What happened to Hope? Well, anyone with a shred of self-dignity, ethics or morals would take the sage advice of “Run, Forrest, Run!” to heart.
try making funny jokes, the sexist ones are so last century.
You need to sit all the way down.
“…deleted and acid washed…” Acid washed? Who says that?
1 Like
I personally tend to agree, but I’m not the target audience – I’ve never been a young woman in an old man’s world trying to dance the line between “you clearly aren’t putting any effort into this” and “lol what a harlot” (of course the line is evaluated differently for each old man).
When somebody says something like “I think this is in poor taste; it cheapens my experiences or makes me uncomfortable”, the best response is “I’ll come up with different jokes”. The universe of available jokes remains vast.
IMHO.
3 Likes
Or a brick?
The hearing has been a sham. I think the frustrated comments from Karen Bass criticizing the Trump stonewalling (and Hicks’ willingness to go along with it) might be another turning point towards pushing Pelosi to go for an impeachment inquiry.
Bass is a close Pelosi ally and she’s under a lot of heat in her district to shift to a formal impeachment inquiry. Comments like these make it harder for her to tell constituents that the current approach is working. That would be true for a lot of blue district Dems, especially after Amash, Malinowski and Porter have come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry.
For Pelosi’s part there are a few small signs that she might be thinking about shifting course as well. She did bluntly say that Hicks’ refusal to answer questions at Trump’s behest would be obstruction of justice.
In addition, she also dismissed the idea of censure and said that if you have the goods you have to impeach. The latter comment likely means that she is sticking to her position that to her position that an informal inquiry requires the threshold of public approval (which itself is potentially a moving goalpost). Another view is that given her difficulty engaging voters to give credit to house Democrats for passing a lot of legislation that ties to the 2018 campaign, she might be indicating some warming to the concept of an impeachment inquiry.
As much as she dislikes impeachment, I think she can see that she would accrue a lot of power in DC if she opened an inquiry, let Nadler run with it and focused on messaging and the legislative agenda. She could dictate terms to Trump and everyone will know that she is the center of power in DC
That changes how the DC establishment, the MSM, financial markets, foreign gov’ts, and corporate America look at Dems and Trump. If these groups all see Dems as the powerhouse, it changes the mindset of fact witnesses on cooperation.
I think it’s her best political move. She might be inching towards it despite her oft-stated reservations on the topic.
12 Likes
Because WH Counsel Cipollone claims Hicks is “absolutely immune from being compelled to testify”.
Which everybody else says is laughable.
Interesting to hear what is happening today, but Hicks sounds like she is growing a measure of self-preservation.
3 Likes
I had no target audience.
The remark was offhand snark, based on Hicks apparent desire to always look like the model she used to be—vacuous, pretty, and with a pretty short shelf life.
If that offended some prude, I’m fine with it.
OT:
At least Pelosi is saying no to the useless gesture of censure:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday shrugged off the notion of censuring President Trump, dismissing that strategy as insufficient to the task of holding the president accountable for allegations of misconduct in office.
“I think censure is just a way out,” Pelosi said during a breakfast with reporters in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
“If you’re going to go, you’ve got to go. If the goods are there, you must impeach. And censure is nice, but it is not commensurate with the violations of the Constitution — should we decide that’s the way to go,” she added. “That’s my view.”
4 Likes
I thought, perhaps, the turning point came when Katie Porter in a R+3 district (I believe) in Orange County came out in favor of impeachment. I was very impressed by her calm, thoughtful, “just the facts” arguments she marshaled in presenting her case.
7 Likes
You needn’t have gone any further. You had me by this point.
4 Likes
On censure, to paraphrase ‘Team American: World Police’: “we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.”
So her testimony - isn’t.
Testimony that is.
His panoply of defects and failings are the sands of the beach, the stars in the sky 
Bloviating sack of donkey dung.
2 Likes
I was going to ask the same thing. I know what acid washing is, but I don’t know if it’s a term that’s actually used by technical folks for making things in cyberspace disappear. Sounds like something that would be routine in the vocabulary of “wise guys” – if only for those in the movies, which is the extent of my knowledge of such activities.
1 Like
So do I.
It’s how some blue jeans are treated before being offered for sale.
2 Likes
Porter has marketed her pro-impeachment inquiry position better than the other Dems so it has more resonance in the national media and among the people.
3 Likes
Yes, and it’s also used in some instances for preparing concrete, I think for dying and/or sealing it. I can’t imagine a visual for either use that would translate to deleted emails, except for some dimwit mafiosi talking about what to do with an inconvenient body.
2 Likes
Just my thoughts, but I do believe an impeachment hearing is coming. Pelosi is trying to time it as such: Early 2020 impeachment begins; witnesses are called, evidence is gathered and demonstrated to the public; wraps up just as the election cycle truly begins (i.e. after conventions/nominees); then Nancy says, “we have decided, rather than hold an impeachment vote in the House, we will allow the public to vote on this in November.”
I don’t know if the impeachment process can be dragged out that long, nor if you can begin the process but not have the vote. I do know it could take some time because there are so many people to hear from, and so many lines of investigation. What it would achieve is: A) all the evidence and testimony is brought out into the open, for the public to process; B) it never gets sent to the Senate where the charges would be summarily dismissed.
If this is feasible (again, I don’t know how the timeline would work out) it would be close to a perfect outcome. We get all the testimony and evidence into the public record, and the Senate never gets to vote on it, denying Orange Voldemort the “win,” the “total exoneration.” It “depoliticizes” it in a sense, as the Democrats in the House never actually voted to impeach the President. They simply allowed the public political process to function.
5 Likes