Man, that's just depressing.

I'm not sure they're even teaching the law anymore. It seems to me many of the law schools are teaching law activists.

How many members in the Federalists Society these days? Two? Do they have their meetings in retired phone booths?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Man, that's just depressing.

I'm not sure they're even teaching the law anymore. It seems to me many of the law schools are teaching law activists.

How many members in the Federalists Society these days? Two? Do they have their meetings in retired phone booths?

---

The problem is many leftists go to law school specifically to become activists. Many aren't even good lawyers, but they know enough to muddy the waters and cause all kinds of grief, especially the ones who file endless, bogus lawsuits.

Heck, there is one one the Supreme Court who is dumber than a pile of dirt.

There is about a30% cut of the bar that is conservative. The balance runs the gamut from center-left to leftist lunatic. Upshot is that center-left is a big cut of all lawyers. Downside is that younger lawyers on the left are floating off into leftism.

Funny part of all of it is how making money forces them to advocate in favor of companies and views that they "hate"

aggiehawg said:

---

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

ETA: Wait, that's under old Senate rules for impeachment. Can't predict how McConnell might propose changing the rules for this incumbent, if at all.

---

So, if Cocaine Mitch can make new rules, how about adding rules that require House Committies, Agencies, etc., that have submitted evidence to Adam "Thyroid Condition" Schiff to also hand over all - all as in Exculpatory too - to the Senate for consideration. If they "don't got none" ,well, then reject their evidence from the basis. Arbitrary, yes, but as long as he gets to make rules...

Probably won't leave much to support the now vacuous Articles of Impeachment...

SeMgCo87 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Simple majority. Two thirds to convict and remove and for a bar from serving in federal office in the future, is my understanding.

ETA: Wait, that's under old Senate rules for impeachment. Can't predict how McConnell might propose changing the rules for this incumbent, if at all.

---

So, if Cocaine Mitch can make new rules, how about adding rules that require House Committies, Agencies, etc., that have submitted evidence to Adam "Thyroid Condition" Schiff to also hand over all - all as in Exculpatory too - to the Senate for consideration. If they "don't got none" ,well, then reject their evidence from the basis. Arbitrary, yes, but as long as he gets to make rules...

Probably won't leave much to support the now vacuous Articles of Impeachment...

---

I honestly don't know how the Senate can force House Committees to turn over exculpatory evidence unless their Republican counterparts in the House alert them to exactly what and where it is and the House Judiciary Committee tries to subpoena it, or staffers to testify as to its existence.

Of course House lawyers will file motions to quash said subpoenas and the fight then moves to court. That will take time though. Time that McConnell might not want to take.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

The House would have to impeach again to bring the matter properly before the Senate. And I do think it would have to be on different articles of impeachment than those already rejected by the Senate.

---

Do you have a link or other authority for each of those propositions?

And, even if that's true for legislation, is it necessarily true for impeachments?

---

LINK I see no difference between impeachment and other legislation.

Where is the report? I kind of half expected it yesterday or today.

No time soon. Guessing next month

A reminder about trailblazer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

At this point, The "IG Report is coming" is the Conservative equivalent of "Got heem!"

Can't keep up...

will25u said:

---

---

Which if course they will claim as proof of a QPQ and REEEEEE even more for impeachment.

Manafort is already in prison so unless they kill him (which is what they tried to do by moving him to Rikers) there isn't much else they can do to him.

will25u said:

---

---

Dems really better be careful here. If they scream too much, Zelensky will just release the corruption from Dem operatives and the Obama administration that pressured them to open said investigations in the first place.

Schiff's star witness, Vindman, is up to his eyeballs in this effort, while he was in the Obama White House.

Sidney Powell. 2 minute video.

Nm

Could be a copying glitch but not likely. The sentence length and word positioning is too dramatic for that to be the reason. Font size?

Not a document examiner. Anybody here with that expertise or do I need to bring that to the attention of Little Green Footballs?

(Guy who outed Dan Rather's forged documents about George W. Bush.)

Different dates

Wozlaw said:

---

Different dates

---

Yup! Another Flynn 302 has surfaced.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1190281025622020096.html

Interesting investigative thread. Shortly after the 2016 Election, a certain reporter revealed that Flynn was associated with a Turkish lobbying company (The Gulen affair) -- there was no mention of any possible sources behind this disclosure. Then 5 days later, the same reporter published a followup story with additional information including erroneous details linking people to the Turkish government. Within days this followup story was quickly 'revised', but the damage had been done. It's suspicious that someone was providing/leaking details to this reporter and had a motive in mind to: 1) Precipitate a FARA investigation of Flynn, &/or 2) Discourage the Transition Team from approving Flynn. Who planted these stories? Likely someone 'close' to Trump IMO who didn't want Flynn in the Cabinet.

Here's a link to the 'original' story:
https://web.archive.org/web/20161117151747/http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/16/trump-adviser-recently-met-with-operatives-linked-to-turkish-government-agents/

Here's the 'revised story' link:
https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/16/trump-adviser-recently-met-with-operatives-linked-to-turkish-government-agents/

Wozlaw said:

---

Different dates

---

Different filing dates? Fling dates don't mean anything. I can't see, are the execution dates different?

aggiehawg said:

---

Wozlaw said:

---

Different dates

---

Different filing dates? Fling dates don't mean anything. I can't see, are the execution dates different?

---

Different 'entry' dates for the 302s -- Feb 14 & Feb 15.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wozlaw said:

---

Different dates

---

Different filing dates? Fling dates don't mean anything. I can't see, are the execution dates different?

---

Different 'entry' dates for the 302s -- Feb 14 & Feb 15.

---

Thanks!!! (I need a cornea transplant in the next few years and can't always make out docs on twitter that well. Sorry, about that.)

Dates on the drafts between Feb 14-15 matches up with some of the Strzok Page texts, too. McCabe is implicated in that as well.

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/6536818-Reply-in-Support/

There must be something on Mifsud's phones.

FriscoKid said:

---

Where is the report? I kind of half expected it yesterday or today.

---

If you're talking about the Horowitz report, I think I heard Hannity say he's been told it should be released by the end of the month.

Which to me is a definite maybe. I mean, how many times in the last couple of years have we heard about the expected release of a document or a report, only to have to wait for one reason or another.