Deranged Rhino Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, snafu said: I'd use the three Saturday hours to revv up the Sunday talk shows. There are so many ways to go with this defense it makes it hard to choose a straight path. That's a good strategy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... is Schiffty really making this argument? with the Horowitz report out and yesterdays admittance that 2 of the FISA's were fraudlent, the argument seems like more like a pipe dream than anything. it's too bad Durham couldn't unveil some of his findings tomorrow to coincide with WHC defense. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) Edited January 24, 2020 by Deranged Rhino 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: the WHC has to play clips of Schiffty in the Senate making his outrageous claims then play clips such as the Sondland presumption. that would be so brutally hilarious. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Most conspiracy theories are a trailer because they are snippets of scenes/facts designed to make you feel a certain emotion toward the outcome, ie I gotta see this movie/***** HILLARY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Says the guy who fell hook, line, and sinker for the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. The lack of self awareness is hilarious, and proves (again) how DEEPLY stupid Gary is. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 i am certainly no lawyer, even though i play one on the internet. however it just strikes me, listening to the House Managers these last three days, that they have, more than their other mistakes, commited a huge tactical error. in that, they have essentially repeated the same arguments, in the same tenor as they did in their House, 'investigation'. whereby, they talked down to their audience (the average American) and admonished them that their 'evidence', is above all else, unimpeachable. it can not be questioned. no matter that there is very little factual evidence anywhere in their, 'evidence'. imo, telling Senators that they must do this, this and that because of x,y and z is suicidal. what they should have done is to present their 'evidence', then qualify it with a simple, 'if we have done our job and have created a sound case then the only verdict can be guilty'. this, along with other such unassuming points of perspective would have went much farther here. this tactical error is only off putting to a body that i'm quite sure sees itself as being above the House. being talked down to by the lower house is only going to enrage the Senate. all of which suggests that this is no tactical error, at all. it is being designed with sound bytes in mind to use against 15 Repub Senators up for reelection in November. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...Schumer, Schiff & Nadler...."The Three Putz Boys".....or as it is said in Hebrew, "meshugas".......SMH............ Pretty sure that's Yiddish. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 26 minutes ago, Foxx said: i am certainly no lawyer, even though i play one on the internet. however it just strikes me, listening to the House Managers these last three days, that they have, more than their other mistakes, commited a huge tactical error. in that, they have essentially repeated the same arguments, in the same tenor as they did in their House, 'investigation'. whereby, they talked down to their audience (the average American) and admonished them that their 'evidence', is above all else, unimpeachable. it can not be questioned. no matter that there is very little factual evidence anywhere in their, 'evidence'. imo, telling Senators that they must do this, this and that because of x,y and z is suicidal. what they should have done is to present their 'evidence', then qualify it with a simple, 'if we have done our job and have created a sound case then the only verdict can be guilty'. this, along with other such unassuming points of perspective would have went much farther here. this tactical error is only off putting to a body that i'm quite sure sees itself as being above the House. being talked down to by the lower house is only going to enrage the Senate. all of which suggests that this is no tactical error, at all. it is being designed with sound bytes in mind to use against 15 Repub Senators up for reelection in November. I think you should cut Adam and Jerry some slack. They don't have a great case to work with. They're tasked with making chicken salad from chicken *****. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 ? 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: I think you should cut Adam and Jerry some slack. They don't have a great case to work with. They're tasked with making chicken salad from chicken *****. They made the chicken****. They want the Senate to make the Salad. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 dinnertime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Article 2 argument is that Trump issued a blanket Executive Branch refusal to cooperate with the House investigation. The Managers keep bringing up U.S. vs. Nixon. That Subpoena in question was issued in April, 1974. The Supreme Court decided the case in July, 1974 (THREE MONTHS). 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: dinnertime. Yum, Chicken Salad!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) @snafu perhaps you would know... i don't know the name of the last manager but he was raising the argument that the White house did not comply with any subpoena issued by the House. i have seen it argued that one of the main reasons for this is because the White house viewed them as illegitimate. my understanding is that they were viewed to be illegitimate because the House never took a formal vote. not sure my understanding is complete here however. is the argument based upon the establishment of the inquiry, ie; a vote to begin the inquiry by the full house before it began or would it be arguing that there was not a full house vote for each and every subpoena? Edited January 25, 2020 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 49 minutes ago, B-Man said: 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Foxx said: i am certainly no lawyer, even though i play one on the internet. however it just strikes me, listening to the House Managers these last three days, that they have, more than their other mistakes, commited a huge tactical error. in that, they have essentially repeated the same arguments, in the same tenor as they did in their House, 'investigation'. whereby, they talked down to their audience (the average American) and admonished them that their 'evidence', is above all else, unimpeachable. it can not be questioned. no matter that there is very little factual evidence anywhere in their, 'evidence'. imo, telling Senators that they must do this, this and that because of x,y and z is suicidal. what they should have done is to present their 'evidence', then qualify it with a simple, 'if we have done our job and have created a sound case then the only verdict can be guilty'. this, along with other such unassuming points of perspective would have went much farther here. this tactical error is only off putting to a body that i'm quite sure sees itself as being above the House. being talked down to by the lower house is only going to enrage the Senate. all of which suggests that this is no tactical error, at all. it is being designed with sound bytes in mind to use against 15 Repub Senators up for reelection in November. At the end of the day, they know Trump is never going to be removed from office. This is simply a prolonged political smear. There's a reason the "managers" and media are framing a quick dismissal as a 'cover up', while completely ignoring the fact that the House halfassed the "investigation". Al Green told the truth when he said something to the effect of 'if we don't impeach, he will win re-election'. You are correct in the Democrats attempting to create sound bites instead of presenting proof. Their audience isn't the US Senate, it's the low-information voters that the media is going to repeatedly blast these clips of Democrat smears and lies to, in order to try to influence the 2020 elections. The GOP/Trump campaign will simply "pounce", "without evidence" in reply. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 SO I didn't watch today but saw this tweet from DR today: Schiff,"Let’s imagine it wasn’t Joe Biden. Let’s imagine it was any one of us. Let’s imagine the most powerful man in the world was asking a foreign nation to conduct a sham investigation of us. What would we think about it then?" Let's imagine x3. Fairy tales again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Foxx said: what they should have done is to present their 'evidence', then qualify it with a simple, 'if we have done our job and have created a sound case then the only verdict can be guilty'. They probably would have done that except for one thing. They have no evidence. None at all. In case that's not clear, just read the posts from Tibs and Gary. It's essentially gibberish at this point. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts