Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 261: Schiff Happens

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's why at the UK Supreme Court a couple months ago, they had to argue that Boris Johnson had lied to the Queen - because the Queen can do no wrong. So if she made a bad decision, she must have been relying on bad information.

---

It is really a separation of powers issue. Without this precedent you would have judicial supremacy. An unelected majority of the Supreme Court could govern the country like a dictatorship.

If you impugn the motives of the chosen head of state of the people without proof, you effectively impugn the motives of the people and deprive them of a voice. That is not okay in our republic.

---

Related to this, I read a news story that Susan Collins sent a note to the Chief Justice asking if the House managers had violated the rule of the Senate against impugning the motives or character of members after the House managers more or less accused the Senate majority of preparing to violate their oath to be impartial. And the Chief Justice gave them a verbal warning, which is rather light for direct contempt of court and contempt of the Senate.


---

red sox 777 posted...

Related to this, I read a news story that Susan Collins sent a note to the Chief Justice asking if the House managers had violated the rule of the Senate against impugning the motives or character of members after the House managers more or less accused the Senate majority of preparing to violate their oath to be impartial. And the Chief Justice gave them a verbal warning, which is rather light for direct contempt of court and contempt of the Senate.

Well I mean he's not doing anything about Trump's lawyers provably lying so are there really any rules at all?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well I mean he's not doing anything about Trump's lawyers provably lying so are there really any rules at all?

Well, I don't think it is provable without more witnesses. Certainly it isn't provable until more evidence is presented.

Whereas direct contempt does not need proof because it does not depend on anything other than the words used in the court itself. You don't need to reference any external facts.

---

https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1220531705682984961?s=19

Bernie and Yang stand seem to be all in on their guys.

---

...Mega ouch on the Yang side for sure, there.

---

I know that sounds like a catch-22, and it really is. But it's also the reality - no judge will sanction a lawyer for lying to the court until after there is evidence to prove the statement is a lie.

And in practice, it's hard to show that a lawyer lied as opposed to simply believing a lie his client told him. And given what we know about Donald Trump, it seems entirely reasonable that he lied to his lawyers. And if they repeated plausible things he told them without independently verifying that it was true, well, that's not unethical.


---

Yang is probably drawing a large number of Republicans and independents. Among his supporters who are Democrats, the percentage who will vote for the nominee is probably similar.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Well, I don't think it is provable without more witnesses. Certainly it isn't provable until more evidence is presented.

Whereas direct contempt does not need proof because it does not depend on anything other than the words used in the court itself. You don't need to reference any external facts.

Not just lies about the facts of the case. Cipollone lied and said that Republicans weren't allowed inside the SCIF in the House.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Not just lies about the facts of the case. Cipollone lied and said that Republicans weren't allowed inside the SCIF in the House.

But how is the court supposed to know if that's a lie? Where is the evidence of that? I mean sure, it's all over the media - but the court is not supposed to be considering that. As far as admissible evidence goes, I don't think any has been presented so far that contradicts that statement.

And yes, I'm aware of the unfairness that could be created if the Senate refuses to listen to the very witnesses who could provide that evidence. But also, Cipollone could face discipline before a separate tribunal which would probably be much more receptive to the idea of hearing witnesses than the Senate.

As I said, I think it'd be very hard to show that he lied as opposed to being misinformed. Trump has probably worked with thousands of attorneys over the decades and I'm sure he knows he rules of legal ethics well enough to know that it's not entirely true that you can tell your attorney the whole truth because it's privileged and confidential. It is both of those, but ethics rules prevent your attorney from knowingly telling a lie to the court.

Whereas if you lie to your attorney, it will probably reduce their ability to effectively prepare your defense, but you will be able to present whatever defense you want. And at this point, Trump, after being a party to 3600+ lawsuits, has more experience with litigation than nearly anyone, So I don't doubt that Trump is running the show here, and is handing out bits and pieces of the case to his various attorneys, none of whom (well, maybe Rudy) may even know what the overall strategy is. I doubt people like Rex Tillerson ever knew what Trump's full plans were about diplomacy either.

---

Sekulow also lied and said that Trump wasn't allowed counsel in the House Judiciary committee. His co-counsel Cipollone provably knows this, as he sent a letter responding to the invitation, saying that Trump would not participate.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sekulow also lied and said that Trump wasn't allowed counsel in the House Judiciary committee. His co-counsel Cipollone provably knows this, as he sent a letter responding to the invitation, saying that Trump would not participate.

Well, I dunno if you can impute the knowledge of co-counsel to each other. Especially when they have a client like Trump who is probably directly managing the case.

Assuming we can get around that, he/they might be in trouble after this case is over then. Which happens to a lot of people after working for Donald J. Trump. But as far as the Senate is concerned, they don't know much, if any, of these facts. No witnesses have been called yet. No witnesses have been cross-examined. I think the House record was conditionally admitted, subject to objections which would be resolved by a vote, but even if admitted that does not mean that evidence has to be believed.

Also, maybe the House set unacceptable conditions on White House counsel appearing, so they effectively did not allow the President to have counsel. Maybe that's what he meant. It's not really something that can be resolved right now and will probably need to be decided later by a different court.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1220531705682984961?s=19

Bernie and Yang stand seem to be all in on their guys.

jesus christ, the 11% who wouldn't support anyone but bloomberg. what the fuck???

the 5% who would support nobody but biden are weird too; warren and buttigieg are the only non-cringeworthy numbers here

Not really. You have to consider that when you get people who may not vote other Democrats it isn't always from the left. You want people who appeal to independents? No surprise Bernie and yang do

---

jesus christ, the 11% who wouldn't support anyone but bloomberg. what the f***???

theyre only willing to vote for people from New York obviously, so Trump is their second choice
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

jesus christ, the 11% who wouldn't support anyone but bloomberg. what the fuck???

the 5% who would support nobody but biden are weird too; warren and buttigieg are the only non-cringeworthy numbers here

Are you sure about that?

I think a possible read of these numbers is that Buttigieg and Warren supporters are 100% Dems, so theres no reason for them to be the candidate.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Are you sure about that?

I think a possible read of these numbers is that Buttigieg and Warren supporters are 100% Dems, so theres no reason for them to be the candidate.

Well, a few things here

a) I wasn't really expressing whether or not any given candidate should or should not be the nominee based on these numbers, I just find the Sanders/Yang/Bloomberg numbers very frustrating

b) We don't really know how many respondents there were to this poll I don't think - for all we know the Yang thing is a smallish sample size and there aren't really that many people to lose here compared to Sanders or even Biden, for instance. And the 14% of Buttigieg supporters who say "depends on the candidate," that could very well mean "god I really hope it's not Yang" for a lot of them.

c) As far as refuting the argument you gave goes, I think the big thing is that this poll doesn't account for people who are not supporting any of these candidates (whether they be Dem, Ind, or Rep), people who are undecided, and the VERY LARGE group of people who are just not engaged with the primary process at all currently. We can tell from these numbers the likelihood of Biden getting Yang supporters, but we can't tell from these numbers the likelihood of Yang drawing voters from the huge mass of undecideds. There are SO MANY question marks here. At the end of the day, I simply do not think Yang can rally more dem votes than Biden can - I just don't, and I think it ignores too many factors to believe that these numbers say he could.

d) I think this argument is a huge problem for our democracy, because it implies that we should hand the nomination over to the first side who's willing indicate that they'll throw a temper tantrum if it's not their nominee. I am NOT ACCUSING ANYONE HERE OF DOING THIS, mind you, but it IS the implication of a policy like this that one side would be able to hold the other sides hostage simply by being the first to refuse to budge. The reality is more complicated, of course, but I don't think this is a healthy way to look at how we should choose the nominee.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-information-crackdown-on-wuhan-coronavirus-2020-1

---

Worth watching:

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1220559375938609152?s=21

Gonna be weird explaining to my future kids how Donald Trump got acquitted despite everything!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Worth watching:

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1220559375938609152?s=21

Gonna be weird explaining to my future kids how Donald Trump got acquitted despite everything!

It's simple. Impeachment is a political process that can remove a highly unpopular president. Donald Trump has about 50% support in the country and therefore, is way short of the threshold to be removed from office.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

d) I think this argument is a huge problem for our democracy, because it implies that we should hand the nomination over to the first side who's willing indicate that they'll throw a temper tantrum if it's not their nominee. I am NOT ACCUSING ANYONE HERE OF DOING THIS, mind you, but it IS the implication of a policy like this that one side would be able to hold the other sides hostage simply by being the first to refuse to budge. The reality is more complicated, of course, but I don't think this is a healthy way to look at how we should choose the nominee.

i don't see this being what that data says at all.
to me that data is just another poll indicating how firm the base is for the Democrats. i'd want a candidate that doesn't have ridiculously high numbers on this because that'd be one of the clearest signs that they can draw support from outside of the base. how many republicans or independents can warren or pete pull? not many. biden can't either but i give him more credit than either of those. bernie? a decent amount. yang? his base largely isn't democrats, he polls VERY well outside the party which makes him someone to look out for in NH - their primary isn't limited to just democrats. this is quite healthy as it means you're getting a diverse palette of individuals involved with the party. i don't like or want a voterbase that's strictly "I MUST VOTE WITH THE PARTY," that is bad for democracy. this isn't. the cringe numbers are the "vote blue no matter who (unless it's the guys i don't like)" types, not the ones involved in the process in a wider base. convince them that those people should vote for you! like a democracy should do!

---

About Bloomberg- there are people who are supporting him because he's a billionaire and they think being rich means you are smart. Their 2nd choice is going to be the 2nd richest person in this thing, Trump.

---

no, the 2nd richest is Steyer.


---

Wanglicious posted...

no, the 2nd richest is Steyer.

Not if you believe Trump's 10 billion claim.

---

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1220741595068321793

ABC News heard an audio recording that appears to have Trump demanding Yovanovitch be fired at a dinner with Parnas and Fruman in Spring 2018.

"Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? do it." is the quote.

SDNY apparently has the recording as well.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Not if you believe Trump's 10 billion claim.

So the second richest is Steyer.

---

Espeon posted...

So the second richest is Steyer.

I'm reading that Steyer's net worth is only $1.6 billion. I could see Trump being over that, especially after 3 years of forcing an army of federal employees to stay at his hotels and pay way above market rates.

That being said, we are talking about people whose primary criterion for voting is the candidate's wealth. So uh.....don't expect the best reasoning?

---

Wanglicious posted...

i don't see this being what that data says at all.
to me that data is just another poll indicating how firm the base is for the Democrats. i'd want a candidate that doesn't have ridiculously high numbers on this because that'd be one of the clearest signs that they can draw support from outside of the base. how many republicans or independents can warren or pete pull? not many. biden can't either but i give him more credit than either of those. bernie? a decent amount. yang? his base largely isn't democrats, he polls VERY well outside the party which makes him someone to look out for in NH - their primary isn't limited to just democrats. this is quite healthy as it means you're getting a diverse palette of individuals involved with the party. i don't like or want a voterbase that's strictly "I MUST VOTE WITH THE PARTY," that is bad for democracy. this isn't. the cringe numbers are the "vote blue no matter who (unless it's the guys i don't like)" types, not the ones involved in the process in a wider base. convince them that those people should vote for you! like a democracy should do!

This is a great argument but it's undermined by the Republican Party actively seeking to harm democracy as an electoral strategy. Also, Democrats HAVE historically tried to argue for votes outside their party - by fighting over the center, and by trying to form a diverse coalition. It's led to where we are now.

The facts are just that the Democratic Party is the only electorally viable alternative to the Republicans right now. Bernie and Yang both understand this and know the stakes, and that's why they're running as democrats. But a lot of people haven't and that's where Para's argument comes in.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

This is a great argument but it's undermined by the Republican Party actively seeking to harm democracy as an electoral strategy. Also, Democrats HAVE historically tried to argue for votes outside their party - by fighting over the center, and by trying to form a diverse coalition. It's led to where we are now.

The facts are just that the Democratic Party is the only electorally viable alternative to the Republicans right now. Bernie and Yang both understand this and know the stakes, and that's why they're running as democrats. But a lot of people haven't and that's where Para's argument comes in.

Not true. The Republican Party is the only one that actually listens to the voters. When the voters wanted Trump and protectionism in 2016, the Republican Party followed even though it went against what they had said for decades.

The Republican Party is of course against the strategy of winning elections by running up votes in areas that are voting 90/10 for one party. There is no debate, no public discourse, in that kind of election. Republicans want elections to be decided by areas that are competitive, with good public debate.

---

Trump is certainly wealthier than Steyer. However, Bloomberg's fortune is absolutely ridiculous. People seem to forget that he is in the Mark Zuckerberg/Larry Ellison/Walton Family range of wealth. At least tenfold that of Trump (which is probably why Trump hates him so much).

---

https://twitter.com/mattmfm/status/1220555307916677120?s=21

---

red sox, you are so full of shit.

you're now blaming democrats for being gerrymandered

---

banananor posted...

red sox, you are so full of shit.

you're now blaming democrats for being gerrymandered

Gerrymandering didn't force Democrats to focus 90% of their efforts on cities. We have this rural/urban divide elsewhere in the world but maybe nowhere else is there as big a divide as here. The conservatives are always able to win a bunch of seats in London even with winner take all FPTP districts. Ahmadinejad won a slight majority in Tehran per the official vote count (if you don't believe that count, there's little question he at least did way better in Tehran than any Republican does in a major American city).

---

xp1337 posted...

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1220741595068321793

ABC News heard an audio recording that appears to have Trump demanding Yovanovitch be fired at a dinner with Parnas and Fruman in Spring 2018.

"Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." is the quote.

SDNY apparently has the recording as well.

Jesus

Also if hes talking to Parnas, take her out cant really sensibly mean fire her as Parnas has no ability to do that.

---

https://twitter.com/stuartpstevens/status/1220793262413209600
lmao

---

https://twitter.com/mbowman/status/1220552569426071552?s=21
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jesus

Also if hes talking to Parnas, take her out cant really sensibly mean fire her as Parnas has no ability to do that.

I cant discount this but I dont think Parnas has the ability to order a hit either so it seems like a long shot tbqh.

Importantly this takes place a year before the 2019 events though so it establishes a long period of direct association.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jesus

Also if hes talking to Parnas, take her out cant really sensibly mean fire her as Parnas has no ability to do that.

Now put this in context of information previously released about potential threats to her safety.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I cant discount this but I dont think Parnas has the ability to order a hit either so it seems like a long shot tbqh.

Importantly this takes place a year before the 2019 events though so it establishes a long period of direct association.

Well, it's something he literally can't do (fire her) vs. something he only probably can't do.

---

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/34-u-s-service-members-diagnosed-brain-injuries-after-iran-n1122181

34 service members have been diagnosed with concussions or traumatic brain injuries from the Iran air strike.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/34-u-s-service-members-diagnosed-brain-injuries-after-iran-n1122181

34 service members have been diagnosed with concussions or traumatic brain injuries from the Iran air strike.

Trump literally said at a press conference when asked about this that he doesnt consider head trauma to be a serious injury like losing a limb
---

*puts on Redsox hat*

Obviously Trump meant "take her out [to dinner]". Any other meaning is reading too much into it, and this is the only one that makes sense.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

Well, it's something he literally can't do (fire her) vs. something he only probably can't do.

There are a lot of killers, you think our country is so innocent?

---

https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/1220823387104337925?s=21

lmao again

---

It looks like a paper airplane as seen from above. Not the most spaceworthy of craft.

---

I think the white dots look like the US and China dropping nukes on each other from space
---

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1220829061859237895?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1220829061859237895?s=21

57% think what Trump did was legal? And 65% of the all-important independents? He's looking like a huge favorite to win reelection then.

---

Joe Rogan is trending on Twitter because the same people who say Bernie cant reach Independents think he should refuse the support of one of the largest podcasts in the world.


---