Rules??? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!!!

[SAYIT]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

 

[BluesLegend]

The Dem impeachment has become a shit show.

 

[OldLady]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

 

[BluesLegend]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

 

[OldLady]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

 

[Thunk]

the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

Neither did ambassador Yovonovitch or lt. colonel vindman.

Neither did the "constitutional expert" who said naming his son "Barron" was an impeachable offense.

In fact...the ONLY fact witness the democrats had was Sonland.

 

[BluesLegend]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

Come on OWN what you said, here I'll quote you, "I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand."

 

[Maxdeath]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

So you know who they were going to call? Are you privy to this information because of your position in the Republican hierarchy or is it tin foil hat clairvoyance? The Democrats called how many witnesses with second hand, third hand information. Who is to say that those the Republicans would have called did not have at least that amount of information?

 

[Obiwan]

 

[Obiwan]

 

[SAYIT]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

If Fat J-Nads said he violated well-established House rules because he had a bad Domino's Pizza (or 2) last night you'd agree with it.

The Dems do not get to choose the Repub witnesses.

 

[CWayne]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

LOL

The people that the Democrats called had no relevance to the matter at hand.

 

[Ken Mac]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

Gee. I sure would liked to have had the opportunity to hear those people testify. Then I would be able to make up my mind on relevance. But now only partisan, ignorant people can make up their mind because they already made it up long ago regardless of facts.

 

[SAYIT]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

Come on OWN what you said, here I'll quote you, "I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand."

Yanno, OldLady is generally among the few rational Dems remaining but it seems TDS now has her too, Very sad.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

 

[SAYIT]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

If the Dems had a case - any case at all - they would not have had to run a KGB-style kangaroo court. As it is they don't so they did and everyone but their stupid lemmings can see it for what it has been.

Democrats are traitors ... every stinkin' one of 'em.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It doesn't take much to trigger Democrat snowflakes but evidently Adam Schiffty's and Fat J-Nads blatant abuses of their authority in the rush to impeach a sitting POTUS doesn't even show up on their radar.

For instance there is the small matter of the absence of a Judiciary Committee hearing with witnesses chosen by Republicans. Such a hearing is guaranteed in the House rules, but not the timing of it and Fat J-Nads chose not to schedule one before voting. Yeah ... it's tough to run a KGB-style kangaroo court with pesky rules which must be ignored. If the House approves the articles under these hyper-partisan circumstances any courtesies Senate Repubs extend to their Dem counterparts - such as adherence to the rules - will be undeserved.

Trump impeachment: What's next in full House vote, Senate trial

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

If the Dems had a case - any case at all - they would not have had to run a KGB-style kangaroo court. As it is they don't so they did and everyone but their stupid lemmings can see it for what it has been.

Democrats are traitors ... every stinkin' one of 'em.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are all traitors, but they are certainly acting in ways contemptuous of those they are supposed to serve.

THis has nothing to do with carrying out their duty to the electorate and everything to do with seizing power by any means necessary.

 

[SAYIT]

I agree with you that Nadler ignored the rules for a hearing. I also agree with why he did: the people the Republicans want to call to testify have no relevance to the matter at hand.

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

If the Dems had a case - any case at all - they would not have had to run a KGB-style kangaroo court. As it is they don't so they did and everyone but their stupid lemmings can see it for what it has been.

Democrats are traitors ... every stinkin' one of 'em.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are all traitors, but they are certainly acting in ways contemptuous of those they are supposed to serve.

THis has nothing to do with carrying out their duty to the electorate and everything to do with seizing power by any means necessary.

I speak not just of the idiots they elect but the Dem gen pop. It's not just that bitter American leftards celebrate when our investment markets dip, it's their hoping & praying that things will go very wrong for this country and its people. I can't even imagine doing such a thing (or how they can) but … well … our disloyal opposition are proud of their seething hatred. Bill Maher made clear just how deep and all-consuming is their hate:

Liberal Media Scream: Bill Maher cheers economic collapse if it dooms Trump
“I’ve been hoping for a recession — people hate me for it — but it would get rid of Trump, so you shouldn’t hate me for it.”
To which, Barro noted: “Recessions are really bad. People lose their jobs and their homes.”
Maher doubled down: “I know. It’s worth it.”

Maher prays for a recession that will hurt millions of Americans simply because his butt hurts. That kind of disdain & disloyalty - when turned into action - is seditious, especially among those sworn to uphold our laws and our constitution.

 

[Ken Mac]

The prosecution gets to dictate who the defense can call as witnesses? In what country Russia?

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

If the Dems had a case - any case at all - they would not have had to run a KGB-style kangaroo court. As it is they don't so they did and everyone but their stupid lemmings can see it for what it has been.

Democrats are traitors ... every stinkin' one of 'em.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are all traitors, but they are certainly acting in ways contemptuous of those they are supposed to serve.

THis has nothing to do with carrying out their duty to the electorate and everything to do with seizing power by any means necessary.

I speak not just of the idiots they elect but the Dem gen pop. It's not just that bitter American leftards celebrate when our investment markets dip, it's their hoping & praying that things will go very wrong for this country and its people. I can't even imagine doing such a thing (or how they can) but … well … our disloyal opposition are proud of their seething hatred. Bill Maher made clear just how deep and all-consuming is their hate:

Liberal Media Scream: Bill Maher cheers economic collapse if it dooms Trump
“I’ve been hoping for a recession — people hate me for it — but it would get rid of Trump, so you shouldn’t hate me for it.”
To which, Barro noted: “Recessions are really bad. People lose their jobs and their homes.”
Maher doubled down: “I know. It’s worth it.”

Maher prays for a recession that will hurt millions of Americans simply because his butt hurts. That kind of disdain & disloyalty - when turned into action - is seditious, especially among those sworn to uphold our laws and our constitution.

And that, my friend, is how disgusting the elitist liberals have become. They say they care about the common man, but actions and words speak louder.

 

[SAYIT]

I already said I agree Nadler broke the rules.

But you also said you agree with them for their Stalinist tactics. Only extreme partisans believe the ends justify the means.


They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant, not that which wasn't.

If the Dems had a case - any case at all - they would not have had to run a KGB-style kangaroo court. As it is they don't so they did and everyone but their stupid lemmings can see it for what it has been.

Democrats are traitors ... every stinkin' one of 'em.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are all traitors, but they are certainly acting in ways contemptuous of those they are supposed to serve.

THis has nothing to do with carrying out their duty to the electorate and everything to do with seizing power by any means necessary.

I speak not just of the idiots they elect but the Dem gen pop. It's not just that bitter American leftards celebrate when our investment markets dip, it's their hoping & praying that things will go very wrong for this country and its people. I can't even imagine doing such a thing (or how they can) but … well … our disloyal opposition are proud of their seething hatred. Bill Maher made clear just how deep and all-consuming is their hate:

Liberal Media Scream: Bill Maher cheers economic collapse if it dooms Trump
“I’ve been hoping for a recession — people hate me for it — but it would get rid of Trump, so you shouldn’t hate me for it.”
To which, Barro noted: “Recessions are really bad. People lose their jobs and their homes.”
Maher doubled down: “I know. It’s worth it.”

Maher prays for a recession that will hurt millions of Americans simply because his butt hurts. That kind of disdain & disloyalty - when turned into action - is seditious, especially among those sworn to uphold our laws and our constitution.

And that, my friend, is how disgusting the elitist liberals have become. They say they care about the common man, but actions and words speak louder.

Rep Van Drew (D, NJ) says he will not only vote "no," he's also considering switching to Repub and a
second Dem has announced he will vote no and says others will also:

Peterson says he'll likely vote against impeachment
Peterson, a conservative Democrat who has not yet announced whether he'll seek a 16th term representing western Minnesota's 7th District, said he expects four or five other Democrats will do the same.

With the taboo broken, even more may decide to break ranks and I suspect Pelosi won't mind a bit.

In fact, she may well be encouraging more defections in the hope that the House charade will not result in a Senate trial. They ran up their impeachment flag and no one saluted.