So far she is trying to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.

Basically she wants to try and influence the senate and make sure the congress somehow controls what's next. The thing is congress did its job. Their oversight is now over. 

11 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Basically she wants to try and influence the senate and make sure the congress somehow controls what's next. The thing is congress did its job. Their oversight is now over. 

Congress’s job is far from over. Nancy has to appoint a prosecution team from amongst house lawmakers yet, to prosecute the trial in the senate... even if the jury pool is tainted.

 

 

Just now, jany123 said:

Congress’s job is far from over. Nancy has to appoint a prosecution team from amongst house lawmakers yet, to prosecute the trial in the senate... even if the jury pool is tainted.

 

 

 

If she doesn't send the articles then I hope it is true the senate will simply set a date and if there is a no show it's over. They had their circus in the house and fair enough they have a majority. The problem is it's show time for the senate and they get to be the MC for the evening of entertainment now. 

 

This is such a comical fail. I should be outraged but I am just laughing at all of this. The dem debate tonight should be good for a few laughs as well. 

10 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

If she doesn't send the articles then I hope it is true the senate will simply set a date and if there is a no show it's over. They had their circus in the house and fair enough they have a majority. The problem is it's show time for the senate and they get to be the MC for the evening of entertainment now. 

 

This is such a comical fail. I should be outraged but I am just laughing at all of this. The dem debate tonight should be good for a few laughs as well. 

Wrong. Congress has other things do do before it can send the articles to senate.

 

The senate cannot do anything with no charges before it.

 

I hope congress just refuses to send it for trial. Then trump will blow his hair out of place by being the president impeached but not acquitted.

Just now, Sujo said:

Wrong. Congress has other things do do before it can send the articles to senate.

 

The senate cannot do anything with no charges before it.

 

I hope congress just refuses to send it for trial. Then trump will blow his hair out of place by being the president impeached but not acquitted.

 

Of course the senate doesn't do anything if they don't send it. This whole thing could be over before it comes to that. That's a good outcome for all. It would make the dems look pretty inept however. We had to do this so urgently for national security and can't walk the articles across the hall. What a win. LOL 

Nancy also has the option of now waiting until the whitehouse lawyer gets a supreme court decision on answering the subpoena.

 

If that comes back for congress then mulvaney pompeo etc will have to give evidence. 

 

Then she can send to the senate.  I think she just played a great game.

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Of course the senate doesn't do anything if they don't send it. This whole thing could be over before it comes to that. That's a good outcome for all. It would make the dems look pretty inept however. We had to do this so urgently for national security and can't walk the articles across the hall. What a win. LOL 

He was impeached. So what is the urgency to have him acquitted because senators will commit perjury against their oath they take before trial.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Nancy also has the option of now waiting until the whitehouse lawyer gets a supreme court decision on answering the subpoena.

 

If that comes back for congress then mulvaney pompeo etc will have to give evidence. 

 

Then she can send to the senate.  I think she just played a great game.

 

She would have done that in the first place but knows she won't get the decision she wants out of the SCOTUS

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

He was impeached. So what is the urgency to have him acquitted because senators will commit perjury against their oath they take before trial.

 

You think in circles. I am done replying to you at the moment if this is the level of discourse. 

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Of course the senate doesn't do anything if they don't send it. This whole thing could be over before it comes to that. That's a good outcome for all. It would make the dems look pretty inept however. We had to do this so urgently for national security and can't walk the articles across the hall. What a win. LOL 

 

Hopefully McConnell passes a resolution for acquittal citing delinquency and ineptitude of congress (Pelosi).

In sporting terms it's called a walkover. Once again Trump walks all over Pelosi. Great play.

 

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Hopefully McConnell passes a resolution for acquittal citing delinquency and ineptitude of congress (Pelosi).

In sporting terms it's called a walkover. Once again Trump walks all over Pelosi. Great play.

 

 

Any claim that this is somehow some great play of cunning, political genius on the part of Pelosi is divorced from the grim reality that she put the party in tatters. Nice little impeachment rally on Wall Street today as the dems in general and Warren in particular get smaller in the rear view mirror.

 

Pelosi can either graciously fold her hand or she can get called and show the bluff.

 

Edited December 19, 20196 yr by Cryingdick

So what did all this accomplish?

 

Trump won't be removed from office, and he'll cash in on the martyrdom of this whole misguided exercise to make his allies even more determined to put him back in the White House in 2020. The Dems know the GOP senate would never convict him, and hasn't Pelosi even decided not to pursue the results of their vote with the senate (knowing it's a useless gesture)?

 

It's heartbreaking that so many of these US Democratic party politicians are so blinded by their hatred for Trump, that they couldn't see clear enough to make good decisions and may have inadvertently stoked his re-election fire. I guess they were hoping to expose him for the a**hole he is and besmirch his reputation enough to give him no chance in 2020, but I think they failed....unfortunately. 

 

Edited December 19, 20196 yr by Inn Between

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

His followers do possess cult attributes. If the shoe fits.

 

They lie, then when given facts continue to repeat lies.

 

They refuse to acknowledge evidence and just say its fake news. They dont care what he does, they blindly follow regardless of the facts and evidence and will rely on alternative facts.

 

A cult indeed.

 

Oh please. Most things I let go but this comment is just egregiously ridiculous that it requires someone to state definitively how inane it is. No, not all Trump supporters lie and then continue to lie in the face of "facts".  Instead, what happens is that Trump supporters values differ from the values of Trump detractors.   The Trump detractors then try and raise their values to the level of objective facts and claim that his supporters are in denial.

 

I don't like Trump. But I also don't like people who make ridiculous claims bashing him. He is a psycopath and a demagogue. He is also the president, and he got there because those who hate him have failed, and continue to fail, to recognize what they did wrong in the past decades that allowed this situation to come about.

 

Everyone needs to ask themselves, what exactly did we do wrong over the last 50 years that allowed a group of rational, honest, genuinely good people to believe that electing Trump president was the best alternative?  Rather than simply bashing everyone who doesn't share your values, try a bit of honesty yourself and ask what needs to change in order to fix this division in the country. I'll give you a hint...it isn't an impeachment. This is political theater which will just make the situation worse. We all know he isn't going to be convicted.

 

Edited December 19, 20196 yr by Monomial

Its very much appreciated that after the gradual demise of the quality of stuff coming out of Hollywood that America has provided real life observational comedy in the form of the much vaunted 'Dimacracie' to fill the void.

 

Reagan was funny, Arnie as Governor was hilarious.

 

But I have to say, putting the nearest current thing you have to Oliver Hardy with the permanently angry wife figure (Pelosi) as his nemesis is a masterstroke.

 

Thanks for the laughs but it will be stale by next year.

 

How about you vote in Gabriel Inglesias next time so we can all enjoy the show? ????

15 hours ago, steven100 said:

Impeachment in the US, Brexit nightmare in the UK, Australia's economy is shot to pieces !

can someone give out some good news for a change

Picture earth 2016-2020: division, tariff, hates, regression, and twitter politcian. 

 

Luckily there aren't a nuclear war already compare to 1914-1930. 

17 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Beyond farcical. This spells doom to the democrat party. I don't think anybody even has any idea why he is being impeached? Because Ambassador Sondland "presumed" there was quid pro quo? Just shocking how bad the democrat party has handled this and let down the American people.

 I trust in the judgement the American people will decide in November 2020. Roll on the Trump Train!!

 

Ok, tell us your chosen conspiracy theory 

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Hopefully McConnell passes a resolution for acquittal citing delinquency and ineptitude of congress (Pelosi).

In sporting terms it's called a walkover. Once again Trump walks all over Pelosi. Great play.

 

This scenario would probably be the best result for the democrats, handing them a huge PR bashing stick come the next senatorial election ????

14 hours ago, chokrai said:

Well congrats to Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Democrats. Mission accomplished you have managed to make half of the country hate the other half. Well done. I hope you all live long enough to reap what you have sown.

I think you mistaken someone rides division & hate to the potus chair. And set a silly example for the world. Or just having really warped memory. 

 

Not mention to stir global hostility like start tariff war vs. world, rage quitting Paris agreement, refusing proven scientific evidence of global warming, and befriending conspiracist A. Jones who's also very good at hate speech

16 hours ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

If you knowingly collude with a foreign government to seek domestic political advantage over a rival, you deserve to be impeached. Very few with a fully functioning brain can deny what has happened, they just show their lack of moral fibre, when trying to defend the undefendable.

What collusion?  And are you saying if someone commits a crime, all they need to do is run for President and they cannot be investigated?

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Huge news! 

Pelosi the most consequential woman politician in American history has signalled she will NOT be sending this to the senate for trial unless and until the senate passing rules that assure a reasonably fair trial.

Thats rich coming from the party of Schiff.  You know the one who didnt let the Republicans call any witnesses, allowed one of their witnesses to question another witness.  Brought in "law professors" with no first hand knowledge of what happened.  One of which is on camera saying she hates Trump so much she needs to cross the street when passing one of his hotels.  

 

Yea, the Democrats really care about a fair trial.  News flash, its all a crock of ____.  She isnt sending the artilces because she knows a fair trial will show everyone what a farce this whole thing has been.  

Some more detailed and interesting tactics that might be available to Pelosi to nudge the senate to have a fairer trial. Keep these things in mind. About 75 percent of the public including republicans want to hear more from those close to 45 witnesses such as Mulvaney and Bolton. While removal is almost impossible because of the 2/3 rule in the senate, getting fairer senate RULES is actually in the realm of possibility. Just a few republican votes of senators like Romney. Because impeachment is so rare in American history the actual rules are so limited that Pelosi still has a lot of legal options. Will she be as aggressive as suggested in this article? I don't know. It's a tricky situation. Stay tuned.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/19/heres-how-long-pelosi-should-hold-onto-articles/

 

Here’s how long Pelosi should hold onto the articles of impeachment

11 minutes ago, yourauntbob said:

Thats rich coming from the party of Schiff.  You know the one who didnt let the Republicans call any witnesses, allowed one of their witnesses to question another witness.  Brought in "law professors" with no first hand knowledge of what happened.  One of which is on camera saying she hates Trump so much she needs to cross the street when passing one of his hotels.  

 

Yea, the Democrats really care about a fair trial.  News flash, its all a crock of ____.  She isnt sending the artilces because she knows a fair trial will show everyone what a farce this whole thing has been.  

You seem confused. The house didn't run any kind of trial. That wasn't their role. They have developed and passed articles of impeachment. The trial phase happens in the senate (if it ever gets sent there). It's also not true that the republicans weren't allowed any witnesses, just not all that they wanted. Yes the house majority called in impeachment constitutional law scholars, three that supported this impeachment and one that didn't. 

 

As far as a fair trial for 45 in the senate, if 45 is so clean, why is the white house so afraid of having Bolton and Mulvaney testify? Answer is obvious -- he is NOT clean!

Edited December 19, 20196 yr by Jingthing

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Some more detailed and interesting tactics that might be available to Pelosi to nudge the senate to have a fairer trial. Keep these things in mind. About 75 percent of the public including republicans want to hear more from those close to 45 witnesses such as Mulvaney and Bolton. While removal is almost impossible because of the 2/3 rule in the senate, getting fairer senate RULES is actually in the realm of possibility. Just a few republican votes of senators like Romney. Because impeachment is so rare in American history the actual rules are so limited that Pelosi still has a lot of legal options. Will she be as aggressive as suggested in this article? I don't know. It's a tricky situation. Stay tuned.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/19/heres-how-long-pelosi-should-hold-onto-articles/

 

Here’s how long Pelosi should hold onto the articles of impeachment

 

WAPO composing their Christmas shopping list....nothing else. LOL. 

 

As there is no precedent for this bizarre act by Pelosi, I suggest Chief Justice Roberts start acting like a judge and order the articles to be submitted within a reasonable time frame if the trial is to proceed. Otherwise declare it a mistrial and expunge the whole damn thing from the record.

Edited December 19, 20196 yr by JHolmesJr

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

WAPO composing their Christmas shopping list....nothing else. LOL. 

 

As there is no precedent for this bizarre act by Pelosi, I suggest Chief Justice Roberts start acting like a judge and order the articles to be submitted within a reasonable time frame if the trial is to proceed. Otherwise declare it a mistrial and expunge the whole damn thing from the record.

If this isn't sent to the senate (I think it will be eventually) there is no trial to call a mistrial. As far as the voted on and passed articles of impeachment by the house, there is nothing that can ever be done to undo that part of it. 

2 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

WAPO composing their Christmas shopping list....nothing else. LOL.

 

While the dems were busy beating their chest and being distracted by shiny objects the senate was getting it done. Regardless if Trump wins or loses (and even the most fanatic liberals seem to be realizing he is very likely to win) there is still nearly a year to stack the courts. 

 

"My motto for the remainder of this Congress is 'leave no vacancy behind,'" McConnell told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday. 

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/senate-mcconnell-judges/index.html

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

But one thing is certain, they do not want any witnesses of trumps inner circle called. The witnesses that have direct knowledge. Noooo they dont want that. They dont want to know the truth.

They know the truth. That's why they don't want any testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc....

 

 

7 minutes ago, yourauntbob said:

 

 

 

Yeah Trump didn't seem too shook last night when he delivered another great appearance in Michigan. I have gotten so many laughs at of this thread you can't even imagine. Do the dems realize people are now basically openly mocking them?

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If this isn't sent to the senate (I think it will be eventually) there is no trial to call a mistrial. As far as the voted on and passed articles of impeachment by the house, there is nothing that can ever be done to undo that part of it. 

 

They better hurry up then and send the articles over.

As there is no provision in the constitution that sets a timeframe for the articles to be sent over,

(and pelosi won't follow precedent)....similarly there is no precedent for how the senate will react

to this provocation.

Anyway...a flimsy case will still be a flimsy case even a year later. Let the Dems enjoy their unconsummated marriage with impeachment. ????