snafu

From the link: "Vesper Vibrator Necklace by the company Crave. She wore the sex toy around her neck out to dinner with her boyfriend,..." Nothing says "Yes" more than wearing a vibrator necklace to dinner. If I see that, she's ordering off the specials and no dessert or appetizers.

Cue Ethel Merman.

Oh, now I am reading this post. Maybe there should be more witnesses, maybe not. You’re forgetting that this isn’t a real, judicial trial. This is a political proceeding and if the politicians on either side push too far then the voters will speak. That goes for Dems overplaying their “case”, and for Republicans being “too” obstructionist. That goes also for the President.

Do you need a clearer picture? Have you not formed an opinion based on the picture painted by days and days of House hearings and 21 hours of summary? If you need more, don’t you think it was the House’s job to get more?

This is a false premise. The WH lawyers didn’t do anything more than show how Schiff & co. cherry picked their own evidence. WH lawyers just did the simple job of using the House’s own evidence to disprove theis own case. There’s really no reason for more evidence to be brought forward if the record is clear that there’s nothing to impeach the President over. Schumer it twisting the presentation, but I suppose that was inevitable.

She’s a campaign-trail, pandering liar. This episode with the guy who did the right thing is meaningless. She is never, ever going to pass this proposal. It is a fiction. The only real issue here is that people believe that this is a serious proposal. And you’re right. She’d win a ton of credibility with me if she called for investigations into exactly where the tuition money goes (public schools and private schools). It’s like Obama’s ACA going after health insurance and completely ignoring the reasons why health care costs so much in the first place. Why not do both?

Reptoids signaling the mother ship?

Gaslighting.

I was running errands. Caught what I think was him while driving around. Was he the one explaining about why the White House wouldn’t comply with subpoenas? He was good if it was him. He’s good during the breaks when talking to the press. I don’t think he’s got the right temperament for the hearing.

They need to careful about making this argument too much if they don’t want any more witnesses. If I were the House Managers, I’d take notes every time the WH reps hint at needing to hear from direct fact witnesses.

Thank God I’m watching on CSpan.

Cipollone needs to watch his tone. If he’s starting at this level, he’s only going to ramp up.

Yep. Proof of his a-holeishness.

Almost forgot!

Looks like Bezos owes the Saudi Prince a serious apology. And he owes the rest of us an apology for that jacket.

Hakeem Jeffries from Brooklyn. I think the blanket refusal was explained in a letter Cipollone wrote to Pelosi on October 8. You’re right, the letter says that since the House inquiry was improperly commenced, and because of long-standing confidentiality and Executive privilege reasons, the White House wasn’t going to cooperate. I’m sure we’re going to get the full, unexpurgated, explanation over the next few days. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6459967-PAC-Letter-10-08-2019.html#document/p7

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). Yum, Chicken Salad!!

They made the chicken****. They want the Senate to make the Salad.

Pretty sure that's Yiddish.

What about Waffle House? You know it's the end when the Waffle House closes.

I hope a youtube clip will be okay.

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.

Yep, I keep hearing that the President's team won't use their full allotted time, but they sure can if they want to -- and they won't need to repeat themselves, like the House Managers did for two and a half days. There's so much meat on that bone. I really wonder how much they want to belly up and let rip. They never had the full open opportunity to summarize what happened during 2016 and beyond. This 24 hour rebuttal comes at a ripe time. After Mueller fizzled, after Horowitz, after FISA nullifying the Page warrants, with Flynn on the offensive. Oh, and the fact that all of the Democrats' impeachment case is based upon hearsay and opinion -- and is a political game to influence 2020. I always think that the less said, the better. But you don't want to leave money on the table.

I hope you're not asking about the 19 hours part. Sekulow was blasting Schiff about Trump "soliciting a foreign power" to assist him in his election. He (forcefully) reminded everyone that Chris Steele is a foreigner, and that Steele used Russians for his dossier, and that Clinton used the dossier for her election purposes. He also mentioned how the FBI used the dossier to investigate Trump, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, I know. They have spent 19 hours gaslighting on Article 1. Sekulow is on fire right now. Holy Moses. He's intemperate right now. If he uses that tone in Session the admonishments are going to come from Roberts.