Donald J. Trump has been impeached by the House

Yappi said:
So if she never passed them along to the Senate, would it technically count as an impeachment?

Kind of like a pitcher that is throwing a no-hitter through 4 innings and it gets rained out never to be made up. I would vote that it does not count as an impeachment!
Click to expand...
She is running scared from a trial. She knows what happens if the Republicans start calling people from their wish list. And since they've made a big deal of "obstruction" they couldn't turn down the invitation. I'm sure the senators who would be pulled off the campaign trail have begged out as well.

The whole thing is a sham. It's not about national security, abuse of power or anything else. It's about hurting their political rival...ironic.
 
Harrycrane said:
Anyone notice that the ranking official and Schiff's Republican counterpart Devin Nunes was absent from the proceedings? Of course his own involvement in the whole scheme forced hi to the bench . Nunes is only comfortable wandering over to Fox News or calling in to them pretending he is clean . Nunes may be the top stooge not being there to vouch for Trump is surreal .

Also very telling was the Republicans only defense of Trump was telling everyone that it is just hate of the man personally and the process was a sham . No standing up for the man he is , his integrity, or challenging facts. They simply said they had no facts which is absurd. Collins is a speed talker which usually means you speak fast because you aren't really saying much of substance . Not a peep about a perfect call or the fact that they thought eh did 'Nothing " wrong . They know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot and a Dem President went to a foreign leader and got caught trying to manipulate and withhold congressional passed aid to another country in exchange for announcing an investigation to a top Republican candidate?

They would lose their sheet, not just shrug and let him do it . Is that what the echo chamber suggests ? That it's a nothingburger? Never mind then the President obstructing the investigation the way that he has . Has anyone thought that if Trump had just let all the information be released , let his men with first hand knowledge testify and cooperate that may be this wouldn't have happened ? May be they would have bene very adroit liars and the Dems would throw their hands up and say 'OK we can't go forward?

Nah , the dozen witnesses would have probably told the truth and the facts would show that the President wasn't really interested in the corruption angle { Trump is pro corruption, doesn't care about it , he is a corruption professional and has been his entire 'Career"} but just wanted the American public to think that the Biden[s} were being investigated after the fact for something Trump never brought up because actually Biden wasn't the decider of giving Ukraine anything and the world was with him and us concerning that investigator .

In other words Hunter Biden isn't a perfect person and he got the job because of his name but there is o proof that Joe Biden used that fact to do anything wrong while he was Vice President. Trump knew this and just wanted an investigation to be announced knowing it wasn't really one .

Donald not being very smart really got caught and that's that . He goes down in history as an impeached President even if he does become King and get an unlimited term lol
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy in your post is ripe.
 
winbypin said:
Smart? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...
Let me explain:

Option 1: Crafty Nancy sends the articles of impeachment to Moscow Mitch and he runs his sham process where he calls no witnesses and the jurors, who have already violated their oath by saying they are not impartial, vote and do not remove Trump.

Option 2 (scenario 1): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. Trump is impeached but not removed just the same as Option 1, but he never gets acquitted and a pending trial is hanging over his head in an election year.

Option 2 (scenario 2): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. She only sends them if Moscow Mitch changes his sham plan and he lives up to his oath. Or...courts rule on witnesses or additional evidence is revealed that further bolster the case for the Senate and she send them then.

There is ZERO downside for her and only upside. This is why it is really smart. Now...before you all claim that she is breaking rules or doing something egregiously wrong. There is no law that stipulates when the articles have to be delivered to the Senate. Plus, Moscow Mitch has set a precedent. When Obama nominated Merritt Garland, he was supposed to have a confirmation hearing and a vote. He never did. He sat on it for a year until after the election. Nancy is very crafty.
 
Last edited:
ProV1 said:
Let me explain:

Option 1: Crafty Nancy sends the articles of impeachment to Moscow Mitch and he runs his sham process where he calls no witnesses and the jurors, who have already violated their oath by saying they are not impartial, vote and do not remove Trump.

Option 2 (scenario 1): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. Trump is impeached but not removed just the same as Option 1, but he never gets acquitted and a pending trial is hanging over his head in an election year.

Option 2 (scenario 2): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. She only sends them if Moscow Mitch changes his sham plan and he lives up to his oath. Or...courts rule on witnesses or additional evidence is revealed that further bolster the case for the Senate and she sends them then.

There is ZERO downside for her and only upside. This is why it is really smart. Now...before you all claim that she is breaking rules or doing something egregiously wrong. There is no law that stipulates when the articles have to be delivered to the Senate. Plus, Moscow Mitch has set a precedent. When Obama nominated Merritt Garland, he was supposed to have a confirmation hearing and a vote. He never did. He sat on it for a year until after the election. Nancy is very crafty.
Click to expand...
You think being seen playing games with something as serious, by her own admission, as impeachment has zero downside?

It might play well in far left circles but the majority of the electorate will see right through it.
 
y2h said:
You think being seen playing games with something as serious, by her own admission, as impeachment has zero downside?

It might play well in far left circles but the majority of the electorate will see right through it.
Click to expand...
She is following the rules and if she is “playing games” she learned them from Moscow Mitch. I wonder if you said the same thing about him?
 
It was already a political comedy show, Pelosi holds onto the indictment is just another act.
The Senate cannot tell the House how to do the House's business; the House cannot tell the Senate how to do their business.

I did like the interview where Shurmer slammed Lindsey Graham for announcing his vote before the trial and how he should be disqualified from the process; the reporter brought up that in the Clinton trial, Shurmer announced before the trial how he would vote, he said that was different. "second verse, same as the first"*

The political comedy show will continue with some new players


* bonus points for identifying the song
 
Termite2 said:
It was already a political comedy show, Pelosi holds onto the indictment is just another act.
The Senate cannot tell the House how to do the House's business; the House cannot tell the Senate how to do their business.

I did like the interview where Shurmer slammed Lindsey Graham for announcing his vote before the trial and how he should be disqualified from the process; the reporter brought up that in the Clinton trial, Shurmer announced before the trial how he would vote, he said that was different. "second verse, same as the first"*

The political comedy show will continue with some new players


* bonus points for identifying the song
Click to expand...
I’m Henry the 8th I am.
 
ProV1 said:
Let me explain:

Option 1: Crafty Nancy sends the articles of impeachment to Moscow Mitch and he runs his sham process where he calls no witnesses and the jurors, who have already violated their oath by saying they are not impartial, vote and do not remove Trump.

Option 2 (scenario 1): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. Trump is impeached but not removed just the same as Option 1, but he never gets acquitted and a pending trial is hanging over his head in an election year.

Option 2 (scenario 2): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. She only sends them if Moscow Mitch changes his sham plan and he lives up to his oath. Or...courts rule on witnesses or additional evidence is revealed that further bolster the case for the Senate and she send them then.

There is ZERO downside for her and only upside. This is why it is really smart. Now...before you all claim that she is breaking rules or doing something egregiously wrong. There is no law that stipulates when the articles have to be delivered to the Senate. Plus, Moscow Mitch has set a precedent. When Obama nominated Merritt Garland, he was supposed to have a confirmation hearing and a vote. He never did. He sat on it for a year until after the election. Nancy is very crafty.
Click to expand...
It's cute that you think I wanted a deeper explanation as to why you (or your source) thinks this is really smart.

The house impeachment was the sham. Depending where an individual sits politically their mind is already made up as it relates to the whole process. Trump getting an acquittal or Nancy sitting on her won't change minds. In fact, I think Nancy doing nothing further shows America they aren't interested in actually doing their jobs (again).

So yea....smart? Nah.
 
I have a hard time understanding how playing more games with this process is smart. Polls are showing people more and more not supporting this. Nancys tactics certainly don’t help their cause.
 
Yappi said:
So if she never passed them along to the Senate, would it technically count as an impeachment?

Kind of like a pitcher that is throwing a no-hitter through 4 innings and it gets rained out never to be made up. I would vote that it does not count as an impeachment!
Click to expand...
I'm trying to take them at their word that they believe this impeachment requires a speedy removal of the POTUS for the saftey of our country. This sends conflicting signals. By sitting on it seems like perhaps you really don't believe this is an emergency or urgent. Furthermore, is she not negligent in performing her sworn duties or is "sitting" on an impeachment a power given to the speaker?

Agree it doesn't feel like a real impeachment if it never arrives at the Senate.
 
CedarBuck92 said:
Part of me wants to see a quick but fair trial. The other part wants to see Mitch subpoena every single person even remotely related to this and get every possible testimony on record.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, a long trial presents a real dilemma for Warren and Sanders. They are. not allowed to campaign during the trial because it would be considered a conflict of interest.
 
ProV1 said:
She is following the rules.
Click to expand...

Patently false.

Per the rules, her work is done. Per the rules, she now must hand her case to the Senate. Per the rules, she doesn't get to direct the Senate trial in any way, shape, or form.

Nancy is making up new rules, and her pile of stupidity is getting bigger.
 
Harrycrane said:
Anyone notice that the ranking official and Schiff's Republican counterpart Devin Nunes was absent from the proceedings? Of course his own involvement in the whole scheme forced hi to the bench . Nunes is only comfortable wandering over to Fox News or calling in to them pretending he is clean . Nunes may be the top stooge not being there to vouch for Trump is surreal .

Also very telling was the Republicans only defense of Trump was telling everyone that it is just hate of the man personally and the process was a sham . No standing up for the man he is , his integrity, or challenging facts. They simply said they had no facts which is absurd. Collins is a speed talker which usually means you speak fast because you aren't really saying much of substance . Not a peep about a perfect call or the fact that they thought eh did 'Nothing " wrong . They know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot and a Dem President went to a foreign leader and got caught trying to manipulate and withhold congressional passed aid to another country in exchange for announcing an investigation to a top Republican candidate?

They would lose their sheet, not just shrug and let him do it . Is that what the echo chamber suggests ? That it's a nothingburger? Never mind then the President obstructing the investigation the way that he has . Has anyone thought that if Trump had just let all the information be released , let his men with first hand knowledge testify and cooperate that may be this wouldn't have happened ? May be they would have bene very adroit liars and the Dems would throw their hands up and say 'OK we can't go forward?

Nah , the dozen witnesses would have probably told the truth and the facts would show that the President wasn't really interested in the corruption angle { Trump is pro corruption, doesn't care about it , he is a corruption professional and has been his entire 'Career"} but just wanted the American public to think that the Biden[s} were being investigated after the fact for something Trump never brought up because actually Biden wasn't the decider of giving Ukraine anything and the world was with him and us concerning that investigator .

In other words Hunter Biden isn't a perfect person and he got the job because of his name but there is o proof that Joe Biden used that fact to do anything wrong while he was Vice President. Trump knew this and just wanted an investigation to be announced knowing it wasn't really one .

Donald not being very smart really got caught and that's that . He goes down in history as an impeached President even if he does become King and get an unlimited term lol
Click to expand...
Chris Matthews said a lot of these same things...but Harry doesn't watch MSNBC. Right
 
Harrycrane said:
Anyone notice that the ranking official and Schiff's Republican counterpart Devin Nunes was absent from the proceedings? Of course his own involvement in the whole scheme forced hi to the bench . Nunes is only comfortable wandering over to Fox News or calling in to them pretending he is clean . Nunes may be the top stooge not being there to vouch for Trump is surreal .

Also very telling was the Republicans only defense of Trump was telling everyone that it is just hate of the man personally and the process was a sham . No standing up for the man he is , his integrity, or challenging facts. They simply said they had no facts which is absurd. Collins is a speed talker which usually means you speak fast because you aren't really saying much of substance . Not a peep about a perfect call or the fact that they thought eh did 'Nothing " wrong . They know damn well if the shoe was on the other foot and a Dem President went to a foreign leader and got caught trying to manipulate and withhold congressional passed aid to another country in exchange for announcing an investigation to a top Republican candidate?

They would lose their sheet, not just shrug and let him do it . Is that what the echo chamber suggests ? That it's a nothingburger? Never mind then the President obstructing the investigation the way that he has . Has anyone thought that if Trump had just let all the information be released , let his men with first hand knowledge testify and cooperate that may be this wouldn't have happened ? May be they would have bene very adroit liars and the Dems would throw their hands up and say 'OK we can't go forward?

Nah , the dozen witnesses would have probably told the truth and the facts would show that the President wasn't really interested in the corruption angle { Trump is pro corruption, doesn't care about it , he is a corruption professional and has been his entire 'Career"} but just wanted the American public to think that the Biden[s} were being investigated after the fact for something Trump never brought up because actually Biden wasn't the decider of giving Ukraine anything and the world was with him and us concerning that investigator .

In other words Hunter Biden isn't a perfect person and he got the job because of his name but there is o proof that Joe Biden used that fact to do anything wrong while he was Vice President. Trump knew this and just wanted an investigation to be announced knowing it wasn't really one .

Donald not being very smart really got caught and that's that . He goes down in history as an impeached President even if he does become King and get an unlimited term lol
Click to expand...

You really are delusional. The Republicans kept repeating about how biased this was because it was there are no substantive facts it’s all speculation because, wait for it, yes because not only they hate him but he’s uncovering the Democrat corruption.
You won’t find many people who will stand up for Trump’s personality and management style but he is doing what he promised and you won’t find many if any other politician that does.
 
The Trump Brand:

5290
 
The "House" did not vote to impeach, the democrats in the house voted to impeach. Label this thread correctly.
 
ProV1 said:
Let me explain:

Option 1: Crafty Nancy sends the articles of impeachment to Moscow Mitch and he runs his sham process where he calls no witnesses and the jurors, who have already violated their oath by saying they are not impartial, vote and do not remove Trump.

Option 2 (scenario 1): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. Trump is impeached but not removed just the same as Option 1, but he never gets acquitted and a pending trial is hanging over his head in an election year.

Option 2 (scenario 2): Crafty Nancy, knowing the Senate will acquit, just sits on the articles. She only sends them if Moscow Mitch changes his sham plan and he lives up to his oath. Or...courts rule on witnesses or additional evidence is revealed that further bolster the case for the Senate and she send them then.

There is ZERO downside for her and only upside. This is why it is really smart. Now...before you all claim that she is breaking rules or doing something egregiously wrong. There is no law that stipulates when the articles have to be delivered to the Senate. Plus, Moscow Mitch has set a precedent. When Obama nominated Merritt Garland, he was supposed to have a confirmation hearing and a vote. He never did. He sat on it for a year until after the election. Nancy is very crafty.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


?
 
Gulliotine said:
Patently false.

Per the rules, her work is done. Per the rules, she now must hand her case to the Senate. Per the rules, she doesn't get to direct the Senate trial in any way, shape, or form.

Nancy is making up new rules, and her pile of stupidity is getting bigger.
Click to expand...
And I’m sure she will at some point. This is unlike Moscow Mitch, who per the rules was supposed have a hearing and vote. He never did.
 
A hearing and vote on what? If you are speaking about the impeachment from what I have hear he has not received anything yet, so he can't even think about a hearing and vote. I keep reading how Trump has been impeached but if you are a senator I would guess it is still just rumors being spread by the D's because no box containing the impeachment has yet arrived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top