Coward Pelosi may throw tent on her own circus, not send impeachment to Senate

[Sir Galahad]

I kind of feel sorry for liberals who actually thought the dems were going to get Trump removed. The commercials write themselves.

show the WAPO article 19 minutes after inauguration about how the impeachment starts now. Show the multiple attempts that failed, assign a dollar amount to the wasted time including the salaries of staff and officials and close it out with the lack of accomplishments over the last two years.

End with, so you want more of the same...

 

[UCFKnight85]

Only 3 insults/rage adjectives in this sentence.

6/10. Execution was OK but effort was lacking. I've rewritten it below so you can see what a proper 85 post is supposed to look like.

Hmmmm I think there's some self projection going on here.

Oh by the way, catch the debate last night? All 3 D candidates running who are also sitting Senators went on record as being all-in on impeachment and discussed how they'd convince people to go along with it.

Yep, sure sounds like a bunch of impartial jurors and stuff. Since that's such an important thing to you people now, please feel free to commence whining about these Senators refusing to adhere to impartiality.

 

[btbones]

Only 3 insults/rage adjectives in this sentence.

6/10. Execution was OK but effort was lacking. I've rewritten it below so you can see what a proper 85 post is supposed to look like.

I find it hilarious you make this kind of posts while constantly filling your posts with personal insults of a much more disgusting style , you take the cake . Merry Christmas

 

[UCFKnight85]

I find it hilarious you make this kind of posts while constantly filling your posts with personal insults of a much more disgusting style , you take the cake . Merry Christmas

This was him two days ago:

Suck shit maga chuds.

View embedded media

At this point, it's funny. It's like his obsession with the Russia hoax all over again; he's supremely butthurt and now very defensive that impeachment is going to go horribly wrong for these leftie loons.

 

[Crazyhole]

This was him two days ago:



At this point, it's funny. It's like his obsession with the Russia hoax all over again; he's supremely butthurt and now very defensive that impeachment is going to go horribly wrong for these leftie loons.

Hard to take someone with the worst prediction record seriously.

 

[DaShuckster]

I find it hilarious you make this kind of posts while constantly filling your posts with personal insults of a much more disgusting style

At this point, it's funny.

Rather ironic takes about another poster's language when the OP titled this thread "Coward Pelosi may throw tent on her own circus"

Apparently trollish language is only a "lib" thing.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Rather ironic takes about another poster's language when the OP titled this thread "Coward Pelosi may throw tent on her own circus"

Apparently trollish language is only a "lib" thing.

How is my title trolling? She is a coward, or "acting cowardly", so I called her a coward.

I guess I could change it to "Bullshitter Pelosi" since she wasted the nation's time with this fiasco but I still think coward is a better word right now.

 

[DaShuckster]

How is my title trolling? She is a coward, or "acting cowardly", so I called her a coward.

I guess I could change it to "Bullshitter Pelosi" since she wasted the nation's time with this fiasco but I still think coward is a better word right now.

You're entitled to use whatever the hell adjectives you choose: coward, chicken-sh*t, pussy, bullsh*tter, etc.

But puh-leeeez spare us any sanctimonious chastising of another poster's trollish language.

Your posts reek of hypocrisy.

 

[Crazyhole]

How is my title trolling? She is a coward, or "acting cowardly", so I called her a coward.

I guess I could change it to "Bullshitter Pelosi" since she wasted the nation's time with this fiasco but I still think coward is a better word right now.

I dont always agree with you but you nailed it this time. She won't send the articles over because she knows they will be voted down thanks to her own parties ineptitude. She now realizes that under her direction Congress has lost the importance that impeachment used to have. They undermined the value of it by not taking it seriously and no president should ever worry about it again.

Just another example of Congress ceding power to the executive branch.

 

[DaShuckster]

She won't send the articles over because she knows they will be voted down thanks to her own parties ineptitude.

Or here's a thought: Maybe she isn't sending the articles forward because Moscow Mitch McConnell has already said he will work in lock-step with the defendant in the trial for crying out loud.

If this was meant to be a real trial then there are a number of key witnesses to be called. Will that happen? Nadda. So why go through a trial if it's all a sham?

 

[Crazyhole]

Or here's a thought: Maybe she isn't sending the articles forward because Moscow Mitch McConnell has already said he will work in lock-step with the defendant in the trial for crying out loud.

If this was meant to be a real trial then there are a number of key witnesses to be called. Will that happen? Nadda. So why go through a trial if it's all a sham?

Why didn't the house go to the court to get those witnesses to testify? 2 answers:

1. They knew that executive privilege is a thing and it doesn't matter who subpoenas them they won't have to testify.

2. They weren't acting in good faith on this and were more concerned about the optics of presidential impeachment.

This was never about making a concerted effort to remove a president because he is corrupt. It was always about the 2020 election and giving the Democrat candidate a talking point to us .

 

[fried-chicken]

I kind of feel sorry for liberals who actually thought the dems were going to get Trump removed.

No one thought that. We knew senate republicans would ignore their responsibilities. That's why Nancy is holding off on sending it.

 

[fried-chicken]

This was him two days ago:



At this point, it's funny. It's like his obsession with the Russia hoax all over again; he's supremely butthurt and now very defensive that impeachment is going to go horribly wrong for these leftie loons.

If you can't tell that me typing "suck shit maga chuds" isn't done from a position of actual anger then you're further out of tune with reality than I thought. I went on to type "hoes mad" throughout that thread...

Meanwhile every post 85 makes you can almost see the spit flying out of his mouth as he mumbles to himself and angrily pounds away at his phone screen. Vile Putrid disgusting liberals and their filthy agenda to destroy american values etc etc. It reads like a manifesto. He's got a legit anger problem. But sure I type "hoes mad" and I'm in the same boat as him.

K

85 is literally like smeagol mumbling about the filthy hobitses taking his ring.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Or here's a thought: Maybe she isn't sending the articles forward because Moscow Mitch McConnell has already said he will work in lock-step with the defendant in the trial for crying out loud.

If this was meant to be a real trial then there are a number of key witnesses to be called. Will that happen? Nadda. So why go through a trial if it's all a sham?

Then why did the House go through their charade while refusing to bring in key witnesses? Jesus man. You can't deem the debacle that Schiff ran as credible and then cry about the Senate before anything has even started.

PS- three sitting D Senators went on record last night as saying that their minds are already made up on impeachment. OMG! They're supposed to be impartial jurors! Outrage! Outrage!

 

[DaShuckster]

Then why did the House go through their charade while refusing to bring in key witnesses? Jesus man.

Refusing to bring in key witnesses???!? Jesus man, you clearly have no frickin' clue.

The House issued subpoenas to the following individuals for information related to their inquiry:
Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)
Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)
Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4)
WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)
Office of Management and Budget Director, Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

What did they get? NADA.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Refusing to bring in key witnesses???!? Jesus man, you clearly have no frickin' clue.

The House issued subpoenas to the following individuals for information related to their inquiry:
Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)
Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)
Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4)
WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)
Office of Management and Budget Director, Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

What did they get? NADA.

All they had to do was file a motion in court and they surely would have had them mandated to appear. Joe Manchin even knows this since he commented on stupid Democrats in the House were for not moving to actually bring any of these people in.

Meanwhile, D's had this "historic" vote and still, nothing sent to Senate.

 

[DaShuckster]

All they had to do was file a motion in court and they surely would have had them mandated to appear.

You mean like the one the House filed regarding WH Council Don McGahn? How long did that one take?

You and I both know that the WH strategy is simply to stall through the court system.

 

[Crazyhole]

All they had to do was file a motion in court and they surely would have had them mandated to appear. Joe Manchin even knows this since he commented on stupid Democrats in the House were for not moving to actually bring any of these people in.

Meanwhile, D's had this "historic" vote and still, nothing sent to Senate.

It wouldn't have even taken that long. SCOTUS would have made this a priority and it wouldn't have lasted more than a couple months.

Dems one week ago: we have enough evidence to make a clear case for removing the president from office.

Dems today: the senate needs more evidence so nevermind, just forget it.

Here's an idea Nancy: get all of the information you need and then move forward. Dont complain about someone not doing your job for you.

 

[Crazyhole]

You mean like the one the House filed regarding WH Council Don McGahn? How long did that one take?

You and I both know that the WH strategy is simply to stall through the court system.

And? Even if Trump stalled it until next december we would already had a referendum on him at the ballot box and if he won at least they could present a complete case against him for removal if that ended up being the case. Holy crap man, they knew from day one that they didn't have blind support in the Senate, so unless you are willing to go to the lengths that it takes to change peoples minds then just forget it and go about your other business.

 

[beelit47]

If you had ANY doubt left as to whether or not this was a totally meaningless, hyper partisan, total debacle fueled entirely by the fringe left that controls the DNC these days, just read the reports now that Pelosi may refuse to even send the impeachment articles to the Senate.

These degenerates don't care about "their constitutional duty!". They just wanted their 2020 political ad taglines that they can start using.

Oh and D Joe Manchin has already started laying out why he'd probably vote NO in the Senate, again highlighting what a total sham the House proceeding was:

“How do you have trial without witnesses? Tell me. How do you have a trial if you can’t get the facts out?” Manchin said. “So, some how, way, shape or form, even if it’s in a deposition, they should be sworn in under oath and make sure they tell the truth.”

“I don’t know why the House … didn’t go to court. You know, why they didn’t go after these witnesses that are so pertinent to the whole accusation. That makes it very difficult,” Manchin told CQ Roll Call. Manchin specifically referenced acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton as witnesses who should’ve been pursued.

I have avoided the water cooler for about a month for this reason. Shookster and shook chicken paraded victory im sure but i stated then that this is Russia collusion hoax part two. The house went from quid pro to bribery to...nobodys sure but orange man bad and they voted to impeach. So my prediction was correct.

next prediction: dems lose about 40 seats in the house, republicans gain another 3-4 senate seats, and trump wins every state he won in 2016 but also NH, NV, NM, MN, VA, and CO. Gonna be fun watching you lefty loons melt!

 

[beelit47]

If you had ANY doubt left as to whether or not this was a totally meaningless, hyper partisan, total debacle fueled entirely by the fringe left that controls the DNC these days, just read the reports now that Pelosi may refuse to even send the impeachment articles to the Senate.

These degenerates don't care about "their constitutional duty!". They just wanted their 2020 political ad taglines that they can start using.

Oh and D Joe Manchin has already started laying out why he'd probably vote NO in the Senate, again highlighting what a total sham the House proceeding was:

“How do you have trial without witnesses? Tell me. How do you have a trial if you can’t get the facts out?” Manchin said. “So, some how, way, shape or form, even if it’s in a deposition, they should be sworn in under oath and make sure they tell the truth.”

“I don’t know why the House … didn’t go to court. You know, why they didn’t go after these witnesses that are so pertinent to the whole accusation. That makes it very difficult,” Manchin told CQ Roll Call. Manchin specifically referenced acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton as witnesses who should’ve been pursued.

I have avoided the water cooler for about a month for this reason. Shookster and shook chicken paraded victory im sure but i stated then that this is Russia collusion hoax part two. The house went from quid pro to bribery to...nobodys sure but orange man bad and they voted to impeach. So my prediction was correct.

next prediction: dems lose about 40 seats in the house, republicans gain another 3-4 senate seats, and trump wins every state he won in 2016 but also NH, NV, NM, MN, VA, and CO. Gonna be fun watching you lefty loons melt!

 

[goodknightfl]

Refusing to bring in key witnesses???!? Jesus man, you clearly have no frickin' clue.

The House issued subpoenas to the following individuals for information related to their inquiry:
Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)
Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)
Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4)
WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)
Office of Management and Budget Director, Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

What did they get? NADA.

The house had every right to subpoena those people, and the Prez had every right to say no. They are co equal branches. If the House wanted to hear from them they had to go thru the court system, which also is their right. The courts usually come down on the side of Prez, which follows the law. Holder and other Obama people did the same thing. There is no Obstruction of congress unless the courts ruled they had to testify and they still did not. That article should be dismissed by the Senate out of hand. On the other a trial is likely warranted. On a trial you only use witnesses put forward by the prosecution, there are only about 5. All but one are hearsay witnesses who's testimony would not be allowed in any court of law.

 

[fried-chicken]

The house had every right to subpoena those people, and the Prez had every right to say no. They are co equal branches. If the House wanted to hear from them they had to go thru the court system, which also is their right. The courts usually come down on the side of Prez, which follows the law. Holder and other Obama people did the same thing. There is no Obstruction of congress unless the courts ruled they had to testify and they still did not. That article should be dismissed by the Senate out of hand. On the other a trial is likely warranted. On a trial you only use witnesses put forward by the prosecution, there are only about 5. All but one are hearsay witnesses who's testimony would not be allowed in any court of law.

The house isn't the trial, its the investigation. The senate is the trial. Witnesses are allowed at trials if they have been questioned in an investigation or if they haven't.

 

[DaShuckster]

The house had every right to subpoena those people, and the Prez had every right to say no.

Yeah, he can -- and did -- say no and faces a Contempt of Congress charge because House subpoenas are legal.

All but one are hearsay witnesses who's testimony would not be allowed in any court of law.

And why is that? Oh yeah, Trump ordered them not to testify.

You gotta love the convoluted logic the Red Hats use to defend their leader.

 

[Crazyhole]

Yeah, he can -- and did -- say no and faces a Contempt of Congress charge because House subpoenas are legal.
And why is that? Oh yeah, Trump ordered them not to testify.

You gotta love the convoluted logic the Red Hats use to defend their leader.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/fast-and-furious-documents-holder-1313120

So about this. Got any thoughts?

 

[DaShuckster]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/09/fast-and-furious-documents-holder-1313120

So about this. Got any thoughts?

Trump will likely be dead within seven years so it looks like he’ll survive this one way or another.

 

[Crazyhole]

Trump will likely be dead within seven years so it looks like he’ll survive this one way or another.

I just figured since you said you are an independent thinker you would say that Obama should also have been impeached on the grounds of "contempt of congress" for doing the exact same thing Trump did.

 

[DaShuckster]

I just figured since you said you are an independent thinker you would say that Obama should also have been impeached on the grounds of "contempt of congress" for doing the exact same thing Trump did.

I'm not the one touting debunked Giuliani conspiracy theories.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm not the one touting debunked Giuliani conspiracy theories.

Says the guy who can’t go a full day without submitting multiple Russia hoax posts.

 

[DaShuckster]

Says the guy who can’t go a full day without submitting multiple Russia hoax posts.

Awww, what a cute little Putin toadie!!!!

 

[firm_bizzle]

I have a problem with McConnell overtly working with the White House. He DGAF about perception. I'm not sure how that benefits him to be so overt.

 

[DaShuckster]

I have a problem with McConnell overtly working with the White House. He DGAF about perception.

Once upon a time, we could all agree on what was right and what was wrong. So if some politician did something wrong, it was naturally covered up and then -- if uncovered -- there would be a Mea Culpa or, in the case of Nixon, hell to pay.

Nowadays, politicians like Trump can brazenly commit wrong-doing and attribute any eyebrow-raising about the dirty deed to "politics." Anyone with any sense of morality what-so-ever knows in their gut it's wrong but since the President said it was "perfect," well I guess it must be open for debate, right?

Same with the Senate. The Senate is supposed to conduct an impartial impeachment trial. But Senate leader, McConnell goes on national TV and brazenly proclaims he plans to work hand-in-glove with WH lawyers.

Apparently the new normal is to state your corruption plans on the front end under the assumption that the public will think, "Well, golly, it must be okay since Mitch wouldn't announce he was going to circumvent the Constitution, would he?"

 

[UCFBS]

I have a problem with McConnell overtly working with the White House. He DGAF about perception. I'm not sure how that benefits him to be so overt.

^^^ Comments like this, ignorant of history, is why moderates, Libertarians and even true Liberals are not supporting the majority, Progressive left these days. It's like watching absolute hypocrisy.

Oh, don't worry, Trump will get blamed for impeachment not moving to the Senate, just like Trump was blamed for Obama not sending Paris to Congress either, or W. for Clinton's Kyoto getting shot down 0-98-2 in the Senate as well (the reason why Obama didn't bother -- his own party was against it).

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Nothing she is doing is unconstitutional.

In fact it's quite constitutional. Protecting us against criminal activity that hurts us as a nation.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

You're entitled to use whatever the hell adjectives you choose: coward, chicken-sh*t, pussy, bullsh*tter, etc.

But puh-leeeez spare us any sanctimonious chastising of another poster's trollish language.

Your posts reek of hypocrisy.

always IS hypocritical. It's the old republican double standard

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Refusing to bring in key witnesses???!? Jesus man, you clearly have no frickin' clue.

The House issued subpoenas to the following individuals for information related to their inquiry:
Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo (Sept. 27)
Rudy Giuliani (Sept. 30)
Vice President Mike Pence (Oct. 4)
WH Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney (Oct. 4)
Office of Management and Budget Director, Russell Vought (Oct. 7)

What did they get? NADA.

just amazing how these red hats don't see this. Simply amazing.

 

[Sir Galahad]

just amazing how these red hats don't see this. Simply amazing.

You do understand what executive privilege means correct. The house can issue subpoenas for anyone and the executive branch can ignore them. It’s up to the House to use the courts to force the subpoena, which they chose not to do.

 

[sk8knight]

I have a problem with McConnell overtly working with the White House. He DGAF about perception. I'm not sure how that benefits him to be so overt.

Did you have a problem when Leahy, Dodd, and Harkin were coordinating with the Clinton WH during that impeachment?

 

[UCFBS]

In fact it's quite constitutional. Protecting us against criminal activity that hurts us as a nation.

Where were they on past State Quid Pro Quo? Russian interference? Etc...?

Sorry, but it's one-sided BS at this point. They aren't letting any material witnesses in that actually back the Biden Quid Pro Quo.

But that's what impeachment is ... 100% political, 0% factual.

 

[UCFBS]

Did you have a problem when Leahy, Dodd, and Harkin were coordinating with the Clinton WH during that impeachment?

It's amazing how many Progressives don't know their history.

EDIT: Credit CNN, they're calling Schumer out too ...

• https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/chuck-schumer-impeachment-1999-kfile/index.html