet you don't think they were being partisan? Why not?

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:17 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:29 pm Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

The decision in the Bush/Gore didn't take months, no reason to believe that this would either.

Particularly since it will only need to be appealed if the court rules against Congress or against Bolton - and Bolton wants to appeal. If he's OK with testifying and he just wants coverage from the judiciary, he wouldn't need to appeal. It kind of sounds like he wants to testify.

[Edit]Never mind this. Just looked into further and I see that it's not actually Bolton with the suit - he just wants to follow the lead of an existing suit or something like that.[/edit]

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:17 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:29 pm Even so, you have District Court -> Appeal -> Appeal en banc (maybe) -> Supreme Court. It is going to take weeks to months.

The decision in the Bush/Gore didn't take months, no reason to believe that this would either.

He was referring to a decision on subpoena compliance (relevant to Bolton) not to any ruling on a Trumpian third term.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:18 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

And you had 4 Democrats/liberals voting the other way. Yet you don't think they were being partisan? Why not?

I didn't say that they weren't being partisan. The Bush / Gore ruling was super thinly reasoned (and it's notable that the Supreme Court literally said in its opinion not to rely on it in the future), so I am inclined to think that the liberals had the better of the argument. However, if one thinks the dissenters were also being partisan (which they probably were to some degree) that only strengthens the concern about partisan Supreme Court rulings.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

Yes, it's tinfoil hat territory. Even if Trump were to contest the election (and it most assuredly would be on spurious grounds), I have no doubt that the SC would expedite any hearings and over rule Trump, thus allowing his successor to take office on schedule as the Constitution requires The Supreme Court is political, that's reality but there is absolutely no reason to believe that they would support Trump invalidating the Constitution in any way regarding the election. You're looking as hyper-partisan as many of the other side. This kind of stuff just isn't going to happen, it's just not.

I don't think an outright Trump third term is likely. The more dangerous scenario is a hand-picked Trump successor (Don Jr. say) with further weakening of institutions at the federal and state level, increasing gerrymandering and voting restrictions limiting the electorate as much as they can get away with, and more damage to independent media.

But there are a lot of variables, including how many justices Trump gets to appoint over six years.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:44 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:34 pmIt's a rule every school kid knows - you get 2 terms. To go against that...tin foil hat territory.

We'll see. The man's attorneys literally are arguing a new immunity against the impeachment hearings.

Can you be more specific on this one? Its a bit hard to keep track some weeks.

Back to the real issue here. Given the obvious truth of quid pro quo, the Republican defenses are collapsing. The latest trial
balloon is that Giuliani, Sondland, and Mulvaney (he was directly implicated in the latest transcripts) were doing this on their own, without any direct orders from Trump. Of course we have Guiliani’s public comments, and who is really going to believe that they were working on their own? And the other problem is that it is unlikely IMO that they are prepared to be fall guys for Trump. Things could get very interesting very fast.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:41 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:44 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:34 pmIt's a rule every school kid knows - you get 2 terms. To go against that...tin foil hat territory.

We'll see. The man's attorneys literally are arguing a new immunity against the impeachment hearings.

Can you be more specific on this one? Its a bit hard to keep track some weeks.

Washington Post coverage of this topic.

In courts and before Congress, Trump’s legal teams are simultaneously arguing two contradictory points: that the president can’t be investigated or indicted by prosecutors because Congress has the sole responsibility for holding presidents accountable, and that the House’s impeachment inquiry is an unconstitutional effort that the White House can ignore.

“We have a president who simply doesn’t believe that Congress is a coequal branch of government,” said Elliot Williams, who helped run the Justice Department’s legislative affairs office during the Obama administration. “That’s a huge departure from anything we’ve seen in our lifetimes.”

The broad legal effort escalated on Tuesday when the White House counsel sent a letter to House Democratic leaders dismissing Congress’s impeachment inquiry as “illegitimate” and stating that the entire executive branch would refuse to cooperate with it.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:46 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:29 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:06 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:04 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:25 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:49 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:50 am If tRump gets reelected we can expect that he will be in for life and whomever of his brood survives the battle for control after his death will take the seat next. All of the suggesting we should wait for the election noise, to me, suggests they feel they have that on lock down already. The more the Republicans cling to him in spite of the obvious abuses the more I am convinced we have already ceased being a true democracy.

This is over the top exaggeration. Our government is dysfunctional right now, but we’re not about to anoint anyone to a lifelong term as POTUS.

How would we stop it?

The military will prevent a coup of this sort - their oaths are to the Constitution, not the President and while some would support a 3rd term and be willing to abrogate their Oaths, that will be a very, very minor portion. Even if he managed to declare Martial Law somehow, he won't get enough Military support for anything of the kind without the Supremes also ruling in favor of it, and that won't happen either.

Far more likely would be President Don Jr/Jared/Ivanka somehow.

It wouldn't have to be a coup, and there wouldn't have to be martial law. He'd have his lawyers draw up some bullshit argument about why he could run for a third term, then he'd do it, and then he'd refuse to leave. Then we'd be in a position where we would have to count on the military and/or police to actively go in and arrest him. Which is a bad situation in and of itself.

That said, I do think that a Don Jr. type situation is more likely in the short term. Remember that as Putin was consolidating his power and gutting Russian democracy (such as it was) he had a flunky (Medvedev) run for President and serve a term while Putin himself technically served as 'prime minister'. Which gave Putin four more years to undermine Russian democratic institutions to the point where he could openly serve as president indefinitely.

SCOTUS would still have to bless the 3rd term, which won't happen, and if he tries to stay w/o SCOTUS blessing, it is a *coup*. If anything, it will be a different Trump family member running in 2024.

It *probably* won't happen, but I wouldn't guarantee that. Especially bearing in mind that by 2024 a President Trump has probably at least replaced Ginsburg.

I'd say your scenario is well into tinfoil hat territory.

Which part? The part where Trump refuses to comply with the law and dares someone to do something about it, a la Trump's statement on cooperating with the impeachment inquiry? Or the part where a partisan Supreme Court issues a thinly reasoned opinion allowing a President of the same party to take office, a la Bush v. Gore?

I posted something like this and was mocked.

Precedent.

And rightly so.

The Republicans' witness requests are amazing, as they include the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member, and someone associated with Fusion GPS.

pr0ner wrote:The Republicans' witness requests are amazing, as they include the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member, and someone associated with Fusion GPS.

Should add a Yeti, the bogeyman, and Loch Ness monster to complete the set.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:02 pm

pr0ner wrote:The Republicans' witness requests are amazing, as they include the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member, and someone associated with Fusion GPS.

Should add a Yeti, the bogeyman, and Loch Ness monster to complete the set.

Stop being hysterical. The GOP is *obviously* fully engaged and serious about making sure this process is just *fair*.

Nunes also wants Schiff to face a closed door deposition to discuss his interactions with the whistleblower.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:02 pm

pr0ner wrote:The Republicans' witness requests are amazing, as they include the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member, and someone associated with Fusion GPS.

Should add a Yeti, the bogeyman, and Loch Ness monster to complete the set.

Don't forget Jimmy Hoffa, D. B. Cooper, Amelia Earhart, and the flight crew of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:54 pm Back to the real issue here. Given the obvious truth of quid pro quo, the Republican defenses are collapsing. The latest trial
balloon is that Giuliani, Sondland, and Mulvaney (he was directly implicated in the latest transcripts) were doing this on their own, without any direct orders from Trump. Of course we have Guiliani’s public comments, and who is really going to believe that they were working on their own? And the other problem is that it is unlikely IMO that they are prepared to be fall guys for Trump. Things could get very interesting very fast.

Yeah I think this is significant. Why the GOP thinks these guys will just accept a fate of 'fall guy' I have no idea. They undoubtedly have the goods on trump if that's the route this goes so I can't see how that makes any sense. But it also seems like that is what is developing so I'm not sure what to think.
I wonder too why mulvaney hasn't yet resigned. He's clearly being cut out by trump and I think his political prospects, at this point anyway, are pretty non-existent going forward. So why not come out and clear your name before trump drags it thru the mud and maybe gets you indicted as well?

GungHo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:28 pmYeah I think this is significant. Why the GOP thinks these guys will just accept a fate of 'fall guy' I have no idea. They undoubtedly have the goods on trump if that's the route this goes so I can't see how that makes any sense. But it also seems like that is what is developing so I'm not sure what to think.

The CW is that they are afraid of Trump's hold on the base. In all this, he has a 90%+ approval rating with them still. They are a cult and the idea is can't fight the cult leader and stay in the cult. There is decent evidence that you have to be loyal or else. So it is a real concern but it is only part of the story.

On top, many of the GOP leadership are terrible people. There are credible allegations that Jim Jordan ignored sexual assault complaints at Ohio State. Gaetz got caught on a DWI and allegedly had his father (FL State Senator) orchestrate a campaign to force the arresting officer out of his job to get the charges dropped. Nunes somehow has relatively clean hands but acts compromised. McConnell well nothing needs to be said there - burn in hell #moscowmitch. Graham looks like he has been compromised somehow. The RNC was tied to foreknowledge of the wikileaks Clinton email releases aka Russian collusion.

Even outside the party leadership but in orbit of the GOP, Parnas and Fruman were indicted for moving dirty money from Ukrainian oligarch Firtash to RNC PACs -- possibly to get his charges dropped in the US. This is tip of the iceberg stuff and there is something very wrong with the GOP beyond the obvious political insanity. They have crooks, liars, and dirty money to high heaven. These aren't good people. They are despicable, corrupt, and they have power.

I wonder too why mulvaney hasn't yet resigned. He's clearly being cut out by trump and I think his political prospects, at this point anyway, are pretty non-existent going forward. So why not come out and clear your name before trump drags it thru the mud and maybe gets you indicted as well?

According to released testimony, Mulvaney actually was likely the principal go-between from Trump to Sondland at an early stage about instructions about seeking investigations in Ukraine. In other words, Trump already has dirtied him up and controls his fate. It is how he operates. He is very much a mob boss. He asks them to commit crimes and then he has something on them to control them. He might be a fucking moron but he has likely been a criminal his whole life by all accounts and knows how to manage that at least.

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:13 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:02 pm

pr0ner wrote:The Republicans' witness requests are amazing, as they include the whistleblower, Hunter Biden, another Burisma board member, and someone associated with Fusion GPS.

Should add a Yeti, the bogeyman, and Loch Ness monster to complete the set.

Stop being hysterical. The GOP is *obviously* fully engaged and serious about making sure this process is just *fair*.

So you’re being sarcastic and saying they won’t question Nessie too hard?

NBC News

A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's lawsuit to prevent the House Ways and Means Committee from utilizing a recently passed New York law providing the panel an avenue to pursue his state tax returns.

Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that his court was not the proper jurisdiction to sue the New York officials named in the lawsuit, leaving open the option that Trump do so in New York.

In his lawsuit, Trump sued to preemptively block the House Ways and Means Committee from requesting the returns, New York Attorney General Letitia James from enforcing the law, and to stop the New York Department of Taxation from furnishing the documents. Trump argued his lawsuit was necessary to prevent his state returns from being disclosed to Congress before a court could hear his opposition.
...
"Based on the current allegations, Mr. Trump has not met his burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over either of the New York Defendants," Nichols, a Trump appointee, wrote. "The Court therefore need not reach the question of proper venue. Accordingly, the New York Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Mr. Trump’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to them."

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:19 pm NBC News

A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's lawsuit to prevent the House Ways and Means Committee from utilizing a recently passed New York law providing the panel an avenue to pursue his state tax returns.

Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that his court was not the proper jurisdiction to sue the New York officials named in the lawsuit, leaving open the option that Trump do so in New York.

In his lawsuit, Trump sued to preemptively block the House Ways and Means Committee from requesting the returns, New York Attorney General Letitia James from enforcing the law, and to stop the New York Department of Taxation from furnishing the documents. Trump argued his lawsuit was necessary to prevent his state returns from being disclosed to Congress before a court could hear his opposition.
...
"Based on the current allegations, Mr. Trump has not met his burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over either of the New York Defendants," Nichols, a Trump appointee, wrote. "The Court therefore need not reach the question of proper venue. Accordingly, the New York Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Mr. Trump’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to them."

Wonder how many appeals the public have to go through before we see the returns.

WaPo

Meanwhile, in a court filing Tuesday, a lawyer for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he no longer plans to seek a judge’s ruling on whether he should testify in the impeachment inquiry and will instead follow Trump’s order not to cooperate.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:55 pm WaPo

Meanwhile, in a court filing Tuesday, a lawyer for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he no longer plans to seek a judge’s ruling on whether he should testify in the impeachment inquiry and will instead follow Trump’s order not to cooperate.

Mulvaney had tried to join Bolton's suit, only for Bolton's lawyer to file a motion in opposition. Given that there's no real indication that Mulvaney wants to testify, seems plausible that Mulvaney's suit was intended to interfere with / slow down a ruling on Bolton's suit - get Mulvaney's lawyer in the room so that they could push for a slower schedule. Once Mulvaney couldn't get in, no real point to his suit.

Can you imagine if Nixon's cohorts had flat out refused to testify?

None of it makes any sense until you remember that from the lowliest voter up to the top of administration - it's not about right or wrong. Instead, it's always about winning. And that's why it's pointless to appeal to reason, justice or doing the right thing - because if any of that jeopardizes winning? Not going to happen. There's a strangle-hold on democracy for bragging rights. This is what we've become.