Philbin, I think. He went on and on about how Giuliani, as Trump's personal lawyer, was pursuing this stuff for a year before the aid stuff came up.Who said that? I haven't been watching today but that seems...stupid on their part. I say that as of any of this is going to matter.
The partytold you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right
1984 is an instruction manual to Republicans at this point.
Yeah, feels like the house has come back with a vengeance.Snap, day after the vote, the House subpoena'd Mulvany, and they got the same "no" response. Can't say that particular subpoena wasn't authorized because the vote hadn't happened.
"You want witnesses? We will make this about Biden"
Guys, Am i insane? These guys are straight up being asked if an inference can be drawn since they wont show the evidence? And there argument is that no, we have executive privileged, so you canNOT make a conclusion.
LIKE THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
IM DONE
oh and now he's saying, (and i'm paraphrasing) if you do not ask for it nicely, i do not have to give it to you
WTF
Am i insane.
Yes, it's a shame it'd be an affront to the others to have him do that.
I'm not watching currently, can you elaborate?
lol at the question just asked now, republicans are literally wasting time
Well the Trump team response was based on how the question would be litigated in courts where rules of evidence and other considerations would apply. I think he is probably right that a fact finder in typical litigation is not going to be permitted to draw an adverse inference if some document or testimony is withheld pursuant to a valid claim of privilege. That would in some ways defeat the privilege, like allowing a jury in a criminal trial to draw an adverse inference when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify. Ultimately, though, the impeachment trial isn't actually conducted pursuant to such rules (I think), so the senators can choose to draw whatever inferences they want in reality.
It was a bit of a fleeting moment, so my quote was anecdotal, but I think essentially in the context of why aid to Ukraine was stopped, Schiff was sarcastically remarking how it could be that the acts of one person, Hunter Biden, were so immensely profound that they could lead to Trump wanting to stop aid to the whole country. Somehow gin joints got into his remarks, if I heard correctly.
That was a Casablanca reference, when Rick says of Elsa, "of all the gin joints in all the world, she had to walk into mine," which is to say that she causes problems wherever she goes, but in this instance it's him that needs to deal with the fall out.
If the Removal vote was in secret, I reckon we'd definitely get GoP turn on Trump. It wouldnt solve the problem because they'd probably all want to step in his shoes, but let's deal with one bastard at a time.Was reading how the senate could do a secret ballot.
I was not aware of this. I assumed it was required to know how your senator voted. Impeachment should be a non partisan issue but its clear in this day and age it is not possible to do that. All the talk of votes boil down to "well they are in an election year, it would be risky, he might want to vote this way but can't risk losing his seat etc"
The trump base is powerful but we already know these same senators who hated trump during the primary are magically in love with him now. Secret ballot might cause many to flip.