Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 2:49 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105094 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 2597, 2598, 2599 ... 2628  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 16610
Flyin Ryan wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Oh Boy - this isn't going to get any saner, any sooner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ump-072578

"Mr Chairman, the first witness I would like to call is Mr. Hunter Biden..."

You think Schiff The Slippery Shit can put on a production. Just wait till Cocaine Mitch gets going.


That's actually a pretty sensible decision. Like I said earlier in the thread, this is the first time ever a Senate impeachment trial would be conducted by the party of the president. For them to dismiss immediately only serves the political purposes of the Democrats for next November. To instead carry out the trial, have it carried out at face value, and they can choose to call other witnesses would be more fitting to show to the public. And whoever the defense is in the Senate will be more intelligent than Nunes.

Quote:
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden," Gidley said.


What power do they actually have to call up witnesses? Can't they just refuse like Mulvaney etc? Though IIRC they refused on different grounds than pleading the 5th. What exactly is Hunter Biden going to know about Trumps foreign policy with Ukraine?

I kind of get the impression Trump has this mad idea of a big sprawling investigation playing out on TV because he's not really familiar with the processes behind these things. Like if he wants an investigation of Hunter Biden & Co he can appoint a SC I'd have though. Is this right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
paddyor wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Oh Boy - this isn't going to get any saner, any sooner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ump-072578

"Mr Chairman, the first witness I would like to call is Mr. Hunter Biden..."

You think Schiff The Slippery Shit can put on a production. Just wait till Cocaine Mitch gets going.


That's actually a pretty sensible decision. Like I said earlier in the thread, this is the first time ever a Senate impeachment trial would be conducted by the party of the president. For them to dismiss immediately only serves the political purposes of the Democrats for next November. To instead carry out the trial, have it carried out at face value, and they can choose to call other witnesses would be more fitting to show to the public. And whoever the defense is in the Senate will be more intelligent than Nunes.

Quote:
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden," Gidley said.


What power do they actually have to call up witnesses? Can't they just refuse like Mulvaney etc? Though IIRC they refused on different grounds than pleading the 5th. What exactly is Hunter Biden going to know about Trumps foreign policy with Ukraine?

I kind of get the impression Trump has this mad idea of a big sprawling investigation playing out on TV because he's not really familiar with the processes behind these things. Like if he wants an investigation of Hunter Biden & Co he can appoint a SC I'd have though. Is this right?


Trump wants a big show, and hopes the Senate will allow him to convert the trial into a big show, which would focus on Biden and others instead on focusing on the issue.

When you look at the Republicans in the inquiry so far, they hard quizzed the witnesses but mainly repeated the same statements over and over again, trying to take the focus away from the issue and back onto Bidden, and the evil Democrats and their skewed processes.

And polls seem to indicate it works.

Trump's strength is that he thinks like the average american man.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9133
TheFrog wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Oh Boy - this isn't going to get any saner, any sooner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ump-072578

"Mr Chairman, the first witness I would like to call is Mr. Hunter Biden..."

You think Schiff The Slippery Shit can put on a production. Just wait till Cocaine Mitch gets going.


Quote:
Trump has hosted more than 40 Republican senators at the White House this fall, mainly for lunch. Thursday’s lunch included Republican Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, Trump’s most frequent GOP critics in the Senate.

Since the impeachment inquiry began, Trump has also taken lawmakers to the World Series in Washington, D.C., the Ultimate Fighting Championship in New York City and the Alabama-LSU football game, according to White House official.


It is interesting because in any other environment (business, proper judicial process), these would be big no nos.

Imagine a suspect taking out the jurors for a football game?

Or a team of lawyers inviting for lunch their potential customer during a bid process?


So you reckon the President should never meet senators just in case they have to impeach him?

Joking aside if the President had to have no contact with Senators during an impeachment would it become a strategy to use impeachment to disrupt those relationships? This commentator says yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9044
Location: Indiana
Flyin Ryan wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
There’s no chance at all Biden would pick her. I guess you don’t really follow US politics.


Whoever is the VP nominee, I feel it's going to be a John Edwards 2004 style thing since the primary field has been so splintered, pick one of the top losers in an attempt to create party solidarity around the ticket. Since Biden is "an old white guy", start off with "younger minority woman" because that's how Democrats and their political strategists think. Not seeing Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard. Maybe Klobuchar, although she's not a minority. Perhaps Julian Castro or Cory Booker. It definitely wouldn't be Sanders, and I think a Biden/Warren ticket would invite a lot of criticism in sections of the Democratic base.


I think the Democrats are doomed. Sad thing is that there are Republicans to stand up to Trump either. The world is going to slide further into chaos.


The National Republican Committee took actions the past couple years (at the behest of Trump underlings) to cancel anything that would require him to even acknowledge opponents. A couple years ago they removed a rule that required debates, in part because of the unstated "he wouldn't show up anyway" if he had to debate a primary challenger. In February this year, the NRC with more Trump loyalists in power positions, pledged "undivided support" to the Trump campaign, which is a large no-no historically, because national parties are supposed to remain neutral until after the primary elections are over. Obviously national parties play favorites (the Democrats in 2016 supported Hillary and the Republicans in 2016 did not support Trump) but they're supposed to keep quiet about it (and when they don't, you get what happened to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). This is above and beyond that.


http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2018/0 ... nates.html

Quote:
Sunday, May 6, 2018

Protecting the President? RNC Eliminates Primary Debates Committee

Just four years after it created the committee to sanction presidential primary debates, the Republican National Committee this past week at its 2018 spring meeting voted to strike the rule from its rulebook.

There are a couple of points that FHQ would raise both in reaction to the rules change and the coverage it has garnered.

On the rules change itself, some context is in order. Often FHQ talks of the national parties fighting the last battle when it comes to fashioning their delegate selection rules for a coming presidential nomination cycle. Indeed, the modus operandi of the national parties has tended to be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," which is necessarily backward looking. The national parties look back to the most recent evidence they have on how well or how poorly the system is working and attempt to make corrections to address any shortcomings for future cycles.

The Democrats' efforts in assembling their rules for the 2020 cycle are littered with examples of this. But it should also be said that the very creation of Rule 10(a)(10) -- the 2014 rule then known as Rule 10(h) that created the Standing Committee on Presidential Primary debates -- also fits this mold. Coming off a 2012 cycle that saw 20 debates, the Republican National Committee was intent on reining in not only the number of primary debates but also in creating some oversight for state party/media partnerships for those debates. The solution was the creation of a national party entity to sanction official Republican Party debates.

Again, that action fits the pattern. Fixing a perceived 2012 problem for the 2016 cycle.

However, the vote at the 2018 RNC spring meeting to eliminate the debates committee broke with that pattern. Rather than fixing a problem from 2016, the RNC is seeking instead to proactively plan for the 2020 renomination of an incumbent Republican president. And the rationale is simple enough: Why have a debates-sanctioning committee when the party is lined up behind the current occupant of the White House?

At least that is part of the rationale. Another is that this has been widely viewed as an effort by the Republican National Committee to protect President Trump from would-be 2020 Republican challengers. This, too, is something a break from the norm. The predominant pattern for nomination rules creation in the post-reform era has been for parties out of the White House to attempt to tinker their way back in; to put together a process that ideally will produce a candidate well-equipped to defeat the incumbent president.

That leaves the party in the White House to, more often than not, rest on their laurels when it comes to its nomination rules. The motivation -- the urgency -- just does not exist in the same way that it does for the out-party. First, presidents, in a position over their national parties, tend to like the process that nominated them in the first place. But the typical inactivity or minimal activity from in-parties is also a function of the fact that incumbent presidents do not often see challenges to their renomination.

And when those challenges have materialized, there has not been much evidence of the parties maneuvering to protect their presidents at the rules-making stage of the cycle. Republicans at the 1988 Republican National Convention, for example, were not planning ahead for a future that included a 1992 Pat Buchanan challenge to the presidential candidate they were nominating. The party's concern then was more about lining up behind Vice President Bush. Bear in mind that at that point in time Republicans set their rules for the subsequent cycle at the preceding convention. There was no rules-making infrastructure in place then to amend the Republican rules of the nomination process outside the convention.

Nor do we see much evidence of the Democratic National Committee moving to protect President Carter ahead of the 1980 cycle. That is the only other time in the post-reform era where a sitting president had either persistent chatter about a challenge to his nomination or an actual challenge.

Now, there were rules changes that the Democratic Party made for the 1980 cycle, but the motivation behind those rules changes was not exactly to protect the president from a prospective Kennedy challenge. This was the cycle where the DNC formally added a threshold for candidates to qualify for delegates. Four years early, in 1976, the party had allowed states to add a qualifying threshold of up to 15 percent of the vote in a primary or caucus. Candidates who received less than 15 percent of the vote in those states (and the congressional districts therein) that set thresholds did not qualify for delegates. For 1980, the party made this a requirement. States were mandated to have some threshold, but had some latitude in setting it. Primary states could establish a threshold up to 25 percent, and caucus states could set a threshold as low as 15 percent, but no higher than 20 percent.

On the surface, that looks like an attempt to protect President Carter. Yet, a threshold that low functionally only rewards an incumbent by warding off a minor challenge; nuisance challenges. Such a threshold potentially becomes beneficial to an incumbent in the case of multiple challengers as well. The more candidates who run increases the likelihood of candidates not qualifying for delegates. In the case of one major challenger, the threshold becomes a non-issue. One strong candidate is likely to meet that threshold anyway.

1980 was also the cycle that saw the innovation of the "window rule" in the Democratic nomination process. The intent was geared more toward keeping frontloading at bay and the calendar formation orderly by setting a second Tuesday in March through the second Tuesday in June "window" for states to conduct their primaries and caucuses. While the goal was focused more on state-level actions and protecting exempt Iowa and New Hampshire, a secondary motivation behind the window rule was to tamp down on the resources a prolonged process required the candidates and the party at all levels to expend. This rules change did not clearly benefit Carter in 1980.

Finally, 1980 was also the cycle that witnessed the DNC banning the use of loophole primaries, where delegates are included on the primary ballot and directly elected (as opposed to being selected through caucus/convention processes with candidate input). That cycle stands out as the only exception during the early part of the post-reform era (the first 20 years) when the loophole primary process was permitted. Although insider candidates tend to be the beneficiaries in such systems, their usage at the state level in the early post-reform era was not widespread. It would not have affected things much more than at the margins. Both Carter and Kennedy could lay claim to being insiders in 1980 anyway and went on to basically split those contests.

While the sum total of all of these 1980 cycle Democratic rules moves gives the impression of helping Carter in retrospect, in reality the maneuvering was consistent with those of a party in search of the "ideal" rules in or out of the White House. And during the early post-reform era, the Democrats were out more than they were in.

--
Given that context, the focus can shift back to the present and the Republican rules for 2020. FHQ's reaction to the news that the RNC intended to drop the debates committee was less about that than it was to the idea that change was intended to protect the president. In fairness to those reporting on the 2018 spring meeting, there were members of the RNC would provided "protection" as at least part of the rationale for the move. Randy Evans, the Republican National Committeeman from Georgia, came right out and said, "Obviously this is intended to dissuade a primary challenge to the president."

FHQ will not dispute that. The move certainly continues to send a clear signal that the Republican National Committee remains in lockstep with the president. Reminders of the clarity of that point emerge every time during the Trump era that the RNC has gathered for one of its seasonal meetings. But whether eliminating this committee protects the president is predicated almost entirely on the premise that President Trump would participate in any hypothetical primary debates. As with many things concerning this president, there is a great deal of uncertainty around that idea. We do not know whether Trump would opt into such a debate. In fact, there is a pretty good argument to be made that he would sit out any such event, not allowing the platform to any would-be challengers.

If one falls on the Trump would not participate in primary debates anyway side of things, then eliminating this primary debates committee does not really accomplish all that much. If anything, it protects the Republican National Committee. It saves this standing committee from the obligation of NOT sanctioning any debates in the event of a challenge to the president.

Imagine a time in 2019 after Republicans have hypothetically lost control of one or both houses of Congress, the Russia investigation has persisted (and Democratic oversight of the administration in that area and others has intensified), and a challenger to Trump's renomination -- let's call him John Kasich -- has emerged. Now imagine that this debates committee still exists, but the president has no interest in debating his hypothetical challenger. That committee is, by rule, supposed to sanction debates with input from the various campaigns. If one campaign wants to debate and another does not, then what is the committee -- the RNC -- to do?

A party in such a position might be inclined to side with the incumbent president in that case and not sanction any debates. But it would have to turn a blind eye to the other campaign(s) and any following/resistance (to the president) both within the RNC and among rank-and-file Republicans to do that. That would be handing to that group the type of structural grievance that Bernie Sanders and his supporters used against the DNC throughout the 2016 process and into the 2020 cycle for that matter.

Instead of going down that road, the RNC opted to get out of the debate-sanctioning business altogether for the time being.1 Again, that move continues to send a signal that the national party is behind the president, but the elimination of the debates committee is protecting the RNC more than it is the president. It eliminates a potential problem down the road before it materializes. And yes, in fairness, that may never have materialized anyway. But the RNC has that covered now regardless.


--
1 One alternative option the party could have pursued was a minor edit to Rule 10(a)(10). The standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates could have been left in place but would only be activated in years in which there is no incumbent Republican in the White House (seeking renomination) or little or no competition for the nomination. Of course, those are tricky concepts to define that may end up slippery slopes back to the same sorts of problems the RNC would have in 2020 if the committee had survived. Eliminating the committee with the option of bringing something like it back at the discretion of the RNC chair should conditions change is the cleanest option.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Shangri-La
Santa,

Do you think the world is a better place with Trump as president?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 7048
Trump as a candidate complained bitterly how hard it was to gain any sort of platform. Now installed as presumptive leader he's oddly against any efforts to challenge the leadership. Despot 101 behaviour


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9133
MrJonno wrote:
Santa,

Do you think the world is a better place with Trump as president?


No idea. It is the world we have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 10577
Bowens wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
I think if he won it would be Klobuchar or Harris.


What does Harris add? Biden wins the nomination, I'm sure he had heavy African-American support because I don't see how he could win otherwise. Throw in that California is as solid D as can be, and I don't see the case for a Biden/Harris ticket.

"Kamala Harris-Running Mate" makes sense to me if it's...Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg perhaps because African-Americans have been pretty frosty to both of them.


To get more women especially younger minority women to vote for Creepy Joe. His support in the black community like his support in every community is old.

Another name is Stacey Abrams for the same reasons as Kamala + to try to turn Georgia into a battleground.


Also Bernie wouldn’t pick Harris. Too many idealogical differences. Most likely Nina Turner with Abrams and Tulsi as outside bets. Turner would give him a boost in Ohio especially the Cleveland area which Dems need a heavy turnout from to win the state.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9044
Location: Indiana
piquant wrote:
Trump as a candidate complained bitterly how hard it was to gain any sort of platform. Now installed as presumptive leader he's oddly against any efforts to challenge the leadership. Despot 101 behaviour


Every incumbent ever. When you overthrow the establishment, you become the new establishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 4429
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Quote:
"This ambassador, who everybody says was so wonderful," Mr Trump said, "she wouldn't hang my picture in the embassy.


What a cry baby. Like a tinpot dictator. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Posts: 4429
Location: Chukity - puck!!!
Quote:
Trump says the Democrats gave their server to "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian." It is a publicly traded American company co-founded by an American immigrant from *Russia,* not Ukraine.

Fox asks if he's sure about this. Trump: "That's what the word is."


What a colossal fool. Don't let the facts get in the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15832
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/25/crowdstrike_mention_in_ukraine/

Quote:

So where does CrowdStrike come in? About halfway into the call transcript [PDF], released today under intense political pressure, Trump vaguely references the work CrowdStrike did back in 2016 when it looked into raids carried out by hackers against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its email and IT infrastructure.

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," President Trump told Zelensky.

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

It is not clear exactly what Trump means by "the server" in this incoherent ramble, as the DNC hack involved dozens of computer systems that were not physical machines but rather dozens of virtual machine instances hosted in a cloud data center, all of which were wiped to get rid of the malware the hackers had installed to spy on the committee.


The doughnut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33991
Achtung Rinkals:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13981
Location: South Oxfordshire
Rinkals wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/25/crowdstrike_mention_in_ukraine/

Quote:

So where does CrowdStrike come in? About halfway into the call transcript [PDF], released today under intense political pressure, Trump vaguely references the work CrowdStrike did back in 2016 when it looked into raids carried out by hackers against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its email and IT infrastructure.

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," President Trump told Zelensky.

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

It is not clear exactly what Trump means by "the server" in this incoherent ramble, as the DNC hack involved dozens of computer systems that were not physical machines but rather dozens of virtual machine instances hosted in a cloud data center, all of which were wiped to get rid of the malware the hackers had installed to spy on the committee.


The doughnut.


This has always been the issue with this story. Fox News keeps talking about a piece of Tin that can be "taken into custody". Even if it actually existed, the image of the server would have been far more reliable than the physical object. Of course the reality us tgat it was a virtual server with tgd storage likely physically separated from the VIP and memory anyway


The quality of "journalism" here us poor, especially as Fox and others have more than enough understanding of how thus works that they can't even be accused of accidentally misrepresenting the issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6147
The NSA will have it anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6438
Location: emmerdale
kiwinoz wrote:
The NSA will have it anyway.

legally too, if the 'server' (hard or virtual) was in Ukraine.

should be admissible in a full senate trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8183
what a monster liar and bell end - and for once I’m not referring to certain posters here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39163
Hong Kong wrote:


Xi is unlikely to make a public rejection of this statement so Trump's base will be frothing at the mouth over how brave their Fearless Leader is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15832
merry! wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
The NSA will have it anyway.

legally too, if the 'server' (hard or virtual) was in Ukraine.

should be admissible in a full senate trial.


:lol:

Deary me!

Perhaps they'll get fingerprints off it which will confirm the theory that it was the Ukrainians who were interfering in 2016 and not the Russians. :thumbup:

Dipstick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6438
Location: emmerdale
Rinkals wrote:
merry! wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
The NSA will have it anyway.

legally too, if the 'server' (hard or virtual) was in Ukraine.

should be admissible in a full senate trial.


:lol:

Deary me!

Perhaps they'll get fingerprints off it which will confirm the theory that it was the Ukrainians who were interfering in 2016 and not the Russians. :thumbup:

Dipstick.

who knows what they'll find on it, rinky.

maybe all those dodgy websites you visit.

you dirty old man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
Saint wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/25/crowdstrike_mention_in_ukraine/

Quote:

So where does CrowdStrike come in? About halfway into the call transcript [PDF], released today under intense political pressure, Trump vaguely references the work CrowdStrike did back in 2016 when it looked into raids carried out by hackers against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its email and IT infrastructure.

"I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it," President Trump told Zelensky.

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

It is not clear exactly what Trump means by "the server" in this incoherent ramble, as the DNC hack involved dozens of computer systems that were not physical machines but rather dozens of virtual machine instances hosted in a cloud data center, all of which were wiped to get rid of the malware the hackers had installed to spy on the committee.


The doughnut.


This has always been the issue with this story. Fox News keeps talking about a piece of Tin that can be "taken into custody". Even if it actually existed, the image of the server would have been far more reliable than the physical object. Of course the reality us tgat it was a virtual server with tgd storage likely physically separated from the VIP and memory anyway


The quality of "journalism" here us poor, especially as Fox and others have more than enough understanding of how thus works that they can't even be accused of accidentally misrepresenting the issue


The server's a McGuffin: a device that drives the plot, but has no real relevance. Like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9044
Location: Indiana
paddyor wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Oh Boy - this isn't going to get any saner, any sooner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ump-072578

"Mr Chairman, the first witness I would like to call is Mr. Hunter Biden..."

You think Schiff The Slippery Shit can put on a production. Just wait till Cocaine Mitch gets going.


That's actually a pretty sensible decision. Like I said earlier in the thread, this is the first time ever a Senate impeachment trial would be conducted by the party of the president. For them to dismiss immediately only serves the political purposes of the Democrats for next November. To instead carry out the trial, have it carried out at face value, and they can choose to call other witnesses would be more fitting to show to the public. And whoever the defense is in the Senate will be more intelligent than Nunes.

Quote:
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden," Gidley said.


What power do they actually have to call up witnesses?


It's a trial.

Quote:
Can't they just refuse like Mulvaney etc?


Yes. Although if Schiff refuses, it'd look bad.

Quote:
Though IIRC they refused on different grounds than pleading the 5th. What exactly is Hunter Biden going to know about Trumps foreign policy with Ukraine?


Wouldn't think it's germane to the case. I doubt he'd testify because that's jumping into a bag of snakes, but H. Biden if he actually did I imagine would be asked about his time with Burisma, why does he think they put the son of a former American VP on their board that had no connection to the company or the country (I think we all know why because it happens all the time with corporations), and any discussions people in Ukraine had of "hey, could you talk to your dad about this?"

Again, I doubt he's testifying. But witnesses refusing to appear offsets the image of witnesses refusing to appear in the House impeachment hearings. So it negates a Democrat talking point.

Quote:
Like if he wants an investigation of Hunter Biden & Co he can appoint a SC I'd have though. Is this right?


Think it'd be something carried out by the Department of Justice. It wouldn't rise to a Mueller/Starr-type special prosecutor level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
It'll be interesting to know what they'll be investigating, if they investigate the Bidens. H is no more or less 'qualified' than most board members in ex second world energy companies. Most of them are there because of their connections. Being the son of a bigly politician is as good a reason as any. It's not like he has no qualifications at all. He's a lawyer and private equity fund manager. He'd actually have to have committed some crimes.

They must actually think that J behaved illegally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13981
Location: South Oxfordshire
6.Jones wrote:
It'll be interesting to know what they'll be investigating, if they investigate the Bidens. H is no more or less 'qualified' than most board members in ex second world energy companies. Most of them are there because of their connections. Being the son of a bigly politician is as good a reason as any. It's not like he has no qualifications at all. He's a lawyer and private equity fund manager. He'd actually have to have committed some crimes.

They must actually think that J behaved illegally
.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
Flyin Ryan wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Oh Boy - this isn't going to get any saner, any sooner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ump-072578

"Mr Chairman, the first witness I would like to call is Mr. Hunter Biden..."

You think Schiff The Slippery Shit can put on a production. Just wait till Cocaine Mitch gets going.


That's actually a pretty sensible decision. Like I said earlier in the thread, this is the first time ever a Senate impeachment trial would be conducted by the party of the president. For them to dismiss immediately only serves the political purposes of the Democrats for next November. To instead carry out the trial, have it carried out at face value, and they can choose to call other witnesses would be more fitting to show to the public. And whoever the defense is in the Senate will be more intelligent than Nunes.

Quote:
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden," Gidley said.


What power do they actually have to call up witnesses?


It's a trial.

Quote:
Can't they just refuse like Mulvaney etc?


Yes. Although if Schiff refuses, it'd look bad.

Quote:
Though IIRC they refused on different grounds than pleading the 5th. What exactly is Hunter Biden going to know about Trumps foreign policy with Ukraine?


Wouldn't think it's germane to the case. I doubt he'd testify because that's jumping into a bag of snakes, but H. Biden if he actually did I imagine would be asked about his time with Burisma, why does he think they put the son of a former American VP on their board that had no connection to the company or the country (I think we all know why because it happens all the time with corporations), and any discussions people in Ukraine had of "hey, could you talk to your dad about this?"

Again, I doubt he's testifying. But witnesses refusing to appear offsets the image of witnesses refusing to appear in the House impeachment hearings. So it negates a Democrat talking point.

Quote:
Like if he wants an investigation of Hunter Biden & Co he can appoint a SC I'd have though. Is this right?


Think it'd be something carried out by the Department of Justice. It wouldn't rise to a Mueller/Starr-type special prosecutor level.


The Supreme Court has confirmed that Congress has the authority to send people refusing to testify to jail. But such a bold move could backfire politically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6438
Location: emmerdale
Quote:
Presidential candidate Joe Biden went on the attack in an interview conducted in South Carolina with CNN's Don Lemon Friday night, taking swipes at Sen. Lindsey Graham, President Donald Trump and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who has yet to announce his official campaign for office.

Biden also repeatedly said he was in excellent health and would have no problems getting the job done as president.

Biden expressed disappointment in Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Graham, saying Graham's actions on behalf of the Trump administration would make him "go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life."

"They have him under their thumb right now," Biden continued. "They know he knows that if he comes out against Trump, he's got a real tough road for reelection."

Biden was also "angered" that Graham has requested the release of documents concerning not only Biden himself but Biden's son, Hunter, who worked for the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings.

"[Graham] knows me," Biden said. "He knows my son. He knows there's nothing to this." He went on to say there was "nothing to investigate."

"There's not a scintilla of evidence that I did anything wrong," he added. "Not a shred that I did anything other than my job, and really well."

Biden addressed concerns in the media and from donors that he has "lost a step" and is unable to complete the race physically or cognitively. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated his doubts that Biden is well enough to win the presidential race, referring to him as "Sleepy Joe."

"Mr. President," Biden said, "I can hardly wait. You're a serial liar. You're corrupt. You made a botch of the job and I'm ready."

Biden also took aim at billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who may be entering the presidential race.

"Trump is so bad as a President, and so corrupt as a President, that everybody in America who has ever been involved in politics, especially if they have a billion dollars, thinks they could beat Trump. Maybe they could," Biden said. "And so what do you have to do? I'm the guy sitting on the top of the pyramid. I get it. I'm a big boy. Never complain, never explain."

Biden said that Republicans questioning the patriotism of witnesses during the impeachment hearings angered him, but not as much as Trump's behavior.

"It angers me, especially Trump trying to intimidate witnesses while they're testifying," Biden said. "What kind of man is this? That alone is enough for him to be viewed as a pariah."

Biden also said that while some Democratic candidates may have gone too far to the left, voters have to look at "who has the big and bold plans."

"I promise you," he said, "if I get elected and get passed what I'm talking about, they're going to be writing about it as a fundamental change when it's over."

When asked if Biden considered his age to be a negative factor, he laughed it off.

"Come out with me, man," he said. "Come out and run with me. I'm in great health."

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-attacks-lindsey-graham-president-trump-cnn-interview-maintains-his-health-excellent-1473668

creepy joe's starting to sweat it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
The Senate investigating Trump's political rivals is bizarre, especially when it's a baseless conspiracy theory, that the intelligence services [aka deep state] says plays into the hands of the Russians. This is a movie. Like Seneca says, the disintegration of America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4070
I wonder if there is any truth to this

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/22/politics/nunes-vienna-trip-ukrainian-prosecutor-biden/index.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
I can sense that we are coming to a turning point of this investigation soon. I can see Congress asking for testimonies from the two mafiosi associated with Giuliani and then sending Giuliani to jail if he refuses to testify (as this is their right). That message will be also for Bolton.

I can sense that Bolton is preparing to unleash his bomb too, now that he has lost any hope of getting any sense out of Trump and his closest advisers.

That may unravel soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
Interesting read.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-fox-interview-impeachment-hearings-health-a9214576.html?amp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/congressional-subpoena-impeachment-probe/story%3fid=66586558


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9918
Interesting from Fox News senior judicial analyst:

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/471725-foxs-napolitano-sees-evidence-to-justify-about-three-or-four-articles-of?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fmedia%2F471725-foxs-napolitano-sees-evidence-to-justify-about-three-or-four-articles-of


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
TheFrog wrote:
I can sense that we are coming to a turning point of this investigation soon. I can see Congress asking for testimonies from the two mafiosi associated with Giuliani and then sending Giuliani to jail if he refuses to testify (as this is their right). That message will be also for Bolton.

I can sense that Bolton is preparing to unleash his bomb too, now that he has lost any hope of getting any sense out of Trump and his closest advisers.

That may unravel soon.

Isn't this part over now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
Bret Stephens in the failing New York times. Stephens is interesting. A disgruntled conservative.

Quote:
The United States Is Starting to Look Like Ukraine

Why the president must be impeached and removed.

Donald Trump ought to be impeached and removed from office. This isn’t what I thought two months ago, when the impeachment inquiry began. I argued that the evidence fell short of the standards of a prosecutable criminal act. I also feared impeachment might ultimately help Trump politically, as it had helped Bill Clinton in 1998. That second worry might still prove true.

But if the congressional testimonies of Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Gordon Sondland, Alexander Vindman and especially Fiona Hill make anything clear, it’s that the president’s highest crime isn’t what he tried to do to, or with, Ukraine.

It’s that he’s attempting to turn the United States into Ukraine. The judgment Congress has to make is whether the American people should be willing, actively or passively, to go along with it.

I’ve followed Ukrainian politics fairly closely since 1999, when I joined the staff of The Wall Street Journal Europe. It has consistent themes that should sound familiar to American ears.

The first theme is the criminalization of political differences. Years before Trump led his followers in “Lock Her Up” chants against Hillary Clinton, then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych did exactly that against his own political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to seven years in prison on a variety of byzantine charges after she had narrowly lost the 2010 election.

She spent three years in prison before her release during the 2014 Maidan Revolution. Key to Yanukovych’s efforts to discredit Tymoshenko was — who else? — Paul Manafort.

A second theme is the use of political office as a shield against criminal prosecution and as a vehicle for personal and familial enrichment. Why have so many of Ukraine’s oligarchs — including Burisma Holdings founder Mykola Zlochevsky — also served as government ministers? Simple: Because, until recently, it shielded them from criminal prosecution thanks to parliamentary immunity, while also providing them with the means to use government power for their own benefit.

The third theme is what one might call the netherworldization of political life, in which conspiracy theories abound, off-stage figures yield outsized influence, and channels of formal authority are disconnected from the real centers of power.

This reality came vividly to light in 2016, when a parliamentary effort to vote “no confidence” in the government of then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk unexpectedly collapsed, thanks to the usual string-pulling from the country’s wealthiest power brokers. As Ukrainian political commentator Maxim Eristavi noted at the time, in Ukraine “There are no party lines, no real policy debates, no ideological clashes: just cold-hearted vested interests and short-term alliances between various oligarchic groups.”

The fourth theme is covert Russian interference, usually facilitated by local actors.

Ukraine offers the world’s most extreme example of this kind of interference (nearby Georgia is a close second), since large parts of the country have been seized outright by Russia and its proxies. But long before the Kremlin’s “little green men” arrived in Crimea in 2014, Russia and its agents were using every dirty trick at their disposal, from poisoning a future Ukrainian president with dioxin to poisoning the media landscape with disinformation. Too often, it worked, whether because its victims were suggestible, corrupt, fearful or simply not paying attention.

That last point was also made by Fiona Hill in her testimony on Thursday, where she warned members of the House Intelligence Committee that they ran the risk of themselves falling victims to “politically driven falsehoods,” regarding a bogus theory about Ukrainian political interference, “that so clearly advance Russian interests.”

Yet the person who is both the principal consumer and purveyor of those falsehoods is the president of the United States, just as he has been a purveyor of so many other conspiracy theories. Even now, this should astound us.

It doesn’t, because we’ve been living in a country undergoing its own dismal process of Ukrainianization: of treating fictions as facts; and propaganda as journalism; and political opponents as criminals; and political offices as business ventures; and personal relatives as diplomatic representatives; and legal fixers as shadow cabinet members; and extortion as foreign policy; and toadyism as patriotism; and fellow citizens as “human scum”; and mortal enemies as long-lost friends — and then acting as if all this is perfectly normal. This is more than a high crime. It’s a clear and present danger to our security, institutions, and moral hygiene.

It’s to the immense credit of ordinary Ukrainians that, in fighting Russian aggression in the field and fighting for better governance in Kyiv, they have shown themselves worthy of the world’s support. And it’s to the enduring shame of the Republican Party that they have been willing to debase our political standards to the old Ukrainian level just when Ukrainians are trying to rise to our former level.

The one way to stop this is to make every effort to remove Trump from office. It shouldn’t have to wait a year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33991
Conservative. Right.

Look harder groucho-san.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33991
TheFrog wrote:


As a relative newcomer to the thread i'd urge caution about what you read and find 'interesting'. It keeps leading people astray.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative. Right.

Look harder groucho-san.

I think Stephens is very much a conservative. But, an anti-Trump one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33991
6.Jones wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Conservative. Right.

Look harder groucho-san.

I think Stephens is very much a conservative. But, an anti-Trump one.


He isn't remotely one. Not in this planet. No matter what he insists. and that is the key point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 481
I guess there's a side discussion about whether the neocons are conservatives, but that's an even wormier can than Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105094 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 2597, 2598, 2599 ... 2628  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caley_Red, Clogs, Conspicuous, Couch, Fangle, Google Adsense [Bot], Jensrsa, mabunch78, Short Man Syndrome, sonic_attack, Wignu and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group