MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[The Black Forrest]

Has Trumps economy been that great?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... stay-there

Is that any different to the rest of history?

Pulling oneself up by their bootstraps has always been a myth.

Indeed. That has been a Republican/Conservative favorite. Basically, the setup isn't at fault; you are......

[Gravlen]

Supposedly the whistleblower. Because endangering a potential whistleblower is OK if you're Republican.

And naming Julian Assange, Edward Snowden (among others) was somehow okay. You can't have it both ways. Both parties try and shield the evidence of their corruption, and in this case it is no different. The Democrats are doing everything to shield themselves and this is no different.

Dude. They named themselves.

Snowden's biggest mistake was that he went public with his name on June 9, 2013, while he was in Hong Kong,in part because he figured the intelligence agencies woud quickly figure out his identity, and in part because he (erroneously) thought he would get asylum and permission to stay in Hong Kong.

Assange wanted all the attention he could get, calling himself Wikileaks' editor-in-chief, and while he was giving talks from back in 2007, from 2010 and onwards he was frequently giving interviews.

[Gravlen]

The guy who was sitting on his ass on investigating corruption, especially in Burisma (the oil company Hunter Biden was a board member on). So you're saying Joe Biden was trying to cover up Hunter's corruption by trying to get the guy doing nothing to investigate possible corruption of the company Hunter Biden was a board member on fired so that the investigation could proceed?

(Image)

Dude, that's not what happened. If the guy was doing nothing Joe Biden would have just ignored it. He got involved because he didn't want his son to be investigated. Why else would he want the guy fired?

Maybe this will educate you:

The Intercept’s Robert Mackey tried to untangle Giuliani’s ludicrous line of logic. Mackey’s conclusion: “By getting Shokin removed, Biden in fact made it more rather than less likely that the oligarch who employed his son would be subject to prosecution for corruption.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-big-lie-about-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine-falls-apart

“Here is why I do not say anything about Hunter Biden,” Kaleniuk explained. “Vice President Biden called for Ukraine to fire Shokin not because of the Burisma investigation, absolutely not, but because Ukraine’s prosecutor general did not investigate Burisma. U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt insisted [in early 2016] that Shokin should be investigating Burisma. The U.S. government had a clear position: the Burisma probe was killed by Shokin.” And the U.S. thought it and other cases should not have been closed.

[...]

When Hunter Biden started working with the company in May of 2014, it had just had its assets frozen in the United Kingdom, where it was investigated for money laundering.

“I realize that it is very strange that Hunter Biden was working for Burisma,” says Kaleniuk. “I might be the first one to say bad things about Joe Biden’s movements in regard to this case, but I don’t.”

Why? Because far from trying to protect his son from the broader investigation that might establish Hunter received money gained illegally by Burisma’s founder, “Joe Biden wanted to prove it,” that Burisma was crooked. “He tried to make Shokin investigate that,” Kaleniuk said.

“One thing should be clear for everybody today: Joe Biden wanted to fire the prosecutor who did not want to investigate Burisma, where his son was working. That is very important.” Kaleniuk added that “everybody wanted Shokin fired.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-zelensky-phone-call-shocks-daria-kaleniuk-one-of-ukraines-top-independent-corruption-fighters

[The Rich Port]

Has Trumps economy been that great?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... stay-there

I had a sneaking suspicion that Trump magically making the economy good just by virtue of popping into office was too good to be true... OK, it was an overwhelming suspicion, but it's always nice to have some evidence.

I'm all about the jobs nobody wants to do. I've been a custodian, a fast food worker, a driver. Doing that work was exhausting, but it felt good, knowing I was contributing... What didn't feel good was the way I was treated by everybody else around me.

Those jobs are hard, in my opinion, way harder than most jobs, and people in them deserve to be better compensated. It's fucking gross that the corporate world conspires constantly to deprive these people of better conditions, better pay, and better overall fucking treatment.

We should change the term "free market" to something more gross, because it's incredibly misleading.

Never mind "right-to-work". Right to be exploited, maybe.

[Gig em Aggies]

is there any rules or laws set within the halls of Congress or even the Constitution that states that the majority party cant prevent the minority party from calling its own witnesses during an Impeachment trial?

plus what would happen if the majority party did block the witnesses of the minority party from testifying?

[Spirit of Hope]

is there any rules or laws set within the halls of Congress or even the Constitution that states that the majority party cant prevent the minority party from calling its own witnesses during an Impeachment trial?

plus what would happen if the majority party did block the witnesses of the minority party from testifying?

How witnesses are called is based on the rules of the committee, with the rules basically being set by the committee voting on them. So in theory the majority party can set up the rules to wholly exclude the minority party. That doesn't really happen though because everyone understands who is majority and minority can flip with the next election, and the rules largely stay the same from one congress to the next.

If the majority party does block minority party witnesses nothing legal happens, so long as the majority just votes the rules to do that. However politically it doesn't look good, and hurts the majorities chances of staying the majority.

In the specific case of the impeachment inquiry the Committee Chair can subpoena witnesses, and the Republicans can give him a list of witnesses they would like to call. The Committee Chair may decline to call witnesses, at which point Republicans can call on a full vote of the Committee, with a simple majority forcing the calling of a specific witness. If the Committee Chair and the full vote decline to call a specific witness, then the Republicans can't get the witness. Though they can then call the witness before the Senate later if they so choose.

[San Lumen]

is there any rules or laws set within the halls of Congress or even the Constitution that states that the majority party cant prevent the minority party from calling its own witnesses during an Impeachment trial?

plus what would happen if the majority party did block the witnesses of the minority party from testifying?

How witnesses are called is based on the rules of the committee, with the rules basically being set by the committee voting on them. So in theory the majority party can set up the rules to wholly exclude the minority party. That doesn't really happen though because everyone understands who is majority and minority can flip with the next election, and the rules largely stay the same from one congress to the next.

If the majority party does block minority party witnesses nothing legal happens, so long as the majority just votes the rules to do that. However politically it doesn't look good, and hurts the majorities chances of staying the majority.

In the specific case of the impeachment inquiry the Committee Chair can subpoena witnesses, and the Republicans can give him a list of witnesses they would like to call. The Committee Chair may decline to call witnesses, at which point Republicans can call on a full vote of the Committee, with a simple majority forcing the calling of a specific witness. If the Committee Chair and the full vote decline to call a specific witness, then the Republicans can't get the witness. Though they can then call the witness before the Senate later if they so choose.

and then Republicans can grandstand instead of upholding their oath of office.

[Zurkerx]

Trump Has Considered Firing Intelligence Community Inspector General: The President blames Michael Atkinson, whom he appointed, for finding the anonymous whistle-blower’s complaint on his interactions with Ukraine to be credible.

The title speaks for itself: because the ICSG found the complaint credible to be investigated, Trump has been floating around the idea he wants to fire him because he was "disloyal":

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Seems typical for someone that demands absolute loyalty: don't serve institution you work for - only me. For Trump's Allies sake, he better not fire him or else he'll face what happened to him when he fired Comey in 2017.

[Neutraligon]

Trump Has Considered Firing Intelligence Community Inspector General: The President blames Michael Atkinson, whom he appointed, for finding the anonymous whistle-blower’s complaint on his interactions with Ukraine to be credible.

The title speaks for itself: because the ICSG found the complaint credible to be investigated, Trump has been floating around the idea he wants to fire him because he was "disloyal":

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Seems typical for someone that demands absolute loyalty: don't serve institution you work for - only me. For Trump's Allies sake, he better not fire him or else he'll face what happened to him when he fired Comey in 2017.

I would think that illegal....

[Gormwood]

Trump Has Considered Firing Intelligence Community Inspector General: The President blames Michael Atkinson, whom he appointed, for finding the anonymous whistle-blower’s complaint on his interactions with Ukraine to be credible.

The title speaks for itself: because the ICSG found the complaint credible to be investigated, Trump has been floating around the idea he wants to fire him because he was "disloyal":

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Seems typical for someone that demands absolute loyalty: don't serve institution you work for - only me. For Trump's Allies sake, he better not fire him or else he'll face what happened to him when he fired Comey in 2017.

Donnie reminds me a lot of James "Whitey" Bulger. Bulger demanded absolute loyalty from his men while at the same time he was a secret FBI snitch.

[The Rich Port]

Trump Has Considered Firing Intelligence Community Inspector General: The President blames Michael Atkinson, whom he appointed, for finding the anonymous whistle-blower’s complaint on his interactions with Ukraine to be credible.

The title speaks for itself: because the ICSG found the complaint credible to be investigated, Trump has been floating around the idea he wants to fire him because he was "disloyal":

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Seems typical for someone that demands absolute loyalty: don't serve institution you work for - only me. For Trump's Allies sake, he better not fire him or else he'll face what happened to him when he fired Comey in 2017.

Donnie reminds me a lot of James "Whitey" Bulger. Bulger demanded absolute loyalty from his men while at the same time he was a secret FBI snitch.

Geez man, that's harsh.

Give Whitey Bulger some credit, at least he helped out the FBI a little bit.

[Eahland]

Donnie reminds me a lot of James "Whitey" Bulger. Bulger demanded absolute loyalty from his men while at the same time he was a secret FBI snitch.

Geez man, that's harsh.

Give Whitey Bulger some credit, at least he helped out the FBI a little bit.

I think the FBI in this metaphor is Russia, so.

[Zurkerx]

Impeachment investigators slate open hearings for 8 more witnesses next week.

So of these witnesses, three of them were ones that Republicans requested: Volker, Morrison and Hale. Oh hey look, Democrats didn't reject all of the Republican's witnesses, except for the whistleblower and Hunter Biden, they were rejected.

[San Lumen]

Trump Has Considered Firing Intelligence Community Inspector General: The President blames Michael Atkinson, whom he appointed, for finding the anonymous whistle-blower’s complaint on his interactions with Ukraine to be credible.

The title speaks for itself: because the ICSG found the complaint credible to be investigated, Trump has been floating around the idea he wants to fire him because he was "disloyal":

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Seems typical for someone that demands absolute loyalty: don't serve institution you work for - only me. For Trump's Allies sake, he better not fire him or else he'll face what happened to him when he fired Comey in 2017.

I would think that illegal....

and I doubt Republicans in Congress or much in his rabid base will care.

[Ifreann]

is there any rules or laws set within the halls of Congress or even the Constitution that states that the majority party cant prevent the minority party from calling its own witnesses during an Impeachment trial?

The Senate sets its own rules. Aside from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, they can do what they want, same as always.

plus what would happen if the majority party did block the witnesses of the minority party from testifying?

The Republicans would get hammered in the election after running such an obvious sham trial.

[The Rich Port]

Geez man, that's harsh.

Give Whitey Bulger some credit, at least he helped out the FBI a little bit.

I think the FBI in this metaphor is Russia, so.

Gauth, blink once if this is a metaphor.

Blink twice if you're kawaii.

Blink three times if you remember that time Trump took credit for inspiring more women to join Congress.

[Nakena]

Blink twice if you're kawaii.

You called?

[San Lumen]

is there any rules or laws set within the halls of Congress or even the Constitution that states that the majority party cant prevent the minority party from calling its own witnesses during an Impeachment trial?

The Senate sets its own rules. Aside from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, they can do what they want, same as always.

plus what would happen if the majority party did block the witnesses of the minority party from testifying?

The Republicans would get hammered in the election after running such an obvious sham trial.

You have more confidence in the voting public than I do

[Northern Davincia]

The Senate sets its own rules. Aside from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding, they can do what they want, same as always.


The Republicans would get hammered in the election after running such an obvious sham trial.

You have more confidence in the voting public than I do

Yes, yes. Embrace your distrust of democracy.

[The Rich Port]

Blink twice if you're kawaii.

You called?

Well no, but admittedly, I shoulda known, Kawaii one

You have more confidence in the voting public than I do

Yes, yes. Embrace your distrust of democracy.

You one of those anarcho fascists I hear so much about.

[Farnhamia]

You called?

Well no, but admittedly, I shoulda known, Kawaii one

Yes, yes. Embrace your distrust of democracy.

You one of those anarcho fascists I hear so much about.

Delusions of Palpatine.

[Gormwood]

I think the FBI in this metaphor is Russia, so.

Gauth, blink once if this is a metaphor.

Blink twice if you're kawaii.

Blink three times if you remember that time Trump took credit for inspiring more women to join Congress.

Also, Trump reminded me of Bulger in that for all his demand of loyalty he's more than willing to sell out his subordinates and associates when it suits him, as shown by his growing army of coffee boys he barely knew.

[Kowani]

Giuliani has released his defense.

[The Rich Port]

Well no, but admittedly, I shoulda known, Kawaii one



You one of those anarcho fascists I hear so much about.

Delusions of Palpatine.

"I believe that we require... A paramilitary citizen army of Japanese school girls for the Republic."

:unsure:

Gauth, blink once if this is a metaphor.

Blink twice if you're kawaii.

Blink three times if you remember that time Trump took credit for inspiring more women to join Congress.

Also, Trump reminded me of Bulger in that for all his demand of loyalty he's more than willing to sell out his subordinates and associates when it suits him, as shown by his growing army of coffee boys he barely knew.

That's fine XD

Also I wasn't kidding about Trump taking credit for that... Just wanted to clarify cuz uh. I couldn't believe it either myself at first.

To be fair... Maybe if these women felt moral repugnancy, he could take credit for it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 65841.html

[Nakena]

Delusions of Palpatine.

"I believe that we require... A paramilitary citizen army of Japanese school girls for the Republic."

The very best school girls. The absolute best. So in other words. Me, to begin with.