Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: How the House destroyed its own case for the Trump impeachment

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default How the House destroyed its own case for the Trump impeachment

    From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.

    The delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order. Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.” But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.

    Perhaps the most pathetic change was House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, who correctly stated, “At the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. It does not look like that is going to happen. I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.” It took just a few hours for Pelosi to get Smith to say that he “misspoke” and praise her inspired strategy.

    Now what started as a demand to guarantee Senate witnesses has been downgraded to a demand to “know the rules” while waiting for the Senate to take a vote that it indicated weeks ago.
    In the alternative, sympathetic media figures insisted that Pelosi succeeded in “forcing a discussion” of Senate witnesses despite the fact that we had the same discussion in the trial of Bill Clinton without the House deciding to withhold the articles.

    The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution.
    By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for her vanity.

    It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”

    The Senate also is faced with two threshold problems that could create lasting damage to this process. First, the obstruction of Congress count, as I previously discussed, raises a troubling position that a president can be impeached for going to the courts rather than turning over evidence, even when the House set a ridiculously brief period for an investigation. The Senate could summarily reject that article as making the request for judicial review into a high crime and misdemeanor while allowing little time for deliberation. Second, if the Senate agrees to the Democratic demand for witnesses, it invites future rush impeachments where the House sends woefully incomplete and inadequate cases and demands witnesses it never bothered to subpoena, let alone compel to appear.

    The Senate is, therefore, caught in a tough position of enabling the House in such slipshod impeachments or refusing to hear witnesses who, unlike the witnesses called by the House, could have direct evidence to share on the allegations. One possibility is that, as in a real court, the Senate could allow witnesses but give the House a set trial schedule. If the House wants to belatedly go to court to try to enforce a subpoena, the Senate will hear the testimony of witnesses like Bolton when that expedited litigation is complete. However, it will not extend the trial schedule of the Senate.

    Trials will usually last a fraction of the time of an investigation, but few investigations are as hurried or heedless as the House investigation was. The House wasted four months after the whistleblower complaint without issuing a subpoena to Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or others. Had it sought to compel such subpoenas, it would have had rulings from the courts by now. Indeed, it took only three months for the appeal over the Watergate tapes to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the case of Richard Nixon.

    The Senate could set a generous period for the trial of three weeks. That is in addition to the four weeks the House wasted on the poorly conceived ploy by Pelosi. If the House is ready to present these witnesses, they can be heard. But if those witnesses are not ready to testify due to ongoing litigation, they will not be called and the Senate will proceed to its verdict. In that way, future Houses are now on notice that it is in their interest to complete their records before sending an impeachment to the Senate.

    It would send a message for future impeachments, as the author Herman Wouk wrote, “Remember this, if you can. There is nothing more precious than time. You probably feel you have a measureless supply of it, but you have not. Wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end, only in the end it becomes more obvious.” It is now obvious.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachment
    Jonathan Turley

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Celticguy (01-12-2020), Earl (01-13-2020), Grokmaster (01-12-2020), Sailor (01-12-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    life
    Posts
    52,794
    Thanks
    13,341
    Thanked 22,579 Times in 15,814 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,951 Times in 1,862 Posts

    Default

    delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order.
    Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes.
    So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.”
    But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

    Grokmaster (01-12-2020), Sailor (01-12-2020)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.

    The delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order. Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.” But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.

    Perhaps the most pathetic change was House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, who correctly stated, “At the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. It does not look like that is going to happen. I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.” It took just a few hours for Pelosi to get Smith to say that he “misspoke” and praise her inspired strategy.

    Now what started as a demand to guarantee Senate witnesses has been downgraded to a demand to “know the rules” while waiting for the Senate to take a vote that it indicated weeks ago.
    In the alternative, sympathetic media figures insisted that Pelosi succeeded in “forcing a discussion” of Senate witnesses despite the fact that we had the same discussion in the trial of Bill Clinton without the House deciding to withhold the articles.

    The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution.
    By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for her vanity.

    It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”

    The Senate also is faced with two threshold problems that could create lasting damage to this process. First, the obstruction of Congress count, as I previously discussed, raises a troubling position that a president can be impeached for going to the courts rather than turning over evidence, even when the House set a ridiculously brief period for an investigation. The Senate could summarily reject that article as making the request for judicial review into a high crime and misdemeanor while allowing little time for deliberation. Second, if the Senate agrees to the Democratic demand for witnesses, it invites future rush impeachments where the House sends woefully incomplete and inadequate cases and demands witnesses it never bothered to subpoena, let alone compel to appear.

    The Senate is, therefore, caught in a tough position of enabling the House in such slipshod impeachments or refusing to hear witnesses who, unlike the witnesses called by the House, could have direct evidence to share on the allegations. One possibility is that, as in a real court, the Senate could allow witnesses but give the House a set trial schedule. If the House wants to belatedly go to court to try to enforce a subpoena, the Senate will hear the testimony of witnesses like Bolton when that expedited litigation is complete. However, it will not extend the trial schedule of the Senate.

    Trials will usually last a fraction of the time of an investigation, but few investigations are as hurried or heedless as the House investigation was. The House wasted four months after the whistleblower complaint without issuing a subpoena to Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or others. Had it sought to compel such subpoenas, it would have had rulings from the courts by now. Indeed, it took only three months for the appeal over the Watergate tapes to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the case of Richard Nixon.

    The Senate could set a generous period for the trial of three weeks. That is in addition to the four weeks the House wasted on the poorly conceived ploy by Pelosi. If the House is ready to present these witnesses, they can be heard. But if those witnesses are not ready to testify due to ongoing litigation, they will not be called and the Senate will proceed to its verdict. In that way, future Houses are now on notice that it is in their interest to complete their records before sending an impeachment to the Senate.

    It would send a message for future impeachments, as the author Herman Wouk wrote, “Remember this, if you can. There is nothing more precious than time. You probably feel you have a measureless supply of it, but you have not. Wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end, only in the end it becomes more obvious.” It is now obvious.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachment
    Jonathan Turley
    Already seen this post, or at least, the same Turley article. Truley has to think that way to stay consistent with the opinion given to the Intelligence Committee, yet it is based upon a belief that what occurs in the Senate would be an actual trial, which no one outside of the Fox bubble believes is going to happen. There never was a case that the House could bring to Mitch that he wasn't going to "vindicate" Trump, simple fact Turley is overlooking

    Pelosi, in stalling, has bought out that the Senate "trial" is going to be nothing more than a show "trial" orchestrated by Mitch to appease Trump, when it all comes down according to plan, that is how Americans will see it, especially when witnesses are denied, and Pelosi's tactics has reinforced the portrait

  6. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-13-2020)

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Nomad (01-12-2020)

  8. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    From the outset, the ploy of Pelosi withholding the House impeachment articles was as implausible as it was hypocritical. There was no reason why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would make concessions to get an impeachment that he loathed. More importantly, just a couple of days earlier, House leaders insisted that some of us were wrong to encourage them to wait on an impeachment vote to create a more complete record. Pelosi previously insisted that House committees could not pursue direct witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton because there was no time to delay in getting this impeachment to the Senate. She then waited a month and counting to send the articles over to the Senate.

    The delay now seems largely driven by a desire to preserve the image of Pelosi as a master strategist despite a blunder of the first order. Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed the frustration of many members in saying, “The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes. So if it is serious and urgent, send them over. If it is not, do not send it over.” But she and other members were quickly pressured to “correct” their earlier statements by stating the exact opposite and praising the brilliant strategy of Pelosi.

    Perhaps the most pathetic change was House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, who correctly stated, “At the end of the day, just like we control it in the House, Mitch McConnell controls it in the Senate. It does not look like that is going to happen. I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is.” It took just a few hours for Pelosi to get Smith to say that he “misspoke” and praise her inspired strategy.

    Now what started as a demand to guarantee Senate witnesses has been downgraded to a demand to “know the rules” while waiting for the Senate to take a vote that it indicated weeks ago.
    In the alternative, sympathetic media figures insisted that Pelosi succeeded in “forcing a discussion” of Senate witnesses despite the fact that we had the same discussion in the trial of Bill Clinton without the House deciding to withhold the articles.

    The fact is that Pelosi played into the hands of McConnell by first rushing this impeachment forward with an incomplete record and now giving him the excuse to summarily change the rules, or even to dismiss the articles. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution.
    By inappropriately withholding the articles of impeachment and breaking with tradition, Pelosi simply gave McConnell ample reason to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules on both majority voting as well as the rule for the start of trials. That is a high price to pay for her vanity.

    It could get even worse for the House case. I previously discussed that the Senate had an excuse to simply declare that a trial will start next week and either the House will appear with a team of managers or the case will be summarily dismissed. McConnell is now moving toward a summary vote in the Senate, in light of the House failing to comply with its own procedural obligations. That is what happens when prosecutors defy a court and fail to appear for a trial. It is known as “dismissal for want of prosecution.”

    The Senate also is faced with two threshold problems that could create lasting damage to this process. First, the obstruction of Congress count, as I previously discussed, raises a troubling position that a president can be impeached for going to the courts rather than turning over evidence, even when the House set a ridiculously brief period for an investigation. The Senate could summarily reject that article as making the request for judicial review into a high crime and misdemeanor while allowing little time for deliberation. Second, if the Senate agrees to the Democratic demand for witnesses, it invites future rush impeachments where the House sends woefully incomplete and inadequate cases and demands witnesses it never bothered to subpoena, let alone compel to appear.

    The Senate is, therefore, caught in a tough position of enabling the House in such slipshod impeachments or refusing to hear witnesses who, unlike the witnesses called by the House, could have direct evidence to share on the allegations. One possibility is that, as in a real court, the Senate could allow witnesses but give the House a set trial schedule. If the House wants to belatedly go to court to try to enforce a subpoena, the Senate will hear the testimony of witnesses like Bolton when that expedited litigation is complete. However, it will not extend the trial schedule of the Senate.

    Trials will usually last a fraction of the time of an investigation, but few investigations are as hurried or heedless as the House investigation was. The House wasted four months after the whistleblower complaint without issuing a subpoena to Bolton or Rudy Giuliani or others. Had it sought to compel such subpoenas, it would have had rulings from the courts by now. Indeed, it took only three months for the appeal over the Watergate tapes to be ruled on by the Supreme Court in the case of Richard Nixon.

    The Senate could set a generous period for the trial of three weeks. That is in addition to the four weeks the House wasted on the poorly conceived ploy by Pelosi. If the House is ready to present these witnesses, they can be heard. But if those witnesses are not ready to testify due to ongoing litigation, they will not be called and the Senate will proceed to its verdict. In that way, future Houses are now on notice that it is in their interest to complete their records before sending an impeachment to the Senate.

    It would send a message for future impeachments, as the author Herman Wouk wrote, “Remember this, if you can. There is nothing more precious than time. You probably feel you have a measureless supply of it, but you have not. Wasted hours destroy your life just as surely at the beginning as at the end, only in the end it becomes more obvious.” It is now obvious.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...mp-impeachment
    Jonathan Turley

    Trump was impeached it happened Trump was impeached it happened Trump was impeached

  9. The Following User Groans At katzgar For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-12-2020)

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to katzgar For This Post:

    domer76 (01-13-2020)

  11. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Already seen this post, or at least, the same Turley article. Truley has to think that way to stay consistent with the opinion given to the Intelligence Committee, yet it is based upon a belief that what occurs in the Senate would be an actual trial, which no one outside of the Fox bubble believes is going to happen. There never was a case that the House could bring to Mitch that he wasn't going to "vindicate" Trump, simple fact Turley is overlooking

    Pelosi, in stalling, has bought out that the Senate "trial" is going to be nothing more than a show "trial" orchestrated by Mitch to appease Trump, when it all comes down according to plan, that is how Americans will see it, especially when witnesses are denied, and Pelosi's tactics has reinforced the portrait
    Turley doesn’t reside in the Trump bubble.

    He claimed to not vote for Trump so he’s a likely Hillary voter. Turley is often critical of Trump. Actually, he’s the rare Trump critic that isn’t a Never Trumper or inflicted with the Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

    IOW, he’s worth listening to. While liberal media pundits are polishing the impeachment turd, Turley steps in and explains why there’s a turd to polish.

    And he’s right: this was a first class blunder by Pelosi. Instead of waiting [don’t bother with the excuses] for the Bolton subpoena to be cleared by the courts Pelosi and the Democrats we’re giving half-cocked reasons why they needed to hurry. Consequently, House Democrats passed the weakest articles, ever. And the most weakly supported articles, ever.

    And we all know why lol.

    Democrats wanted Trump *impeached so they could type Trump* or IMPOTUS on Twitter like childish partisans might do. That’s about where Pelosi’s radical base is at.

    In giving them, that, Pelosi put herself in the position of having to cling to the articles and try and use them to ‘leverage’ the Turtle with something he doesn’t want. Which is actually kind of funny, when you think about it. Kind of like me telling you, if you give me $20, I’ll come over and kick your dog. Make it $30 and I’ll kick your dog in front of your kids.

    And this is ‘the master negotiator’ we’re talking about. As pointed out in another thread, the outcome of all this was entirely predictable. Pelosi should just bite the bullet send them over.

    Or not. That way the Senate could dismiss them for lack of prosecution. Would Trump still be *impeached if that happened?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Sailor (01-12-2020)

  13. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    30,591
    Thanks
    18,199
    Thanked 15,625 Times in 10,689 Posts
    Groans
    202
    Groaned 617 Times in 606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Already seen this post, or at least, the same Turley article. Truley has to think that way to stay consistent with the opinion given to the Intelligence Committee, yet it is based upon a belief that what occurs in the Senate would be an actual trial, which no one outside of the Fox bubble believes is going to happen. There never was a case that the House could bring to Mitch that he wasn't going to "vindicate" Trump, simple fact Turley is overlooking

    Pelosi, in stalling, has bought out that the Senate "trial" is going to be nothing more than a show "trial" orchestrated by Mitch to appease Trump, when it all comes down according to plan, that is how Americans will see it, especially when witnesses are denied, and Pelosi's tactics has reinforced the portrait

    HORSE SHIT. By voting on Articles of Impeachment, THE HOUSE'S CASE IS COMPLETE. PELOSI'S ASININE NONSENSE HAS BLOWN UP IN HER FACE.

    The SENATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE THE HOUSES'S CASE FOR THEM.

    THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME AS "ABUSE OF POWER", and the STALIN-O-CRATS ARE RIDICULOUSLY CHARGING "OBSTRUCTION of CONGRESS" FOR THE PRESIDENT SEEKING RULINGS IN STALIN-O-CRAT SUBPOENAS, IN THE COURTS.

    IOW, HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION .

    THE STALINIST TREASON-O-CRATS KNOW THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO GET ASS FUCKED IN FRONT OF THE WORLD....


    POPCORN = READY.
    TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..


    De Oppresso Liber

  14. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,527
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,570 Times in 17,095 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    I suspect Trump is being impeached because he is a low life lying selfish prick who only does what profits him. He embarrasses the country more every day he is in office. His lies are not just fibs. He lies about everything big and small. He is completely untrustworthy.
    Trump has lied about the Iran nuclear deal from the campaign onward. It has all been lies. He lied about Hillary all the way through. It is tough to beat a person when you respect the rules and they have none.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    domer76 (01-13-2020), Nomad (01-12-2020)

  16. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    30,591
    Thanks
    18,199
    Thanked 15,625 Times in 10,689 Posts
    Groans
    202
    Groaned 617 Times in 606 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    I suspect Trump is being impeached because he is a low life lying selfish prick who only does what profits him. He embarrasses the country more every day he is in office. His lies are not just fibs. He lies about everything big and small. He is completely untrustworthy.
    Trump has lied about the Iran nuclear deal from the campaign onward. It has all been lies. He lied about Hillary all the way through. It is tough to beat a person when you respect the rules and they have none.






    DOSSIER. ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE. UKRAINIAN COLLUSION. FIXED PRIMARIES.


    What "RULES" was Hillary following?
    TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..


    De Oppresso Liber

  17. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    All this bullshit is just a load of folderol which only serves to make Turley look like he has an in-depth knowledge of government, while overlooking one simple fact... there are first hand witnesses who could testify to exactly what happened when, and what was said to whom and by whom and for what purpose.

    But Trump and McConnell will not allow them to be placed under oath so they can tell WE THE PEOPLE what the truth is.

    What are Trump, McConnell and the Repugnants afraid of WE THE PEOPLE finding out?

    IF THERE WAS NOTHING TO HIDE THEY WOULDN'T BE HIDING SOMETHING.

  18. The Following User Groans At Nomad For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-13-2020)

  19. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    I suspect Trump is being impeached because he is a low life lying selfish prick who only does what profits him. He embarrasses the country more every day he is in office. His lies are not just fibs. He lies about everything big and small. He is completely untrustworthy.
    Trump has lied about the Iran nuclear deal from the campaign onward. It has all been lies. He lied about Hillary all the way through. It is tough to beat a person when you respect the rules and they have none.
    All true, but trying to blackmail a foreign leader into helping his reelection campaign is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.

  20. The Following User Groans At Nomad For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-13-2020)

  21. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    All true, but trying to blackmail a foreign leader into helping his reelection campaign is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.
    You and Nordberg HAVE to be the result of incest. Both dumb as fuck, both know NOTHING about anything, both love to dress up as women. Democrats obviously.

  22. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    28,403
    Thanks
    26,104
    Thanked 11,856 Times in 8,415 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 2,290 Times in 2,172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    You and Nordberg HAVE to be the result of incest. Both dumb as fuck, both know NOTHING about anything, both love to dress up as women. Democrats obviously.
    Popeye, you are the dumbest of the dumb.

  23. The Following User Groans At Trumpet For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-12-2020)

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Trumpet For This Post:

    domer76 (01-13-2020)

  25. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    You and Nordberg HAVE to be the result of incest. Both dumb as fuck, both know NOTHING about anything, both love to dress up as women. Democrats obviously.
    You and all the Trumptards around here HAVE to be the result of large doses of laxatives. All dumb as fuck, all know NOTHING about anything, all try to act like "men" even though you aren't. Repugnants obviously.

  26. The Following User Groans At Nomad For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (01-13-2020)

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Nomad For This Post:

    domer76 (01-13-2020)

  28. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Turley doesn’t reside in the Trump bubble.

    He claimed to not vote for Trump so he’s a likely Hillary voter. Turley is often critical of Trump. Actually, he’s the rare Trump critic that isn’t a Never Trumper or inflicted with the Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

    IOW, he’s worth listening to. While liberal media pundits are polishing the impeachment turd, Turley steps in and explains why there’s a turd to polish.

    And he’s right: this was a first class blunder by Pelosi. Instead of waiting [don’t bother with the excuses] for the Bolton subpoena to be cleared by the courts Pelosi and the Democrats we’re giving half-cocked reasons why they needed to hurry. Consequently, House Democrats passed the weakest articles, ever. And the most weakly supported articles, ever.

    And we all know why lol.

    Democrats wanted Trump *impeached so they could type Trump* or IMPOTUS on Twitter like childish partisans might do. That’s about where Pelosi’s radical base is at.

    In giving them, that, Pelosi put herself in the position of having to cling to the articles and try and use them to ‘leverage’ the Turtle with something he doesn’t want. Which is actually kind of funny, when you think about it. Kind of like me telling you, if you give me $20, I’ll come over and kick your dog. Make it $30 and I’ll kick your dog in front of your kids.

    And this is ‘the master negotiator’ we’re talking about. As pointed out in another thread, the outcome of all this was entirely predictable. Pelosi should just bite the bullet send them over.

    Or not. That way the Senate could dismiss them for lack of prosecution. Would Trump still be *impeached if that happened?
    Never said Turley was political, didn't even imply such, rather that his line of logic as displayed in the House and here in the article posted is that the impeachment articles are actually going to get a fair hearing in the Senate, that an actual trial is going to occur. Everyone knows that was never going to happen, Mitch just comfirmed the obvious

    Again, it is anything but a blunder by Pelosi, she has cemented the image of the Senate proceedings as anything but a trial, and Mitch will largely confirm that image. She knew Trump would never allow it to be an actual trial in the Senate, that consequently, that the real trial is in the public view

    And Trump is America's third impeached President, regardless of what Rudi is pushing now, no matter want occurs, Trump is the third impeached President and will go down in history as such

  29. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokmaster View Post
    HORSE SHIT. By voting on Articles of Impeachment, THE HOUSE'S CASE IS COMPLETE. PELOSI'S ASININE NONSENSE HAS BLOWN UP IN HER FACE.

    The SENATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE THE HOUSES'S CASE FOR THEM.

    THERE IS NO SUCH CRIME AS "ABUSE OF POWER", and the STALIN-O-CRATS ARE RIDICULOUSLY CHARGING "OBSTRUCTION of CONGRESS" FOR THE PRESIDENT SEEKING RULINGS IN STALIN-O-CRAT SUBPOENAS, IN THE COURTS.

    IOW, HIS ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION .

    THE STALINIST TREASON-O-CRATS KNOW THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO GET ASS FUCKED IN FRONT OF THE WORLD....


    POPCORN = READY.

    Not only does he lack an understanding of the Bill of Rights but also the impeachment process, impeachment is not statuary, tells us what criminal charge was Andrew Johnson accuse of

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    domer76 (01-13-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-16-2019, 11:02 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2019, 03:20 PM
  3. DEMOCRAT impeachment of Trump fails in House; so much fail
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 01:30 AM
  4. In case you missed it - Trump budget passed the House. TAX BREAKS ON THE WAY
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2017, 03:38 PM
  5. House Democrat files article of impeachment against Trump
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-13-2017, 03:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •