๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ ๐ŸŠ๐ŸŠ๐ŸŠ๐Ÿคก๐Ÿคก Late Stage GOP ASSHATS Events ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ๐Ÿ–•๐Ÿพ๐ŸŠ๐ŸŠ๐ŸŠ๐Ÿคก๐Ÿคก

Iโ€™m so fucking sick of this shit.

17 Likes

Are the oil and gas molecules that support the Norwegian welfare state freedom molecules as well or are they socialism molecules?

16 Likes

Obviously freedom molecules can only come from America, the only source of freedom in the known universe.

16 Likes

14 Likes

Fixed that for you.

6 Likes
4 Likes

Dominionโ€™s legal team this afternoon:

11 Likes

Seriously, all this incestuous trading of incompetent lawyers is starting to feel like it might be part of some huge money laundering scam. What other reason could there be?

7 Likes

Is that a fix, or an addendum?

2 Likes

WTF

14 Likes

Funny (not) how that kind of skullduggery never makes it into these show trials.

8 Likes

I am not entirely sure how U.S. impeachment hearings have rules re: discoveryโ€ฆ

are โ€œdoneโ€ [for a given value of โ€œdoneโ€ and considering that Ted Cruz, et al. are senators/jurors who met with :tangerine: :clown_face: 's legal team ]

but

if the โ€œnewly uncovered paymentsโ€ were only found out after discovery was finished, then the new information canโ€™t be entered in to the body of evidence against the accused.

IANAL

I could be wrong.

But yeah, it sucks if it canโ€™t be mentioned on the Senate floor during whatever weโ€™re calling the impeachmentโ€“the second impeachmentโ€“of :tangerine: :clown_face: .

OTOH do we really need even more damning evidence considering how much we have seen already? Will Team :tangerine: :clown_face: magic it away too?

7 Likes

I heard a Constitutional lawyer on CNN say that the Senate could vote to change the rulesโ€“even this late in the game. It only takes a simple majority to do this and they can bring in new information. However, he admitted that the odds of them actually doing this are slim.

5 Likes

is there room for more questions tomorrow? cause thatโ€™s how you get it on to the floor.

i loved sanders asking trumpโ€™s lawyers if they believed the election was rigged, and them getting knocked down for trying to talk to him directly.

i also loved warren asking how many times has the electoral college vote count been turned into an insurrection by an american president.

it was great how quickly and easily senators smashed up trumpโ€™s so-called defense.

11 Likes

Impeachment doesnโ€™t work that way, as it is not a court and it is not a legal proceeding. Thereโ€™s no real discovery phase, unless they went out of their way to set one up. The congress has almost unfettered leeway in how they structure the proceedings. They might have to hold a vote if they call witnesses but they can introduce practically whatever they want whenever they want, provided they can push it through parliamentary processes. The next Democrat to speak can just bring it up either way.

Besides that discovery is about disclosing evidence to the other side, if Iโ€™m remembering it right even in a criminal court new evidence can be admitted provided itโ€™s properly disclosed, immediately and with the approval of the judge.

5 Likes

Wow, thanks for this.

And now, I can scarcely imagine the virtually unending river of incriminating evidence that could conceivably flood the Senate. Every hour practically has some dreadful, grotesque new revelation that seems germane.

Whenever I hear the ridiculous defense talking, I am reminded of Shawโ€™s wordsโ€ฆ

8 Likes

How come we havenโ€™t heard any of this type of information at the impeachment hearings? Who paid for the accommodations and transportation for all the right wing aholes to attend the rally-cum-insurrection? If they want to implicate the ex-president, FOLLOW THE $$$$.

6 Likes
28 Likes

I wondered that also about the horrid security situation. But then I thought maybe the logic is that it might inadvertently give the defense an out. Like, if they could show that none of the people being prosecuted arrived in the Trumpsportation, or that someone else was ultimately responsible for not staffing the security properly. :woman_shrugging:t2:

Itโ€™s been mentioned a couple of times. One of the excuses flying around after Jan6 was that Trump had coopted a existing rally (from the organizers of that event), on Trumpโ€™s end that the group at the capital was a seperate event he had nothing to do with. Basically everyone blaming the other guy.

The fact that Trumpโ€™s campaign provided funding directly to the groups that sought permits and organized the original proposed โ€œmarchโ€ well before hand was already known and reported. And was included in the opening statements along with all the footage of Trump talking about how โ€œweโ€ would go to the capital and the information confirming people moving between the rally site and the capital.

It wasnโ€™t exactly central or highlighted but the impeachment managers keep brining it up. As part of establishing that Trump didnโ€™t just happen to hold a completely seperate rally as they were initially claiming.

The article above is about it being significantly more money than originally known.

We might see more digging into it since theyโ€™ve just voted in favor of witnesses.

6 Likes