Reality Check on Impeachment-Trial

[Zorro!]

This impeachment is the very first that no one takes seriously.

BTW.....the market opened up 200 points under this impeachment trial.

LOVE LETTERS: Nancy Pelosi’s Impeachment Pens Look Like Bullets.

Pelosi's Impeachment Pen "Bullets", she's one sick puppy!
​

Not only did Nancy Pelosi have commemorative (totally sober) impeachment pens made and carried in on silver trays for her to sign (one interminably long letter at a time while smiling like prom queen), but the pens look like a high-caliber rifle bullets. Think that was accidental?

Enjoy it Skank, payback is in 10 months!

Did you hear her speech????

Any truth to the rumor that that James Bond villain, Pelosi-galore, is about to bring charges against the meany who put the "s" in lisp???

Well we get a cameo by Octo-Pelosi?

DID YOU CATCH WHAT PUTIN AND PELOSI BOTH DID THE SAME DAY THIS WEEK?

Dating and power-grabbing parallels

Pelosi’s And Putin’s Remarkably Similar Abuses Of Power

​

.
Jan. 15, 2020, a date which will live in infamy on two continents. How oddly coincidental that the world witnessed massive abuses of constitutional power in both the United States and Russia on the same day.

In Moscow, Russian ruler Vladimir Putin suddenly unveiled changes to the Russian constitution that will for all practical purposes render his unrestrained rule permanent.

Putin tapped Russia’s little-known tax chief to become prime minister and he will likely ultimately succeed Putin in a diminished presidency. Like Dmitry Medvedev, who has resigned along with the entire cabinet to facilitate Putin’s restructuring, he can be expected to be essentially a Putin lackey.

As freedom in the former Soviet Union slipped further from the grasp of the people of the Russian federation, however, the speaker of the House in this country was simultaneously misusing the awesome power of impeachment provided by our Constitution.

Like Putin, Pelosi has timed her move for purposes of aggrandizing power, waiting until mid-January to let the Senate begin its trial – after insisting last year that the impeachment inquiry and subsequent House floor vote had to be hurried to take place before Christmas. Her hope was that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be intimidated into skewing the rules of a Senate trial to presume President Donald Trump’s guilt, and guarantee that House Democrats’ criteria for witnesses would be accepted. Despite a Republican Senate majority, this would improve the longshot odds of a trial spiraling out of control against Trump, and picking off a GOP senator or two. It would thus hurt Trump’s reelection chances, and help Democrats’ electoral fortunes overall.

McConnell prevailed. But also similar to Putin, Pelosi used a veneer of legitimacy to thwart her nation’s voters. Putin remains in power thanks to widespread ballot-stuffing, repeat voting and other manifestations of election fraud. Pelosi is using the rarely employed, extraordinary power of impeachment not to remedy “high crimes and misdemeanors,” as the Constitution directs, but to undo Trump’s lawful 2016 election – if not in actually removing him from office then by blemishing him enough to prevent his reelection. Or if that proves not possible, then by sabotaging Trump’s second term.

The smiles and ceremonial pens featured in Pelosi’s ill-considered signing ceremony that sent two articles of impeachment to the Senate – aping presidential bill signings – exposed the corrupt motives underneath.

Her goal is influencing voters to one of the chambers of the U.S. Congress conducting a full-blown charade.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

Well, except for the fact that withholding funds is not a crime because it has no criminal penalties. It is administrative law only.

 

[Zorro!]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

Between Romney, Murkowski, Collins and McSalley, they may get what they want. We'll see.

 

[Zorro!]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

What is wrong is to NOT admit evidence of wrong doing by The President when it is discovered, which is probative to the current two Articles of Impeachment sustained by the H. or Rep. Do you want Justice to Prevail, or not?

If they have evidence probative to the current articles, then the House should investigate. If the House needs more time to investigate, then a continuance is in order.

If they don't want a continuance, then the Senate will determine the outcome based on the House's investigation.

In the real world you can have whatever you can sell to 51 Senators.

 

[jknowgood]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

Just got to love this, you're guaranteeing Trump's reelection. Got being a stupid twit, lol.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

Between Romney, Murkowski, Collins and McSalley, they may get what they want. We'll see.

McSalley? She's not a RINO like the others. Did you see what she did to the CNN reporter yesterday?

 

[Zorro!]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

Just got to love this, you're guaranteeing Trump's reelection. Got being a stupid twit, lol.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

And Fake News CNN is too dumb to realize that is Trump broke the law by briefly withholding aid, then Biden broke the law by using aid as a threat to get the prosecutor fired.

 

[White 6]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

Pull back, my butt. It is in the Senate's home now. There is no pull back. If the Democratic manager wish to try to filter newer information and evidence into the process, I am sure they will make the attempt. I am equally sure the Republicans will block as much as possible, whenever possible. The Democrats will make no attempt or consideration of pulling anything back. That is a Republican pipe dream.

 

[Zorro!]

This Tawdry Impeachment Spectacle Must Run Its Course.

 

[Zorro!]

This Tawdry Impeachment Spectacle Must Run Its Course.

The legal case is nonsense and the outcome foreordained, it is only a public relations battle now. The farther the administration is seen to enable an airing of the facts, the better and more electorally valuable will be the result. The Democrats created this trap for themselves; they should be allowed to take the consequences when that trap snaps closed on them.

This is the Democrats’ nuclear option—the ultimate weapon—and it has been bandied about as a threat against Trump even before he won the presidency, as we learned from that pillar of disinterested jurisprudential sophistication, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas).

For Trump-haters, there is nothing he is not guilty of; for his supporters, the entire subject is egregious and defamatory piffle. The opposition to impeachment has drifted gradually toward the president’s side, so the wall-to-wall Democratic bias of almost all the national media has failed to hold back the tide of perception that these charges are legal and constitutional nonsense.

For any reader who has been in a submarine or outer space or Antarctica for the last six months, the charges are abuse of office and contempt of Congress. The first is not a ground for impeachment unless specified as treason, bribery, or another high crime or equivalent misdemeanor—and none such is alleged. As to the second charge, the only thing the president is actually guilty of is contempt of Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi for running a rigged partisan mudslinging operation where the president received none of the protections accorded to defendants by the Bill of Rights; failure to be contemptuous of it would itself be contemptible.

The president was only asking for the facts about the Bidens’ conduct in Ukraine, not for an indictment of the Bidens. Any application of pressure is denied by the Ukrainian president, and in any case, the allegedly withheld assistance to Ukraine was delivered and the investigation requested did not occur. If they weren’t so obnoxiously sanctimonious, Nadler and Schiff would be eligible for theatrical awards for deadpan comedy in presenting such bunk as grave adjudication.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Well, those of you who are against impeachment just got some good news, you can finally rest now knowing that a law was actually violated by withholding the money.

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid - CNNPolitics

So I guess, no more using that excuse.

Did you read the statute that was 'violated,' dunce?


It specifies the response, and it is not impeachment.
"...the comptroller general is empowered ...to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation."
2 U.S. Code § 687 - Suits by Comptroller General


This is where you say "duhhhhhhh..."

 

[Dick Foster]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

 

[Rye Catcher]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

All evidence in such a serious matter needs to be presented to the Senate, and to the People of the United States. Your reasoning is based on your concern that more incriminating evidence will be discovered, isn't that correct?

McConnell it seems has the ability to set the Calendar. I suspect he knows how to best protect The President, given his past statements, loyalty to his party, and more so to keeping his job as leader.

If the House hasn't completed their investigation, and they aren't ready for trial, then this needs to be continued.

We don't have trials in this country with evolving charges during the trial because the prosecutors are concerned that they rushed to trial so fast that they won't get a conviction!

But, ultimately it will be whatever 51 votes in the Senate determines it will be.

These crazed Democrats are doing Putin's bidding with all this division. Now there is crazy talk about continual impeachment once these silly charges are voted down. That's stupid. If they want to investigate other charges, they should do so, with the Senate taking it up once the process has properly ripened.

There should be nothing voted on in the Senate that was not voted on in the House. By that I mean that, if the democrats have something new they want to include, they should pull back the articles, present the evidence to the House, re-vote on the articles, THEN send them over for the trial. Expecting the Senate to vote on evidence that was not presented to the House for consideration is wrong.

What is wrong is to NOT admit evidence of wrong doing by The President when it is discovered, which is probative to the current two Articles of Impeachment sustained by the H. or Rep. Do you want Justice to Prevail, or not?

If they have evidence probative to the current articles, then the House should investigate. If the House needs more time to investigate, then a continuance is in order.

If they don't want a continuance, then the Senate will determine the outcome based on the House's investigation.

In the real world you can have whatever you can sell to 51 Senators.

Why? If the potential evidence is discovered, why stop and investigate what has already been uncovered? The finding will be included in Discovery, and presented to the jury in the trial. In cases of testimony, under oath, the witness will be subjected to direct examination and a cross examination, and many times to a Redirect and a Recross Examination of the Witness.

 

[hadit]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

 

[hadit]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment trial should be postponed until House finishes investigation

So what we have here is a case where the Democrats claimed to have a "rock solid" case for removal of the President, which was incorporated into two Articles of Impeachment.

Then the Impeachers realized that there was a lot of additional testimony and evidence that could further their case, and they "demanded" that the additional testimony and evidence be produced during the Senate "trial." But this is nonsense. The Senate trial is intended to asses the case that has been made in the House, and to vote on it.

If the House thinks the case need bolstering, they should NOT have voted to send the Articles to the Senate, but rather to withdraw them so they could be modified to make the best possible case for removal, based on all the evidence available NOW.

The fact that they didn't do this says a lot about what this is all about. It is starting to look like one of the main purposes of this whole matter is keeping the Senators tied up in the impeachment trial during what could be the most important campaigning dates of the 2020 primaries - thus assisting Joe Biden in getting the eventual nomination. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat party want Biden as their man.

But regardless, the failure to recall the Articles in light of "new evidence" exposes a lot about the Democrats' motives and strategy. While Impeachment may be "forever" (in Pelosi's words), so will Trump's triumphant victory in November - and it will expose her as the biggest fool in America's political history.

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

 

[hadit]

Truth be told the idiot Democrats never had a case and they never will regardless of how many or who they call. Time to end the farce and get down to business.
I sure do wish November would hurry up and get here so we can send those assholes packing.

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

The premise presented was that the democrats keep the House next year. I certainly expect the democrat supporters to keep behaving irrationally. They've shown very little inclination to do otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Trump wins, and the House remains in Democrat paws, how many milliseconds will pass before the next 'impeachment'?

I suspect quite a few will pass, if the president has a solid win and the democrats hold the House by a narrow margin. Pelosi didn't want to impeach this time around, and she knows they would have to have a real case with a real crime to try again.

Why?

Her reluctance was based on recognizing that impeachment aided Clinton....and she was working to stop Trump's re-election.

If he is re-elected, the personal animus and desire to hand-cuff Trump will remain.

What would she have to lose???

Control of the House. She has to know that, no matter how much they hate Trump, if he survives this and gets re-elected, going after him again with anything short of a really solid case would harm them significantly and she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22.

"...would harm them significantly ..."

How would it be any different from this time???


"...she'd probably lose her Speakership in 22."

She just had her 79th birthday...and you must have noticed how insane the Democrat supporters on this board are.

They'd keep screaming at the sky.

The premise presented was that the democrats keep the House next year. I certainly expect the democrat supporters to keep behaving irrationally. They've shown very little inclination to do otherwise.

Same for Democrat politicians: why would anything change.

We'll simply be entertained, adding to this list:


First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, one after another lead balloons.



The Democrats provide a whole new meaning to "infinity."