LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/

Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/

Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”

Gaetz another rich white man's entitled slow coach of a son.

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/

Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”

Just yesterday, friends on the left told me democracy dies in darkness...today, friends on the left tell me democracy thrives in darkness.

Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:26 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/

Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”

Just yesterday, friends on the left told me democracy dies in darkness...today, friends on the left tell me democracy thrives in darkness.

Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one...

^^ … a perfect example of dying in the darkness.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:23 am

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:17 am https://www.tmz.com/2019/10/23/congress ... democracy/

Rep Matt Gaetz says storming the SCIF was like the movie “300.”

Gaetz another rich white man's entitled slow coach of a son.

He played attack?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable. Also, a great rule is if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...

Posted twice because it was so meaningful??

This is disgraceful political theater. 47 Republicans sit on those Committees and attend the investigative hearings. A number of them were part of " storming" the hearing that they had free access to.

Thug move

So it sounds like the plan is to make everything public mid-November. We should then get to see how repubs respond to things revealed in the light of day.

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:56 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...

Posted twice because it was so meaningful??

This is disgraceful political theater. 47 Republicans sit on those Committees and attend the investigative hearings. A number of them were part of " storming" the hearing that they had free access to.

Thug move

Not just that, but when the Rs controlled the House, they had similar rules about what could be collected behind closed doors. Nothing but a stunt to show the OD that these Rs in the House had his back.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:11 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:56 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:11 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:46 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:28 pm
In your non-judicial impeachment proceedings, are documents with cell phone shadows admissible, or is that the equivalent of a notary stamp ?

The newest old standard was sentence first, trial second. Now it's sentence first, no trial at all. Salem witch trials back in vogue!

If you hate the defendant enough, isn't that all that's needed?

Rules be Rules, unless?

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge ... ed-1467485

If something has to be stated as a rule, it's something that's not absolutely necessary but rather preferable, like if you limit bathroom breaks, employees work harder...

Posted twice because it was so meaningful??

This is disgraceful political theater. 47 Republicans sit on those Committees and attend the investigative hearings. A number of them were part of " storming" the hearing that they had free access to.

Thug move

Not just that, but when the Rs controlled the House, they had similar rules about what could be collected behind closed doors. Nothing but a stunt to show the OD that these Rs in the House had his back.

Deplorables don't care about rules, facts, laws...

"Nothing but a stunt to show the OD that these Rs in the House had his back."

The reporting suggests that this, in fact, is all this was about: a pure toadying effort to make Duce happy with so-called toughness. It never ceases to astonish how bottomless this pit is.

The process argument is wrong, and conflicts with the very manner in which the GOP for four years slow rolled an investigation of Clinton.

The factual arguments on the merits of Trump's conduct are, apparently, unavailable.

But keep trying the emojis.

calourie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:05 am So it sounds like the plan is to make everything public mid-November. We should then get to see how repubs respond to things revealed in the light of day.

Yup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.

CU88 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:16 am
Deplorables don't care about rules, facts, laws...

"Deplorables". Some folks never learn.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:37 am

calourie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:05 am So it sounds like the plan is to make everything public mid-November. We should then get to see how repubs respond to things revealed in the light of day.

Yup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.

Well, one would think that the diversions will end, but there may well be an inexhaustible well of such.
Small and large, there will, most likely, be attempts to divert attention.

Do we really think the precipitous timing of the withdrawal from Syria was because Trump got scared of Erdogan on that call? all of a sudden?

Or was he desperate to do something, anything, to divert attention?

47 Republicans are in the hearing room every day. They just don’t like the bad news

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:48 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:37 am

calourie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:05 am So it sounds like the plan is to make everything public mid-November. We should then get to see how repubs respond to things revealed in the light of day.

Yup, can't keep going with the diversions after that. I heard and interesting argument last night. Even closed door congressional hearings leak. Why are we not hearing exculpatory leaks? We hear (on Faux News) lies about what is going on, but nothing that we can see as exculpatory.

Well, one would think that the diversions will end, but there may well be an inexhaustible well of such.
Small and large, there will, most likely, be attempts to divert attention.

Do we really think the precipitous timing of the withdrawal from Syria was because Trump got scared of Erdogan on that call? all of a sudden?

Or was he desperate to do something, anything, to divert attention?

Perhaps an attempted diversion. I think it is more likely there is something going on in the Erdogan - Putin - Trump universe that is not yet know, with Trump looking out for his own interests. But the diversion theory certainly fits the general theory that Trump did it for personal reasons.

The concept that the US backed down, moved 30 guys from the border because Trump was afraid of the Turkish military is laughable. Trump wanted to make this move and it had nothing to do with the military facts on the ground.

CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:10 am Hey OS, what do you think of the Rs barging into the House SCIF with their cell phones blazing???

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... s-blazing/

Here's what I think: Lock them up!

Farce. Political theatre. White noise.
Let's see how many documents with their cell ph shadows show up on MSNBC or in the WP & NYT.

Hey CU77 -- troll someone else. I'm tuning out on this drama.
Don't expect a reply from OS on this issue until Schiff/Pelosi/Shumer get 20 (R) Senators onboard,