Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

Yep.  It keeps the issue alive and GOP complicity in the air longer than sending it over only to have it "defeated" immediately.  And, there's a remote chance that by making enough noise, witnesses are permitted to keep the freak show going a bit longer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

That seems like as good a take as any and the way you've laid it out makes sense to me.

With respect to waiting, there was always the chance that items like the OMB emails or the Parnas group or other issues might create some noise. Usually it is the Republican members creating noise, using it as a distraction and a deterrent- -the squeaky toy for their constituents and for their Leader. Pelosi and Schiff were fairly patient throughout this whole process and seemed informed on what the other committees as well as the courts were doing. They had to know that Barr was going to stall-it is what he's known for, but there was indeed a little more info that came out.

Trump is still bringing up Hunter ad nauseum at his rallies, so Mitch may be sweating the way those generals were sweating in the Trump press conference the other day. Unless of course he really is Palpatine in which case he doesn't sweat, he oozes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

since nobody else will answer you, i'll try.

there is no advantage (or disadvantage) either way to not sending the articles, and nobody really knows for sure why she went this route.  but i'll attempt some motive here.

when the house was presenting/voting, there was already chatter that the senate was going to kill it, quickly and quietly, likely before christmas, and that'll be that.  at that point, mcconnell wanted it either dismissed, or at worst, quickly voted down.  trump, on the other hand, was squawking about a long, drawn out trial (as were many other r's) that would go 6 days a week, all day every day for months, calling everyone and everything not nailed down as a witness.  keep in mind, when i say "witness" i don't mean in the traditional sense, you know, someone who brings in actual facts relating to the charges.  i'm talking about people they could call and smear and grandstand to, in hopes of screwing with biden's chance in the election (the only play in trump's playbook).

after some time, mcconnell convinced trump this was not the right move, and that he would handle it, and kill it dead.  it was also around this point, when people like lindsey graham went on tv to announce they had no intention of being fair and impartial, and that they already had their mind made up.

so nancy had two choices - either send 'em on over or stand pat for a minute, and assess some options.  with the holidays coming, she probably felt there was no hurry, and didn't want it buried in the news cycle, so she waited 2 days, and they went on recess.  to me, there is no disadvantage to waiting a couple of days (which is a couple of weeks when you account for the holidays).  it was her way of controlling the narrative so that people visiting with their families would be discussing the facts and merit of what the house brought forth.  again, this is my speculation.

holding also isn't what the republicans were expecting, and it's always a good idea (for nancy) to keep them guessing, and she seems adept at doing this, with the added bonus of getting under trump's skin, something she does exceptionally well.  and it worked, because he started in with the tweets, "if you're gonna impeach me, do it now, do it fast" and so forth.  as for your question of why would the r's want it - they shouldn't want it, and shouldn't care, but since they know it's coming, they're kinda forced to address it.

so now the holidays are over, and she started demanding fair trial rules - something nobody thought she'd get.  and she didn't.  but it allowed for more time to stall, and lo and behold, news comes out that bolton will testify, if subpoenaed, by the senate.  and even though the likelihood is small that we'll ever hear from him, it throws a bit of a monkey wrench into the senate r's plan of "we don't need to call witnesses".  it also sorta makes holding look like a calculated move that could start to bring out more actual fact witnesses.

now, when she does send them over (which apparently is happening today or early next week), her argument over a "fair" trial with actual witnesses holds a little more water.  and hopefully, people will notice a difference when mitch says "fuck off", than if he said it a month ago (which he basically did).  personally, i think the longer you wait, the more chance trump has of going off the rails and reversing course back to the long and drawn out trial where he thinks hunter biden will come testify and it'll be a big win for him with ukraine aid.

 

tl; dr version - my opinion is that nancy did it to fuck with r's.  we have no idea why, or if it'll work.  there's no reason to go quickly if you already know the final decision.  might as well wait and hope for some unforced errors.

Thanks, that is a very informative distillation and from the lack of input I assume I'm not the only one that was educated here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Garry is right and so are you.

 

it's an obvious formula and we see it on the daily.

the sad thing is that when they apologize on twitter, it's basically admitting they knew they were full of shit on fox news.  they're not lazy or stupid.  they're calculated liars and propagandists in plain sight.  fucking sickening.

we really live in two different realities.  and one of them really sucks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

it's an obvious formula and we see it on the daily.

the sad thing is that when they apologize on twitter, it's basically admitting they knew they were full of shit on fox news.  they're not lazy or stupid.  they're calculated liars and propagandists in plain sight.  fucking sickening.

we really live in two different realities.  and one of them really sucks.

I believe "the swamp" is the preferred nomenclature, dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2020 at 7:12 PM, henrygandorf said:

do the bidens have information about the withheld aid?

if so, yes, i would very much like to hear from them.

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

it was a yes or no question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since my blue state friends have assured me that Hunter Biden's job was on the up and up, there's no 'dirt' that UKR could have on him.  So every loyal D should condition aid $ on the upcoming investigation that gets egg all over Trump's face. 

 

Plus I want $50k a month to serve on a board for some reason.

 

So you have a problem with the adult children of politicians that trade on their parents influence and power to personally enrich themselves, yes?

 

I’m all for that.

 

Let’s start with Don Junior, Eric, Ivanka, and Jared since their parent/parent-in-law is the actual current president.

 

I’m sure your position will remain consistent on this issue.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

we want everyone to come forward and tell the truth.  except the people who know bad stuff i did.

 

Quote

“I would have no problem [with Bolton testifying] other than we have to protect, we have to be able to protect” executive privilege, Trump said.

Two days ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

He has no idea what executive privilege means. 

He believes it means he's a king and can do whatever he wants. He thinks it says so in Article II of the Constitution. He's the ultimate fulfillment of the Imperial Presidency. 

They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have the most corrupt, and most corruptable, man ever as President and he believes he wields absolute power.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The various GOP and NRA delegations to Russia were essentially capo missions to get their orders. What is not being reported is that Rudy traveled the globe on behalf of Trump (as essentially an unregistered foreign agent) and we probably know so much less than what is actually out there. Scary. Due to the two party system, we have a battle between the Democrats and the Mob. Lovely. Where's Sean Connery and Kevin Costner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Well well well.

 

I have a few questions that bubble up every time Lev Parnas hits the news. The stories don't discuss Igor Fruman much. Was he not as voluble as Lev? Didn't play as big a role? Has a different attorney who is following a different strategy? Is it like the tv crime shows, and Lev, being more extroverted, decided to jump at a possible plea agreement?

And what about the other American that is only charged with one count, David Correia? He hung around as the point man for Global Energy partners and did a lot of the dirty work with the documents, etc.He has denied being associated with Firtash, but his phone and other witnesses have apparently linked him with Firtash and Firtash's attorneys.

Florida is where a lot of this went down with these three, and I'm sure the lack of scrutiny compared to NY and DC doesn't hurt, but I hope some folks are doing more digging around there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2020 at 2:31 AM, Bama Chick said:

 

So you have a problem with the adult children of politicians that trade on their parents influence and power to personally enrich themselves, yes?

 

I’m all for that.

 

Let’s start with Don Junior, Eric, Ivanka, and Jared since their parent/parent-in-law is the actual current president.

 

I’m sure your position will remain consistent on this issue.

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

this is an impeachment trial. the trial is based on two charges. do any of the children of politicians on either side have any facts that indict or clear the accused?

you know how trials work, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

You want to finish that post by telling us which Trump's are on a foreign country's payroll like Hunter Biden.

 

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

giphy.gif

I believe Notre Dame only requires 1 writing/rhetoric course for their core curriculum, so perhaps they need to add more writing intensive courses to the degree plans. Plus, the first apostrophe is definitely on brand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There appears to be more than a remote possibility that some news bombshells are known within the House - like related to Lev's comms - and stand to drop smack in the middle of the Senate trial.  There's a clear nexus between Lev and pals, Firtash. Rudy and Trump wrt to the whole Ukraine scandal around which Trump has abused his power and obstructed Congress.  It could make for a difficult spot for GOP Senate hell bent on perpetuating the coverup.  At least I hope that's the case.  It certainly could help explain why Trump has pivoted to calling for outright dismissal of his impeachment by the Senate sans trial.

 

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Senate actually holds the "trial," (can we have that after February 4th please so there won't be a 'no obstruction,' "I'm vindicated' rally) will there be a separate thread? It seems the inquiry is ongoing, but the trial is going to be either short and done, or perhaps involve witnesses (not holding my breath).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...