Foxx

head on a pike! https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1220918253977001985

i'll bet his (ex)wife is having a good laugh right about now.

you have to know trans, thats just who he is. i don't know if he is right or wrong this time but, lets hope he is right.

you don't say?

today was the deadline for CNN to respond to Devin Nunes defamation suit. any word on whether or not they complied?

and... that's a wrap. back tomorrow at 10 am for what should be a short opening and insight into where the WHC will be going. and to give the Donners the rest of the weekend to ***** their drawers.

Schiffty try to control the narrative of the WHC now. telling Senators how they will try to punch holes in the prosecution. ?

@snafu perhaps you would know... i don't know the name of the last manager but he was raising the argument that the White house did not comply with any subpoena issued by the House. i have seen it argued that one of the main reasons for this is because the White house viewed them as illegitimate. my understanding is that they were viewed to be illegitimate because the House never took a formal vote. not sure my understanding is complete here however. is the argument based upon the establishment of the inquiry, ie; a vote to begin the inquiry by the full house before it began or would it be arguing that there was not a full house vote for each and every subpoena?

dinnertime.

#jorrogandidnotkillhimself

i am certainly no lawyer, even though i play one on the internet. however it just strikes me, listening to the House Managers these last three days, that they have, more than their other mistakes, commited a huge tactical error. in that, they have essentially repeated the same arguments, in the same tenor as they did in their House, 'investigation'. whereby, they talked down to their audience (the average American) and admonished them that their 'evidence', is above all else, unimpeachable. it can not be questioned. no matter that there is very little factual evidence anywhere in their, 'evidence'. imo, telling Senators that they must do this, this and that because of x,y and z is suicidal. what they should have done is to present their 'evidence', then qualify it with a simple, 'if we have done our job and have created a sound case then the only verdict can be guilty'. this, along with other such unassuming points of perspective would have went much farther here. this tactical error is only off putting to a body that i'm quite sure sees itself as being above the House. being talked down to by the lower house is only going to enrage the Senate. all of which suggests that this is no tactical error, at all. it is being designed with sound bytes in mind to use against 15 Repub Senators up for reelection in November.

fake tv? don't get this shut down, you know better.

the WHC has to play clips of Schiffty in the Senate making his outrageous claims then play clips such as the Sondland presumption. that would be so brutally hilarious.

what happened to Lake?

lol, i rewound it a number of times trying to get the full gist of the emotion(s) he was displaying. let's just say, he wasn't a happy camper until, 'he was caught'.

is Schiffty really making this argument? with the Horowitz report out and yesterdays admittance that 2 of the FISA's were fraudlent, the argument seems like more like a pipe dream than anything. it's too bad Durham couldn't unveil some of his findings tomorrow to coincide with WHC defense.

i would only add that you exude confidence in yourself. you are the best person for the job and know it. don't be arrogant, just know they won't regret hiring you.

he stated at the outset of his turn here, that this would be the last on the first article.

Schiffty equating appointed beaurocrats to elected Senators and implying they hold the same stature is quite comical. not unexpected though.

so, fair to say that the now known extent of the injuries were known, at best, a day ago if not mere hours ago. saying he lied to the recently understood extent of injuries with a comment he made two days ago, is disingenuous. i will ask again... are you sure he has lied 16000+ times? or is it more likely that that is just the narrative of the propagandist left.

all i know is.... the discussion today is no different than that of the past two decades plus. change out the culprit and it is the same. i long for the day when the conversation changes and the argument whether he is good or not, becomes one of just how good he is. oh wait... that's the same argument isn't it?

right. and when was it released the now known extent of their injuries?

a question here... if the President has no other choice but to release foreign aid (as the Dems seem to be saying with their argument), why is the Presidency involved with this process at all. why doesn't the House just dispense it?

lol. i've been under the weather for most of the week, with today being the worst so far, so thank you for the laugh. i'm sure i must have seen them.