USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

[Valcazar]

However, I don't think Biden's election was a movement of the "woke".

Glad to hear you haven't gone completely barkers.

Having read your posts on MERB for several years, that phrase confirms your affinity for academic political science. I myself think it's hard to stand back, be objective and look at a narrow window of time. I also think academia can be described as generally more liberal and certainly mostly opposed to the Trump phenomenon and Trump voters.

That academia has a phrase that means I don't need to write 5 paragraphs defining things over and over is helpful.
Thus I used the phrase.

In my opinion, the Trump phenomenon could be described first and foremost as a voter rejection of traditional politics and more likely a distaste for Hillary. I think this is more likely what history will take away from 2016.

"The Trump phenomenon" is not just one thing.
From context it sounds like you mean "Trump's election in 2016", which isn't what we are discussing, is it?

Too much was made of the MAGA slogan. All political campaign slogans have quite a bit of puffery. Only hardcore progressives should be offended because it is clearly takes aim at their views. As far as "palingenetic ultranationalists", I'm sure there are some in the bunch.

Yes, and they happen to be dominant in the current leadership.

 

[Valcazar]

Just not at the "hearing" itself, right? And with no cross examination of the other side's witnesses, right?

Yes.
McCarthy deliberately gave up that option to generate the talking point.
But they promised their own investigation.
They have complete freedom to present all their evidence however they want and are using the media to do that.

Because, just to remind you, it isn't a trial.
They can't even press charges against Trump.

 

[Valcazar]

It goes back to his calling out Bush in the primary and knocking him out. He was considered dangerous to the Military contractors.

Why would he be dangerous to the Military Contractors?
Trump explained repeatedly he wanted a bigger, stronger military and that it should be free to commit more war crimes.
Unless you think a specific current contractor thought Trump was going to switch to a different war contractor because he was willing to be bribed more openly or something?

This is not just the steering wheel anecdote. How does she know what was said in the car?

She doesn't.
She told the committee what Ornato told her.
And "Trump wanted to go to the Capitol and was upset when they wouldn't let him" isn't being denied by the people involved. The denial (such as it is) was that he lunged for the steering wheel or attacked anyone.

 

[jcpro]

The real question is how the commission could let this happen. They worked hard to gain credibility, and now it is lost, at least among the Trumpistes.

Do the commission not have any lawyers?

Firstly, why bring hearsay to prime time.
Secondly, the story the Republican cunt served up is blatantly ridiculous. Clearly the President can tell the secret service where to go.

Adam Schiff, at the opening of the first impeachment, read and presented, for the record, Trump's transcript of the call with the President of Ukraine. The "transcript " Schiff made up. Dwell on that for a minute. All they care about is that the allegations are out there regardless of reality and let the media go into shit storm because who cares about the next day corrections?

 

[jcpro]

Yes.
McCarthy deliberately gave up that option to generate the talking point.
But they promised their own investigation.
They have complete freedom to present all their evidence however they want and are using the media to do that.

Because, just to remind you, it isn't a trial.
They can't even press charges against Trump.

ROTFLMFAO!!

 

[WyattEarp]

Her testimony isn't hearsay.
You can argue that she offered nothing but hearsay evidence that Trump grabbed the steering wheel.
Since, of course, whether or not he grabbed the steering wheel is irrelevant to any major point, why do you care?

I think all I've really committed myself to is that she wasn't in the car. Which still perplexes me why a Congressional committee would want her testimony on that situation.

Is it alright to be perplexed about this? Yeah, I think it's alright.

 

[WyattEarp]

No.
The Supreme Court approval meetings are a job interview.
These are hearings reporting findings and evidence they've collected.

These things aren't hard, Wyatt, I'm starting to get worried about you.

Why can't it be a Trump 2024 job interview?

 

[Valcazar]

I told you, you're an ideologue. But, since even the broken clock is right now and then, do answer the questions from my post. And remember, Ray is a video star. You have my undivided attention.

Why would I answer the questions from your post?
Epps is your obsession, not mine.

 

[mandrill]

I think all I've really committed myself to is that she wasn't in the car. Which still perplexes me why a Congressional committee would want her testimony on that situation.

Is it alright to be perplexed about this? Yeah, I think it's alright.

Well, it's an inquiry and not a trial. So any evidence, even second hand hearsay is usable and potentially valuable. The question is more aptly "Why WOULDN'T they want her testimony as to what occurred in the car?"

If the agent is going to potentially take the Fifth, then her testimony might be the best they get on the point. There's no reason that they shouldn't use it.

 

[Valcazar]

I think all I've really committed myself to is that she wasn't in the car. Which still perplexes me why a Congressional committee would want her testimony on that situation.

Is it alright to be perplexed about this? Yeah, I think it's alright.

I'm perplexed about what you find perplexing.
She was testifying to what went down that day.
That included her seeing Engel and Ornato, Engel looking perturbed, and Ornato telling her this story as to why he looked perturbed.

 

[WyattEarp]

ROTFLMFAO!!

For some reason, when Valcazar came over to TERB from MERB he became more partisan. Of course as many partisans are prone to say, they're just following the facts and objective reasoning.

A few years back, you could have decent policy exchanges with MERB Valcazar even if there was some general differences. Of course, MERB Valcazar diligently stuck with the Russian Collusion narrative and that the Steele Dossier wasn't all erroneous.

Me thinks, he's gotten a bit high on partisanship since he found kindred spirits here. Or perhaps the TERB Valcazar stole MERB Valcazar's handle and persona.

 

[Valcazar]

Why can't it be a Trump 2024 job interview?

Because Trump isn't there and the Congress doesn't approve the President.

 

[Valcazar]

For some reason, when Valcazar came over to TERB from MERB he became more partisan. Of course as many partisans are prone to say, they're just following the facts and objective reasoning.

Me thinks, he's gotten a bit high on partisanship since he found kindred spirits here. Or perhaps the TERB Valcazar stole MERB Valcazar's handle and persona.

A few years back, you could have decent policy exchanges with MERB Valcazar even if there was some general differences. Of course, MERB Valcazar diligently stuck with the Russian Collusion narrative and that the Steele Dossier wasn't all erroneous.

I am exactly as partisan as I was then - I was quite partisan then.
I am far more of an ideologue than I am a partisan though.
I am still perfectly willing to discuss policy, but the people here don't like discussing policy.

 

[mandrill]

Why can't it be a Trump 2024 job interview?

Because most of his potential voters apparently switch off Fox and watch cooking shows and baseball whenever the Jan 6 stuff comes on, I guess.

 

[mandrill]

I am exactly as partisan as I was then - I was quite partisan then.
I am far more of an ideologue than I am a partisan though.
I am still perfectly willing to discuss policy, but the people here don't like discussing policy.

That's actually a bit of an understatement, isn't it?

 

[WyattEarp]

Well, it's an inquiry and not a trial. So any evidence, even second hand hearsay is usable and potentially valuable. The question is more aptly "Why WOULDN'T they want her testimony as to what occurred in the car?"

If the agent is going to potentially take the Fifth, then her testimony might be the best they get on the point. There's no reason that they shouldn't use it.

If it's part of the basis for the Justice Dept. to pursue a court trial, it isn't going to do anything in court. It just helps the Committee pursue headlines. I believe Valcazar was worried the MSM would run with the steering wheel story. And shit, they did. If the MSM would print (report) anonymous accounts, you know they aren't going to condition their reporting with disputed accounts from direct eyewitnesses.

Her second hand testimony paints a temperamental idiot. That's not an easy thing to convict on unless they have something more substantial.

 

[WyattEarp]

Because Trump isn't there and the Congress doesn't approve the President.

Thanks for clearing that up. By the way, someone should have told Pelosi back in 2016 she doesn't approve Presidents.

 

[mandrill]

If it's part of the basis for a court trial, it isn't going to do anything in court. It just helps the Committee pursue headlines.
Her second hand testimony paints a temperamental idiot. That's not an easy thing to convict on unless they have something more substantial.

He might have immunity, as he was still the PotUS.

Most people would actually like to know what happened that day, regardless of whether Trump can be indicted. And no, you can't indict someone for throwing a tantrum and grabbing a wheel or throwing ketchup.

It's more of an intellectual challenge to figure out if that ridiculously obese old man could fit over the seats and effectively grab. You know what??... I'd like to see a forensic recreation of that. Actually bring The Beast around and have an equally fat and ungainly old man actually wriggle over the seat and lunge for the wheel. I think that's the only way we can satisfy ourselves that it occurred. Personally, I think he got across the seat-back, but then became wedged on his fat gut and couldn't generate any leverage. But I'm just guessing on that.

 

[Valcazar]

If it's part of the basis for the Justice Dept. to pursue a court trial, it isn't going to do anything in court. It just helps the Committee pursue headlines. I believe Valcazar was worried the MSM would run with the steering wheel story. And shit, they did. If the MSM would print (report) anonymous accounts, you know they aren't going to condition their reporting with disputed accounts from direct eyewitnesses.

Her second hand testimony paints a temperamental idiot. That's not an easy thing to convict on unless they have something more substantial.

Why do they need to convict on it?
The committee's job also isn't to gather evidence for the DOJ.
The DOJ has to do its own work.

 

[mandrill]

Why do they need to convict on it?
The committee's job also isn't to gather evidence for the DOJ.
The DOJ has to do its own work.

They don't. It's just today's whiny deflection.