• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Teggy

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
Hiphopopotamus said:
That douche from Federalist is claiming he was right all along now that the ICIG had to make a statement telling him how wrong he is, directly.

These people are fucking wild
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This a quote from the IC IG letter:

The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The federalist dude tweets out that it confirms his reporting. WTF?! If they revised the form in August to better align with the law AFTER the whistleblower had already submitted their complaint, WHO CARES?!
 
Ignatz Mouse

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,746
The big thing for today apart from the Barr info is... nothing. That is, there's no clear and defensible spin that's having any impact on the narrative at all. Yeah, there's some noise about 2nd hand info and rules changes, but the thing people care about-- leaning on a foreign power for political gain-- has no answer. Nobody believes Trump would insist on investigating Biden for justice's sake. Even his followers.
 

Deleted member 7462

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,877
What Biden's done to warrant his support is to seem like the surest shot to win. That's enough.

Warren's black outreach needs to improve (I'm not even sure who her black surrogates are, tbh), sure. But beating Biden in IA and NH will do more to solve her issues with the black vote than anything else.
 
Teggy

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892
If you are interested in the treason that Schiff is supposed to be arrested for, you can hear it here starting at around 2:30. Honestly, I'm not really sure why he did this, it was very unnecessary.

 

Deleted member 176

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
37,160
Ignatz Mouse said:
The big thing for today apart from the Barr info is... nothing. That is, there's no clear and defensible spin that's having any impact on the narrative at all. Yeah, there's some noise about 2nd hand info and rules changes, but the thing people care about-- leaning on a foreign power for political gain-- has no answer. Nobody believes Trump would insist on investigating Biden for justice's sake. Even his followers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought that too. Every one of the push notifications I've gotten for today's news have been brutal.

"Pompeo was on the Ukraine call"
"Barr involved with attempt to get Australia to investigate Mueller"
"Republican and Independent support for impeachment increases"
 
Arm Van Dam

Arm Van Dam

self-requested ban
Banned
Mar 30, 2019
5,951
Illinois
skullmuffins

skullmuffins

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,443


so uh not sure how well attorney-client privilege holds up for an issue where 1) you told the papers you were not working as an attorney, and 2) you gleefully blabbed about your work to every paper and on every cable news network

also excited to see Rudes argue that a subpoena from democratic chairs is inherently illegitimate. Goes with the general GOP belief that only Republicans can legitimately hold power.
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Zutroy said:
What does this mean?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Congress has a the power to hold people in contempt based on the implied need to do so in order to perform their duties. Either house can try, convict, and punish people for it as they see fit. Just like the courts routinely do for uncooperative people. Both houses have done so in the past. However, the court has limited their punishments to the duration of the congressional session and the Sargeant at Arms needs to find and force the return of the accused. So the Congress passed a law making contempt of Congress a crime, punishable by whatever, and they refer those cases to the DOJ (which works except when investigating the party in power). Because that law exists, the courts and others refer to the original power as inherent contempt. Congress does not have the power to divest themselves of powers (ie bind the hands of future Congresses) so inherent contempt exists despite the creation of the statutory crime. This has already been tested in the Supreme Court (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/):

The power of either House of Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment in 1857 of the statute, R.S. § 102, making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House or one of its committees a misdemeanor. Compare Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263. The statute was enacted not because the power of the Houses to punish for a past contempt was doubted, but because imprisonment limited to the duration of the session was not considered sufficiently drastic a punishment for contumacious witnesses. [Footnote 9] That the purpose of the statute was merely to supplement the power of contempt by providing for additional punishment was recognized in In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661, 166 U. S. 671-672:

"We grant that Congress could not divest itself, or either of its houses, of the essential and inherent power to punish for contempt in cases to which the power of either house properly extended; but, because Congress, by the Act of 1857, sought to aid each of the houses in the discharge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation of the power in each to punish for contempt was involved, and the statute is not open to objection on that account."

Punishment, purely as such, through contempt proceedings, legislative or judicial, is not precluded because punishment may also be inflicted for the same act as a statutory offense. Compare Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, 249 U. S. 382. [Footnote 10] As was said in In re Chapman, supra,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In short, the inability for the House to enforce its subpoenas is a lack of will, not power
 
Hiphopopotamus

Hiphopopotamus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,885
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Didn't someone write a counter op-ed to the infamous NYT letter just today? Lmao

"Dear anonymous - everything is fucked and it's all your fault."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I still think it was a collaboration between Coats and McMaster. I think they saw that they couldn't control the intentional chaos in this administration. They thought they could make Trump their puppet, but instead didn't recognize that Trump was already a slave to his narcissism.
 
Tfritz

Tfritz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,428
anyway big shout out to rashida tlaib for having some real follow through on impeaching the motherfucker
 
Falore

Falore

Banned
Feb 15, 2019
745
Why wouldnt Devine Nunes sign the subpoena to Rudy? The subpoena is to only GET MORE FACTS of Nunes does not sign it he is a traitor amd should be arrested for treason ASAP
 
shinra-bansho

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Reuters/Ipsos

All Registered Voters:
Biden - 21
Sanders - 16
Warren - 15
Harris - 4
Buttigieg - 4

Democratic RV:
Biden - 26
Warren - 19
Sanders - 17
Harris - 5
Buttigieg - 5

Independent RV:
Sanders - 11
Biden - 8
Warren - 7
Harris - 1
Buttigieg - 0

Dynamics of closed and open primaries will be interesting.
 
sprsk

sprsk

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,476
Falore said:
Why wouldnt Devine Nunes sign the subpoena to Rudy? The subpoena is to only GET MORE FACTS of Nunes does not sign it he is a traitor amd should be arrested for treason ASAP
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I hope by the end of all this we finally find out what Nunes is so afraid of and why he is so gungho to protect Trump.
 

Deleted member 3082

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,099


Don't forget that one of the talking points pushed by Russia's troll farm was that there would be a civil war if Democrats tried to impeach Trump. An interesting coinkydink, right? From the criminal complaint filed in federal court: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5009827/Khusyaynova-Complaint.pdf

EFtmK-QX0AAFb4V
 
Kusagari

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,603
Gerry Connolly basically said on CNN earlier that he and others support taking any measures possible to enforce subpoenas, but Pelosi has shown zero interest.
 
Stinkles

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
skullmuffins said:
Cool cool, Gorka is traveling with Pompeo to Europe for... reasons

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Like, Fox won't even have him on staff nowadays.

Also, I like reminding people of this:

A number of academics and policymakers questioned Gorka's knowledge of foreign policy issues, his academic credentials and his professional behavior.[6][7][52][54][57][55][58] Andrew Reynolds, professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, questioned the validity of Gorka's doctoral degree, noting discrepancies between how doctorates are normally awarded and how Gorka's was awarded. Reynolds said that the evaluation of each referee on Gorka's PhD committee was "a page of generalized comments – completely at odds with the detailed substantive and methodological evaluations that I've seen at every Ph.D defence I've been on over the last twenty years." According to Reynolds, at least two of the three referees had only Bachelor of Arts degrees, and one of the referees had published with Gorka previously, in violation of the academic expectation that reviewers have no personal or other form of interest in the success of a candidate's thesis.[59] [note 1] Georgetown University associate professor Daniel Nexon reviewed Gorka's PhD thesis, describing it as "inept" and saying "It does not deploy evidence that would satisfy the most basic methodological requirements for a PhD in the US".[54]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.