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

[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.

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."

Why is that so hard for you?

 

[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.

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.

They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant,
If you want to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and their financial doings in Ukraine, do it, but not in the impeachment trial. The impeachment trial is about the President, not about the Bidens. The whistleblower wasn't there, so he has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
You're pushing this to deflect from the actual wrongdoing. It shouldn't be possible to pull such disgraceful excuses into a serious trial.

 

[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.

They pulled this stunt to prevent the exposing of information that very much WAS relevant,
If you want to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and their financial doings in Ukraine, do it, but not in the impeachment trial. The impeachment trial is about the President, not about the Bidens. The whistleblower wasn't there, so he has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
You're pushing this to deflect from the actual wrongdoing. It shouldn't be possible to pull such disgraceful excuses into a serious trial.

The "whistleblower" has nothing to do with it whatsoever??? Did you really say that? His complaint was at the root of the Hysterical House Dem's inquisition for FFS. Don't you want to know which traitor leaked the info to him/her? Even a rabid Dem must wonder why Schiffty suddenly decided against having the fucker testify.