Likes: 
Faceplams: Guliani is claiming he was instructed to do what he did by the state department.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...orward-i-wasnt
I'm not making this up (Guliani is).
Active Member
Guliani is claiming he was instructed to do what he did by the state department.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...orward-i-wasnt
I'm not making this up (Guliani is).
tempus est umbra in mente
anyone else remember the time, back in 2000, where Giuliani dressed up in drag for Halloween, and Trump snuggled with him, pretended to feel up his costume, and then motorboated his fake boobs?
Ahhhhh, simpler, better times...
Add Violins
Yeah, that's not surprising at all. Rudy is at the center of this whole mess, and he's not just gonna happily accept his role as the fall guy. He'll bring as many people down with him as he can.Originally Posted by eskimo
Bite me
As an attorney, he’s in THE biggest trouble. He is gonna lose his law license and go to the slatbar hotel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...may-be-his-own
Last edited by allegro; 09-27-2019 at 02:36 PM.
(Unused symbol)
Active Member
Bite me
5D2C1C9A-938B-4CD0-AD85-B75B8DA67CFF.png
(Unused symbol)
well I said maybe.
As for the leaks, the horses are out of the barn now. Might as well spill the beans. Besides the leaks have always been there but now the questions are getting more and more specific.
if the reports of Russian and Saudi transcripts being buried are true I’m expecting them to be more shocking than the Ukraine call.
Bite me
Susan Hennessey is the Executive Editor of Lawfare and General Counsel of the Lawfare Institute. She is a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law. Prior to joining Brookings, Ms. Hennessey was an attorney in the Office of General Counsel of the National Security Agency. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Bite me
Active Member
How much you wanna bet that in the call to the Saudi Prince about Khashoggi, Trump congratulated him and wished that he could kill those who opposed him too?
Add Violins
Yeah, for sure. As bad as this Ukraine stuff is, you just know that whatever's on those tapes with Saudi Arabia is gonna be way worse. Why else would they feel the need to stash it on their secret server?
tempus est umbra in mente
I think the bigger question is, even if we had a publicly released audio recording of Trump saying that on the phone, something insane and childish like "cool, I wish I could kill journalists like that... " and then went off on a list of journalists that he wished he could kill... and they both laugh their asses off...
Would it make any difference?
Add Violins
Ha, yeah I can see the their defense now. "Look, it's not illegal to say you're happy to hear that a fake news journalist was murdered."
Active Member
"It's just locker room talk!!!!"
Bite me
Here's the deal:
You don't need things to be an actual crime for it to qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. It can be for improper conduct, for violating the oath of office, bribery, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, misuse of public funds, etc. etc. And NONE of these things have to be backed by a single statute or proven by the same standards as in a criminal jury trial (beyond a doubt).
Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing his War Secretary without first getting Congressional approval, which violated the Tenure of Office Act but also his oath of office.
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." "With a single executive," Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."
Federal trials utilize FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence). Under the FRE, there are nearly 30 instances where hearsay is accepted as admissible evidence.
For instance, Rule 807 (Catch-All Rule) - Residual Exception. Attacks against Rule 807 would be the subject's credibility, but the whisteblower ("WB") was already noted to be a C.I.A. operative who was assigned to the White House and is an expert in Ukraine relations. Further, the WB followed formal protocol by filing a formal complaint via the proper channels. So, the WB will be viewed as a credible and expert witness. Also note that everything in the WB report has already been verified.
DO NOT BELIEVE ALL OF THE TOTAL SHIT THAT YOU ARE HEARING ON T.V. OR TWITTER OR FACEBOOK OR YOUTUBE ABOUT INADMISSIBLE "HEARSAY" EVIDENCE. IT'S PROPAGANDA.
FURTHER, under a Senate trial, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, the FRE won't necessarily be applicable because this won't BE a Federal trial; it will be a SENATE trial, with each side represented by chosen counsel and each side deciding, in advance, on rules applicable to the trial.
A Senate impeachment trial is part legal procedure and part political procedure; actually, most would argue that it's mostly political procedure.
There isn't necessarily a STATUTE that governs "Executive misconduct" or "Executive Abuse of Power or Authority."
This becomes something of a judgment call based on the evidence and the Presidential Sworn Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Last edited by allegro; 09-29-2019 at 12:45 AM.
Active Member
Saw a headline today from one of the right-wing propaganda sites that said something like "if the Democrats impeach Trump, Republicans will impeach the next Democratic president". The sad part is that the only thing that surprised me about the headline is how long it took for me to see one like it. So help me, if they honestly try to go tit-for-tat and attempt to impeach someone for some completely bullshit reason, I am going to lose my mind.
Bite me
Yeah, Trump tweeted something stupid and cryptic today that implied the same thing. Which is all likely intended to be a scare tactic. But, whatever, nobody is going to fall for that shit, particularly not smart Senators or Representatives; they're not going to start filing Articles of Impeachment every time somebody farts, or it will never end.
Republicans know damned well it was going to come to this. If you read books like "Fear," they never wanted this guy in office but once he was there they just lapped up the sycophantic support that comes from his crazy moony groupies and counted the days until Rome fell.
Idiots like Matt Gaetz are gonna go down the ship.
Bite me
Add Violins
This would be such a bummer: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/0...achment-007689
I fully expect that to happen, honestly. Nevertheless, I still think it's important for the house to impeach.
Active Member
Man, I've gotta learn to hover over links. Can't believe I just gave Fox News ad revenue.
Bite me
McConnell has stated that they’d be legally obligated to hold a Trial, per the Constitution, because it says “shall.”
I’ve seen a bunch of legal experts say that the Constitution is clear about the process and the Senate’s obligation. It doesn’t say “must” but it does say “shall.” “Shall” is the legal equivalent of “must.”
The SCOTUS would certainly uphold the framers’ intentions.
E0CDA8CD-2D88-4176-A09C-0E60B8C8ED26.png
Last edited by allegro; 09-28-2019 at 10:02 PM.
Bite me
George Conway (Kellyanne’s spouse) lands a punch square in the middle of Lindsey Graham’s face:
Thread here.
Last edited by allegro; 09-29-2019 at 12:07 AM.
Bite me
I was nobody. Nothing.
It's not THAT much ad revenue. I like to see how this is being spun.
I was watching a few Fox news clips, and was sort of stunned that they use phrases like "deep state," like alex jones did, as if it was a confirmed, actual conspiracy. It's so fucking bizarre.
tempus est umbra in mente
like that time they tried to catch Clinton in a lie about a consensual extra-marital blowjob?
Bite me
Let's be honest, here: Clinton wasn't JUST about a blow job. Or a CIGAR CASE. Sure, Trump is an asshole beyond all comparison, but ...
If you really look at the Clinton impeachment case, or even really just look at Monica Lewinsky's point-of-view from the case, it was pretty much entirely about all him (and the people surrounding him, primarily Vernon Jordan) lying and trying cover it up, PLUS he was committing sexual harassment at work in the Oval Office.
He was having an affair with a 22-yr-old vulnerable starry-eyed INTERN who was convinced that he was in love with her. She was sitting around all night and all weekend waiting for the friggin' phone to ring, and her career got totally hosed over this guy who kind of cared about her but was pretty much only using her for sexual favors because he has a history of being a sexual turd at the office. And he wasn't doing this on the sly; the WHOLE FUCKING WEST WING knew about it. He was cornering her in the Oval Office kitchen, for Christ sake. Lewinsky said she was transferred to the Pentagon and her phone would ring and it had caller ID and the OVAL OFFICE'S name would show up, and she would be, like, "are you fucking kidding me? He's calling me AT WORK?" And Linda Tripp worked with Lewinsky at the Pentagon. And Ken Starr was going after Clinton for sexual harassment claims related to Paula Jones (as well as Whitewater and a million unlimited other things because there used to be the office of Independent Counsel, which has since been totally eliminated).
So, no, it wasn't totally about a blow job; it was Bill Clinton sexually harassing an intern, then lying about it --- MANY TIMES -- once before Congress, but then before a grand jury, and then also getting a BUNCH of others to lie about it, and going so far as to get Lewinsky to lie before a grand jury and to hide gifts he gave her with Clinton's secretary, etc.
He lost his law license for 5 years, and had to pay a hefty fine. This in lieu of him going to the pokey after he left office.
An historian was on Meet the Press this morning and she said something that I thought really rang true about how this might all pan out:
With Nixon, by the time it was over, there was a consensus that what Nixon had done was totally wrong. President Ford said we were out of our dark days. It seemed non-partisan and more symbolic of absolute abuse of power.
With Clinton, it seemed entirely partisan and when it was over, nobody cared; people were relieved to be done with the ongoing partisan drama.
With this, it’s still somewhere in the middle as far as how the country is viewing it.
Chris Christie was on “This Week” today and he said the optics of the SPEED of this could potentially provide optics of unfairness and Dems need to slow it down and be deliberate to not appear unfair. And Rahm Emmanuel agreed with him; but said we’re in the INQUIRY phase so proceed with the investigation. Others on the panel said it’s important to question witnesses ASAP while their memory is fresh, etc.
Last edited by allegro; 09-29-2019 at 04:47 PM.
Add Violins
Yeah I read that quote too, but I don't know I just don't trust McConnell at all. This is the guy who blocked Merrick Garland under the pretence that the election was too soon, and yet when they recently asked what he'd do if RBG's seat opened up close to the upcoming election, he just smiled and said "We'd fill it." He just doesn't care at all. To me, McConnell is nothing but cynical and calculating and has no interest in playing fair or respecting the rules and established norms. He has little sense of values or ethics beyond doing whatever it takes to score points for his tribe. So I just don't trust a single thing he says. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if he refused to hold a trial.
The only reason I can picture McConnell willingly going forward with it is if the tide continues changing and eventually the Republicans decide they're better off cutting Trump loose.
Bite me
The general consensus is that Trump and the White House should have NEVER released that transcript memo.
But guess who got them to release it?
McConnell
Note: I’m not saying McConnell is a witting hero in this. I’m not sure about his strategy. But it doesn’t matter. He is likely to be thinking that the Senate is NOT going to provide a TWO-THIRDS vote to remove Trump from office at this point.
Last edited by allegro; 09-29-2019 at 01:00 PM.
Bite me
Rep. Steve Scalise was on Meet the Press this morning, insisting that Trump’s phone call with President Yelensky was to try to get more information about “the Russian interference into our 2016 election” and he kept hammering at that. Host Chuck Todd was, like, WTF?!?!
Scalise - yeah! Crowdstrike! Russian interference!
So I had to look this up.
It’s well-known that Trump HATES the idea of Russian interference SO much that NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO MENTION IT IN FRONT OF HIM. Because it questions Trump’s legitimacy as President.
So now he believes this conspiracy theory that the FBI used mirror images of the DNC server but didn’t take the actual server, but the actual server ... IS IN THE UKRAINE. And that the ACTUAL election interference was from ... UKRAINE!
See this, for instance.
So, all this is PROTECTING RUSSIA. (Disregard that Scalise has a degree in computer science.)
Russia ... the country that’s ATTACKING UKRAINE.
Rep. Scalise was saying, yeah, President Trump was considering selling Javelins to Ukraine BUT OBAMA NEVER DID THAT.
That’s because Obama never wanted to get in the middle of a war between Russia and Ukraine. For many good reasons.
This constant focus on a DNC server is just STUPID, but the DoJ has continued working on the Hillary Emails matter for 3 years and recently sent out notices to people.
We are living in Hell.
Last edited by allegro; 09-29-2019 at 02:01 PM.
Posting Permissions
