Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

God I hope Tulsi gets primaried.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

God I hope Tulsi gets primaried.

Shes not running for re-election for some reason!

---

https://twitter.com/mike2020/status/1208475225794502656?s=21

Dont you do it Gritty
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

So on the one hand an energy company hired a "an American lawyer and lobbyist" as an advisor.

And the President of the United States hired an "American businesswoman, fashion designer, author, and reality television personality" as an advisor.

And you think not only are those the same thing, but the white house appointment was more correct? Even without bringing up the relationships into it's an absurdly one sided situation.

I have zero doubt his kids have advised him on things all their life.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Well what would be the fun in that?

You're asking why anyone would ever need a sex position other than missionary. It's not a good look.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Surely his kids are more qualified to advise him than Hunter was for the Burisma job

Wow you ARE actually gonna make that argument

See, this is what fun is Seph. An absolute disregard for saying stupid shit.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I have zero doubt his kids have advised him on things all their life.

And that makes them qualified to be a presidential advisor? Do you see how you just moved the goalposts from "are qualified to" to "have previously done"?

When I was a child I advised my parents to buy me more toys and candy. Does that make me qualified to be a financial planner?

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And that makes them qualified to be a presidential advisor? Do you see how you just moved the goalposts from "are qualified to" to "have previously done"?

When I was a child I advised my parents to buy me more toys and candy. Does that make me qualified to be a financial planner?

Thats not what he said. He just said theyre MORE qualified than Hunter Biden was in Ukraine
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And that makes them qualified to be a presidential advisor? Do you see how you just moved the goalposts from "are qualified to" to "have previously done"?

When I was a child I advised my parents to buy me more toys and candy. Does that make me qualified to be a financial planner?

I said they probably have more experience and thus are more qualified at advising their father.

That speaks to how little qualification Biden had for his job.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjf94SDQuIE

Hype for Bernie

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ukraine aid was ordered to be held up less than two hours after the Perfect Phone Call:

https://twitter.com/dabeard/status/1208376599118258177?s=21

Reupping to note that this is yet another smoking gun. Duffey says that this is based on guidance he has received, presumably from either Trump or Mulvaney.

---

Is it going to matter though?

---

Depends on whether there end up being witnesses. Duffey can probably directly implicate Trump, and Mulvaney definitely can. What this does do is remind vulnerable Rs that there are risks to ramming through an acquittal: more evidence is likely to eventually come out.

---

So in other words, no.

---

https://twitter.com/JonLemire/status/1208409440585764867?s=19

I laughed

---

Donald Trump really seems like the type of guy that wouldn't be bothered at all by associating himself with a trailer park...!

---

What books are in the Donald Trump library
---

It's just printouts of tweets and The Perfect Phone Call

---

35,000 copies of The Art of the Deal and Triggered

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

35,000 copies of The Art of the Deal and Triggered

So basically the contents have already been purchased by the RNC
---

Really good point about the Duffey email: OMB did not turn this over to Congress despite being under subpoena. Releasing this under FOIA destroys the (already obviously ridiculous) claim of "absolute privilege," strengthening the case for obstruction. If it's privileged, it's privileged; it can't be released for some purposes but not to Congressional subpoena.

https://twitter.com/HeathMayo/status/1208567194826821632

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Really good point about the Duffey email: OMB did not turn this over to Congress despite being under subpoena. Releasing this under FOIA destroys the (already obviously ridiculous) claim of "absolute privilege," strengthening the case for obstruction. If it's privileged, it's privileged; it can't be released for some purposes but not to Congressional subpoena.

https://twitter.com/HeathMayo/status/1208567194826821632

FFS

---

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1208542276533796864?s=21

I mean thats the obvious play
---

Pretend that up is down and left is right, par for the course

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1208542276533796864?s=21

I mean thats the obvious play

If pelosi refuses to advance the articles to the Senate, then for all intents and purposes he was not impeached.

If you're arrested but never charged, you won't have a record.

---

You think shes going to refuse to advance them forever?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You think shes going to refuse to advance them forever?

That's what that Trump decision is based on, if you dig past the clickbait. "He was never really impeached" only applies if the articles are never advanced.

---

Thats still wrong though. If the House says hes impeached, hes impeached.
---

Based upon the less than one week that they've been held?

---

To use your analogy, its like yelling IM NOT ARRESTED as the cops load you into the car because you havent been booked yet
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Thats still wrong though. If the House says hes impeached, hes impeached.

It's definitely ambiguous. An impeachment vote that never makes it to the Senate is really meaningless. It's like Congress declaring war but the president doesn't give the military the orders. Were we really at war then?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

To use your analogy, its like yelling IM NOT ARRESTED as the cops load you into the car because you havent been booked yet

No, it would be like getting arrested (voting on impeachment) and then never being charged (advancing to the Senate/courtroom). Your record would still be clean.

---

Anyway the point is that this argument is far more nuanced than the smug twitterati screaming HE'S GASLIGHTING US would have you believe.

---

My dad was arrested but never charged.

I don't think he'd ever argue "I was never arrested."

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Anyway the point is that this argument is far more nuanced than the smug twitterati screaming HE'S GASLIGHTING US would have you believe.

Thats how it starts, then over time it devolves into actual gaslighting
---

TheRock1525 posted...

My dad was arrested but never charged.

I don't think he'd ever argue "I was never arrested."

But in any legal sense/background checks, the arrest should have no impact on his future if he wasn't charged.

---

I mean youve seen it happen right? Trump lies work the same way as fishing stories
---

I think I am inclined to agree that if the House never formally notifies the Senate that they have impeached the President, then the President has not actually been impeached. With that being, said, although Nixon was never impeached, any discussion of impeached presidents is incomplete without him.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Pnb8C4DX0

Former insurance VP admits the 'choice' talking point is bullshit that he helped make up.

---

Trump hanging out with war criminal Eddie Gallagher at Mar-a-Lago:

https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1208776159925809153

---

Around when the pardon story came out it was a rumor Trump was seeking to recruit Gallagher and the rest of the pardoned criminals to campaign for him. So I guess there it is.

---

uh... do note that this argument of trump not being impeached didn't really come from trump's camp. everything is being related to this piece:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

written by one Noah Feldman, a left wing constitional lawyer who was a witness for the Democrats and wants Trump out. this is also clear in the CBS link posted earlier.

The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

so this isn't really a case of 'OH TRUMP SO WACKY' it's literally the argument by a guy the democrats brought in, whose career is studying the constitution, and who wants trump out.

---

Its still wacky because its a deliberate attempt to mislead his supporters based on a debatable technicality, that if it takes among his base, will still be pushed even after that technicality is resolved
---

Counterpoint: that guy is also making a pedantic, stupid, and misleading argument

---

I'm not sure about this line of reasoning but I think a extended delay in delivering the charges to the Senate is good reason for the Senate to dismiss this impeachment for lack of due process without considering the merits.

---

He even says in his own article

The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they dont directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate.

And based on his judicial nominations, we know Trump values Constitutional Literalism (lol hes really just nominating who Mitch tells him to but still)
---

he's got a valid point, it's not a misleading argument if you read what he said. if the house did impeach then the senate should be able to be in control, if they did not then the house has not finished impeachment. it's a technical argument though considering he's a constitutional lawyer, of course that's what you're gonna get. and it ain't like he wants this argument to be used by trump, his opinion is that this isn't what the democrats want messaged.

the main thing you will see argued though is that this makes the dems look more wishy washy and incompetent. 'they make the vote to impeach then can't decide if they want to do it or not, what great decision making leaders we've got.' but that's something you're gonna get no matter what at this point.

---

also do bear in mind that this may also be an argument Pelosi wants as it gives her and the house more power, though it's optically shit. they don't need to give the senate the trial because as long as they don't complete their half, impeachment has not legally happened yet, meaning this is still in their sole discretion. just like the senate has the sole discretion to do the trial. no reason why, say, another article of impeachment can't be brought up at a later time. it'd be akin to a prosecutor bringing up another charge before a trial began. it actually gives them more control on the situation, legally speaking. it just looks like crap. though it always did and it ain't like trump's base cares if he's got the asterisk next to his name or not so who are you trying to impress by weakening your position?

---

I dont understand how demanding a fair trial looks like shit optically

I get that the actual article of impeachment do, but not this part

Wanglicious posted...

ain't like trump's base cares if he's got the asterisk next to his name or not so who are you trying to impress by weakening your position?

If they dont care, then why would he even bother to try to put forward the narrative that hes not impeached
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont understand how demanding a fair trial looks like shit optically

I get that the actual article of impeachment do, but not this part

If they dont care, then why would he even bother to try to put forward the narrative that hes not impeached

Demanding that the court accept your conditions before you file the charges does not look like demanding a fair trial. Looks like you want a rigged trial.

---