This entire line of "questioning" is no more than "I mean, it's just so partisan, and unfair!" "I know, right?!?" back and forth. There are no real substantive questions.
This entire line of "questioning" is no more than "I mean, it's just so partisan, and unfair!" "I know, right?!?" back and forth. There are no real substantive questions.
While exchanging super sympathetic nods and frowns.
"This report that says the investigation was appropriate clearly shows an inappropriate investigation that also totally says Trump is awesome"
This strategy doesn't work quite as well when people can actually read the report.
But someone said so on twitter, it must be true! I don't need to read a report when its contents can be accurately summarised in 280 characters.
Having looked at the major news orgs, that’s gonna be hard to argue for people (not that they won’t try). They are all pretty exculpatory for the FBI investigation. Like the headlines right now are:
CNN: “Report Finds errors in Russia Probe, but says launching it was justified”
NBC: “Contradicting Trump, IG Report finds FBI probe of his 2016 campaign not politically motivated”
MSNBC: “Contradicting Trump, Russia probe report finds no evidence of bias against him”
ABC: “Major report from DOJ inspector general finds Russia investigation was launched with proper cause, despite missteps”
Fox News: “IG report finds mistakes but no political bias in FBI’s bid to spy on Trump campaign staffer”
All of those are pretty bad for the Trump Admin’s fight against impeachment? The best spin of it, by Fox, is that the FBI did not have a political bias in investigating President Trump, and the takeaway from that is the investigation was valid. Or at least that’s the logical step to it. If they weren’t politically motivated against him, why else would they investigate him? Cause something was there. Barr’s smokescreen doesn’t really do much to dampen that I think, because it’s coming out at the same time as the report.
Now we have moved onto "you were smearing Nunes by releasing those numbers! I have no problem with proper oversight, but that was nothing more than a smear campaign!" (by Collins to Goldman)
Oh and fun plot twist! The IG report makes an oblique reference to the fact that Christopher Steele had a friendship with a member of the Trump family.
ABC have confirmed that the family member is Ivanka
Apparently she’d invited him to Trump Tower to chat about him possibly working with the Trump Org.
Please let her end up being the source of his information on the pee tape. I need her to know about her dad's fetishes. I'm being terribly schadenfreude in this, but it feels somehow fitting that she's the one that's been nominated by the family to manage that aspect of his life. We've all been looking for how she has influence in the WH and mystified where it comes from, and here's an answer staring us in the face.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
"I'm concerned that this sham impeachment is preventing the House from passing bills."
Watches hearings on C-Span where breaks are taken so House Reps can go to the floor to vote on bills.
Complains that they can't pass bills because of hearings.
The Nunes shit just cracks me up, I'm actually surprised they're wasting time going to bat for him.
Nunes is their conduit. If they lose him they lose access to Trump. Plus they risk being implicated themselves. Either directly through Nunes or due to having to pick up his slack.
Plus throwing Nunes under the bus is not possible.
I wish they would do a better job of clarifying that the whole "son of a bitch, he got fired" clip was Biden speaking about executing US foreign policy signed off on by multiple internal departments, several NATO allies, and the EU writ large.
+3
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I mean Goldman did lay that out a little earlier but it should absolutely be hammered on.
I don't know, guys. I feel like you're missing out here. Gohmert's currently ranting that you need at least TWO direct witnesses before something is treason. If you don't have two witnesses, then it can't be treason.
I don't know, guys. I feel like you're missing out here. Gohmert's currently ranting that you need at least TWO direct witnesses before something is treason. If you don't have two witnesses, then it can't be treason.
Well it's a good thing they aren't charging treason then. Did Gohmert witness something we should know about?
TIL: You literally cannot commit treason if no one is in the room.
Treason does have some specific constitutionally enshrined eye witness requirements.
That's why we've created a whole tiered mess of treason adjacent charges to render treason itself irrelevant.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
It's funny, we talk a lot about the republicans because their behavior is obviously ridiculous in a lot of cases, but the Democrats really are doing a good job in my estimation of making a reasoned, level-headed case. The republican histrionics might play to their base, but I think to most moderates they'll look sort of silly. I think so, anyway.
Oh good, we have the Jim Jordan word salad "let me spit this out as fast as I possibly can to make it sound important and ridiculous" section of the hearing.
Oh good, we have the Jim Jordan word salad "let me spit this out as fast as I possibly can to make it sound important and ridiculous" section of the hearing.
He wants it to sound confusing because if it's confusing it must be fake and made up.
Posts
While exchanging super sympathetic nods and frowns.
Having looked at the major news orgs, that’s gonna be hard to argue for people (not that they won’t try). They are all pretty exculpatory for the FBI investigation. Like the headlines right now are:
CNN: “Report Finds errors in Russia Probe, but says launching it was justified”
NBC: “Contradicting Trump, IG Report finds FBI probe of his 2016 campaign not politically motivated”
MSNBC: “Contradicting Trump, Russia probe report finds no evidence of bias against him”
ABC: “Major report from DOJ inspector general finds Russia investigation was launched with proper cause, despite missteps”
Fox News: “IG report finds mistakes but no political bias in FBI’s bid to spy on Trump campaign staffer”
All of those are pretty bad for the Trump Admin’s fight against impeachment? The best spin of it, by Fox, is that the FBI did not have a political bias in investigating President Trump, and the takeaway from that is the investigation was valid. Or at least that’s the logical step to it. If they weren’t politically motivated against him, why else would they investigate him? Cause something was there. Barr’s smokescreen doesn’t really do much to dampen that I think, because it’s coming out at the same time as the report.
That was a fucking disgrace. Where did they get that woman.
Consider that if she was better than Castor, she would have had that job. This is the person who is the B team to Castor.
What uh, what are you trying to imply there without saying buddy? I mean nobody did anything wrong and everything was fine and perfect right?
"I'm concerned that this sham impeachment is preventing the House from passing bills."
Please let her end up being the source of his information on the pee tape. I need her to know about her dad's fetishes. I'm being terribly schadenfreude in this, but it feels somehow fitting that she's the one that's been nominated by the family to manage that aspect of his life. We've all been looking for how she has influence in the WH and mystified where it comes from, and here's an answer staring us in the face.
Watches hearings on C-Span where breaks are taken so House Reps can go to the floor to vote on bills.
Complains that they can't pass bills because of hearings.
Asking questions could accidentally lead to the truth.
Nunes is their conduit. If they lose him they lose access to Trump. Plus they risk being implicated themselves. Either directly through Nunes or due to having to pick up his slack.
Plus throwing Nunes under the bus is not possible.
Fucking kill me.
Welp, great.
They do that to head off the chairman going "do you have a question?" at the end of such a rant. It's annoying, but at least it is honest.
It's always nice when someone tells you they can be ignored by warning you that they're about to be an asshole.
Did Gohmert just say that someone who "can make a new law with a pen and a phone" is more like a monarch than someone who can get a prosecutor fired?
Cause uh..
.. Not sure that's "helping".
Are you casting aspersions on his asparagus?
Well it's a good thing they aren't charging treason then. Did Gohmert witness something we should know about?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Treason does have some specific constitutionally enshrined eye witness requirements.
That's why we've created a whole tiered mess of treason adjacent charges to render treason itself irrelevant.
He wants it to sound confusing because if it's confusing it must be fake and made up.