Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Unimane, Feb 27, 2019.
Thank goodness. I’ll quit worrying about climate change.
can someone explain why it was fine for Cohen to meet with democratic leaders before his testimony against the republican president? Have no idea how that would be rationalized.
It's politics, nothing is rational.
Because any time anyone ever for any reason testifies before Congress, they meet with the committee members beforehand.
Happened with kavanaugh. Happened with everyone, ever, I believe. Like, every time. You are complaining about a standard procedure because you don't know what the procedure is and are biased even if you don't think you are.
you are correct I didn't know the procedure. Seemed odd to me. Would seem odd if Obamas attorney met with republicans before testifying against him. Careful with your assumptions, especially since you lean way left and i'm in the middle.
No, I don’t think you’re right on that.
With Kavanaugh and appointees, you’re definitely right.
But there are congressional testimonies every day and most of these people never meet the committee members. The chair likely speaks to them but not closed door meetings. I know several people who have testified and they didn’t meet members beforehand - though they met with staff when being considered for testimony.
However, in high profile testimonies, it might very well be customary to have meetings. That one I’m not sure about. My guess that is fairly common.
hmmm. IP fed me fake news and an insult in one post. Come on IP. don't fake news me
I just called a friend to ask him. He said that in cases like his a member of the committee is basically sponsoring him there for testimony. He would usually speak to that member if he was in the office when he was there meeting with his staff or committee staff but not specific meetings about the testimony. He agreed that high profile testimony would be rather different.
I know for a fact that there is correspondence and meetings with those who are to testify for a committee. There is a whole process for it. Know it for a fact. They can opt not to, but the process is there.
I am right. It's a process that is opted out of, not in. Even what TT is saying is that the chair sometimes meets with them, but not closed door. The point is that it isn't unheard of, it is part of the routine when testimony is going to occur.
Completely agree that it isn’t unheard of.
There’s no forced separation.
I just don’t think every time someone heads to the hill to testify that the committee members are lining up to meet with them - which is what I felt like your comparison to Kavanaugh was implying.
If it isn't of particular interest or sensitivity, they don't. They tend to just send letters before or after testimony with any specific questions they have.
Example: I have no doubt Cohen knew the questions AOC asked would be asked. That was probably told to him ahead of time. This is not unusual. If you want a particular question answered in the hearing, you tell them ahead of time. If you want to see their response in-person to get some sort of read, you don't tell them ahead of time. If you want more information or some work to be shown, you write them after testimony. All these things are normal and happen all the time, to some extent or another.
Typically, the open testimonies are mostly theatrical versions of what happens behind closed doors and through correspondence.
Cohen produced 6 more $35k hush money checks signed by Trump himself while in office yesterday. That's a total of 7 of the 11 checks that were personally signed by Trump.
Stormy Daniels’s Hush Money Lawsuit Is Dismissed by Judge
"As he tossed out the case this week, Judge S. James Otero, of United States District Court in Los Angeles, called the legal argument moot, given that Ms. Daniels had not been held to the terms of the (NDA) agreement."
So she can sell her book and talk freely about Shark week and hand size without getting sued under the terms of defunct NDA.
Separate names with a comma.