Jump to content

Time to impeach?


Yes or No?  

86 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Congress of the US begin formal Impeachment proceedings against Pres Trump?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Warbird, I've challenged Joker to educate himself on the constitution about the "vote in the house in the impeachment" bullshit.  Now I challenge you to read the wikipedia entry for lynching.  See where it came from and how it was used for the vast majority of the time in the United States.  Then come back here and say you truly believe the word lynching doesn't have racial overtones.

Except wiki doesnt really cover it. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/lynch

So if you are offended,  look inward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Putting the screws to someone only matters if they have shame. It is an effort to use their shame. Do you think Mitch Mcconnell has any shame? Our system will be forever corrupted by the precedent of

Impeachment inquiry might be one of the few things Trump has actually earned in his lifetime.

What I first typed just now: That's cool.  I can agree to disagree on whether it's a racist term.  But after researching it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching I think I'm goin

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

It's the first 2 paragraphs of the entry. 

You do know witches were lynched in Salem.  And I am pretty sure they were all white. 

And I can call a white person the N word too.  Doesn't change the fact that it's racist.  Seriously.  Did you read that whole section?  This is as good as the Founder's Brewing thing where the guy refused to admit he understood what "black" meant in terms of someone's color.  You see nothing in that section that might tie lynching to racism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grrr... said:

And I can call a white person the N word too.  Doesn't change the fact that it's racist.  Seriously.  Did you read that whole section?  This is as good as the Founder's Brewing thing where the guy refused to admit he understood what "black" meant in terms of someone's color.  You see nothing in that section that might tie lynching to racism?

Sure it can be tied to racism.  But it is not limited to just racism. 

I'm sure you do know that there are some words that have multiple meanings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

Sure it can be tied to racism.  But it is not limited to just racism. 

I'm sure you do know that there are some words that have multiple meanings.

Yep.  Like holocaust.  Yet somehow most people understand and stay away from that word except for one particular use.

Perhaps being careful or diplomatic about using a word is different than being a wholesale politically correct nutjob.

The second thing that comes up on google searching when you use the word "lynching" is the NAACP's website with a description of what went on in the US.  That's enough to tell me that it's best to tread lightly around the word because it may have a lot of emotional baggage tied up in it.  I would suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise might want to go to a bar frequented by African Americans and start talking about lynching.  See what type of reaction you get.

Frankly, two hours ago I might have agreed with you.  Now that I've spent time reading - not so much.  It's simply not a word I need to use.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ex-slave, sailor, and Congressman Robert Smalls 

did his best to document the post-civil war terror aimed at black Americans 

he argued that there were likely far more than the 5,000 or so reported 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the thing that confuses me is, The GOPer's ran on we'll make the country great again , and not make the same mistakes the Dems did,

So why do they keep sayind " well the Dems got away with it why can't we"? 

It would be nice if some one in the government would actually tell the truth ! If you refuse to testify or stop others from talking , your Guilty as charged!

only two president refused to show there taxes Nixon and Trump , we know what happen to N

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, garuda3 said:

I guess the thing that confuses me is, The GOPer's ran on we'll make the country great again , and not make the same mistakes the Dems did,

So why do they keep sayind " well the Dems got away with it why can't we"? 

It would be nice if some one in the government would actually tell the truth ! If you refuse to testify or stop others from talking , your Guilty as charged!

only two president refused to show there taxes Nixon and Trump , we know what happen to N

Of course it's "The Dems of the 1950s got away with this"

and of course, those Dems are now Repubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

It's the first 2 paragraphs of the entry. 

You do know witches were lynched in Salem.  And I am pretty sure they were all white. 

Nah, witched were hanged but "lynching" is specifically a group killing of a person outside the sanction of law.

The witches were convicted by a court of witchcraft. Now, we might have a problem with that law nowadays (I hope) but it was the law then.

If it's not done by a crowd or mob, it's not a lynching. If it's done within the legal system, it's not a lynching. It doesn't necessarily have to be a hanging to be a lynching but the word pretty specifically calls up the image of a hanging here in the US, at least, to me and everybody I know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Web007rzSOI

BTW I did not hear Biden use the word "lynching" to describe the Clinton impeachment but it was wrong of him to do so IMHO

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who equates impeachment investigation and process to a lynching needs to go back and spend some quality time reading Article 1 of the Constitution. 

JFC. I’ve rarely heard anything so shitall stupid in my life. What in the fuck is wrong with you people, that makes you believe everything some paid bullshit artist tells you, when you can read the goddamn Constitution for your own damn self?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Anyone who equates impeachment investigation and process to a lynching needs to go back and spend some quality time reading Article 1 of the Constitution. 

JFC. I’ve rarely heard anything so shitall stupid in my life. What in the fuck is wrong with you people, that makes you believe everything some paid bullshit artist tells you, when you can read the goddamn Constitution for your own damn self?

Ha, smart guy! You haven't read Article II!!!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Separate from the ethnic connections and cultural meaning, do the Faithful really equate an Impeachment inquiry with being hung from a tree, by the neck, until dead?

Really?

Yes, they do

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The elk see themselves as victims. Expanding health insurance coverage is pretty threatening.

Never have I known True Freedom like I had during those heady days when I had no health insurance coverage. What excitement! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Sorry, but I think that this one is a matter of opinion.  I've used the term numerous times and never been called / never thought for a second it was 'racist.  And on that note, the more power we give to this idea of words like this being 'racist', the bigger a divide we create with a whole class of things that people shouldn't say.

This reminds me of the multiple efforts the *chan message boards have taken up to co-opt common terms and symbols as racist to get them removed from the vernacular.  I still use the OK symbol (thumb to index finger in a circle), and if anyone wants to call me on it I'll tell them point blank that it wasn't a racist symbol and it still isn't.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

If people want to base their opinion of you or be offended by this sort of thing, they aren't the type of people I feel like associating with.  Life's too short to worry if picking up the wrong fork at dinner to eat my salad is going to make me look uncultured.

Ding FUCKING DING!!!!

All of it, but especially the bolded part above.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grrr... said:

I still use the OK symbol (thumb to index finger in a circle), and if anyone wants to call me on it I'll tell them point blank that it wasn't a racist symbol and it still isn't.

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/okay-hand-gesture

Are you fucking kidding me????  That's the silliest, most asinine thing I've ever heard.  EVER!  OK, well top 5 anyway.

So apparently this whole time I've been scuba diving and used that hand signal - I've been telling all the people of color I dive with that I'm saying "White Power" to them while 100 ft below the surface?? 

Holy shit snacks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dacapo said:

you don;t fucking get it...YOU don't get to make the definition up to suit YOUR views.

Yeah, I do actually.  I have as much right to interpret the meaning of and use of a word, especially as I use it, than anyone else.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dacapo said:

Perhaps, however, we're looking at this the wrong way.....I think donny knew exactly what he was saying and meant to use that word in the context that he did.

That's exactly right..... it's the context and intent that matter.  That's why I'm so vehemently against the outright PC ban of a word or phrase in order to protect snowflake's feeeelings.  If you are unable to detect the context and/or intent of the usage, then bad on you - not bad on the user.  

For instance, if I walked into an meeting at work and got ganged up on by my peers and/or bosses for a shitty proposal and walked out later and remarked to a friend that "jesus, I felt like I just got lynched in there" - that would NOT be a racist comment.  However, if I said to a black collegue "hey boy - better get your nigger ass out of here 'fore you gits yerself lynched" - I'm pretty sure that would be correctly interpreted as a racist comment.

See the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Swimsailor said:

I don't think being white is bad.  Nor do I have any guilt for being white.  I also don't think it's just white people.  I just think white people shouldn't be telling non whites how to feel. It's really not a tough concept.

Should non-whites be telling whites how to feel?  Asking for a friend.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Warbird, I've challenged Joker to educate himself on the constitution about the "vote in the house in the impeachment" bullshit.  Now I challenge you to read the wikipedia entry for lynching.  See where it came from and how it was used for the vast majority of the time in the United States.  Then come back here and say you truly believe the word lynching doesn't have racial overtones.

Grrrrr, remember wikipedia is written by the mob.  As always, be careful quoting that as your sole source.  It is easily co-opted to show or push an agenda.  

This term, as in many or most other terms or words, evolve and change meaning over time.  "Well regulated" for instance...... :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Yep.  Like holocaust.  Yet somehow most people understand and stay away from that word except for one particular use.

We do???  I seem to remember when "Nuclear Holocaust" was (and still is) a pretty popular term that never seemed to get linked to the genocide of the jews in WWII.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Anyone who equates impeachment investigation and process to a lynching needs to go back and spend some quality time reading Article 1 of the Constitution. 

For anyone wondering, I am NOT defending TOSS's use of the word lynching.  I think he absolutely is using it as a racist dog whistle - but I make that judgement based on context and intent.  

What I am arguing against has nothing to do with TOSS.  It has to do with the casual accusations of racism and the banning of fairly common words and phrases that must be used in context before they are judged as racist.  

Trump's use of the word is likely racist -given the context and intent and his history.  Biden's use of the term - IMJ - was not racist but was used in the common colloquial meaning as in "ganged up on by the mob".  

But that sort of nuance and ability to reason on individual cases seems a lost art by most people here and in the US as a whole.  Sad really......  Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are free to interpret uses of language, then you should have no problem with other people using those same freedoms.

So if anyone calls you out for racist speech, you should be proud that they are simply exercising the same rights you hold so dear.

The only thing you have to get used to is that you must share that right of interpretation with more people these days, and they are less likely to meekly accept what you say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

If you are free to interpret uses of language, then you should have no problem with other people using those same freedoms.

So if anyone calls you out for racist speech, you should be proud that they are simply exercising the same rights you hold so dear.

The only thing you have to get used to is that you must share that right of interpretation with more people these days, and they are less likely to meekly accept what you say.

I have zero issue with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Whatabout

 

And why, exactly, do you think that short clip with just that statement was singled out?  Did they just like the words "high tech"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I have zero issue with that.

I'm not going to go all outrage-fest that people use the language differently.  In fact, if you look at my arguments above with a couple people the arguments came about mainly because they were trying to suggest that there is no racial connection at all w/ regards to the word lynching.  I just can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If communication is the goal (communication defined as an exchange of ideas) then changing definitions would hamper since the listener would misinterpret what the speaker intended. The more regional (socially) we make definitions the harder it is to actually communicate rather than orate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

And why, exactly, do you think that short clip with just that statement was singled out?  Did they just like the words "high tech"?

He went on a bit after saying "high tech lynching" so maybe the person editing the clip liked "uppity" I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sean said:

“what amounts to not just a smoking gun, but a smoking Howitzer”

 

"Plot".  How very Machiavellan of them.  Neither side is subtle enough to "Plot".  Plop maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

I'm not going to go all outrage-fest that people use the language differently.  In fact, if you look at my arguments above with a couple people the arguments came about mainly because they were trying to suggest that there is no racial connection at all w/ regards to the word lynching.  I just can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

Eggsactly. Much of the consternation and many of the aggrieved comments on this topic stem from having to share the “authority to interpret language” with a much larger segment of the population. 

Straight white males used to dominate this sphere of influence to a much greater degree, so it’s no surprise they feel that loss so acutely.

MAGA is a direct reference to this tension, and promises to turn back the clock on progressive attitudes. It’ll be about as effective as ignoring the implications of climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

 

I saw that this morning too.  My initial thought was that a MLB Umpire isn't stupid.  They need to be able to learn a lot of stuff, interpret it quickly etc.  So if you have semi-intelligent people acting this way, what's going on with all the morons in the Deep South?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Straight white males used to dominate this sphere of influence to a much greater degree, so it’s no surprise they feel that loss so acutely.

The crux of everything I have tried to say.  Thank you for putting it so simply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grrr... said:

I saw that this morning too.  My initial thought was that a MLB Umpire isn't stupid.  They need to be able to learn a lot of stuff, interpret it quickly etc.  So if you have semi-intelligent people acting this way, what's going on with all the morons in the Deep South?

Semi-intelligent? The fucker can't even spell civil correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Wow.  That's great.  So the Ukraine was already talking about being pressured weeks before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Straight white males used to dominate this sphere of influence to a much greater degree, so it’s no surprise they feel that loss so acutely.

MAGA is a direct reference to this tension, and promises to turn back the clock on progressive attitudes. It’ll be about as effective as ignoring the implications of climate change.

"At least three political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and Michael Tesler, argue that race, not economic populism, was the main driver in the 2016 election. In their analysis of that election, Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, they write: "attitudes concerning race, ethnicity, and religion were more strongly related to how Americans voted in 2016 than in recent elections. "

https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/can-warren-beat-trump

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Wow.  That's great.  So the Ukraine was already talking about being pressured weeks before.

Indeed, but if we ignore that and repeat the talking point 108.65 more times it will ripen into the Doggy Style truth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"At least three political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and Michael Tesler, argue that race, not economic populism, was the main driver in the 2016 election. In their analysis of that election, Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America, they write: "attitudes concerning race, ethnicity, and religion were more strongly related to how Americans voted in 2016 than in recent elections. "

https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/can-warren-beat-trump

I was hoping for more than a couple sentences repeating this assertion to explain WHY they felt that race was the driving factor... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read the book, just saw the comment while reading the article.  My opinion is that it's a confluence of pressures; changing racial demographics, social/instant media pushing images into the public in the way TV did in the 50's, political entities using old social/economic/political divisions for advantage, old xenophobic tendencies exacerbated to explain stagnating wages and changing economic patterns etc. Fundamentally, the Civil War failed to answer one of the basic questions: how to integrate non-whites into the overall society. These divisions go back to colonization and haven't been resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I was hoping for more than a couple sentences repeating this assertion to explain WHY they felt that race was the driving factor... 

Did a little more searching and found an excerpt from the book. Pulled out some segments.

"The growing alignment of racial attitudes and partisanship was not so complete that racially conservative Obama voters were an impossibility. Polling from 2011-2012 showed that substantial numbers of Obama voters were not sympathetic to the idea that blacks face systematic discrimination (Table 8.1). Almost half (49%) did not think that “blacks have gotten less than they deserve,” 39% did not believe that slavery and discrimination hindered the economic advancement of blacks, and 28% essentially blamed the economic disadvantages of blacks on their own lack of effort (“if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites”). This reflects a common stereotype that blacks are lazy."

'Many white Obama voters also expressed conservative positions on racially or ethnically inflected issues. Almost half (45%) favored the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Roughly a third wanted to make it slightly or much harder for foreigners to immigrate to the United States. Roughly a third believed that “illegal immigrants are mostly a drain on society” (as opposed to “making a contribution”). One-in-five (22%) opposed a path to citizenship. And regarding Muslims, a group frequently targeted by Trump, 35% rated them unfavorably (between 0-49 on a 0-100 scale). These voters were “cross-pressured”—with their partisanship and views on racial issues increasingly in tension—and prior scholarship has shown that these are exactly the voters that a campaign can push into the opposite party’s camp.15"

"In fact, until Obama’s presidency, as many white Democrats as white Republicans had racially prejudiced views. So many racially prejudiced Democrats wound up supporting Obama because of partisanship or some other factor. 16"

"The campaign’s focus on racially inflected issues—and the contrasting positions of Trump and Clinton—clearly registered with voters: there was a record gap in where voters perceived Trump and Clinton on racial issues...Then in 2016, this disparity increased to record levels: voters rated Clinton about 2.5 points more supportive of aid to blacks than they did Trump."

"In multiple surveys, attitudes about race and ethnicity were more strongly related to vote choice in 2016 than they were in 2008 and 2012—even after accounting for people’s partisanship and their overall political ideology on the left-right scale, which themselves have become increasingly intertwined with racial attitudes."

"Voters’ feelings about Muslims and their perception of discrimination against whites—a measure of a more politicized white identity—also became more strongly related to voter choices in 2016."

"... racialized perceptions of economic deservingness were strongly related to support for Donald Trump."

"Thus, the origins of Trump’s appeal in the general election were no different than the origins of his appeal in the primary: in both cases, his candidacy helped to make racial issues central to voters’ choices. And it was these issues that largely explained the most notable demographic divide in the electorate: between voters with more or less formal education."

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2018 - Vavreck.pdf

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the cite and the link - I'll read thru that this evening.   That's more like what I was hoping to find in the 1st article.  
Edited to add:   With no reason yet to question the veracity of the authors' findings - what' do the collective YOU think is the best way to clarify and counter a negative message?    

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for the cite and the link - I'll read thru that this evening.   That's more like what I was hoping to find in the 1st article.  
Edited to add:   With no reason yet to question the veracity of the authors' findings - what' do the collective YOU think is the best way to clarify and counter a negative message?    

Who're we talking to?

someone who sees the negative message as reinforcing one of their core beliefs? (to keep this away from the Reich, think anti-vaxxers)

Or someone who is open to debate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Both exist - so both. 

Don't have the cites at hand but have seen some research showing that using logic and facts won't do it (as a believer in Enlightenment thinking that disappointing but...) but it has to operate on an emotional basis.  If the person adhering to the negative belief can be encourage to empathize with the target of those beliefs, a change can occur but absent that, nothing. Have been reading quite a bit on extremist radicalization lately and, for most, the factors leading up to radicalization have been accumulating quite awhile so a "fact check" won't reverse it. Depressing but it seems to be true.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Both exist - so both. 

Once it’s a religious belief, like the anti-vaxxers here is no discussion. We just have to regulate the implication. Example: required vaccinations to attend pub school.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, a kid dying of the measles is sufficient to teach the parents that vaccinations work.

Hopefully, electing shitstain and ducking up the country in 666 ways will do the trick.

But some religious whackos will say “it was gods will” and keep the grave decorated with flowers while congratulating themselves on being brave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Grrr... said:

I saw that this morning too.  My initial thought was that a MLB Umpire isn't stupid.  They need to be able to learn a lot of stuff, interpret it quickly etc.  So if you have semi-intelligent people acting this way, what's going on with all the morons in the Deep South?

Intelligent people say stupid stuff from time to time. The acid test will be the question of "Whom exactly are you going to shoot with your AR-15?"   That should engage a few neurons above the knee. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Intelligent people say stupid stuff from time to time. The acid test will be the question of "Whom exactly are you going to shoot with your AR-15?"   That should engage a few neurons above the knee. 

Certainly not as dumb as the former Astros Assistant GM!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Grrrrr, remember wikipedia is written by the mob.  As always, be careful quoting that as your sole source.  It is easily co-opted to show or push an agenda.  

This term, as in many or most other terms or words, evolve and change meaning over time.  "Well regulated" for instance...... :ph34r:

I've been schooled on "well regulated".  It has to do with standardized training, but that would be too impractical and difficult, so we can ignore that part of the 2nd.  It "doesn't count". 

And this is now a gun thread.

Dogballs.

And you are all sincerely welcome. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

I've been schooled on "well regulated".  It has to do with standardized training, but that would be too impractical and difficult, so we can ignore that part of the 2nd.  It "doesn't count". 

And this is now, yet again, a gun thread.

Dogballs.

And you are all sincerely welcome. 

You could be talking about cannabis cultivation and one of these clowns will chime in about what caliber to use to deter rabbits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

You could be talking about cannabis cultivation and one of these clowns will chime in about what caliber to use to deter rabbits.

Then the difference between an assault rifle and other types, then single round terminal ballistics and FREEDOM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Top NSC advisor to collaborate Bill Taylor’s account of Ukrainian quid, pro quo today.  Yeah it’s already been laid out in the heavily edited “transcript” But it’s nice to get color from the actual observers.

Word is Bolton will testify as well soon.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/white-house-official-impeachment-inquiry-testimony/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I was hoping for more than a couple sentences repeating this assertion to explain WHY they felt that race was the driving factor... 

I have a request for you: Go and download the Civil War by Ken Burns and watch the whole thing.

I'll be shocked if you've never seen it. but go and rewatch all nine episodes.  When you are done, let's have this talk again.  You may be as surprised as I was at just how clear it all is when seen through the lens of our nation's biggest challenge.

If you can't find it for viewing, lemme know and I'll get a hard copy to you over PMs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I have a request for you: Go and download the Civil War by Ken Burns and watch the whole thing.

I'll be shocked if you've never seen it. but go and rewatch all nine episodes.  When you are done, let's have this talk again.  You may be as surprised as I was at just how clear it all is when seen through the lens of our nation's biggest challenge.

If you can't find it for viewing, lemme know and I'll get a hard copy to you over PMs.

Then read Eric Foner's Reconstruction. It's considered the standard reference on the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakenews said:

Top NSC advisor to collaborate Bill Taylor’s account of Ukrainian quid, pro quo today.  Yeah it’s already been laid out in the heavily edited “transcript” But it’s nice to get color from the actual observers.

Word is Bolton will testify as well soon.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/white-house-official-impeachment-inquiry-testimony/index.html

Uh Oh.  The Walrus is probably pissed and will sing like a canary.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

And was televised throughout the inquiry.....

Thanks for reminding us:lol:

Where the rules in place back then that govern these proceedings, allowing them to be conducted in secret, primarily to avoid witness testimony coordination and also allow for time for the redaction of classified information?  The ones signed by John Boehner and signed into law by a Republican majority in 2015?

Get a calendar if you need it.  We'll wait.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

That guy loves a good fight.  And he had to be witness to a lot of this shit.

Pence and Pompeo both have to be sweating.  Perry might get dragged in as well.  They were all in the meeting with Zelensky the weekend Trump bailed when Dorian blew through.  Bolton could drop the big one.  

Warbird will be back when Fox News gives him something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
1 hour ago, warbird said:

And was televised throughout the inquiry.....

Thanks for reminding us:lol:

Because the Republican made rules weren't in place back then.

Thanks for reminding us.  

Every day, in some way, Warbird ratchets up the stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Every day, in some way, Warbird ratchets up the stupid.

It's a race to the absurd between the Soreass and the battle-chicken 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now yer talkin....

 

Federal judge orders Justice Department to turn over Mueller grand jury material

The judge also determined, despite arguments to the contrary from the White House, that the House had launched "an official impeachment inquiry"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-turn-over-mueller-grand-jury-n1072226

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean said:

Now yer talkin....

 

Federal judge orders Justice Department to turn over Mueller grand jury material

The judge also determined, despite arguments to the contrary from the White House, that the House had launched "an official impeachment inquiry"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/federal-judge-orders-justice-department-turn-over-mueller-grand-jury-n1072226

Oh Poppycock!  The Judge must not have noticed that there were democRATS doing the investigation. That’s reversible error right there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So.   Headed for the DC Circuit for appeal no doubt.  Two Trump appointees among 11 active judges, mostly Obama and Clinton appointees.  Three-judge panel, then request by the "loser" for en banc (all judges) rehearing likely .  Stay tuned..

 

(PS:  save this blurb, you can use it again and again for all the coming court orders and inevitable appeal of each..)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nolatom said:

So.   Headed for the DC Circuit for appeal no doubt.  Two Trump appointees among 11 active judges, mostly Obama and Clinton appointees.  Three-judge panel, then request by the "loser" for en banc (all judges) rehearing likely .  Stay tuned..

 

(PS:  save this blurb, you can use it again and again for all the coming court orders and inevitable appeal of each..)

It shouldn't matter who appointed what judge.

The fact that it does, nowadays, is the clearest indication that the US is in a serious decline

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It shouldn't matter who appointed what judge.

The fact that it does, nowadays, is the clearest indication that the US is in a serious decline

- DSK

It's always mattered to some extent, not just now.  But at least the federal judges, once elected, are financially beholden to no one, appointed for life, and free to "evolve" and some do.  And you can apply for rehearing before all 11 or 12 judges, which usually even things out if they were uneven.  If the rehearing is granted, that is.  Still unhappy?  Apply to the Supremes, though they don't have to take it up except in certain types of cases.

Come to Louisiana!!  We elect our state judges.  Who of necessity always have their hands out (through finance committees headed by their fave attorneys) for reelection funds.  Some other states do this also.  It's more "democratic" but way less "independent". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 4:21 PM, Left Shift said:

Makes me more than a little nervous that Moscow Mitch is playing along with this.  Something fishy may be going on.  Is there a long game going on?  Is the whole point to get impeachment going just to rile up the base?  

Am I a paranoid?

Time  the delays so that noted presidential senators are sitting on a Senate impeachmemt trial while Buttageg is rounding up Iowa, New Hampshire,  South Carolona, Floroduh etc.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nolatom said:

It's always mattered to some extent, not just now.  But at least the federal judges, once elected, are financially beholden to no one, appointed for life, and free to "evolve" and some do.  And you can apply for rehearing before all 11 or 12 judges, which usually even things out if they were uneven.  If the rehearing is granted, that is.  Still unhappy?  Apply to the Supremes, though they don't have to take it up except in certain types of cases.

This is nothing more than a stall tactic. If it gets reheard, then appealed again to SCOTUS, it drags on till well after the election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Top NSC advisor to collaborate Bill Taylor’s account of Ukrainian quid, pro quo today.  Yeah it’s already been laid out in the heavily edited “transcript” But it’s nice to get color from the actual observers.

Word is Bolton will testify as well soon.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/white-house-official-impeachment-inquiry-testimony/index.html

It's corroborate, gaytor.  But irregardless, I guess it's a mute point.

Link to post
Share on other sites